Posts about certificationhttp://cestlaz.github.io/categories/certification.atom2018-09-19T23:47:48ZMike ZamanskyNikolaWhy Strong K12 Teacher Certification is Importanthttp://cestlaz.github.io/posts/strong-teacher-certification/2018-04-10T17:39:30-04:002018-04-10T17:39:30-04:00Mike Zamansky<div id="outline-container-org561132e" class="outline-2">
<h2 id="org561132e"></h2>
<div class="outline-text-2" id="text-org561132e">
<p>
About a week ago New York State's new regulation creating a <a href="http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20180327/NEWS/180329893/new-york-will-finally-have-certified-computer-science-teachers">K12 CS
teacher certification</a> went live. Just the other day I was honored to be
interviewed by <a href="https://twitter.com/mflamm_reporter">Matt Flamm</a> of Crain's New York in a <a href="http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20180410/TECHNOLOGY/180419999/asked-answered-teacher-changed-jobs-to-push-for-new-york-states-new">follow up piece</a>
about it.
</p>
<p>
Having K12 CS teacher certification is big and having quality programs
that lead to certification is <b>HUGE</b>. In my view, it's a game changer.
</p>
<p>
Let's Focus on high school, my wheelhouse.
</p>
<p>
From a course offerings point of view it's the wild west. I don't mean
this as a bad thing, it's just that there's a huge range of offerings
from AP to home brew, physical computing, game based, cyber security,
you name it, there's a curriculum. The long and short of this is that
schools need teachers to teach all of these experiences. Without a
strong certification pathway we're going to be stuck with the current
training based model where teachers are trained to deliver canned
curricula rather than truly teach. With strong teacher preparation
programs teachers will be prepared not only to deliver all the
existing curricula but, arguable more importantly design their own
learning experiences appropriate for the populations they work with.
</p>
<p>
This is important and alone would make having CS certification
worthwhile but to me the BIG win is that it creates a viable career
path.
</p>
<p>
People say we'll never find enough CS teachers because the tech
industry pays so well. I've never believed that. We find math teachers
even though many could flee to finance and chem teachers in spite of
big pharma's call so why can't we find CS teachers? Because we've
never provided a path into the profession and a viable career track.
</p>
<p>
Certification means that over time schools will be able to build CS
teachers and the discipline will be treated as the other
subjects. Prior to certification, a CS teacher might be cut if a
school's math department downsized. With certification, the career
track for a CS teacher is the same as the track for any other teacher.
</p>
<p>
It also means that young people starting out who are interested in
both teaching and computer science will have a way of getting into the
profession - something that has never before existed.
</p>
<p>
Having CS certification alone won't woo a
plethora of current tech professionals into teaching but over time,
we'll start to have CS Ed majors or CS majors pursuing CS ED Masters
degrees and entering the profession. This won't happen in a press or
election cycle but it will happen.
</p>
<p>
This all hinges on quality prep programs. I think I've hit the sweet
spot with what I've designed at Hunter. The critical components are of
course content and pedagogy. Teacher candidates must have both
sufficient depth and breadth in the subject and all the pedagogical
content knowledge that comes along with it. I don't agree with the
common approach of taking a course to teach a course - that is, having
courses like "APCS - Principles for teachers" or "APCS - A for
teachers." I want my teachers to be able to teach any reasonable
curriculum or design their own so we'll be rolling out courses that
examine the commonly offerd curricula but prepare teachers for a whole
lot more.
</p>
<p>
It's been an exciting week in NY CS Ed and there's a lot more to come.
</p>
</div>
</div>New York State moving forward with CS Teacher Certificationhttp://cestlaz.github.io/posts/NY-CS-Certificate/2017-12-12T19:57:37-04:002017-12-12T19:57:37-04:00Mike Zamansky<div id="outline-container-org0e9e1c0" class="outline-2">
<h2 id="org0e9e1c0"></h2>
<div class="outline-text-2" id="text-org0e9e1c0">
<p>
Last April I woke up early and trekked up to Albany along with a few
of my Hunter College colleagues to share our thoughts on K12 Computer
Science teacher certification with the Board of Regents. We gave a
presentation to the Regents Higher Education Committee and afterwards
had a chance to talk with some of the Regents as well as other members
of the New York State Department of Education.
