Are the Right People Becoming Teachers? ( Teachers are NOT Professionals)

EdNews.org ^ | January 9,2007 | Martin Haberman

[wintertime]

(snip)

1. The practitioners know and can do things the public in general cannot do. They have a specialized body of knowledge.

2. The specialized body of knowledge practitioners have takes an extended period of time to learn.

3. The educators who prepare the practitioners are experts who agree upon the specialized body of knowledge practitioners must have.

4. Admission to a professional training program is highly selective.( snip).

6. Only members of the profession set the standards for licensure and certification.

7. The primary responsibility and loyalty of a professional is to serve the client and not simply the institution or governmental agency in which the practitioner may be employed.

8. Neither the public at large nor an employing institution may control the way in which professionals relate to their clients, or the treatments, methods or procedures they use.

9. Neither the public at large nor an employing institution may set the purpose, goals or objectives for the practitioner’s practice with clients.

10. The public at large does not decide how to evaluate professionals.

11. Only members of the profession can determine malpractice and dismiss or disbar practitioners.

12. Professionals determine the cost of their services.

19. Professionals are trained to serve clients with problems. By definition “professionals” do not seek to perform services to clients without problems.

21. Professionals share a code of ethics to which they commit and adhere. They cannot be directed to perform or not perform services for clients which conflict with their professional code.

The case that teaching does not meet any of these twenty one criteria can be readily made.

[sam_paine]

OK -- you have a prof that knows a subject inside out and gives a lecture. Why not have 300 people listen to that lecture.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Are you saying college -is not- about classes of 200-300 or more?

IT MOST CERTAINLY IS!

At least in the public university I attended. Not only that, but there were weed out classes where they intentionally tried to get rid of half the class before major sequence.

[JenB]

I completely agree with that statement. This is one of those areas where it helps to have a broad base of non-homeschoolers who are at least mildly supportive of the concept. We do not have the numbers to fight a really determined government effort on our own. (I will say that the government can have my hypothetical kids, like my guns, from my cold dead hands.)

People like Scotswife who are sympathetic to homeschooling even thoug they have a different bias, are one of our strongest resources. It's not good strategic sense to annoy people of good will just because they're not as fundamentalist as us.

[Boiler Plate]

I would add pilots and operators of complex machinery.

[wintertime]

At least in the public university I attended. Not only that, but there were weed out classes where they intentionally tried to get rid of half the class before major sequence.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Absolutely! Nearly half of my class dropped out after Calculus I and General Chemistry. Another fourth switched to other majors after the first course of Organic Chemistry and Physics for physics majors.

I suggest that all government teachers be required to take and pass Calculus I. Most certainly don't need calculus, but it would assure that they were minimally intelligent enough to be teaching.

[Sloth]

A heart surgeon would refuse to work in an operating room with a heart lung machine that was known to be defective

Not if that was all that was available, because they were working in some poor second-world country (which is what we might as well be, in education).

[ContemptofCourt]

If I gave you the exact work that I do, someone with evil intentions could easily track me. I can only state that it is a profession that requires many more years of formal education after a bachelors degree than teaching. Only those ranking in the top 1 or 2% of intelligence are accepted, or could manage the massive academic work load.

This is laughable and speaks only to your arrogance. And this is not a personal attack, but speaks to your inherent bias in these threads.

[wintertime]

Let me tell you something! The only way to reform GOVERNMENT education systems is to bring in the TRUST BUSTERS and break up the monopoly and let "Independent School Districts" be independent entities again where businesses (aka free market) -can- influence them

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I agree with you post except for the last sentence.

What is needed is complete privatization of universal K-12 education. Even if the school district is small, it can still compel children to attend, and collect taxes by threat of police force. This is still a price-fixed monopoly government school, only smaller.

Also, even if school districts were as small as a suburban subdivision block, there is NO way for any government school to be equally respectful of the competing political, religious, and cultural worldviews of even these few families. No matter what the government does its school will ***establish** the religion, politics, and culture of some of the families, and actively work to destroy the religious, cultural, and political beliefs of some.

Establish?...Hm?...This does have a First Amendment ring to it. Therefore, all government schools are an offense to freedom of conscience.

Solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education.

My suggestion to parents is to examine the entire premise of institutionalizing their child for his education. It is NOT physically, emotionally, or socially normal or healthy to segregate children into same age packs and then herd them about to Pavlov's bell.

The home, extended family, and the neighborhood has been the model for raising children since the dawn of humanity. Institutionalization of children for "schooling" is a very new phenomena. Yes, some children will need institutionalization. If this is necessary, then the best option are private schools, chosen for the child by his parent.

[perseid 67]

When you say need to be institutionalized, do you mean the children of people who just don't want to educate their kids or can't because they must work every waking moment in order to make ends meet? I think I know the answer.

[wintertime]

Not if that was all that was available, because they were working in some poor second-world country (which is what we might as well be, in education).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hm?...Interesting point. Are you comparing U.S. government schools to the Third World?

As for the heart surgeon, he may or may not perform the operation. If the patient's chances for a longer and more satisfying life would be greater without the operation ( using defective equipment), then he would **not** perform the operation. As a professional with training and experience, not available to even the most enthusiastic amateur, he is capable of making that decision.

[wintertime]

If I gave you the exact work that I do, someone with evil intentions could easily track me. I can only state that it is a profession that requires many more years of formal education after a bachelors degree than teaching. Only those ranking in the top 1 or 2% of intelligence are accepted, or could manage the massive academic work load. (Wintertime's straightforward description)

This is laughable and speaks only to your arrogance. And this is not a personal attack, but speaks to your inherent bias in these threads.( ContemptofCourt's personal attack) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

More personal attack.

