Qualified Staff

Grand overall goal statements are OK.  We need them.  But they do not provide the nuts and bolts of how the system can reach those goals.  The failure of the educational system in California was not for lack of grand overall goal statements.  We are, in fact, flooded with them.  I'm sure every high school teacher is sick of ESLRS and other such statements produced from WASC accreditations.  We can say that certain qualifications are ABSOLUTELY demanded of teachers.  Then, when school starts and we are 5,000 teachers short, we accept not only less but much less than what was demanded.  In my school, 25% of the teaching staff do not have complete credentials.  Only three teachers (out of nine) in the math department have a major or minor in math.  How can a student learn math (by any teaching technique) from a teacher who does not know math?  When the state department of ed wanted to increase the number of students who completed a-f qualifications, a new chemistry class was invented that does not teach chemistry.  A few years ago, San Francisco State University gave a placement exam for chemistry to 350 freshmen who had passes high school chemistry and not enough passed to fill one section of chemistry.  How can a student learn chemistry in a class that does not teach chemistry?  The method of teaching these subjects is open to modification by the teacher but the curriculum of these subjects is not.  The student is entitled to receive quality instruction in the subject named in the title of the course.