</p>
<p>
I left feeling that our proposals were well received and I think
everyone present - both the Hunter and NYSED contingents hoped that
things would move forward on this important issue.
</p>
<p>
Fast forward to today, December 8, 2017. I was up at the crack
of dawn. Driving in the dark in the snow from NYC to Albany to once
again attend a Board of Regents Higher Education Committee
meeting. This time, the agenda item was:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
Proposed Amendments to Part 30 of the Regents Rules and Section 52.21
and Part 80 the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education Relating
to a New Certification Area and Tenure Area for Computer Science
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
No discussion or debate this time around just the proposal. If I
understand the process correctly, this should come up again at the
March meeting at which point it will be voted on. If approved, it
looks like we'll have a pathway towards certification for CS teachers.
</p>
<p>
I haven't had a chance to dive into the details but at the meeting a
few key points came up:
</p>
<ul class="org-ul">
<li>As the proposal indicates this will be a subject area in which a
teacher can be certified and be awarded tenure.</li>
<li>There will be a traditional pathway for new teachers - Bachelors /
Masters degree</li>
<li>There will be an alternative pathway for people entering from the
workforce</li>
<li>There will be an extension for teachers with another license so they
won't have to give up tenure in their current license.</li>
<li>There will be an "individual evaluation" pathway which sounds to me
like it could catch people who fall through the cracks.</li>
<li>There looks to be a sensible ramp up period - until September 2022</li>
<li>There's a grandfathering provision that looks to last 10 years.</li>
</ul>
<p>
This sounds like a smart sensible plan. Multiple pathways, shallow
ramp up and provisions to protect existing teachers.
</p>
<p>
Of course, the devil is in the details. What's an approved program?
Can a grandfathered teacher teach all CS classes or just intro ones?
etc.
</p>
<p>
As I said, I haven't had a chance to dive into the details yet but
this is very exciting.
</p>
<p>
Prior to the meeting I was chatting with a few other people
attending. One, a <a href="http://www.uft.org/">UFT</a> representative was very excited about the
prospect. Another contingent, a group from <a href="https://www.nysut.org/">NYSUT</a> was very much against
a new certification area. Their position was that this would create a
teacher shortage because no one would have a CS license and no one
would get one due to the difference in salary between teaching and the
tech industry. I've already written on how I feel that this is a <a href="https://cestlaz.github.io/posts/will-we-lose-cs-teachers-to-industry">red
herring</a>. What shocked me though was their feeling that "we already
have many non-CS teachers effectively teaching CS across the
state. They're doing a great job and don't need any additional content
or pedagogical knowledge." I think they're wrong and I also think that
when we as a community talk about how our summer professional
development is all that's needed, we undercut CS education and
the teaching profession as a whole.
</p>
<p>
In any event this was a big step for New York. I tried to individually
thank as many of the participants as I could for helping shepherd this
along but could only speak to a few so I'll just give a blanket thank
you here to the NY State Board of Regents, Board of Education and
State Education department.
</p>
</div>
</div>Self Certification - not a good ideahttp://cestlaz.github.io/posts/dont-self-certify/2017-07-07T15:34:19-04:002017-07-07T15:34:19-04:00Mike Zamansky<div id="outline-container-org7779954" class="outline-2">
<h2 id="org7779954"></h2>
<div class="outline-text-2" id="text-org7779954">
<p>
You've probably seen an image like this:
</p>
<div class="figure">
<p><img src="http://cestlaz.github.io/img/dont-self-certify/self-signed.png" alt="self-signed.png" align="center">
</p>
</div>
<p>
It's what you see when you try to access a secure web site but the web
site itself certified itself as being secure.
</p>
<p>
When people see this on a professional site it sets off all manner of
red flags. We feel much more comfortable when go to a site and we
don't see that error. When we see the secure green lock in the url bar
indicating that this site is certified through an external trusted
source.
</p>
<p>
Let's take this a step further. If you needed surgery would you go to
a board certified surgeon or would you go to Dr. Nick Riviera or some
other "self certified" doctor? Likewise you wouldn't want to be
represented in court by someone who hasn't passed the bar.
</p>
<p>
We might not feel that these certification and licensing processes are
perfect but when we need the services of a doctor or lawyer, we're
happy these gatekeepers exist.
