PS: Although I consider myself a “man of the right,” I was (and still am) always a great admirer of Albert Shanker.

As you say, are differences are probably not all that great. As the son of two teachers and with a teacher Aunt (my Mother taught for 26 yrs in the Illinois school system and her sister for 32 in Ill. & Calif.; my Father for 30yrs at the Univ. level in Illinois.) I am hardly “anti-teacher.” My mother was the first teacher in her school system to join the AFT, so I know a little bit about unions.

I also full well realize that part of the certification process is the response of State Boards of Education to inure themselves against potential charges by their political opponents of “irresponsibility” for foisting off “unqualified” teachers on an unsuspecting and trusting public. These are public officials, after all, and as Aristotle famously said: “Man is a political animal.” Still, all one has to do is spend ten minutes talking to education majors on any university/college campus in the land to hear them uniformly pronounce so-called “methods” courses as for the most part farcial and out dated—taught by instructors who haven’t been in a public school classroom in twenty years—so I’m not too sure that such “certification” requirements aren’t one of those things that sound good in theory but
are something else again in reality.

Finally, what I meant by “union card mentality” is that State Boards of Education use the certificate as the functional equivalent of the union card for turf protection purposes in the same way the legal profession has used law schools as a controlling function to instill the proper “attitude” in it’s prospective members. You do know, don’t you, that there was a time when one didn’t have to go to law school to be admitted to the bar? All one had to do was “read law” and then take the exam. If one passed, one was admitted—the proof was in the pudding. Some of our nations greatest jurists were admitted that way. Of course if the legal profession reverted to that procedure, what would all the law professors and law school administrators do for a living? One might say the same about the teaching profession……

Indeed, you did, although you clarify in #25 that “at the upper bound of the secondary system it seems to me the mix in importance of “core” “knowledge” vs “method” shifts heavily to the “knowledge” end of the scale. ” So, as I touched on back in #14, you’re taking an arguable marginal case – high school seniors – and leaping from that to accusations of an “asinine mentality” and “union card mentality”.

To repeat, it’s rare that any individual imbibing in honor of their 21st birthday has suddenly crossed some responsible-drinking rubicon. Likewise, it’s – well, saying that it’s rare that any individual has grown in maturity, preparedness, etc. in the year between the start of 12th grade and the next autumn isn’t always quite the same thing, but it still makes a point. It’s the same regrettable trade-off of any such uniform & mass system, where good sense thins out at the arbitrary edges. I’m not saying it’s absolutely ideal (case by case judgements are great, but then we’re talking a very different sort of system) , but “asinine mentality” etc. sounds like just more anti-teacher (and anti-union) verbiage.

At the same time, there are even more problems. Perhaps any specific freshman sitting in a college math class today might well have benefitted from the same instructor a year ago – but depending on where they were sitting a year ago, some, mant, or even most of their then-classmates may not be taking college-level math, may not have gone on to college, may not even have graduated high school (yet, or possibly ever). So it’s not just an issue of the prize-winning math prof. not being allowed to start teaching their students a few months earlier – we’re talking about sometimes significantly different (rather, specifically selected) populations, in a significantly different setting, with significantly different norms and expectations.

At the same time, we actually agree, to a point – I think well-done alternative certification programs are a rather good thing. And of course, rather than the hard slog predicted, alt cert programs have spread fairly rapidly. What I don’t think is a good idea is the surely unintended assumption that math profs (or research chemists, or LHC technicians, or etc.) are all by virtue of their education and experience totally qualified to teach some random (even 12th grade class), and that the only reason anyone would require some (however imperfect) formal preparation and quality control measures before tossing them into the classroom is that they have an asinine union card mentality. That doesn’t seem like a good idea for the teacher or the kids.

But what is “the requisite depth of knowledge”? You’re defining it merely as expertise in the particular subject/s being taught. But of course, teaching involves much more than that. It also involves expertise (or at least basic competence) in the craft – one might say the methods – of successfully sharing that expertise. (episteme vs. techne?) With secondary and elementary ed., one needs to be very good at classroom management, finding ways to engage students, working at a developmentally appropriate level, accommodating a wide range of interest and ability, etc. You’re working with young people, and dealing with a whole different range of academic, social, and emotional issues (to a greater or lesser degree, you’re not just teaching them a subject, but helping them grow up). That’s the point Barry’s making – not that secondary teaching is lower in pay or prestige, but rather that it requires a different skill set.

My only point in all of this is to ask that, even if the numbers are small, why should roadblocks be put in the way of ANYBODY with
the requisite depth of knowledge—especially as the shortages/needs in secondary education (in the sciences in particular) are so desperate?

The STUPID! It BURNS!
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize#Lack_of_a_Nobel_Prize_in_Mathematics

Even for a Fields Medal, there are very, very few places where such a professor will teach Joe/Joesephine Random Freshperson (as opposed to Joe/Joesephine Who’s Worked on Graduate Math in High School).

Now, the social mission, especially for someone with a natural bent for educating, is awfully tempting, so I considered it once. Then I realized that it would be profoundly stupid for someone of my background to do so. Frankly, nobody benefits from crucifying themselves the way TFA requires, and I can do an alternative certification program if I really feel the need to teach in a high school.

Not sure about ‘by that logic’; but I think that there’s a case for saying they should be (and in Britain, I think, increasingly they are).

It’s somewhat o/t, but I’d be interested to hear what Harry thinks about that…(if he has any views on it whatsoever).

It’s a bit like the bit about how that same [U.S.] college kid would be legally barred from purchasing alcohol at the age of 20 years and 364 days – but just one day later . . .

Although really, not so much, even. Granted, any teacher hired to teach just h.s. seniors and only ever h.s seniors has a twice selected group: at this point some of those least able/willing to continue their education have already left (or close enough to it), and since a 4th year of math is often optional, they’re going to get unusually motivated students. (Of course, on the other hand, maybe they’re getting remedial classes with kids who’ve failed freshman math the last three years . . . .)

Of course, these two things are even more magnified on the college level. Compared to the general population (and depending where, possibly to the general college population), the students are mostly-to-completely unusually high achievers, and are presumably above average in terms of cognitive skill, self-regulation, sociocultural competence, etc (at least in the ways rewarded by formal ed, if college was a realistic option for them). They also usually have strong intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation to do well. (After all, college isn’t legally required). There are going to be exceptions of course, more or less of them depending on the institution, but they’re just that – exceptions.

In high school as a whole (as opposed to just some specific BC Calc AP classes or whatever serving a wildly unrepresentative elite), these two things are basically reversed. You’re dealing with a population that ranges from 9th to 12grade; many of them legally compelled to attend (everyone under 16, 17, or 18 depending on the state; many older students are required to attend by parents) and who are going to be all over the map in terms of achievement, motivation, behavior, maturity, etc.

Of course, it’s no secret that there are college profs who are unquestionably skilled in their fields and lackluster at best in the classroom (at an extreme, markedly socially inept, etc.) – cases where the most intelligent and motivated students may benefit, but everybody else is floundering around trying to figure out what on earth the prof is talking/muttering tonelessly into their beard about. It doesn’t help that teaching itself apparently (from outside) seems to have been just something you do, rather than a skill you learned – but perhaps I’m wrong about that? But you can get by with this at the college level, because you’re dealing with, well, young adults who were able to go off to college. (And of course, there are excellent and incredibly engaging college profs, and everything in between, in all kinds of combinations.)

In high school, middle school, elementary school – well, content knowledge and ability are important, but a whole host of other things become increasingly vital – many of which are rather squishy social skills.

Would you hire Wittgenstein as an elementary school math teacher?