The article is correct in pointing one of the problems within the system: I taught English five years at the collegiate level after first taking necessary pedagogy courses to that end: in essence being 'certified' to the arena. Yet I can not teach high school? (Honestly, though, not that I'd want to.)
But there is a rhetorical misdirection in the articles worth pointing out (not to mention two rhetorical failures: 1, Einstein would have been a terrifically bad high school teacher; 2, the real world example does not brace the argument). Should the issue be about the presence of certification, or the value of the certification? I have no problem with teachers being certified, and considering that contemporary pedagogy (especially coming out of language/writing) is difficult enough that it requires it being taught -- it is not intuitive for 95% of people, you have to be introduced to it -- I might actually say it is a necessity. (That is, if you are going to say 'we have a commitment to quality education in our schools.')
But, most of the comments above are correct: the current level of certification is laughable. Two examples:
1) In GA, in the 90s, they had to pass a law to prevent undergrad ed students from taking the qualification exams before being upper class. The reason, too many were taking them at first opportunity, however many they could afford (in money and time). So, there was quite a large number of entering college sophomores who were already deemed competent by the state to teach math, English, history, and a couple others, all at once. (In case you miss my point: the qualification exams essentially said a I school education was sufficient knowledge to teach a subject.) Notice the cure that was applied: not make the tests more difficult, but make a law to create the appearance that the tests have value.
2) While in graduate school in both GA and FL, it was the openly held opinion (throughout campus) that the education departments had fully replaced business as being the bottom of the intellectual barrel. The old adage had come true: if you were not smart enough to actually be a history, English, math, or whatever major, never fear! You were still smart enough to get an education degree with a focus in history, etc. (In fact, at the university I attended in Georgia, while I was taking undergrad classes to shift me into 4th gear in prep for grad school, they began a program to force ed. majors to take upper level classes in the fields they were teaching. A program applauded in spirit, but bewailed in application, because we all knew that the intellectual levels of upper level classrooms were about to plummet. And our fears were proven true, without qualification. [To be blunt, it was, in our classrooms, a gross embarrassment for the education department].)
Lots of words, here, but examples I believe that shore up my point: Let's not let the question of 'whether' certification get in the way of the 'but what if' of making certification valuable to the educators (as well as the students). (Part of which includes making it easy for people with experience to prove that they are already qualified to teach.)
Anyway. My rant for the morning.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Andrew E.M. Baumann.
The Misdirection in the Article
But there is a rhetorical misdirection in the articles worth pointing out (not to mention two rhetorical failures: 1, Einstein would have been a terrifically bad high school teacher; 2, the real world example does not brace the argument). Should the issue be about the presence of certification, or the value of the certification? I have no problem with teachers being certified, and considering that contemporary pedagogy (especially coming out of language/writing) is difficult enough that it requires it being taught -- it is not intuitive for 95% of people, you have to be introduced to it -- I might actually say it is a necessity. (That is, if you are going to say 'we have a commitment to quality education in our schools.')
But, most of the comments above are correct: the current level of certification is laughable. Two examples:
1) In GA, in the 90s, they had to pass a law to prevent undergrad ed students from taking the qualification exams before being upper class. The reason, too many were taking them at first opportunity, however many they could afford (in money and time). So, there was quite a large number of entering college sophomores who were already deemed competent by the state to teach math, English, history, and a couple others, all at once. (In case you miss my point: the qualification exams essentially said a I school education was sufficient knowledge to teach a subject.) Notice the cure that was applied: not make the tests more difficult, but make a law to create the appearance that the tests have value.
2) While in graduate school in both GA and FL, it was the openly held opinion (throughout campus) that the education departments had fully replaced business as being the bottom of the intellectual barrel. The old adage had come true: if you were not smart enough to actually be a history, English, math, or whatever major, never fear! You were still smart enough to get an education degree with a focus in history, etc. (In fact, at the university I attended in Georgia, while I was taking undergrad classes to shift me into 4th gear in prep for grad school, they began a program to force ed. majors to take upper level classes in the fields they were teaching. A program applauded in spirit, but bewailed in application, because we all knew that the intellectual levels of upper level classrooms were about to plummet. And our fears were proven true, without qualification. [To be blunt, it was, in our classrooms, a gross embarrassment for the education department].)
Lots of words, here, but examples I believe that shore up my point: Let's not let the question of 'whether' certification get in the way of the 'but what if' of making certification valuable to the educators (as well as the students). (Part of which includes making it easy for people with experience to prove that they are already qualified to teach.)
Anyway. My rant for the morning.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Andrew E.M. Baumann.
Submit a story now.