Regarding last week's Gadfly editorial ("Highly qualified data," May 11), I am a special education teacher and have been following for some time the highly qualified (HQ) bandwagon. Only special education teachers must be HQ in both core areas and in special education. If we don't meet those requirements, we must have a teacher that is HQ in the classroom with us. Such a policy reduces professional teachers to assistants.
Traditional teachers are not required to be HQ in special education. In many states, there is no requirement that regular education teachers take classes about special education at all. If those teachers have degrees in the subject they teach, they are automatically HQ.
Not so for teachers of students who need self-contained classes-they must be HQ at two levels. Those educators must be both qualified for students who complete alternative assessments, and they must be qualified for any child taking the regular assessment.
My credentials are exceptional for the students I teach. I am fully certified in three states, and I participate in professional development at the post-master's level. Requiring me to get a degree in each core subject will not make me more qualified to teach children with low-incidence disabilities. Completing coursework and assignments in Biology, Algebra, Calculus, etc. isn't going to help me teach my students how to cook, how to use a computer, or how to live on their own.
Ms. McClure should consider what the whole law means before declaring that one size fits all.
Magi D. Shepley