SENATE BILL: The Let Us Have More Teachers Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. A Section 5 shall be added to F.L. 52-12 to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: shua

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Talk to me shua!

[Simfan34]

As the author of the AIT Act, I do not consider this wise. We need standards. Do you think it worthwhile to accept the bottom 25% of prospective teachers?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If more than 75% of prospective teachers demonstrate they are capable, and there is a need for them, I do not see a reason to turn them away.  Any standards should be set according to criteria that are considered necessary for effective teaching, and not relative to what other prospective teachers happen to get on a test.

While the AITA is a valuable project, this bill will also clarify that regions retain their traditional role in being able to set their own standards for licensure according to their needs. 

[President Tyrion]

If more than 75% of prospective teachers demonstrate they are capable, and there is a need for them, I do not see a reason to turn them away.  Any standards should be set according to criteria that are considered necessary for effective teaching, and not relative to what other prospective teachers happen to get on a test.

While the AITA is a valuable project, this bill will also clarify that regions retain their traditional role in being able to set their own standards for licensure according to their needs. 

75% might be an arbitrary cutoff, but so is any other cutoff for a standardized test that we might devise.

And, if the perceived problem is a lack of teachers, lowering the barriers to entry isn't going to improve the quality of education.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This was the problem we faced back when it was first enacted. The problem right now is that teachers come from the bottom of barrel in terms of college performance and quality has suffered. Of course a lot of that is also because pay is lower then Wall Street, law and many other professional professions. The goal was to move teaching in that kind of direction as a more professional job with higher quality teachers and of course much higher pay.

If there is another standard that or soemthing that allow us t increase the number of teachers whilst still boosting quality, I will consider it over the present law.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So if one year there are a lot of highly qualified applicants, and the next year there aren't, that could be the difference in someone getting licensure even if their performance is exactly the same?  How does that make sense?

[Prince of Salem]

I'm definitely supporting this bill. A teacher who is competent but yet on the bottom 25% should be accepted.

[Potus]

I believe there is a compromise to be made here. I would ask the Senate to consider increasing the rigor of the exam and also repeal the cap. This ensures quality why expanding the access to teachers.

[bore]

I believe there is a compromise to be made here. I would ask the Senate to consider increasing the rigor of the exam and also repeal the cap. This ensures quality why expanding the access to teachers.

We have no idea how hard the test is at the moment, so we'd be shooting in the dark.

[President Tyrion]

I believe there is a compromise to be made here. I would ask the Senate to consider increasing the rigor of the exam and also repeal the cap. This ensures quality why expanding the access to teachers.

How does one legislate "rigor"?

[Adam Griffin]

Conservatives will find an ally in me when it comes to staunchly increasing the standards by which we hire teachers, but accordingly, there will need to be accommodations made in regards to salary. With the right parameters in place, we may even be able to balance out some of the cost difference through modest increases in class sizes.

Our teachers should be on par with lawyers in this country; not social workers. Half of our teachers graduated in the bottom-third of their class: inexcusable. All of the dogma that conservatives love (innovation, creativity and less emphasis on standardized testing for students) actually becomes possible when you're willing to pay for the quality it takes to generate positive results in those areas. Personally, I'm a huge fan of Finland's broader model.

But if conservatives just want to make it more difficult to become a teacher or take away their benefits without making the process more incentive-based for the teachers we actually need, then I'll downright oppose it all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is there a cap on the number of teachers allowed to apply/take the exam at present (the size of the 100% pie in this case)?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is there a cap on the number of teachers allowed to apply/take the exam at present (the size of the 100% pie in this case)?

I don't see how one could do that. Who decides who gets to take the test?

On the other hand there may be a spiral of fewer people going through the coursework and the test, and thus fewer people passing, as it becomes more difficult with each successive year.

[Simfan34]

Keep in mind the test does not automatically fail the bottom 25% of takers. Rather, it is designed in a way that makes it rigorous enough so that it should generally result in only 75% passing. It is not a mandate.

