The Credentialing Scam

I'd be all in favor of teacher credentialing if it produced better teachers . . . but it doesn't. Teacher credentialing is a big scam.

I taught for several years at parochial school where a teaching credential was encouraged but not essential. Upon the advice of my former principal, I enrolled in a credentialing program. I had asked my principal if there was any evidence that a credential makes for a better teacher. She answered that she was not aware of any. A huge warning flag went up in my mind.

I was not enthusiastic about pursuing a credential. I had already earned a bachelor's of science and masters of science in engineering, and was reluctant to invest another two years in a program that I felt was superfluous. My wife reminded me, however  that the credential was part of the teaching landscape and that I should, in her words, 'suck it up' and get it done.

I did enroll in an expensive university, where I endeared myself to various instructors by posing the same question that I had posed to my principal. Two years and tens of thousand of dollars later I still had no satisfactory answer.

It turns out that there has been at least one serious study on the value of credentialing. As Dr. Sandra Stotsky observes:

"The 2008 final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel found that teachers who completed a traditional teacher preparation program have no higher student performance on average than do other teachers....Nor could the Panel find a body of evidence to support the efficacy of professional development in raising student achievement, whether or not it had increased teachers’ knowledge of their subject. The Panel did find a body of credible research on one characteristic of an effective teacher: knowledge of the subject they teach. It was significantly related to student achievement. The more academically competent the teacher is, the more students learn.¹"

So . . . If credentialing does not produce demonstrably better teachers, Why is it required? I have no doubt that the major reason we continue down this dead-end path is because the established interest want it so. It is the way politicians from both major parties want it. It is the way the teacher unions want it. It is the way the pundits of any university's school of education want it.

There is an interesting, albeit disturbing history behind licensing and credentialing. Historically it served as a means by which establishment interest eliminated competition. It was in the 1930's when white laborers compelled their politicians to invoke licensing requirements. Licensing served the interest of white laborers who could afford to pay for licenses. Their minority counterparts were just as qualified as white laborers, and were often willing to do the work for less. However, they could often not afford to go through licensing procedure.

I don't believe that modern advocates of credentialing are as blatantly racist as the bigots of yore, but I have no doubt that the modern process achieves the same ends. It clearly keeps good people out of the exiting, glamorous, lucrative teaching profession.

I personally know several people who have expressed interest in teaching. These were successful, highly educated men and women who wanted to contribute something special to the next generation. When I described the hoops that one had to jump through to get the silly teaching credential, most realize that it's not worth the bother. Successful people generally have other options, and won't endure the aggravation of getting the meaningless credential.

Several years ago I read about an amazing man (regretfully, I do not remember the name) who had become a Silicon Valley billionaire. For philanthropic reasons (he certainly didn't need the money) he wanted to donate his time and valuable experience by teaching in the classroom. His inquiries, however were rebuffed by some officious bureaucrat, who informed this distinguished gentleman that he was not qualified to teach, for he lacked a teaching credential. The establishment wins, the kids lose.

My teaching credential came with a Masters Degree in Education. I can vouch that earning this degree is no great distinction. It's a bunch of fluff. Coursework included:

1.                  Lots of busy work. A typical course required that the student write edu-babble synopsis of edu-babble papers by various 'educational theorists'. Most, if not all of these papers were quite irrelevant to the day-to-day business of teaching.

2.                  There were three different required classes emphasizing teaching to English learners. Professors often lamented how California voters had already rejected bilingual education.

3.                  A class on teaching special education. There was some worthwhile information, but it could have been covered in a 1 hour seminar. Not full semester class at $1000/unit

4.                  The most nonsensical class was called 'Psychology of Education'. The professor spent an inordinate amount of time on 'Ice Breakers'. This class was absolutely irrelevant to real teaching.

Teaching is an art. You either have the gift our you don't. No amount of licensing, credentialing, or professional development is going to turn a mediocre teacher into a good one. A well educated teacher has already had two decades of schooling, and presumably has seen dozens of different teaching styles and methods. Enough with the credentialing already. It doesn't work.

To those that demand teacher credentialing, I'd ask: "Why not mandatory credentialing for college teachers? Why the double standard?" One obvious answer is that college teachers won't tolerate the nonsense.

One final irony is that according to the State of California, William Shakespeare would not be permitted to teach a high school class on Shakespeare. One can imagine some pompous administrator explaining to the great bard that he lacks the qualifications to teach because he has not taken "English as a second language" class. Likewise, Albert Einstein would not be qualified to teach high school physics, for he lacks the necessary credential. One can imagine the same imperious bureaucrat breaking the news to Dr. Einstein: "I see that you have won a Nobel Prize. Your resume is impressive, having discovered vast secrets of the universe, but you simply don't have the qualifications to teach. You haven't completed your 'Psychology of Education Class'. . ."

