Bob Kolasky is the managing editor of IntellectualCapital.com. His e-mail address is bob@voxcap.com

Vice President Al Gore wants to finish the job his boss began of recruiting 100,000 new teachers to our nation's schools. "Let's put America's brightest and most dedicated young people to work changing the lives of the children who need it most," Gore says.

Texas Gov. George W. Bush wants to pour billions of dollars into a new federal program designed to train and recruit thousands of new teachers. He believes teachers are the "engines of education reform."

Like being in favor of motherhood and apple pie, supporting America's teachers is a political no-brainer. What candidate would dare oppose the most honorable of professions? What American doesn't love a teacher?

But if Bush's and Gore's plans to invest in teacher training are not exactly as controversial as their stands on Elian Gonzalez, soft money and Bob Jones University, they are still worth noting. They offer two different visions on how to address a question that vexes American education reformers: How do we improve the professional quality of those people who are teaching America's children?

The real teacher crisis

As of 1999, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, the federal clearinghouse for education information, 3.1 million Americans were teaching in elementary and secondary schools -- 2.7 million of them in public schools. Yet both the Clinton administration and the major teachers' unions suggest that the nation will need to hire an additional 2.2 million teachers in the next 10 years.

A similar number is quoted by the Thomas Fordham Foundation, home of some of the most prominent advocates of public-school reform in the United States. In the Fordham report, The Teachers We Need and How to Get More of Them -- signed by more than 200 educators and politicians, including former Education Secretary William Bennett, Gov. John Engler (R-MI) and Fordham's own Chester Finn -- suggests that "as many as 2 million" teachers may be needed in the next decade. Numbers such as those have led many observers to conclude that the nation is in midst of a teacher crisis. After all, if you need 2.2 million teachers in addition to 3.1 million who are already working, isn't that a prohibitive jump? Shouldn't there be a nationwide call for new teachers, and an effort to train more Americans to teach?

Not quite. The numbers can be misconstrued.

As Emily Feistritzer, the head of the National Center for Education Information, testified before Congress in 1998, "The current system has produced and continues to produce far more people fully qualified to teach than the system can hire."

"Only about 60% of newly prepared teachers enter teaching jobs after they graduate, and many report that they cannot find jobs," Stanford Professor Linda Darling-Hammond writes in "Solving the Dilemmas of Teacher Supply, Demand and Standards." She notes that "although many affluent districts have long waiting lists of extremely well-qualified teachers, in central cities and poor, rural areas, disparities in salaries and working conditions make teacher recruitment more difficult, and many schools hire individuals who are seriously under-prepared for their work."

Too many schools have too few teachers qualified to teach

Therein lies the crux of the teacher situation. Too many school districts have too few teachers working. Even when these jobs are filled, they often are filled by people not qualified to teach.

The shortages are most pervasive in math and science. According to the Massachusetts-based organization, Recruiting New Teachers (RNT), virtually all of the nation's largest urban school districts surveyed reported immediate needs for math, science and special-education teachers. "Students in under-served schools are doubly disadvantaged when they don't have teachers qualified to teach challenging subjects," says David Haselkorn, president of RNT. "Unfortunately, the teaching shortage in urban schools has grown even worse over the last three years. As teachers retire and children of the baby boomers enroll, urban schools are scrambling to find teachers. We desperately need more people willing to teach math, science and special education in the nation's cities."

A difference in scope

The fact is, as the numbers suggest, the United States is not in search of more teachers as much as it is in search of the right kind of teachers. So how do the nation's schools get these types of teachers? Bush and Gore have different visions.

Gore's proposals involve substantial federal investment -- $115 billion in the next 10 years. Part of those funds would be earmarked to recruiting teachers specifically for high-need areas. The vice president would enable high-poverty areas to pay higher salaries; he would offer college scholarships to future teachers who would commit to teaching in urban and rural schools; and he would offer additional incentives for those who agree to teach in such schools.

The second part of the Gore plan is to hold all teachers to higher standards by requiring teachers to undergo peer evaluations and tests of ability.

Bush criticizes Gore for throwing money indiscriminately at the problem. "I'm not competing on money," the Texas governor said in introducing his plan to improve teacher quality. "There's no way I can possibly outspend Al Gore on any program, any place, any time. His motto is, 'Vote for me, I'll spend more money.'"

Bush, too, would hold teachers to high standards, but his plan consists of a limited involvement for the federal government. Specifically, he offered a four-point solution March 30: Increase funding for "Troops to Teachers" (a program that helps former military personnel become teachers), expand training for teachers, support teachers who enforce classroom discipline and allow teachers tax breaks on professional expenses.

Chris King, press secretary for the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the nation's second largest teachers' union, dismissed the Texas governor's plan. "Bush's overall proposal seems to be dealing with the small aspects of the problem," King says. "It sounds good but doesn't provide the necessary money." The AFT is supporting Gore in the 2000 election.

Employing different approaches, both Gore and Bush are trying to make teaching a more attractive profession. By providing economic incentives, increasing money spent on recruiting efforts and offering support via additional training and mentoring, both major presidential candidates are attempting to prove that they are pro-teacher. And both are doing so largely by concentrating their efforts on those who have already made the decision to teach.

The certification debate

Teacher certification is too bureaucratic

Neither of the candidates' plans, however, deals explicitly with what some consider a key component of the teachers' debate: whether it is too difficult or too easy to become a teacher. There is a growing argument among education professionals that the teacher-certification process is too onerous and bureaucratic, and that it is one reason it is so hard to find qualified teachers, particularly in subjects such as science and math.

"There is a choice between two big strategies" for getting more of the right kind of teachers, Finn says. "One would tighten the regulatory screws necessary to become a teacher, and one would loosen the screws." Finn argues that the latter strategy is correct.

So, too, does Pete Peters. There is "absolutely" too high a barrier to becoming a teacher, says Peters, a counselor for Troops to Teachers, the program that Bush endorsed. "In some states, for a qualified mid-career engineer to become a math or science teacher, it is necessary for him to take a two-year program of education classes," Peters explains. He argues that the burdensome requirements to become a teacher drive many interested former military personnel away from the program.

Peters is not alone in his sentiment, and that is why many education reformers favor increased use of alternative certification processes to help mid-career professionals become teachers. As Feistritzer says: "People from all walks of life are stepping forward to meet the projected demand for teachers. Many of these individuals already have at least a bachelor's degree, so the old model of training teachers in undergraduate education programs does not work." She argues in favor of alternative certification methods and a shift away from the strictly pedagogical approach to preparing teachers.

Others, however, dissent. Darling-Hammond is one of those. "Teachers without preparation for teaching are generally rated more poorly and produce lower levels of student learning that those who have had the opportunity to learn how to teach, she writes in "Solving the Dilemmas."

Quality control?

In the end, Bush's words ring true. Teachers are "the engine of education reform." The corollary between improving teacher quality and improving the education system might well be more significant than any other education-reform proposal on the table.

The problem, of course, is that improving teacher quality is not so much an education reform as en education dream. How do you get better teachers in the classroom? How do you get more teachers in the worst classrooms? How do you get them to stay there?

Bush and Gore are both in favor of teachers, for sure. But do either of them have a real plan to improve the quality of teaching? Chester Finn is not optimistic. "Presidential candidates are not the engine for solving the teacher problem," he says. "The states are, and they are not doing it too well."