Teacher Ed Programs Now Allowed Two Years

Thursday, August 29, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that would allow teacher education programs to provide two years of preparation. Currently, teacher credentialing programs in California — which does not offer undergraduate degrees in education — are one year long. The author of SB 5, Sen. (and aspiring Secretary of State) Alex Padilla of Pacoima, argued that teachers-in-training are expected to learn so much in a single year that it makes sense to offer them and their credentialing institutions more flexibility.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Hey DD, what is your opinion about this? Seriously. I do not know if this is a good thing or another public employee boondoggle.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2013 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm researching this, and it's complicated. We do need to study the Finnish model where they ATTRACT the top 1/3 of graduates into teaching ed programs, it's very challenging, subject oriented, they flunk some out, and AFTER you've proven yourself for a few years you begin to earn really good money.
I disliked the only Ed course I took, and although a liberal I do worry that there is too much philosophy and "about teaching" and not enough hands-on rigorous work. I know, I know, contradictions abound.
will report back.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2013 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Recent national survey of teaching training problems found CSU and other California teacher training problems to be 100% deficient for K-8 and only four got a few passing marks for High School level teacher training, but none scored in all criteria.

Univ of Redlands got the best marks for teacher training. Put your kids in classes with teachers trained at Univ of Redlands is the only hope right now. Definitely not CSU trained teachers. What is the breakdown for SBSUD - who have they hired?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2013 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A must read for the current mess we call public education in the US - a hydra-headed monster going too many directions at once, and no where at the same time:

foofighter (anonymous profile)
August 31, 2013 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

foo, other posters and I have already corrected your (as usual, poor foofi) incorrect information: the National Council on Teacher Quality made a very poor quality and politically slanted "national survey". It's bogus. Only 4 teacher ed schools in all Calif. came out positively, which is suspect; they can't all be THAT bad.
Still, while as a card-carrying liberal I'm supposed to support Teacher Ed programs, and obviously don't have a big experience, but in my 39 year educational career I rarely hear veteran/good teachers speak highly of them. We need completely restructured, BETTER, more intensive, more subject-oriented and "art of teaching" oriented teachers ed courses. Foo, you angle is to denigrate the profession itself and reduce the number of teachers and gut public ed., which I can never support.
50 years ago we actually had State Teachers' Colleges, which is how UCSB began.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 31, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Does the state get more money because of this decision? Does it come out of the pockets of aspiring teachers?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 31, 2013 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just because you don't like the findings of the National Teacher Quality organization Dr Dan, does not make a study bogus.

In fact it is not a study, it is a survey of best practices as set out by this organization state by state:

Some states do far better than California. This survey of best practices indicates what they do differently. Time for California to be open to change instead of dismissing this survey as "invalid". It is not.

It is a survey of what is presently being taught - factually based. California K12 teacher training was found to be woefully inadequate when measured by their criteria, and against other states.

No one set out to make California look bad. All states were surveyed. California would do well to take these survey findings to heart and reform from within. Our students deserve nothing less.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
August 31, 2013 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You disingenuously omitted the name of the organization, foo, because it's been discredited and in these posts, directed to you: see Fastman article of
6/21/13, and my post:
"as I pointed out on the Harding School Principal thread,
when foo refs NCTQ it's aflawed study. Compare this straight news article from LA Times on June 18 entitled "New teacher training study...decries California" [in next post below]. But the NCTQ website shows a very partisan first two pages, with boldly highlighted "teacher training schools to watch out for" and its most of them in California, while only 3 UCs and the U. Redlands get the coveted 4 stars. The LA Times article by Howard Blume carefully notes that NCTQ itself is political and controversial.
NCTQ, for example, heavily supports using standardized test scores (so-called value-added tests) as a big part of a public school teacher's evaluation. There a huge lot of criticism of this approach, AND it's led to teacher cheating as well.
Tine Sloan is repeating what Tom Torlakson has said. In fact, most of these teacher prep programs are lousy and should be jettisoned. There are other routes to a teaching credential; most private schools, for example, do not require such. Or try Teach for America.
But I have to agree with critics that too much emphasis on developing the teacher's philosophy can get in the way of learning HOW to teach and taking more subject matter (e.g. more English courses).
I have usually been careful to say better assessment methods and more efficient school administration is crucial to improve the schools, but more money absolutely is also needed..."

DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 1, 2013 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: