The notion that only state-approved, licensed teachers can guarantee children a good education is proven wrong by history and common sense. In ancient Athens, the birthplace of logic, science, philosophy, and Western civilization, city authorities did not require teachers to be licensed. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle did not have to get a teaching license from Athenian bureaucrats to open up their Academies. A teacher’s success came only from his competence, reputation, and popularity. Students and their parents paid a teacher only if they thought he was worth the money. Competition and an education free market produced great teachers in ancient Greece.

Parents in America gave their children a superior education at home or in small grammar or religious schools for over two hundred years before we had public schools or licensed teachers in this country. School authorities’ claim that teachers have to be licensed for our children to get a quality education, is therefore false.

Today, in millions of companies across America, bosses or their managers teach new employees job skills, from the simplest to the most complex. Private schools and trade schools teach millions of students valuable, practical skills. Thousands of college professors with masters or doctorate degrees in the subject they teach, instruct hundreds of thousands of college students in subjects ranging from philosophy to electrical engineering. Over a million home-schooling parents teach their children reading, writing, and math with learn-to-read or learn-math books, computer-learning software, and other teaching materials. All these teachers are not licensed yet they often give children a far better education than licensed public-school teachers.

Licensing laws imply that only public-school education “experts” can judge a teacher’s competence. These alleged “experts” are usually graduates of teacher colleges and university education departments. Unfortunately, so-called teacher education is often an academic joke or waste of time, especially to student-teachers who have to endure years of this “teacher-training” torture.

Steve Wulf, writing in Time magazine, revealed the opinion that many student-teachers had about their so-called teacher training:

“Six hundred experienced teachers surveyed in 1995 were brutal about the education they had received, describing it as “mind-numbing,” the “shabbiest psycho-babble,” and “an abject waste of time.” They complained that fragmented, superficial course work had little relevance to classroom realities. And judging by the weak skills of student teachers entering their schools, they observed, the preparation was still woefully inadequate.”

Many teacher colleges don’t teach crucial reading phonics or math instruction skills, nor do they teach science or history. Many “licensed” reading, math, history, or science teachers have not taken courses in or majored in these subjects in college. One survey by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education found that more than three-quarters of teacher-college graduates preparing to be elementary-school teachers had no academic major except education.

In many teacher colleges, student-teachers don’t learn specific knowledge in their subject field or competent teaching techniques to teach our kids reading, math, and science. Instead they learn the history and philosophy of education and other mostly useless nonsense. Also, many university education departments waste student-teachers’ time on socialist, politically-correct courses about gender and minority oppression, multiculturalism studies, and other courses that would fit right in to a Marxist curriculum in Cuba.

Licensing also implies that parents can’t and shouldn’t judge a teacher’s competence. Yet millions of parents in all fifty states send their children to private kindergartens, grammar schools, and colleges. These allegedly ignorant parents have no problem judging the competence of teachers in private schools, and withdrawing their children if the schools don’t live up to the parents’ expectations.

We judge the competence of our car mechanic, accountant, and our child’s private kindergarten teacher all the time, and we do so reasonably well. Is there some mysterious reason we can’t judge whether our children are learning to read, write, or do math? Public-school officials who claim that parents are too ignorant to judge their children’s education are self-serving. If we allegedly can’t trust parents with this job, obviously we have to trust the so-called education “experts,” thereby guaranteeing these so-called education experts’ cushy jobs.

School authorities also claim that we need licensing to guarantee competence, so no charlatans become teachers. Yet some licensed public-schools teachers are barely literate themselves or are ill-trained or have little knowledge of the subject they teach. Fred Bayles, in a “USA Today” column titled, “Those Who Can’t Spell or Write, Teach,” gave an example:

“On April 1, 1998, the Massachusetts Board of Education gave applicants who wanted to teach, a basic reading and writing test. The results of the test were that 59 percent of the applicants failed. If you think these test results made the Board of Education do something constructive, think again. It promptly lowered the test’s passing grade from 77 to 66 percent. Under the “new” standard, only 44 percent failed. Note that all the applicants were college graduates.”

Also, these same education students often score lowest in academic achievement among other high-school graduates. Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, wrote about this issue in his book, “Inside American Education.”

“Despite some attempts to depict such attitudes as mere snobbery, hard data on education student qualifications have consistently shown their mental test scores to be at or near the bottom among all categories of students. This was as true of studies done in the 1920s and 1930s as of studies in the 1980s. Whether measured by Scholastic Aptitude Tests, ACT tests, vocabulary tests, reading comprehension tests or Graduate Record Examinations, students majoring in education have consistently scored below the national average.”

