Why is teaching the only profession where we can't tell good from bad?
The notion of a "profession" usually includes some sort of barrier to entry, designed to separate those who have competence from those who don't. In Oregon, you need to pass a test in order to become a hairdresser. You don't in order to become a public school teacher.
All you need to do is attend college classes and not flunk. For any person of average intelligence, not flunking is not difficult. Show up, turn in the work and take the test. You're bound to pass.
So if getting into teaching is so easy, shouldn't there be some effort to sort the wheat from the chaff afterwards? Even in professions like law and accounting, where passing the bar or CPA exam is a huge challenge, those who pass the initial barrier are sorted out by competition. Smart lawyers and accountants get ahead of those who are mediocre. In universities, there are processes the sort out instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors.
The official line from the teachers union is that competency tests are not a good indication of teaching ability and that administrators can't be trusted to make objective evaluations. Both of these may be true.
However, a minimum competency test seems reasonable. If you don't know how arithmetic works, you can't teach it. You may know it and not be able to teach it, but not the reverse. Competency tests might at least weed out the worst of the lot.
As far as administrators being incapable of evaluation, that's perhaps true but if so, it's a challenge to creative thinking, not an answer. The present evaluation-free environment is bad for students. We are treating the whole problem from the standpoint of teachers and trying to guarantee that under no circumstances will they be unfairly judged. The world is never going to be 100% fair, but our biggest concern should be the students. If we can't clean out the worst 10%, that means that 10% of our students are being taught by bad teachers. That's a situation we should be willing to take some risks to correct.
All you need to do is attend college classes and not flunk. For any person of average intelligence, not flunking is not difficult. Show up, turn in the work and take the test. You're bound to pass.
So if getting into teaching is so easy, shouldn't there be some effort to sort the wheat from the chaff afterwards? Even in professions like law and accounting, where passing the bar or CPA exam is a huge challenge, those who pass the initial barrier are sorted out by competition. Smart lawyers and accountants get ahead of those who are mediocre. In universities, there are processes the sort out instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors.
The official line from the teachers union is that competency tests are not a good indication of teaching ability and that administrators can't be trusted to make objective evaluations. Both of these may be true.
However, a minimum competency test seems reasonable. If you don't know how arithmetic works, you can't teach it. You may know it and not be able to teach it, but not the reverse. Competency tests might at least weed out the worst of the lot.
As far as administrators being incapable of evaluation, that's perhaps true but if so, it's a challenge to creative thinking, not an answer. The present evaluation-free environment is bad for students. We are treating the whole problem from the standpoint of teachers and trying to guarantee that under no circumstances will they be unfairly judged. The world is never going to be 100% fair, but our biggest concern should be the students. If we can't clean out the worst 10%, that means that 10% of our students are being taught by bad teachers. That's a situation we should be willing to take some risks to correct.
posted by Rob Spooner at 5:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home