Breakout sessions address NCLB policy at NAAC conferenceHighlights of the aforementioned National Association for Alternative Certification conference were the concurrent breakout sessions, held on Monday, to discuss the No Child Left Behind Policy. The concurrent sessions were broken up into five regions by states. Region 1 consisted of: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Region 2 grouped together: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Region 3 was comprised of: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. Region 4 states included: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Region 5 combined: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, The District of Columbia, and Vermont. Attending these sessions were teachers, program directors and coordinators, and other influential persons involved in alternative certification programs within each of the region’s represented states. During the concurrent sessions attendees discussed NCLB policy issues on the national, state and local level. A standard form was passed out in all of the sessions as a way to guide the discussion, as well as a means to collect comparative data, which will be made available to the Department of Education. The form proposed six questions: 1. What three policy or legal issues at the national level are
of greatest concern to alternative certification programs in your
state? The Region 1 session had the highest attendance of about 75 people. During the session, smaller groups were formed in order to discuss each question in a more intimate setting, which allowed for greater elaboration in answering each of the questions. After 45 minutes everyone reconvened to put forth and deliberate upon what they had come up with. One of the attendees volunteered to keep track of the group answers while Dr. Leo Kirchhoff, Professor of Education and Intern Director at California State University, Chico, led the group discussion. The most prominent national issues that arose were: the use of an exam to test for subject competency as required by NCLB; the mismatch and inconsistency of credential areas on the state and federal levels; the fact that the definition of a “highly qualified teacher” varies between states; and the misconception that alternative certification is less respectable than that of traditional programs. On a state level the foremost issues were: the need to collect data; the necessity of a means to disseminate research and findings, perhaps through a journal; and the necessity of collaboration and networking between all program providers and policy makers. Within the local level the primary issues were: the difficulty recruiting qualified candidates; the hassle of acquiring funds; and the troubles with getting their candidates hired after having completed their program. At the conclusion of the session, strategies to address these issues were proposed. Some of the dominant strategies were: providing more online information and resources about alternative certification; initiating greater collaboration between individual programs, universities, school districts, and policy makers; delving into the reasons for once state-funded programs becoming candidate-funded; and providing more proactive interaction to quell the misconceptions encircling alternative certification. All of answers from each region’s session were collected at the end in order to be passed onto the Department of Education. For more information on the National Association for Alternative Certification visit: www.alternativecertification.org |