“At the graduate level, it is very much the same story, with students in numerous other fields outscoring education students on the Graduate Record Examination—by from 91 points composite to 259 points, depending on the field. The pool of graduate students in education supplies not only teachers, counselors, and other administrators, but also professors of education and other leaders and spokesmen for the education establishment.”

Because of poor teacher training, public schools often hire ill-trained or mediocre teachers, which can cause untold damage to millions of children. Parents have no recourse to oust these teachers because most teachers get tenure after a few years on the job.

In contrast, in a private school, a truly incompetent teacher will not last long. Parents will complain, and the school owner will have to fire this teacher to keep parents happy. Also, for the same reasons, a private-school owner will make every effort to find out if a teacher is competent before he hires that teacher. The school owner’s livelihood and the success of his school depend on having competent teachers and happy customers. Compulsory public schools can ignore parents, so they have no such constraints.

Most parents naively assume that if a teacher is licensed, he or she is now a trained professional they should trust their children with. Parents therefore lower their guard with “licensed” teachers because they assume that a licensed teacher must be competent. As we have seen, this is often not the case.

One solution offered for this problem is “merit” pay for teachers. Merit-pay programs would judge all school employees on competence. Better teachers would get paid more, and bad teachers, principals, or administrators could be fired or demoted. How one judges merit, of course, is a whole separate issue, but just as private-school owners devise methods to judge the merit of their teachers, so too could public schools.

Yet, if teacher licensing produced competent teachers, why do school authorities and teachers unions fight so hard against merit pay? The answer seems obvious—the system produces many teachers, principals, and administrators who may not “merit” their pay, and might lose their jobs under merit-pay rules.

In effect, public-school employees say to parents: “You have to pay our salary and benefits, but how dare you demand proof that we know how to teach your children? How dare you judge our merit? How dare you demand that you get your money’s worth?” Only employees who think the world owes them a living are afraid to be judged by the people who pay them. So licensing does not keep charlatans out of our public schools. Instead, it practically guarantees that we employ charlatans or ill-trained teachers.

If licensing doesn’t work, what is the alternative? The answer is, no licensing. If anyone could teach without a license, like home-schooling parents or private-school teachers, then millions of new, competent, creative teachers would flood the market. These new, unlicensed teachers would compete with one another and drive the price of education down, much as competition drives down the price of computers. They would, hopefully, also put public schools out of business, since millions of parents and free-market schools would now hire these new competent, low-cost teachers.

Without licensing laws, anyone with a special skill or knowledge could simply put an ad in the Yellow Pages or their local newspaper and advertise themselves as a tutor in English, math, biology, history, or computer skills. Retired cooks, engineers, authors, plumbers, musicians, biologists, or businessmen who love teaching could easily open a small school in their homes. If there were no license laws, these talented new teachers would not have to worry about school authorities shutting down their schools because they didn’t have a license.

How would parents be sure they were not hiring a charlatan if there were no licensing laws? The same way they judge their car mechanic, accountant, and child’s kindergarten teacher — by results, reputation, and by being careful consumers. Naturally, parents would make occasional mistakes in judgment because they are human. However, they would quickly become careful consumers because they would now be spending their hard-earned money for teachers. It is amazing how fast we learn to judge the work of others when we have to pay for their services out of our own pockets. Also, if a parent does make mistakes in judging an unlicensed teacher, by watching her child’s progress she will soon catch her error. At that point, she can quickly fire the teacher and find a better one. Can a parent do that with her children’s public-school teachers?

The worst nightmare for public-school authorities is a true free market of teachers who don’t need a license to teach. Fierce competition by millions of new, unlicensed, competent, highly-skilled people might destroy public schools, the teacher unions, and teachers’ lifetime security in tenured jobs. It might destroy the licensing racket that protects their jobs. That is one unspoken reason why school authorities fiercely defend licensing laws—real competition terrifies them. That is also one of the best reasons to eliminate licensing.

The only way to insure good teachers is to let parents decide who will teach their children, not bureaucrats. Millions of parents making individual decisions about who should teach their children will bring forth the best teachers. Fierce competition and an education free market would raise all boats in the teaching profession. Teachers who want to succeed in their profession would have to prove to parent-customers or private- school owners that they have what it takes. They would have to prove by results that they know how to teach and motivate children to read, write, and learn.

Once this licensing protection racket was broken, parents would have complete control over who teaches their children. Our kids could then learn from the best teachers out there and get the great education they deserve.

Joel Turtel is an education policy analyst, and author of “Public Schools, Public Menace: How Public Schools Lie To Parents and Betray Our Children.”