[wintertime]

When you say need to be institutionalized, do you mean the children of people who just don't want to educate their kids or can't because they must work every waking moment in order to make ends meet? I think I know the answer.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There are many reasons why children need to institutionalized for their schooling: Extreme poverty, illegitimacy, divorce, mental illness or mental retardation of the parent, ill health, extreme family dysfunction, some immigrants, or the parents were so poorly educated by the government that they are incapable of teaching their children. ( This is only a partial list.)

Obviously, unless the parent can delegate the education of their child to a friend, neighbor, or other relative, these children will need to be institutionalized.

Yes, we will always have children who must be institutionalized for their schooling. We have orphanages too, but, no one is suggesting that this is the best way to raise a child.

[sam_paine]

Also, even if school districts were as small as a suburban subdivision block, there is NO way for any government school to be equally respectful of the competing political, religious, and cultural worldviews of even these few families.

Here I suppose we must disagree.

I do not believe that schools can be 100% de-governmentized. I still think that gov't can provide funding in the form of vouchers, and yes, there will be strings attached.

But for certain districts, business just won't bother if it's 100% privatized.

And yeah, I think school districts out in the country have a better chance of reflecting American/local values than suburbian generic-land more than inner-city malaise more than left-coast marxists.

[jude24]

I doubt that she will be impressed by your JD (nor mine...did I mention I graduated magna cum laude?), as you did not have to take Calculus III (whatever that is) to earn the degree, and therefore you have not taken one of the core courses necessary to determine your true intelligence (apparently).

I'm 5/6ths of the way through my JD (and did fairly well). I've also earned a B/S in Chemistry, and had to take Calc. III and Quantum Mechanics, and Synthetic Organic Chemistry among other courses. While I would never characterize a JD as "easy," I have yet to find a law school class that was as difficult as Synthetic Organic Chemistry or Quantum Mechanics.

In fairness, however, it is my impression that the kind of thinking law school requires is different, and not necessarily "easier." I also am not sure if I learned better study habits from my experience in undergrad.

[jude24]

More personal attack.

Not all personal attacks are unjustified. This one apparently is entirely justified. Your debating tactics have alienated even your ideological allies.

[LanPB01]

I don't presume to think all law school graduates are the brightest society has to offer. I felt it was almost like a war of attrition; the constant reading of boring case law wears you down. However, I'm sure there are several engineers, chemists, etc. who would think law school was much harder than the hard science classes they were used to, simply because the material was so different.

Chemistry and biology were never my strong points, and I only took the basics in each while an undergraduate. There was a guy in my law class who was also taking some graduate courses (I believe in chemistry) while also pursuing his JD. He was hoping to become a patent attorney with Proctor & Gamble, if I recall correctly.

[jude24]

I felt it was almost like a war of attrition; the constant reading of boring case law wears you down.

Sounds about right!

However, I'm sure there are several engineers, chemists, etc. who would think law school was much harder than the hard science classes they were used to, simply because the material was so different.

Oh, I know a couple. For some reason, my graduating class has a large number of techies. Some struggled. Others thrived - in part because I told myself, "I passed Synth Orgo - Contracts can't scare me."

There was a guy in my law class who was also taking some graduate courses (I believe in chemistry) while also pursuing his JD. He was hoping to become a patent attorney with Proctor & Gamble, if I recall correctly.

My favorite was the RF engineer who was a professor at a local Institute of Technology who was earning his JD so he could teach law for techies.

[perseid 67]

The Swedish version of CPS took children away from a woman a few years ago claiming she was retarded.

Later tests showed she had an I.Q. of 90.

They never gave the child back.

Houston CPS took a little girl away from a carpenter who had IQ of 70 and gave the girl to the man's more intelligent sister. The child was then beaten to death.

These stories make me ill.

Children need parents who love them more than they need egg heads.

[Ace of Spades]

It's rather ironic that you, who compares the teachers and parents of public school children to child abusers, would complain about "personal attacks". That shoe doesn't feel good on the other foot, does it?

[ContemptofCourt]

It is not a personal attack, wintertime. You sit here and spout off all your wonderous (yet nebulous) accomplishments, and expect us to just take them at your word. In a nutshell, for you to say with a straight face that your educational institution only accepts "those ranking in the top 1 or 2% of intelligence" because of the "massice academic work load" is just ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is that you can't tell us what your profession is because "someone with evil intentions" could "easily" track you down. If this is true, then you must be the only one in your profession.

Moreover, your entire thread is a rant...bascially, you are calling all public school teachers stupid, indeed, way too stupid to be teaching your oh-so-smart children. Yet others on this thread have pointed out to you that in some states, private school teachers are less regulated and less qualified than public school teachers.

Quite honestly, I could care less if my kids' english teacher could pass Calc III; I'd be more concerned that the english teacher could diagram a sentence, or explain the nuances of a classic novel. To be sure, this thread clearly states the case that just because you can master Calc III, does not mean you can debate an issue.

[ContemptofCourt]

Law school is not particularly difficult. There are no difficult concepts to master. Instead, the three years are spent learning to think like a lawyer. That is the difficult part...because alot of what we do is quite unnatural.

I'll never forget telling my legal writing insturctor that I had to unlearn everything I ever knew about writing to ace her class. She didn't appreciate that comment, but it was true (and I promptly unlearned everything she tried to cram down my throat).