A look at a fictional "Our Town ISD" should help illustrate one sort of perversity that would result from putting this technical compliance before common sense. Like most districts in Texas, Our Town high schools cover four years--9th grade through 12th. Our Town middle schools also cover four years--6th grade through 8th. Most Our Town elementary schools are pre-Kindergarten through 5th grade, but a few still go through 6th grade. 

Joe attends 6th grade at North Town Middle School. He has different teachers for each "core" subject, including math, English, science, and social studies. To be considered "highly qualified" under federal law, each of Joe's teachers must have passed a state exam covering the subject that he or she teaches.

Maria attends 6th grade at West Town Elementary School. Like Joe, she has different teachers for each "core" subject: math, English, science, and social studies. To be considered "highly qualified" under federal law--according to the US Department of Education's latest announcement--each of Maria's teachers must have passed a state exam covering "reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum," without regard to the subject that he or she teaches.

Does it make any sense that a sixth grade math teacher at a middle school should be judged with a different standard than a sixth grade math teacher at an elementary school? Why should the building in which a student attends sixth grade determine the standard for whether or not a teacher is "highly qualified?" Perhaps William McKenzie needs to explain this to Joe and Maria, their parents, and to the teaching faculty who will be taxed in time and money to obtain certifications for which they have scant need.    

More important, we'd like to see some indication of how requiring elementary teachers in departmentalized instruction to take a generalist exam--when they've already passed a certification exam in the area of their instruction—improves teacher quality in the elementary school classes. Whatever the facts, any new requirement should be fairly implemented with adequate time for teachers to achieve the necessary certification.  It is indefensible to put teachers under the gun because of a change in rules implemented after the start of a new school year. (McKenzie does note that he finds waiting until the end of the school year reasonable.)

McKenzie also insinuates that "teacher unions" stand in the way of ensuring teacher quality and student achievement and lauds U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan for a recent speech on improving teacher preparation with higher quality university instruction and a greater emphasis on practical knowledge for managing classrooms. Excuse us for taking a bit of offense, but Texas AFT has long promoted higher quality teacher preparation at the collegiate level and has directly worked in the area of providing quality professional development and mentoring for classroom management. Texas AFT has been the lead organization in birthing and growing the state tuition exemption program for teacher aides, thus putting individuals with plenty of classroom experience on the path toward full certification. And we promote and support the rigorous National Board Certification as a path to even greater proficiency for existing teachers.

We think that record of action in support of teacher quality stands for a lot more than a newspaper column that touts the benefits of federal "highly qualified" regulations without reference to the real needs of students.