This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The smattering of cries against a new route for teacher licensing displays a considerable lack of understanding. One individual patronizingly wished "professional, untrained teachers" good luck in the classroom under this new licensing route, passed this month into Utah State Board of Education rule.
As a secondary classroom teacher of 30 years, I fully support the new Academic Path to Teaching program for its rigor and its accessibility to potential teachers seeking an alternative licensing route.
Those few who oppose the APT licensing route should have aimed their arguments more strongly against the current Alternative Route to Licensure all these years, but that program has run with little opposition. ARL has been sending teachers who have not demonstrated content or teaching knowledge into the classroom for years. Although ARL teachers must show content knowledge sometime within their first years of teaching, they have not been required to show formal teaching skill until they have taught for at least six years. And, somehow, the sky hasn't fallen.
Under the USBE's new APT, teachers must demonstrate content knowledge before ever entering a classroom, and they must also show teaching skill within three years of entering the profession — instead of the six or seven allowed by ARL. The new APT also steps up the role of master mentor teachers who, along with district or charter leaders, may require coursework and other professional development for APT teachers, as they deem necessary. APT teachers must also complete the Entry Years Enhancement within three years — as required for all traditional-route teachers.
Teachers who value and understand teaching should be thrilled that APT requires well-meaning individuals who wish to become teachers to show knowledge and skill quickly or wash out of this demanding profession. District and charter leaders understand that the APT is likely to expand the pool of available applicants who have depth of knowledge in content. And most are comfortable supporting new teachers in the acquisition of teaching skills, since all new teachers need this support regardless of how they got licensed. Districts already have robust mentoring programs to support new teachers, and no district or school is required to hire an APT candidate. These licensed teachers will have to convince a school or district to hire them — just like any other applicant.
The APT program is the first real alternative route that Utah has had in a long time. The old program just asks applicants to go back to school. And APT is a better route than ARL. Besides increased rigor in demonstration of knowledge and skills, the APT does something else that may help Utah gather potentially qualified teachers: it knocks down obstacles of time and money.
University graduates who decide that teaching is their calling don't have to go back to school for three years in order to consider public service in education. Retiring baby boomers who want to give back after years in a career can actually consider doing so without delving into scarce retirement funds for additional college courses. The APT route also eliminates discrimination against women and those in lower economic strata. It removes the "consecutive teaching years" clause from the current ARL, thus giving consideration for interruptions on the teaching track that may occur due to pregnancy or financial circumstances.
Will all the individuals who enter through the APT program become teachers? No. Many will fail to complete its rigorous requirements because teaching is hard — and good teaching even harder. But if the sky hasn't fallen with ARL, then maybe we should give APT a chance.
Cynthia Phillips is executive director of Weilenmann School of Discovery in Park City.