Rep. Wingard’s Vision For Oregon Schools: Walmart
SHARE:
You may have read in this week’s Oregonian that there’s a conflict going on in the House Education Committee between Democratic Co-Chair Sara Gelser and Republican Co-Chair Matt Wingard.
The article mentions his goal of expanding charter schools and removing the requirements for teacher certifications, allowing unqualified people to teach in Oregon classrooms. We think of it as Matt Wingard’s Walmart agenda for Oregon schools.
But what the Oregonian didn’t tell you, in a curious oversight, is that Matt Wingard has served as a paid consultant for Oregon’s biggest online charter school. We frankly don’t know what the conflict of interest rules require, but you’d think it’d be relevant for anyone writing about his education agenda. And it’s certainly relevant for anyone wondering about his use of his position to advocate so strongly for charter schools.
Maybe that explains why he believes so strongly that unqualified people should be able to teach.
As Oregonians, we expect you to be licensed to cut hair, serve beer, and operate carnival rides. But apparently, Wingard believes that anyone who thinks they’re qualified should be able to teach in Oregon schools. (Too bad there’s no certification policy for politicians, or we’d all be denied Rep. Wingard’s leadership.)
We feel pretty confident in saying that Oregon students and parents aren’t clamoring for teachers who aren’t qualified and licensed. We’ve yet to see any signs at pro-education rallies proclaiming: “Let The Unqualified Teach Our Children!”
In the midst of this chaos, Education Committee Co-Chair Sara Gelser has been standing strong against Wingard’s attempts to tie up the work of the committee.
So what can you do to help? Clearly Wingard isn’t going to listen to anyone else, so do something positive: Email Co-Chair Gelser (rep.saragelser@state.or.us) and thank her for standing strong for Oregon’s schools and middle-class families.
Add comment
Receive our daily news clips!
Email jenny@ouroregon.org to be added to our daily news clips list.
Comments
I am running for the at-large seat on the Gresham-Barlow school board. One of my opponents, Dan Christiensen, was endorsedby Matt Wingard. This should concern voters in Gresham who care about their children's education.
Nance Cedar
That's because an understanding of chemistry doesn't give one an understanding of the way a kid's mind develops or an understanding of pedagogy. People assume that knowing a subject is enough; it isn't. One needs to understand the learning process and how to access it--and that's just for starters. I can understand all the chemistry in the world, but if I can't get YOU to understand it, then I am not qualified to teach.
University students are self-selecting, meaning they are there because they WANT to be there. The university admission process assures that in general students are of a comparable ability level and capable of learning at a similar rate. They have also figured out how to learn when the content is delivered in a way that they find difficult to access. Those coping skills are developed by school teachers who understand differentiated learning. An understanding of pedagogy and of the development of young people is critical to being a good teacher. Teacher programs don't teach the subject areas; they teach HOW to teach.
Incidentally, practically any teacher will tell you that the growth curve in the first few years of teaching is unbelievably steep. While the new teacher is sometimes more fun, more enthusiastic, or more dynamic, it is RARE that the youngest teachers are the best. That learning curve doesn't stop after three years, but it does get a bit more gradual.
Here is the text of the bill in its entirety (without amendments). In my mind, it does not permit the hiring of "anyone who thinks they're qualified"
http://www.leg.state.or.us/cgi-bin/searchMeas.pl
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to teacher qualifications.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. { + (1) Notwithstanding ORS 338.135 and 342.173, a
person employed by a school district or a public charter school
may teach without being licensed by or registered with the
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission if:
(a) The person is teaching only courses for which the State
Board of Education has not adopted academic content standards as
required by ORS 329.045;
(b) The school district or public charter school follows the
instructor appraisal committee procedures adopted by the Teacher
Standards and Practices Commission; and
(c) The person meets the other training or experience
requirements established by the State Board of Education and by
the board of the school district or public charter school.
(2) A person who is employed to teach as provided by this
section:
(a) Is not eligible to become a member of the Public Employees
Retirement System as a result of the employment; and
(b) May not become a member of a collective bargaining unit
that represents licensed or registered teachers.
(3) No more than 40 percent of the total classroom teaching
time at a school may be provided by persons who are teaching as
provided by this section. + }
The Walmart School threat does not end with charter schools.
We have school principals in charge in public schools with extremely limited experience in the classroom. The classroom is where it all happens in schools. It's important to be a good budget planner, a good PR person, and all that; but unless a principal has intimate and extensive knowledge of what happens in a classroom - teaching, learning, and all kinds of other dynamics - that principal is not really qualified to make decisions which deeply affect everything that happens in that classroom.
I worked in a school for 17 years and watched it go from outstanding to mediocre, not entirely because of but significantly because of administrators with a painful lack of know how about actually teaching. I now work in a school where the principal is someone with extensive teaching experience. The difference is breathtaking.
I had begun to refer to my previous school as "K-Mart High" in my mind - and thus the title of this post caught my attention. It's not just about the charter schools.
Wal Mart?
Are you referring to the largest, most successful company in the history of the United States? The company that could only grow as large as it has grown by providing exceptional value to its customers? The company that the left hates because its mission is to serve its customers and provide them value?
Wingard wants our public schools to follow that model?
That would sure ruin it for the the people who the schools currently serve, that's for sure.
Pro-Education rally? You mean, Pro-Reform...
Can we get a link for this assertion that someone had a sign... "Let The Unqualified Teach Our Children!”"
they said they did not see one sign.
Hmmm interesting theory. To me, a "Wal-mart" vision for schools would be everyone shopping at the 'big box,' while little specialty stores with a higher-quality product are run out of business. Oh, I guess that's what we already have, thanks to the status quo, right? Except that in the case of schools, the 'big box' costs more than the 'higher quality' option. But, enough about charter schools. . .they aren't owned by the union, so the union will continue to spend their members' money to fight any competition.
Of course, there would be quality control and only people who knew the material well would be allowed to teach. This brings more quality into the classroom, not less, if you would actually read the bill. At this point, Someone who teaches at Harvard or any University out of Oregon for that matter would not be 'qualified' to teach Oregon students. Someone with a PhD in Chemistry wouldn't be allowed either.
But, tenured teachers can continue teaching whether they actually teach or not. Because LiFo is the union way, new highly-qualified inspiring teachers will lose their jobs, because even if they out perform a teacher with more experience, they must go. Interesting to see your perspective of what qualifies as "Wal-Mart" quality. The results of the schools speak for themselves, in spite of the union's efforts to obscure the facts with money that they forcibly take from teachers.