The Teaching "Profession", Part II

Is teaching a Real Profession?... my second post on this subject.

Another reason why teaching may not be considered a Real Profession by its critics is due to the fact that the profession lacks rigorous standards that prevent entry or that weed-out those who should not be teachers. There are no multi-day board or bar examinations (as in medicine and law), no tooth-drilling practicum (as in dentistry), and no inquisition by a denomination (as with clergy).

To be honest, this critique may be a legitimate criticism. In order for me to become a public school teacher I had to:

• complete a portfolio for my master's program, which took some significant time for reflection and writing. However, could I have put less time and energy into the portfolio and still gotten my license? I'll never know, but I don't think anyone in my program failed to get the stamp of approval from the graduate school or the state because their portfolio was substandard.
• student-teach for several weeks. This was probably the most important part of my training, but it only lasted about 10 weeks.
• take a two-part, four-hour exam called the Praxis. I didn't have to study at all for this exam. I think that some high school students whom I currently teach could have passed it. Let's just say, it wasn't exactly rigorous.

I'm not saying that the sum of these things was trivial, but I don't think that it is a process that really selects those who will make capable teachers from those who won't.

The funny thing is that the public is constantly clamouring for higher standards for teachers. "We need to make sure these teachers are qualified," they say in the public sphere. Here's the problem: you can't raise the bar for teachers without also increasing the incentives. Durham Public Schools, for example, still needed to fill dozens of teaching positions several of weeks after the start of school. This shortage is not due to the fact that the standards are too high; on the contrary, there just aren't enough teachers who want to teach in Durham. We must give people greater incentives to join the ranks of teachers or we must content ourselves with what we currently have.

Its fine with me if the hoop-jumping that disguises itself as "high standards for teachers" becomes instead legitimate and rigorous standards for teachers. Raise the standards for teachers; make rigorous teaching examinations; require year-long teaching apprenticeships, create genuine and helpful systems for teacher accountability. However, with increased standards there must be a commensurate increase in incentives. Otherwise, we should just get used to the phrase "lack of qualified teachers."

The Teaching "Profession", Part I

Is teaching a Profession?

My knee-jerk reaction is to say, "Of course it is." I have an advanced degree. I am salaried, not paid by the hour. I wear a coat, tie and fancy shoes to work each day...oh wait, no I don't. I wear khakis, a polo shirt and flip-flops as long as the weather allows. So upon deeper examination, this question is not so easily answered. This will be the first of a series of posts in which I consider the Teaching Profession.

We will begin by considering a reason why teaching might not be considered a Real Profession. The (usually anti-public-education) nay-sayers will claim that teaching is not a profession because Anyone Can Do It (i.e., it's not that difficult). I think that some of these people believe that since they Went Through School, that they Know How To Teach School. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to point out the idiocy of this logic. Just because I sat through a concert of the San Francisco Symphony, doesn't mean that I can conduct an orchestra; simply going to a Duke basketball game doesn't make me Coach K.

Elementary school teachers, in particular, endure the ire of these critics, because the nay-sayers imagine how easy it must be to teach the simplistic elementary school curriculum. Anyone Can Teach That Stuff, they scoff to themselves as they drive home from back-to-school night. In high school, the calculus and physics teachers probably are on safer ground than the freshman English teacher. Still, Almost Anyone Can Teach That Stuff.

What the critics seem to miss, is that content is only part of what a teacher must know. First and foremost, teachers must understand and enjoy being with kids. That fact ensures that Not Everyone Can Teach. Second, Teaching is not simply Content Dissemination. It is the art of getting students to buy into, to embrace and to learn what you are teaching. While 3rd grade math itself might not be intellectually taxing, I would wager that Getting 3rd Graders To Learn Math (not to mention Love Math) is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Further, I would wager that this kettle of fish--something that is termed pedagogy in eduspeak--is one that not just anyone could accomplish.

These are the questions that teachers must wrestle with: What is the best way to teach a particular concept? How will you know if students have learned it? How will you get students to learn it rather than memorize it? What will you do with students who don't learn it? What will you do students who have already learned it? What are the common misconceptions that students must overcome to learn it? How is this concept connected to the Real World, Etc., etc., etc. These are not easy questions and answering them is certainly not something that Anyone Can Do.

More on this topic to come...

Brownie Points

Today one of my friends at school (a fellow teacher) brought in brownies for the winners of a class competition. What was the first comment from one of the winners? Was it "thanks for baking us brownies in your spare time"? Was it "Wow, these brownies are great"? Was it, "I know you don't make much money but we appreciate that you spent a few bucks on brownie mix for us"?

No.

The comment of the first student to get a brownie was, "These are too dry."

That's just great. Really, really great.

What can I do?

15 minutes into class a student (who is currently failing) asks, "Does anyone have a pencil I can borrow?"

It seems to me that learning earth science is secondary to learning to bring a writing utensil to class.

(Malatov) Cocktail Dress

Three weekends ago a couple of students unsuccessfully tried to burn down our school building. The following weekend they tried again and were caught by police. What brings students to the point where they want to destroy an institution that supposedly exists for their benefit? This seems to be an extreme example of what teachers see almost every day: that students--the very people for whom we become teachers--view us as the enemy. Is the student-teacher relationship necessarily adversarial? One would hope not, but I think most of us can also remember times during adolescence when we viewed our parents as adversaries. So perhaps that adversarial mindset is an organic part of an adult-teenager relationship in which there is a power dynamic.

The teacher's time paradox

There is a paradox in teaching that I would guess most teachers are aware of: short weeks are actually long weeks. A two-day week, like the upcoming week of Thanksgiving, is longer and more draining than a "normal" five-day week. There are many reasons for this paradox, including increased hyperactivity of the students, the teacher's anticipation of having a few days off, and of course, the added busyness of preparing for a holiday.

There is one more wrinkle to this paradox. Although a short week is more tiring than a "normal" five-day week, a five-day week that follows a short week is the most draining week of all. This is because the teacher has lost his endurance during the course of the long weekend. Knowing this, we can derive a simple equation where a "normal" five-day week equals x, a short week equals y, and a five day week following a break equals z.

z = 2y = 3x

Any questions?