I’m a fan of rules and regulations. But they should be designed so that, if there is a strong case for doing that they are basically designed to prevent, someone who pushes hard enough will succeed in doing it. Here are two stunning stories of people being prevented from working in the state (i.e. public) schools in the UK, because, although one of them has run a well-regarded private school, and the other has pursued a successful career as a professor of physics (a shortage subject), they are not properly qualified. I can see reasons for the regulation, and I do think it unfortunate that the Telegraph gave evidence in favour of Mr Jones-Parry that told us a great deal about the kinds of children whose parents can pay £15,204 a year on their schooling, and nothing at all about his abilities as a school leader. But this is hilarious:
bq. “The silly thing is that I have people from industry who are training to be teachers at Westminster. I have to sign them off to say that they are suitable. I suppose I could sign myself off.”
(Hat Tip: Michael Otsuka)
{ 16 comments }
jet 10.12.04 at 9:42 pm
I don’t think it is any different in the US. The problem with education has never struck me as qualified instructors. That would seem to be just about the last thing needing fixed. All that money and energy going into certification would seem much better spent on parent education and parent involvement. The parent’s attitude towards their child education certainly seems to be the most important factor.
But what do I know, I get all my information by osmosis from my much better educated wife.
Robin Green 10.12.04 at 9:58 pm
I think you mean “state schools”. “Public schools” in the UK are private schools. (Yes, really.)
harry 10.12.04 at 10:14 pm
robin — Corrected. But it’s now completely standard, at least in scholarly debate and discussions among policymakers to use ‘public’ to mean ‘state’. (I *am* English btw — *ultra*-English according to my co-conspirator Bertram). I’ve just spent the afternoon teaching about the contrast between the UK and US syustems, hence the US-leaning usage.
Andrew McManama-Smith 10.13.04 at 12:06 am
I rarely read things that begin “I’m a fan of rules and regulations” but certainly education is one of the places where it’s needed.
Danny Yee 10.13.04 at 6:17 am
On the subject of bureaucratic requirements for teaching, you might be amused by my sister’s story about teaching English in France.
doghouse riley 10.13.04 at 6:59 am
The issue pops up in the US with some frequency, driven by the teacher’s unions bashers, and I’ve never quite understood why I’m supposed to be outraged. There is generally a solution, just as here Mr. Jones-Parry could serve as an unqualified teacher while he becomes certified. That’s not the same as saying he’s “not good enough to teach”. It’s the same as saying “even an F-1 driver has to have a valid license to drive on city streets.”
My wife is a public school teacher. The demands are a bit more than simple competence in her own field. She has to know what medications each of her students is prescribed and be able to identify signs of trouble. She has to know all categories of learning disability and be able to diagnose potential problems. She’s part psychologist and part family counsellor, and complies with myriad state and federal mandates. That sort of ability does not come automatically with an advanced math degree, and private schools can handle them however they see fit. The state has a genuine interest in making sure those skills are learned before it certifies teachers.
neil 10.13.04 at 8:33 am
Doghouse Riley, I think the first linked article says that he couldn’t be hired as an unqualified teacher unless they couldn’t find a qualified one.
However, this is all pretty irrelevant, as it sounds like this is all being very much overblown. Check the end of the BBC article:
So in other words, they could just show up for an interview and become ‘qualified.’ Am I reading this wrong?
The most charitable explanation would be that bureaucracy makes even this unreasonably hard for someone who is a qualified teacher. But even in this case, the problem can be fixed without changing the rules and regulations. Does anyone know whether the BBC is really reporting this accurately?
Michael Otsuka 10.13.04 at 8:34 am
Some replies to Doghouse Riley’s post:
(1) I agree that Mr Jones-Parry’s experience teaching high-achievers in a posh private school will not have equipped him to deal with many of the things he’ll encounter in a state school. A sensible way to deal with this is to create a conversion course for those with experience as teachers in private schools rather than to make them go through the same year-long certification process which is appropriate for those with no prior teaching experience.
(2) I agree that “even an F-1 driver has to have a valid license”. But it doesn’t follow that an F-1 driver should be required to take a basic practical driving test in order to obtain this licence. (The written test on rules of the road is a different matter.)
(3) Whether or not you would insist that an F-1 driver take the practical test, surely you don’t believe that the Physics professor should be required to pass a math exam for 16-year-olds in order to be certified as a teacher. Do you?
(4) In case anyone confuses Harry’s post for union-bashing, I should mention that it’s the Department for Education and Skills rather than teachers’ unions which is the source of these UK instances of bureaucratic inflexibility.
Michael Otsuka 10.13.04 at 8:48 am
In answer to Neil’s question about the accuracy of the BBC’s reporting: As far as I can tell, there is a sensible fast track route to certification. But bureaucrats and ministers weren’t aware of this and insisted that the headmaster and the professor needed to complete the one-year certification course or pass the high school math exam in order to teach in state schools. It was only after people went to the media that the bureaucrats and ministers realized that they had been misrepresenting their own rules and regulations.
harry 10.13.04 at 2:48 pm
Yes, one of the stories quotes David Hart (the leader of the Head’s union) as being outraged. There’s nothing here bashing the unions, who are all extremely frustrated with the level of bureacracy at DfES, and lead the opposition to it.
