Free Market Triptych (part two): Freedom to Teach

May 15, 2004

One of the best ways to solve many of our current educational problems is to have K-12 education join the free market.

Most folks who talk about the free market are concerned with the free choices available in the consumer market, as we discussed last time. While "voting with one's wallet" is an extremely potent force, there are two other aspects of the free market which are also important. Both of these involve the employment market: the freedom to work and the freedom to hire.

In today's installment, we'll cover the inalienable freedom which all adults should have in a classless society, the ability (within reason) to choose one's profession.

Freedom to Work: Our point here is simple: any citizen who wants to become a K-12 teacher, should have the right to teach, without being faced with artificial obstacles. The only restrictions to this career choice should have to do with the job, such as a lack of a criminal record and substantial subject-matter knowledge.

Our argument has several parts. First, we'll contrast the role of teacher certification between public and private schools, and question the value of certification programs. We then will point out a bit of hypocrisy in that public schools surreptitiously hire uncertified teachers, and that certification is not required in areas very similar to K-12 education.

Public versus Private
Currently, in the public school system, teacher candidates must satisfy "teacher certification" requirements. Typically this involves about two years of coursework at one of our many Colleges of Education, coursework which we find to be largely part of the problem with education today.

It's been our experience that this coursework is indoctrination at best--and brainwashing at worst--into the ways of Progressive education. (We spare no expense mocking the tenets of Progressive education, as taught at the College of Education, but we do concede not all Progressives are bad).

Contrast the public school certification requirements with those found in private and parochial schools: many of these schools don't have a certification requirement.

As much as we disparage the curriculum of certification programs (and "becoming certified" doesn't necessarily make one a bad teacher), the lack of certification doesn't necessarily make one fit to teach. So how do private schools--many of which are largely free of the state mandates smothering public schools--pick their future teachers?

For the most part, private schools' criteria are centered around one simple attribute: subject matter knowledge. All other considerations are secondary. Some of these criteria are fairly important, such as a lack of a criminal record, and a college degree, but it cannot be emphasized enough that mastery of one's subject matter is the most important criteria for a teacher, for any age range of pupil. While this does not automatically make one a good teacher, the converse is even worse: one who's an expert teacher, but knows little about the subject at hand!

Value of Certification
This is the biggest problem with the current certification scheme, which focuses on pedagogy while slighting content-knowledge. (In our experience, we've taken "Science Education" courses which were science-free!)

This problem is replicated in the recent debate over "National Teacher Certification" as offered by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. These standards are "all hat and no cattle" in that they emphasize pedagogy while their content-knowledge standards are weak. In a recent article in School Reform News, education professor M.O. Thirunarayanan warns, "You can't use pedagogy to teach what you don't know."

In a recent often-quoted article in the Philadelphia Inquirer (free registration required), it turns out that appalling numbers of middle school teachers failed subject-area tests in the very subjects they're supposed to be teaching! True to form, district and union officials rushed to their defense. One argument was that the test was, like, really hard, you know? Lisa Haver, who's been teaching sixth grade math for several years, failed the math exam and says, "There was stuff on there that I've never seen."

We might add that it's a sure bet that her students never saw the material, either.

Ms. Haver continues: "When it was over, we just put our pencils down and looked at each other, like: 'What was that?' "

Turns out the test covered mostly middle school math, with a smattering of high school algebra and geometry (at least one middle school teacher got a perfect score).

Another defense was that these were really good teachers (all of whom were certified, by the way). Says Arlene Kempin, chief personnel officer of the Philadelphia teacher union, "We have so many middle school teachers who have been doing a terrific job all along. They've been doing it for years." Emphasis ours.

Maybe it's just us, but this sounds like a call for seniority to rule the day, not irrelevant subject matter knowledge.

How good can you be if you don't even have a solid grasp of the very material you're trying to teach? We suspect the "very good" moniker refers to pedagogy or self-esteem inflation skills (very important in today's classroom).

Uncertified Public School Teachers
Here's a dirty little secret about certification requirements in public schools: they already hire non-certified teachers in full-time teaching positions.

There are several ways to do this. One is through a route called "emergency certification," usually meaning they need the teacher so badly, so they'll dub thee "certified" just to pass muster. Unfortunately, "Emergency Certification" is only a step away from actual certification, in that you have to be enrolled in a College of Education certification program.

The second way to teach full time without certification is to become a substitute teacher, and then get lucky. Most of the time substitute teachers are per diem, and they work day-to-day as needed by the school district to cover teacher absences. Occasionally a teacher will become seriously ill, and need to be away for an extended time, in which case the per diem sub becomes the de facto full time teacher.

And in some cases, especially in schools which aren't overwhelmed by teacher candidates like in our tougher neighborhoods, there will be vacancies at the beginning of the year for which no certified teacher is available. These spots will fall to substitute teachers, who will serve in a long term capacity. If the principal can get away with it, there is no limit to the length of time a full-time sub can be kept on at a school. In one school where we've taught, one uncertified substitute teacher continued for over four years, and she did an excellent job.

We mention Emergency Certification and Long-Term Subs to point out there are people in public schools who are not certified, but teaching full time with the blessing of the powers-that-be.

Certification not required Elsewhere
Defenders of certification are quick to point out that we can't eliminate it because then "we'll be just hiring bums off the street to teach our kids." Well, not exactly. There are plenty of places where we don't require certification of the folks who work with students, from young children to young adults.

We have Scout leaders for Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Cub Scouts and Brownies, coaches for Little League, Gymnastics, and Pee Wee Football, to name just a few sports, and of course Sunday School teachers. In each of these areas, the first two job requirements are a thorough knowledge of one's area, and a desire to work with kids.

The third is a no-brainer: actual success with these same kids. If there existed the world's worst Little League coach, who not only lost games, but was roundly hated by all his players, well this fellow wouldn't have a dugout to prowl come next season. In a free market, things have a way of working themselves out.

But it is with one group of professionals who works with young adults that the "certification-required" policy really becomes farcical, and that is college professors.

Take a successful college professor, of freshman physics, calculus, English, or History for example, and you'd probably have a person who knows the subject matter cold, and does a fine job of imparting this knowledge to 18 and 19 year old students. But if this professor were to show up at a public high school and ask for a job to teach 17 and 18 year old students, the message would be a polite, "Sorry, you're not qualified, er, we mean certified."

Of course we're not suggesting that all college professors are successful teachers, for subject matter knowledge doesn't automatically make one a good teacher. All we're suggesting is that the door be opened.

Conclusion
The bottom line is that teacher certification (as it exists today) is an artificial obstacle, and worse than useless in that it indoctrinates teacher candidates into wonderfully-sounding, but ineffective, methods. It takes a special kind of person to put up with the two years of brain-dwarfing curriculum, which automatically shuts out a lot of folks who would otherwise make great teachers.

Why don't we take the lead from effective private schools: hire people who know their stuff, regardless of how many "Education" courses they've taken. Give these folks the freedom to teach.