A

TEACHERS UNDER FIRE

Assessing Teacher Training

By 1984 four studies of the teaching profession all concurred that the profession was troubled. "It's a mess," said Emily Feistritzer, author of "The Condition of Teaching," produced in 1983 for the National Center for Educational Information and the most far-reaching study to that point. Feistritzer, whose research delved into conditions in every state, blamed a significant part of the problem on the chaotic certification procedures at state departments of education. A drastically reduced pool of students going into the field exacerbated the situation; in 1973, 200,000 graduates planned to go into teaching, but by 1981, only 108,000 students studied to become teachers. Of those students, 35 percent were in elementary education; 17 percent were in physical education; 13 percent in special education. Although less than 3 percent planned to go into secondary teaching, this abnormally low figure could reflect the fact that some secondary teachers majored in their subject-area field and planned to go to graduate school to become credentialed. The salary advantages teachers had enjoyed in the 1970s disappeared: in 1983 starting teachers could expect only $13,000 annually while starting accountants made $17,000. Students in colleges of education consistently had lower SAT scores (SAT verbal of 394, compared to the group's average of 426 in 1982) than their counterparts in other majors, as newly opened opportunities in business for the women who traditionally dominated the teaching field siphoned off the best and the brightest for more-lucrative careers. Teacher education programs at some major institutions were called "intellectual ghettos," and "higher education's dirty little secret," according to a report published in Phi Delta Kappan, a journal for educational professionals.

The Status of the Profession

Feistritzer's study also addressed conditions for teachers already in the field. In all of the states, incompetent teachers were rarely fired because of administrators' fears of lawsuits. Teacher-evaluation methods in most districts were found to be "perfunctory," and inadequate to make decisions about merit pay. Most alarming was the prediction of dire teacher shortages by 1988 unless the teaching field became more professional. Dianne Ravitch, a historian of education, echoed this fear when she warned that good teachers were abandoning the profession in record numbers. Ravitch reported that many teachers particularly resented a 1982 New Jersey Supreme Court decision that invalidated evidence seized from a student's purse in a junior-high-school drug deal. Ruling that the student's right to privacy nullified the school's obligation to serve in loco parentis, the court undermined school officials' authority. Ravitch also interviewed teachers who felt the 1980s trend of testing teachers for basic academic competency changed the profession into "a civil service job" with diminished prestige. The implicit message of many public policies directed at teachers sent a clear message: "We don't trust you."

Competency Testing

The public demanded account-ability from their teachers. Since competency testing had been instituted tor many high-school students as a standard for graduation, many legislatures decided that teachers should be tested also. Although teacher groups vigorously opposed instituting tests for practicing teachers, there was professional support for testing candidates in basic competencies. "Let us tell America that just as no law graduate can practice without the bar exam," said National Education Association Mary Futrell in 1985, "no teaching graduate should be allowed to instruct American children without first passing a valid exam." Bill Clinton, governor of Arkansas, expressed what many politicians believed about the efficacy of these tests: "They won't measure abilities to maintain order, inspire students, or communicate effectively. A person could achieve a perfect score and still not be a good teacher. But anyone who makes that argument opposing the test should get an F in logic, because it does not follow that someone can be a good teacher and fail this test." In 1983 teacher-competency tests given in thirty-six states produced some embarrassing results. In Houston where practicing teachers were tested, 62 percent of teachers tested failed the reading segment, 46 percent failed math, and some tests had to be declared invalid because of cheating. By 1986 forty-two states required competency testing of future teachers.

Revitalizing Teacher Training

Nearly every educational professional offered suggestions for reinvigorating the teaching profession. There was widespread agreement that students in teacher training should take more courses in their subject areas and fewer in education. In a 1982 Phi Delta Kappan article, "The Necessary Revolution in Teacher Education," Hendrick Gideonse recommended that teacher candidates spend six years in training: four in studying subject matter, then two learning professional competencies such as different instructional approaches, media usage, curricular models and theories, and assessment and management strategies. This "revolutionary" idea was widely accepted by the end of the decade as this basic model (often reduced to five years) was adopted by many universities.

Merit Pay and Master Teachers

One popular idea for professionalizing teaching was that of designating superior teachers as "master teachers," a new category of employment that would financially reward excellence, not merely experience. Plans for master teachers and/or merit pay increases were considered by a majority of the states. In Tennessee, under Gov. Lamar Alexander (who would become secretary of education under President George Bush), the proposed 1986-1987 plan was typical: it offered annual salary increases of __BODY__,000 to $7,000 based on evaluation of performance. Teachers would work three years before being allowed to apply to become "senior teachers." That designation would be accompanied by a five-year certification and an additional $2,000 salary for ten-month employees; senior teachers willing to sign eleven-month contracts would receive an extra $4,000. After the five years as a senior teacher, applicants could attempt to become master teachers, with $3,000 and $5,000 extra compensation for the ten- and eleven-month employees, respectively. Master teachers could also commit to a twelve-month contract, a move that would guarantee an additional $7,000 annually. This plan, and others much like it in other states, was hailed as both ideal and impossible. The Tennessee legislature was told to set aside $116 million in 1987 for the supplements needed if the anticipated 87 percent of the state's teachers upgraded their skills and contracts. Unfortunately, the 1980s were financially tight times for most states, and this amount simply was not available. The next seemingly insurmountable problem was the inability of administration and teachers to agree on criteria for the required evaluations. Although some states instituted career ladder moves for teachers, the vast majority of merit pay schemes were abandoned by the end of the 1980s.