Sometimes....

they just make it too easy.

There's a column in today's newspaper about "licensing" instead of "certifying" teachers, you know, like doctors and lawyers. It's written by, you guessed it, one of the education-types.

One good thing is she acknowledges, at least infers, that teachers are getting worse. She recognizes that merely certifying, instead of licensing, isn't working, isn't producing quality at all. Of course, certification, esp student teaching, has been a scam all along perpetrated by the ed schools, maybe even the teachers' unions, who knows? There's no need for student teaching. Requiring a year of substituting after a couple of appropriate classes/courses would be much, much more beneficial. (On a similar note, I had a conversation with one of my professors while I was at Amherst a couple weeks ago--was that two weeks ago already??? He suggested, after having worked with another professor who rose from the high school teaching ranks, that perhaps high school teaching should be required before college teaching. Hmmmm.) But, I digress.

In this article, there is nothing there about subject material, nothing about knowing math, history, English, etc. In her defense, perhaps she assumes that college graduates know this stuff. I think that is a false assumption, that is, if that's what she assumes. I really believe she, like all education-types, has no use for knowledge. Actually knowing things isn't important. It's all about other things--you've heard the buzzwords, "critical thinking," etc. The education-types haven't yet caught on that one can't think critically in a vacuum, that is, without knowledge.

It reminds me of about 10 years ago, when the local district was seeking a superintendent. I sat through two meetings, one of teachers, the other of community members, listing the qualities the district should look for in a super. After sitting through one and half of the other, I realized nobody, not a single person, said that experience with quality in education was important. Oh, they had all the good: "good communicator," "articulate," "up on the latest trends," etc. But never was there anything about having experienced rigor, quality in education. So, I finally raised my hand and said, "What about experience with quality education?" The Oakland Schools "facilitator" (now there's an education word!) just looked at me, didn't write it on her big easel of paper (there's another education thing!), said nothing, and inquired what other qualities were desirable. I just laughed at her (and the people in the meeting) and got up and walked out. The principal glared at me as I was leaving, but likely knew not to require me to stay. (I can be quite a pain in the neck when upset.) That's like this lady who wrote the article.

Speaking of education, I was reminded of the absurdity of those I worked for over the years. I forgot what it was, something from the Obama camp--say to do one thing, but don't really do it. How many times over the years, from one, two, three, four principals and how many assistant principals?, was it "Raise expectations!" Of course, when expectations were raised and grades were low, it became apparent from their responses that they were "just kidding" about raising expectations. It was like one of my brightest colleagues used to say, "Give 'em good grades, but don't make them work for them."

Until people recognize the folly being perpetrated in the schools, education is doomed. There are no leaders either able or willing to require what is required for schools to succeed.