Opening a Closed System... Alternatives

As I venture through my graduate work, I am finding many of my past paradigms are being challenged.  One of the most interesting changes in my thoughts have been on how people can enter the teaching profession.  If you had asked me about two years ago, I would have told you that only people go through an accredited four year training program are truly effective educators.  I stood staunchly against lateral entry programs and other alternative programs like Teach for America.  Now, having worked with people who have been certified through alternative tracks and seeing how they are incredibly effective educators, I have had a complete paradigm shift.

Rep. John Faircloth

Back in February, the Guilford County Association of Educators hosted a Legislative Breakfast for state and local politicians.  I spoke at length with Representative Faircloth about teacher certification programs.  He referred to the teacher certification program as a formally closed system.  After he retired from his businesses, he wanted to go into the teaching profession as a Career and Technical educator, but he could not get a position due to the fact he was not certified through a four year institution.  Finally, he was able to acquire a position at UNCG teaching in the Bryan School of Business.  While at Bryan, he worked as an instructor and with students working towards their undergrad and graduate degrees in business.  Rep. Faircloth was a successful businessperson in the private sector and it would have been interesting to see how he would have imparted his experience to students at the high school level.  The only issue was that at the time he wanted to enter K-12 public education, there was not an alternative route.

Enter North Carolina Senate Bill 1115.  This bill required universities, school systems and community colleges to develop alternative licensure programs.  One could deduce that SB 1115 opened. the doors for programs such as Teach for America, an alternative licensure program that was born of the floor of an apartment and has had a positive impact on rural and urban hard to staff schools across America.  After the passage of SB 1115, persons from the private and public sector could enter public education by going through these alternative licensure programs.  Initially resistant, I began to see teachers who possessed untraditional and innovative methods.  They became leaders in the school using their unique experiences to innovate and seek out interesting opportunities for the students and schools.

Therefore, after much internal reflection and public debate at a national level on the floor of the NEA-RA, I have concluded that through support and mentoring lateral entry teachers can and are just, and even more effective, at times than their traditionally certified counterparts.  I am not saying that the traditional process be shoved under the carpet by any means, but I am asking what is the traditional method lacking at present?  Especially with the large focus of education moving towards a STEM model, how does the traditional model best prepare future educators to work in an inquiry-based environment?  I will say that one of the original alternative licensure programs located in Guilford County continues to produce highly effective lateral entry educators, perhaps if traditional institutions would look into the methods employed by GCS-ACT and Teach for America the persons playing the political game with education would consider it to be opening to unending possibilities of change?

Do we still need a Union?

I must first begin stating that in some way shape and form I have been a highly active member of my state and local association.  I currently serve on the Board of Directors at the state level. But, as I have started on my path towards becoming an administrator I have begun to find myself questioning the motives of the union.  There is a constant outcry from the NEA and the state association over the reformers who may be wishing to privatize education, institute vouchers and expand the reach of charter schools.  Another sacred cow that has come under attack in recent years is teacher tenure.

North Carolina is a right to work state and teachers are the only professionals who work a certain number of years and then are deemed untouchable.  This is not entirely true, a teacher who has tenure can be released, but after extensive paperwork and investigation.  Let me be clear, I am not calling for the willy-nilly firing of educators, but I am saying that human resources and administrators should have the ability to release an educator if he/she is not meeting performance expectations without having to cut through massive amounts of red tape.

NEA President Dennis Van Roekel

Back to the point at hand, does the education profession still need a union?  What, honestly is the actual purpose of the union?  According to NEA President Dennis Van Roekel, we are essential towards developing a stronger profession.  Recently, NEA developed a 3-Point plan for positive reform.  This plan is the first actual step that focuses the NEA on enhancing education.  Before this plan, many could attest that the job of the NEA was to only protect its members despite its vision of "Great Public Schools for Every Child".


This is an issue I personally have been struggling with.  On the state level, the association seems to reacting instead of leading.  The General Assembly will write a bill and NCAE with react because it strikes a blow at one of our sacred cows that we have become comfortable having; be it tenure, longevity or advanced degree pay.  I have yet to see NCAE produce any point plan that states how they will enhance education reform in North Carolina.  All too often, it seems like the association is rallying against the General Assembly fighting for educators' jobs and not attempting to define how we will lead education in the 21st Century.  

This leaves me at an empasse.  We have been working towards building schools that work as collective organisms working as Professional Learning Communities (PLC), and yet have standards and assessments that could have been created by persons who know nothing about authentic learning and assessments.  Therefore, it places education in the hotbed of a politically infused system.  


This is why I am left perplexed.  I am working in a school that is attempting to integrate and become a full-fledged PLC and attempting to break the traditionally fragmented and lone ranger vision of the teaching profession.  Yet, the collective voice that I choose to pay dues to seems to be lacking in the vision of how we will lead the profession.  It has provided excellent professional development for developing better teaching practices, but does not have a clear, defined vision of a "Great Public School for Every Child".  


There has been a mass exodus from the union over the past ten years because of various reasons.  This exodus has caused political players to question NEA's relevance in today's political arena. 

Could this be the new NEA?

 I suppose the conclusion I have reached is that educators should work collectively as one voice, but the guise of a "Great Public School for Every Child" should be back up with a true plan.  We should also be willing to reevaluate our once entitled sacred cows if we are to move education forward in the 21st Century.  This may be a complete reframing and restructuring of the association and a hardline look at what we, as an association value, and stick by that instead of saying one thing and really focusing only on the dollars and cents of health care plans and salary.  (This is not to say that there is not a need to completely restore the epic cuts to public education.)  But, if I am to continue willing give my money to my professional organization I want to see an A-B-C plan that completely lays out the Five W's of our educational reform policy instead of simply waving slogans around, reacting to negative policies and lashing out at those who strive to silence us.  In other words, give those people a reason to listen to the association again.  Otherwise, there will be no union or need for a union.  It will continue to be the child placed in the corner of the room due to his inability to work cooperatively with others.