View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Noelle
Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 361 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: CBEST in place of PRAXIS? |
|
|
The topic is basically my question.
I'm from Virginia which has one of the highest score requirements for PRAXIS in the U.S. Coincidently, they also have one of the highest teacher shortages.
Anyhow, I've heard you can take this CBEST instead of taking the PRAXIS in California. Is this true?
I'm about to start a graduate program in TESOL and though I don't really want to teach in public schools, I would like to at least be qualified! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Jizzo T. Clown

Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 668 Location: performing in a classroom near you!
|
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why go through the trouble of becoming certified if working in public schools is something you don't want to do? Surely subs don't need to be certified do they???
Re: your question about CA, nothing surprises me from out there. It seems to be the "Red Tape Capital of America." |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
choctawmicmac
Joined: 23 May 2007 Posts: 18 Location: Montreal
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject: Not true |
|
|
The CBEST is only the basic test for teacher licensing. The PRAXIS is used for subject-matter competence. For some reason lately, if you just take the CBEST you will be seen as "emergency qualified" or usually, "unqualified," in the eyes of school districts and parents.
You would have to take the CBEST to get started on the California teacher credentialing process. Then if you wanted to be either admitted into a subject-matter program or teach in that subject matter (in the larger cities' school districts) you would take the PRAXIS in that subject matter.
The CBEST is unique to California. California requires it, and only California accepts its results as being worth a darn. I've found that other states treat passing the CBEST as if you must still be an idiot or still not know a darn thing. Basically, California has always used the PRAXIS, just on top of their own.
And substitutes do too need to have at least taken and passed the CBEST. Not necessarily the PRAXIS or be admitted into an actual teaching credential program. That's what the California public is squawking about when they say that "substitutes aren't qualified." Or are "uncredentialed." Every subsitute teacher in California's public school system does too have a California Teaching Credential on file at the Department of Education in Sacramento, as well as in the County Office of Education where they substitute teach. It's just an Emergency Credential, that's all. Most other states don't have a Credential for substitutes.
That may be why being qualified to teach in public schools in California might mean you are considered "unqualified" by the rest of the world. Even though all of this starts with the need for a completed Bachelor's degree. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Noelle
Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 361 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am in California now
I've decided not to take the CBEST or the PRAXIS
I don't really want to be a public school teacher in this state or anywhere else
As for substitutes, I think they do require that you have your credential to sub in public schools out here but as far as I know, my state will let anyone and their grandmother be a substitute teacher. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
JosephP
Joined: 13 May 2003 Posts: 445
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm just finishing up a three month stint as a substitute teacher here in California.
First, the nuts and bolts:
You need a bachelor's degree of some sort.
You need to have passed the CBEST (not particularly difficult).
You'll need to be fingerprinted and cleared.
If that goes well you'll be issued an emergency teacher's credential meaning you'll be able to substitute teach in any classroom k-12 as well as adult education classes. The caveat is that you cannot teach more than thirty days the same class for the same teacher.
Next you apply at the school districts in which you want to work. They will require a Tb test that is not older than one year.
If everything is fine they'll but you on the list and your phone will start ringing off the hook.
The pay:
You'll probably get paid once a month. You'll have a choice of having social security taken out or joining the California Teacher's pension scheme. However, if you substitute teach longer than 100 days they'll chuck you into the pension scheme regardless.
Pay varies from district to district. Example: In the Sunnyvale district I get US$120/day. In Fremont Union High School district it is US$110/day. In Los Angeles I hear it is US$163/day. YMMV.
The classes:
I covered classes from kindy to high-schoolers. I helped with severely disabled students, taught a woodshop class (that was heaps of fun) and once was a teacher aide in a ELL (English language learners) class and was horrified how badly English is taught in state schools. I've also had classes that they have real trouble attracting teachers for and that is the euphemistically named Special Emotional Development Unit or some sort of hogwash. Basically it is a holding area for adolescents biding time before they graduate and a judge enrolls them in the California Correctional Center in Soledad or San Quentin.
Substitute teaching is a nice way to supplement one's retirement or keep some cash coming in, but not much else. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rusmeister
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 867 Location: Russia
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:12 am Post subject: Re: Not true |
|
|
choctawmicmac wrote: |
The CBEST is only the basic test for teacher licensing. The PRAXIS is used for subject-matter competence. For some reason lately, if you just take the CBEST you will be seen as "emergency qualified" or usually, "unqualified," in the eyes of school districts and parents.
You would have to take the CBEST to get started on the California teacher credentialing process. Then if you wanted to be either admitted into a subject-matter program or teach in that subject matter (in the larger cities' school districts) you would take the PRAXIS in that subject matter.
The CBEST is unique to California. California requires it, and only California accepts its results as being worth a darn. I've found that other states treat passing the CBEST as if you must still be an idiot or still not know a darn thing. Basically, California has always used the PRAXIS, just on top of their own.
And substitutes do too need to have at least taken and passed the CBEST. Not necessarily the PRAXIS or be admitted into an actual teaching credential program. That's what the California public is squawking about when they say that "substitutes aren't qualified." Or are "uncredentialed." Every subsitute teacher in California's public school system does too have a California Teaching Credential on file at the Department of Education in Sacramento, as well as in the County Office of Education where they substitute teach. It's just an Emergency Credential, that's all. Most other states don't have a Credential for substitutes.
That may be why being qualified to teach in public schools in California might mean you are considered "unqualified" by the rest of the world. Even though all of this starts with the need for a completed Bachelor's degree. |
What you say about CA is quite true (speaking as one who went through the whole process and earned the 'credential'). However, the other states for the most part also have pretty much the same amount of requirements (I went through the app process in NY before giving up in despair - this was after having my MA and several years FT exp in Russia) for certified teachers - will grant that for substitutes, requirements can vary somewhat, but on the whole everywhere the number of requirements are increasing.
There are beneficiaries of this system. Just think of the players - the teachers unions, from local school district to state to the NEA, State Ed, the colleges and universities. Who benefits directly from fees and charges for 'requirements'? Who benefits if there is an artificially created chronic shortage of teachers?
And the biggie - who benefits if most people go through a system that teaches most to read only on a basic level (hint - things like advertising) and generally come out thinking they know something but finding that they are not 'prepared' or 'qualified' for anything but McDonald's after 13 years in public school? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|