3 ms·

That's funny - I was just thinking that we need to remove all of the current certification-based requirements for teachers. This seems to go the other way. Edu

by mr_luc 14y ago

That's funny - I was just thinking that we need to remove all of the current certification-based requirements for teachers. This seems to go the other way. Education needs to change drastically. It needs to be nimble. It needs to start providing value in a post-industrial economy -- i.e, it needs to train kids to do knowledge work. You'll know it's making progress when graduating from High School starts to mean something again. No one knows what that transition will look like, or what it will take. Most people agree it'll be disruptive and messy, and the teaching profession is already being disrupted (Coursera, Codecademy, etc). It seems as though raising the barriers to entry for teaching as a profession, by adding yet another layer of certification, is a protectionist move that could get in the way of 'good disruption.'

randomdata 14y ago
I was thinking similar thoughts. You want to hire the best people possible, not those who have jumped though various hoops. Shrinking the pool of possible people you can hire is never going to raise the quality of talent available. How could it?
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  In general, if the process that shrinks the pool is better at chopping off the low end of the distribution than the process that selects individual members from the pool to employ is at avoiding selecting from the low end of the distribution, then shrinking the pool by that method prior to selection will, in fact, raise the quality of talent actually selected. More specifically, "jumping through hoops" selects, if nothing else, for motivation, which is a not-unimportant qualification for teaching.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    It selects those who are motivated to jump through hoops, but not necessarily those who are motivated to become better teachers. To throw away a hypothetical someone who is clearly the best person for the job just because he doesn't meet some artificial criteria seems reckless.
  - adventured 14y ago
    That's one of the problems: the process would not inherently be better at chopping off the low end. Bar exams are guild based funnels. In my opinion they more often than not act as barriers to competition, protect the entrenched, and inflate pay artificially for those that get into the guild. They limit supply, but nothing guarantees that supply is the best of the possible candidates. That would depend on the nature of the examination/s (not to mention some of the best candidates simply won't like the hoops that have to be jumped through), and good luck with that given the hyper political atmosphere around teaching / teachers.
  - droithomme 14y ago
    > if the process that shrinks the pool is better at chopping off the low end of the distribution We actually know from decades of metrics that the process of getting a masters in education selects for the bottom end, not the top. Education majors are one of the lowest scoring groups on the GMATs. Eliminating this sort of certification in favor of Bachelors in general would in fact increase qualifications dramatically. As far as jumping through hoops, many of the best teachers I have met left the field in exasperation due to the hassles and unnecessary stress of dealing with administration overhead and meddling, and micromanaging of their curriculum by education board members who often have no notable qualifications or experience, and in some cases appear to be functionally illiterate, yet determine policy.
learc83 14y ago
I'm not a fan of more certification, but I think part of the problem is that school bureaucracy doesn't treat teachers like professionals. I have a close friend who teaches elementary school and the teachers in her school are treated almost exactly like low level retail employees. In my opinion the rigidity with which you're managed determines whether you can be considered a "professional" or not.
frozenport 14y ago
I think your criticism doesn't apply to basic competencies like learning how to read or add numbers. Kids in Chicago city schools are unable to form sentences.

by mr_luc 14y ago

randomdata 14y ago

I was thinking similar thoughts. You want to hire the best people possible, not those who have jumped though various hoops. Shrinking the pool of possible people you can hire is never going to raise the quality of talent available. How could it?

dragonwriter 14y ago
In general, if the process that shrinks the pool is better at chopping off the low end of the distribution than the process that selects individual members from the pool to employ is at avoiding selecting from the low end of the distribution, then shrinking the pool by that method prior to selection will, in fact, raise the quality of talent actually selected. More specifically, "jumping through hoops" selects, if nothing else, for motivation, which is a not-unimportant qualification for teaching.
- randomdata 14y ago
  It selects those who are motivated to jump through hoops, but not necessarily those who are motivated to become better teachers. To throw away a hypothetical someone who is clearly the best person for the job just because he doesn't meet some artificial criteria seems reckless.
- adventured 14y ago
  That's one of the problems: the process would not inherently be better at chopping off the low end. Bar exams are guild based funnels. In my opinion they more often than not act as barriers to competition, protect the entrenched, and inflate pay artificially for those that get into the guild. They limit supply, but nothing guarantees that supply is the best of the possible candidates. That would depend on the nature of the examination/s (not to mention some of the best candidates simply won't like the hoops that have to be jumped through), and good luck with that given the hyper political atmosphere around teaching / teachers.
- droithomme 14y ago
  > if the process that shrinks the pool is better at chopping off the low end of the distribution We actually know from decades of metrics that the process of getting a masters in education selects for the bottom end, not the top. Education majors are one of the lowest scoring groups on the GMATs. Eliminating this sort of certification in favor of Bachelors in general would in fact increase qualifications dramatically. As far as jumping through hoops, many of the best teachers I have met left the field in exasperation due to the hassles and unnecessary stress of dealing with administration overhead and meddling, and micromanaging of their curriculum by education board members who often have no notable qualifications or experience, and in some cases appear to be functionally illiterate, yet determine policy.

learc83 14y ago

I'm not a fan of more certification, but I think part of the problem is that school bureaucracy doesn't treat teachers like professionals. I have a close friend who teaches elementary school and the teachers in her school are treated almost exactly like low level retail employees. In my opinion the rigidity with which you're managed determines whether you can be considered a "professional" or not.

frozenport 14y ago

I think your criticism doesn't apply to basic competencies like learning how to read or add numbers. Kids in Chicago city schools are unable to form sentences.