</p>
<p>
So we should all be extremely concerned with today's announcement that
the deal for mayoral control just brokered in NYC came with strings
attached and one of those strings looks to open the doors to give some
charter chains the ability to self certify their teachers.
</p>
<p>
Here's a story on it in <a href="http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2017/07/06/with-city-charters-poised-to-win-certification-deal-education-schools-fret-113243">Politico</a> and one in <a href="http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2017/07/06/some-charter-school-teachers-could-become-certified-without-a-masters-under-proposed-new-suny-rules/">Chalkbeat</a>.
</p>
<p>
One might think that some requirements to become a teacher are
ridiculous. I'll get to them later but this is really giving the fox
the keys to the henhouse.
</p>
<p>
Charters appear to have extremely high rates of teacher attrition so
it makes sense that they want to control their teacher pipeline. This
alone should be a red flag against self certification but what else
are charter chains known for?
</p>
<ul class="org-ul">
<li>Misleading stats - claiming amazing passing numbers on standardized
exams while neglecting to mention that somehow or other big blocks
of students were removed from the school prior to the test year
(<a href="http://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/student-attrition-and-backfilling-success-academy-charter-schools-what-student-enrollment">link</a>).</li>
<li>The gotta go list</li>
<li>Forcing high levels of parent involvement (tough for single working
parents)</li>
<li>Charging <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/education/article/KIPP-schools-collected-millions-in-unallowable-11257006.php">illegal fees</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Top this off with as taking resources from public schools.
</p>
<p>
Charters operate in anything but a transparent manner and we're
expected to trust them to prepare "highly effective" teachers? I don't
think so. Since there is no real accountability for charter schools -
they can easily game the system through student attrition, selective
admissions (by putting up barriers to enter the lottery) and test prep
they can pay lip service to teacher preparation and the public will be
none the wiser.
</p>
<p>
If we had a reasonable way of holding principals accountable and no,
test scores are not the answer then we could pretty much do away
with teacher certification. If principals were held to task to run an
effective school, something we can easily define but not measure, then
they would have every incentive to hire the best
teachers. Unfortunately we're nowhere near that place.
</p>
<p>
Since we're not, we're left with the current systems of teacher
certification that has it's own slew of problems. A big part of it, in
my opinion is that schools of education have lost the high
ground. While there are some institutions doing great work, reputation
wise, schools of education are held in very low regard. Strong
teachers trade stories of the watered down content classes and waste
of time classes where professors share their pet theories of
education. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the new
definitive way to teach. At the same time, education research is
frequently held in low regard by teachers and the general public.
</p>
<p>
On the one hand we have charters run by and support by non-educators
wanting us to trust them and on the other we have institutions that
are questioned by the teachers they produce and the general public.
</p>
<p>
What a mess.
</p>
<p>
I don't know the answer. I'm working on teacher certifications
programs at Hunter and it's a balancing act. How much content is
sufficient and how much is too much. Can any of the general content be
streamlined or is it all necessary. If it isn't necessary do we need
it anyway to satisfy the bean counters?
</p>
<p>
If you don't have enough then we're sending unprepared teachers into
the classroom. Too much and we'll drive potential teachers away.
</p>
<p>
As computer science education is defining itself we see similar
struggles. We have some people advocating certifications analogous to
existing teacher certifications. On the other extreme we have
advocates for two weeks summer training and you're a CS teacher. I'd
like to think that I'm advocating for the sweet spot. Strong content
knowledge not tied to a specific course and matching content related
pedagogy. Time will tell becomes the certification standard and time
will tell whose approach was right.
</p>
<p>
For now, it's important not to give away the store. Private charter
schools should not be the driving force behind teacher certification
and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to train their own teachers
and then 'teach' our students without much greater scrutiny.
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="outline-container-orga90f182" class="outline-2">
<h2 id="orga90f182">Addendum:</h2>
<div class="outline-text-2" id="text-orga90f182">
<p>
I'm sure some of my friends will point out that private schools aren't
held to any particular standard for teacher certification. This is
true but private schools don't take public funds. Actually they do but
in my opinion, they shouldn't. I maintain that charter schools are
publicly funded private schools in that they take public money but
operate as private entities. As such they should be held under the
greatest of scrutiny and standards – they aren't
</p>
</div>
</div>