Contact Information:
Website: http://www.mykidsdeservebetter.com,
Email: lbooksusa@aol.com

Article Copyrighted © 2006 by Joel Turtel. NOTE: You may post this Article on another website only if you set up a hyperlink to Joel Turtel’s email address and website URL, http://www.mykidsdeservebetter.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Joel_Turtel

She has been gracious enough to provide in-depth answers to my questions on teaching ELLs. She has even been more gracious to answer any more questions, which you can either email to me or leave in the comment box. So with a round of applause, let’s welcome Diane M. Barone.

Professor Barone, thank you so much for participating in this interview. Here’s my first question:

Dorit: For those who haven’t read any of your content rich books and articles on teaching ELLs, could you please give a little overview to our readers on your teaching and research background especially with regard to your work with ELLs?

Professor Barone: So here goes. My experience with ELLs began when I taught a first, second, and third grade classroom of 30 children. Several of these children came to my classroom speaking a language other than English. At that time, my response was to group for some reading instruction, organize small activity centers in the room so that students could collaborate, and organize my instruction thematically so that the important topics recurred in instruction over time. These students were the participants in my doctoral work where I analyzed the written responses they wrote to books they read independently, although the focus was not on ELLs. One result was at the end of third grade all of these children met grade level expectations.

My first big research studies after this time were centered in classrooms where many students were ELLs. One study was in a bilingual first grade classroom. I co-taught with the teacher and we studied which language gained preference in the classroom. In that study, while English was clearly the dominant language, children whose home language was Spanish achieved at higher levels in reading and writing than did children whose home language was English. I was intrigued with this result.

At the same time as the previous study I began my study of children who were prenatally exposed to crack/cocaine. A few of these children also had a home language of Spanish.

Finally, I engaged in a seven-year study where I identified children in K and followed them until sixth grade. Many of these children had a home language of Spanish or Tagalog. I watched as they were taught in English-only classrooms.

Lately, I have worked with Reading First and other high poverty schools in Nevada that have low achievement data. The majority of these children come from homes where English is not the primary language. I work in these schools daily, sitting side-by-side with teachers as we determine how best to support students.

Dorit: Based on your own observations and research, what do you feel are some of the challenges teaching ELLs in mixed ability classes at the primary school level? Junior high and high school?

Professor Barone: I have never been in a classroom that did not have children with variety of academic levels. So rather than viewing the mixed abilities as challenges we just perceive them as an expectation. Here are some of the practices that seem to work.

· We engage children in small groups where they can chat throughout the day. There is always an academic task but we allow children to converse so they can practice English.

· We expect that teachers keep students engaged. So children are never called on one-at-a-time to respond. We may use whole class response when the answer is simple. We partner children where each child has a letter or number (1 & 2 or A & B). They we ask partner A to share with B or the reverse. With the simple letter or number we are assured that both partners participate. This partnering allows children numerous opportunities to practice.

· We have children writing and reading from the first days of school. We look at their writing to learn when they understand letters, letters and sounds, and how to represent words in English. We have simple books for children and we keep adding to these books so every table group has a variety to choose from.

· We explicitly teach phonemic awareness to our K and first graders. This is done in small groups with the teacher or aide. We use Road to the Code.

· We involve parents. In one school parents come to kindergarten and learn how to read with this child.

· We use a large number of photos or realia to support meaning.

· We group children in multiple ways throughout the day depending on need.

· We provide intervention or enrichment blocks each day depending on student need.

· We make sure that there is at least 90 minutes for reading instruction, a half hour for writing, and a half hour for intervention every day.

Dorit: What are some of the more critical areas new teachers need to know when planning differentiation lessons for their ELLs? Based on what you perceive as these critical areas, what advice can you give to new teachers?

Professor Barone: This is a very important question. We are asking teachers to extend the main objective from whole group to small, differentiated groups during reading instruction. So if the teacher is focused on author’s purpose during whole group, then we ask for this objective during small group. So whole group is for modeling and small group is for guided practice. Then we have children practice reading with a partner independently with this same objective before we ask them to perform independently. We are careful with the consistency in this sequence – same objective – model, guided practice, collaborative practice, independent practice.

Dorit: What should primary school general education teachers particularly take into account when differentiating instruction?

Professor Barone: Always the needs of children. So if there is a small group of students who struggle with an alphabet letter or sound, small group for short, focused instruction works. We also work with children reading at about the same level for part of the day so they can read similar titles for book group discussion. These groups stay together longer than the first. We also group children based on book choice that support a themes. So if the theme is survival, for instance, each group of children would read a different book that shares this theme.

We also group in writing. Some children might work together for revising and others for editing.

Dorit: At the beginning stages of teaching reading, what areas of instruction/differentiation are becoming increasingly challenging for new teachers to implement? Why is this? What are some of the ways that teachers can overcome this?