Thus, "increasing the rigour of the test" and "increasing the amount of people who pass it" would be contradictory barring a dramatic increase in the quality of applicants. The bill essentially calls for making the test easier, which I don't think is desirable.

As for Finland I think that's a place to look at but let's not get carried away; I remember that when Scott was governor he had a rather singular focus on "moving towards the Finnish model" that ultimately frustrated reform efforts.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Keep in mind the test does not automatically fail the bottom 25% of takers. Rather, it is designed in a way that makes it rigorous enough so that it should generally result in only 75% passing. It is not a mandate.

Thus, "increasing the rigour of the test" and "increasing the amount of people who pass it" would be contradictory barring a dramatic increase in the quality of applicants. The bill essentially calls for making the test easier, which I don't think is desirable.

As for Finland I think that's a place to look at but let's not get carried away; I remember that when Scott was governor he had a rather singular focus on "moving towards the Finnish model" that ultimately frustrated reform efforts.

Of course it is a mandate. It says "shall be designed to..."  If it is not designed in such a way so that 25% of those who take the test fail, then the law has been broken.

The point here is not to make the test easier, it is to make it suitable for the purpose.  We should be investing in ways to make those who prepare for the tests are truly capable at the things the test is supposed to be measuring, not finding clever ways to make sure a certain number of them fail.

[Simfan34]

Then should we change "shall" to "should"?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Do we even have any laws regarding teacher salary at the moment or are they covered by other public sector union laws? Do the regions?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Do we even have any laws regarding teacher salary at the moment or are they covered by other public sector union laws? Do the regions?

Aside from what I assume are bonuses from the Federal Government in the GET Act, regions have set policies on this (I know the Mideast has), and the regions are still the ones, I believe, who pay a fund the majority of teacher salaries (though given the level of control the Senate has demanded over teacher policy perhaps we should be the ones paying for it). 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So an amendment is necessary to fix the shall/should mistake? Is there anything else at this juncture?

Does no one have any ideas on how to boost quality whilst still providing teachers in sufficient numbers?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So an amendment is necessary to fix the shall/should mistake? Is there anything else at this juncture?

Does no one have any ideas on how to boost quality whilst still providing teachers in sufficient numbers?

Well we have created this test already, and that's going to make a difference in teacher education. Whether for the good or bad I'm not sure, since so much depending on a single test could leave out a lot of development of soft skills.    Maybe there are hiring practices perhaps if we really want to take that away from the regions too, but I don't see any reason why we know what we are doing in this area any more than they do.

[DemPGH]

I'm not sure if this is aimed at the issue or not, but it should be fairly easy for people with bachelors degrees and higher in content fields to get certified to be teachers (because well, that's who should be teaching). I mean, the law needs to recognize them as equal to people who go through a standard certification and Education program. If this does that, I'm all for it.

Frankly, I think if you have a masters degree in a content field, you should be able to just apply for certification in the field and get it. If you want to be certified in something else, then take the test. How it's set up IRL is you take a basic test and then a content test of whatever it is you will be teaching.

FTR, I support a basic test to demonstrate proficiency or knowledge, but I don't think we should go overboard on standardized tests.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am not sure how the issue interacts with this, but I do agree with the incoming President regarding the certification of professionals, though I have always desired they be retired or other wise experienced in said field as well first.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So an amendment is necessary to fix the shall/should mistake? Is there anything else at this juncture?

Does no one have any ideas on how to boost quality whilst still providing teachers in sufficient numbers?

Well we have created this test already, and that's going to make a difference in teacher education. Whether for the good or bad I'm not sure, since so much depending on a single test could leave out a lot of development of soft skills.    Maybe there are hiring practices perhaps if we really want to take that away from the regions too, but I don't see any reason why we know what we are doing in this area any more than they do.

I would prefer not to take that step.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So at this stage, what is left on this?