But, doghouse, did your wife learn the things she needs to know in a teacher certification program? If so, I’m amazed, and would like to know which one she went to, so I can recommend it to people. The numerouss teachers I know learned all those things on the job. Its true that the UK equivalent of US teacher certification does a better job of preparing teachers for real experience, and is shorter, though.
neil asks
bq. So in other words, they could just show up for an interview and become ‘qualified.’ Am I reading this wrong?
Yes — you have to produce a whole portfolio which shows that something in your education and work experience is equivalent to a PGCE. This is not so easy — and most applications of this kind are rejected even if you can figure out how to apply (which, at least when I had experience with it 3 years ago, was pretty hard). SO Michael, despite his outrage, is being generous to the DfES.
No-one has commented on the pig-headedness of a Physics Professor not being willing to take GCSE maths. I don’t have much sympathy with the particular person here, but can you imagine a bureaucracy that will not take a PhD in Physics and years of teaching in Physics in lieu of GCSE math? Even after someone asks them to? If he had taken GCSE math at 16 and everything else in his life was exactly the same he would qualify. This is just silly.
antirealist 10.13.04 at 5:09 pm
No-one has commented on the pig-headedness of a Physics Professor not being willing to take GCSE maths.
Perhaps he’s read Ionesco’s The Lacuna.
Nicholas Weininger 10.13.04 at 8:24 pm
I know this will sound curmudgeonly, but Doghouse’s story seems to me to indicate problems with the schools’ division of labor, not the teachers’ qualifications.
I mean, why on earth should an ordinary schoolteacher have to know anything about medications or be able to diagnose learning disabilities? Don’t they have specialists for those things?
As doghouse says, private schools can handle those things however they see fit. Good for the private schools. Bad for the state education bureaucrats who make teachers wear a million hats.
doghouse riley 10.14.04 at 3:42 am
Michael: I meant to suggest that we don’t shape licensing laws to suit the occasional expert who may find the process beneath him. The system seems flexible enough in the main; if Jones-Parry is exceptional someone ought to make that decision, but holding his case up as an example of bureacracy gone mad–and ignoring the other factors involved in teacher licensing–is over the top.
Nicholas: The reason teachers have to know about medications is safety. There are students who have to take meds at particular times, and that classroom teacher is in loco parentis. The teacher has to recognize any signs of trouble from under-or-overdosing. My wife has had two medical emergencies related to medications in her classroom in the past two years. As for learning disabilities, yes, there are experts to whom children are referred, but it’s the classroom teacher who sees their work every day and is the first line of defense. Public schools in the US are required to place children with learning disabilities in mainstream classes as much as possible, so every teacher must be qualified to handle them. Private schools can simply reject students at will and avoid the problem altogether.
Another Damned Medievalist 10.14.04 at 7:31 pm
doghouse riley — that’s all well and good, and were I to teach in a public (US) school, I would consider it necessary to take courses in child/adolescent psych, state education law (unfortunately), etc. Teaching younger people does require some different skill sets than teaching adults. However, I don’t really see that I need any instruction in lesson planning, creating interesting projects, and the myriad of other courses required by education departments across the US in lieu of expertise in a subject.
When I was younger, the norm for 7-12 teachers, at least, was to have a discipline-degree, plus a teaching credential to qualify to teach. That’s still true in some states, but the majority now require a degree in education and two or three courses in the specialty area. In practice, this means that a high school history teacher can be qualified in his subject (’cause it’s often something called ‘Social Studies’) one class in history, one in government, and one in psych. This person would be given preference over the person with grad work in History — a person who also will have taken more courses specifically in the social sciences, as well as in the humanities and hard sciences!
I looked into this at one point, and was told that I would need to go back to school and get an M. Ed. at my own expense, including year of supervised teaching, but that it would not be worth my while, because schools don’t generally like to hire PhDs, since they cost more according to the union contracts and also tended to cause a lot of resentment among senior faculty without advanced degrees. Feh.
Dianne 10.18.04 at 4:28 pm
The Economist ran this story in its latest edition, 15 October, 2004, and perhaps the two cases have been blown out of proportion.
According to the Economist, in the first instance of the head maths teacher from Westminister, he could receive his qualifications in a day if an inspector came to assess him.
In the case of the PhD Physics professor, his qualifications in physics exempts him from having to take his GCSEs.
It appears that it is more a case of the maths and physics teachers not having been properly informed of the exemptions that could apply to them, and moreso do to with the form letters that are usually sent out by bureaucratic administrators regarding qualified teacher status.
Dianne 10.18.04 at 4:29 pm
The Economist ran this story in its latest edition, 15 October, 2004, and perhaps the two cases have been blown out of proportion.
According to the Economist, in the first instance of the head maths teacher from Westminister, he could receive his qualifications in a day if an inspector came to assess him.
In the case of the PhD Physics professor, his qualifications in physics exempts him from having to take his GCSEs.
It appears that it is more a case of the maths and physics teachers not having been properly informed of the exemptions that could apply to them, and moreso do to with the form letters that are usually sent out by bureaucratic administrators regarding qualified teacher status.
Comments on this entry are closed.