Professor Barone: When children are just beginning, they need to know the words and concepts first. So we work with ELLs and preteach this content. That way when the teacher shares a story or informational piece, ELLs have the background and vocabulary. We use photos, videos, realia, and whatever we can to make sure they understand. Often an aide or ESL expert is in charge of this instruction.

Then it depends, if children are in small group and are expected to read a text, we work on understanding, and then decoding. We will have children read this book, multiple times, for different purposes so they become automatic with reading it. Then it is added to books they read during independent time for practice.

So for beginners there are dual purposes – decoding and comprehending. Later when students are automatic with decoding most words, emphasis shifts to comprehension only.

We also focus constantly on vocabulary. We ask teachers to use fancy words all day so children become aware of them (wilted for dried out). We build charts with words daily. We have children sort words by pattern and meaning. We have word walls and other word support in rooms so children can refer to it as necessary.

Dorit: How would you define a struggling ELL in mixed ability classes?

Professor Barone: For me, it is a student who reads but does not comprehend. This child has learned to decode but there hasn’t been much emphasis on comprehension. We find this child to be difficult to work with and support because he or she sees reading as just getting the words right. We put the child into simpler text to support comprehension.

Dorit: How can teachers cater to struggling learners in mixed ability classes?

Professor Barone: Well I believe all children need instruction to support their growth, so in the schools where I collaborate we work on providing the best instruction for each student. So during the reading block, all students participate in small, guided reading groups. We have preteaching groups so that students who are new to English understand the content and vocabulary. We have intervention and enrichment groups each day. Children who are struggling get targeted instruction during this time and other students who are performing at grade level or above get enrichment. We are able to do this by using all grade level and special teachers for blocks throughout the day. For instance, all first graders in a school would have intervention time at 10 to 10:30. Some teachers work with the most struggling students while others work in enrichment activities.

We also have time before school and after for support or homework help provided by teachers, with extra pay, or others.

Dorit: Please explain the difference between pull-in and push out learning envrionments in terms of what teachers need to do to cater to both ESL and ELL effectively. Any advice would also be appreciated.

Professor Barone: We are really moving away from pull-out. We found that it was difficult for teachers to collaborate and the instruction did not necessarily cohesively support students.

So we are working on push in where other teachers or aides work directly with teachers. Each week we build in time for all of the teachers and aides to plan together. (This takes very creative scheduling.) At this time teachers plan instruction for all students in a single grade level. The following week, learning is explored, and new plans are created. With this planning, interventions and preteaching are coordinated so children do not experience random instructional events.

Dorit: What teaching techniques do you recommend for effectively bridging the gaps bewteen word and text-based levels especially at the junior high school level and beyond?

Professor Barone: Junior high and high school are much more difficult especially when students are new to English and the content is so much more abstract. In the schools where I am seeing success, teachers are organizing their language arts block around a theme. Within the theme students read books at their instructional level. Teachers can work with students on common vocabulary. They can also pull small groups for word level instruction as other students read their books silently.

In other classes, we are working with teachers to support students in the discipline specific vocabulary. They create charts or notebooks with these words. They utilize photos as well. We also have taught them to engage students in constructed response where students are expected to write answers or solve problems and explain. We have also worked with them to use graphic organizers that are completed collaboratively with students as new content is shared.

Dorit: Do you have any recommendations for using oral instruction effectively in both primary/junior high school settings?

Professor Barone: The big question. We ask teachers to monitor their talking. We have asked some to tape record instruction as we find that teachers are talking way too much and students are no getting the practice they need. We really work on student engagement so that students are expected to participate throughout all instruction. We work with teachers to use:

· Think, pair, share

· Numbered heads where every student in group has a number. After discussion, the teacher calls a number and those students share out.

· Partners with numbers or letters so each partner shares.

· Whole group response – thumbs up or down

· Quick written responses on sticky notes before any response

We are really working with teachers not to call on individual students as all other students lose focus.

We also read aloud to students where we repeat the reading of the book for several days. On the first day, students talk about plot. On the second day they might discuss characters. On the third day maybe setting. By the end of the week they are comfortable talking about all aspects of the book.

Make Your Teaching Sparkle. Teach for Success. Make a difference in the classroom.

Subscribe to receive your FREE e-zine and e-book, “Taking Charge in the Classroom” when you visit the New Teacher Resource Center at http://www.newteachersignup.com.

Purchase your ebook of classroom tested tips – “Tips and Tricks for Surviving and Thriving in the Classroom,” at: http://www.MakeYourTeachingSparkle.com and you’ll receive a FREE ebooklet, “Yes! You Can Teach K-12 English language learners Successfully!”

Dorit Sasson is a freelance writer, speaker, educator and founder of the New Teacher Resource Center.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dorit_Sasson