¹"What we need instead of Common Core" Sandra Stotsky, Ed.D. Professor Emerita at University of Arkansas. July 5, 2014

Social Justice is Not the Same as Justice

In pursuing my teaching credential, I had numerous professors reference something called 'social justice'. Although I had studied numerous reading assignments that refer to this topic, there was no clear, constant definition. None-the-less, this 'social justice' thing is obviously an emphasis in schools so perhaps it deserves a little scrutiny here.

It's a little trite for some pompous 'educational theorist' to come out in favor of 'social justice'. I think we can assume that all reasonable people support justice, just as all normal people favor goodness and niceness. So why do educators insist on making these empty proclamations on how they believe in social justice?

Just what is 'social justice', and why do people insist on using this phrase when the word 'justice' should suffice? I know what the word 'social' means, and I know what the words 'justice' means. Put these words together and you have a phrase that takes on completely new, and amorphous meaning. Perhaps the semantics are deliberately vague so it can mean anything to anyone. That way none can object to it. One definition found on the internet states that: "Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality  and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being". ¹

Sounds great, but it's not exactly novel. I think America's constitution covered that ground centuries ago. A great deal of thought and effort was made to insure liberty and justice for all. We even have a federal agency called the 'Department of Justice'.

One of the most influential 'educational theorist' of modern times was a Marxist named Paolo Freire. Freire advocated that all teachers proselytize his particular brand of 'social justice', stating that:  “There is no such thing as a neutral education process.”²  Freire believed that his social justice agenda should be incorporated into every subject. An example of a math problem that Freire might approve could look like this: If there are 16 exploitive capitalists in the room and 23 enlightened progressives, then what is the ratio of capitalist exploiter to enlightened progressive?

America's traditional notion of  'justice' entails respect for property rights. Freire's notion of 'social justice' does not. Tragically, innumerable educational professors who refer to Freire as a guru. Personally, I found his opus 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' so tedious that I felt that I was the one being oppressed by being required to read it. If you have a masochistic bent, then read it for yourself and you will see what I mean.

In practice, 'social justice' is simply a euphemism for the redistribution of wealth. That is the not-too-subtle message that I gleaned from the credentialing program. I believe there is a hidden agenda in many schools to promote socialist, activist teachers, who in turn churn out little semi-literate socialists, activists, community organizing students. I find it sadly ironic that so many teachers can't teach kids to read or do arithmetic, yet they presume full authority to re-make society.

Any modification of  'justice' is uncalled for. America's founding fathers outlined a formula for social justice far superior to anything Paolo Freire, or any other 'educational theorist' could envision. Our founding fathers understood that justice springs from liberty. These enlightened men also realized that there is no justice without freedom, and there is no freedom without a free market and property rights.

I would strongly recommend to parents that if the neighborhood school features activist teachers that proselytize  'social justice', then pull their kids out. Children don't need this kind of social agenda being forced down their impressionable little throats. Instead, find an alternative school where teachers emphasize good old fashioned history, reading, writing, and arithmetic. A true appreciation of justice will surely follow.

1. Education and Social Justice, J. Zajda, S. Majhanovich, V. Rust, 2006

2    The Pedagogy of The Oppressed, Paolo Freire, 1968

iPads in the Classroom and The Delusion of Progress

When I first read that LAUSD planned to spend over a billion dollars to provide iPads for students, my first reactions were

1.      Thank God I don't live in that district

2.      I've got to buy some Apple stock. (I don't think that students will benefit from the program, but Apple shareholders will)

My lack of enthusiasm for the program stems from personal experience. A few years ago, my former principal expressed interest in an iPad program for the school. I even accompanied her to an open house at a different school where visiting teachers could observe iPads being used in the classroom. On that fateful day, we watched the little children work away on their school provided iPads (it was all completely natural and un-staged, of course). Most interestingly, however, there were Apple consultants on campus, eagerly promoting the agenda.

It comes as no surprise that kids like using iPads. Everyone knows that kids like playing games on machines. It's also no surprise that so many teachers love iPads. This business is saturated with educators that follow any unproved fad in their thirst for novelty. What did impress me was that Apple scored a brilliant coup by successfully hawking its machines to schools. It is truly an ingenious marketing program by the world's largest corporation. In these small, impressionable school children Apple has found a captive market. Each grade level represents a fresh, new generation of customers.

I had to ask one of the teachers at the iPad school if there was any way of measuring the success of their program. Did standardized test scores improve as a result of using these machines? I got a blank look from the teacher, then he replied: "I don't know." At this point, a big warning flag went up in my mind.

Rather than troubling herself with such an inconvenient question, our principal immediately 'drank the kool-aid' and bought into the program. More appropriately, I should say that she compelled parents of our students to buy into program. They were the ones footing the bill.

At a parent-teacher assembly she repeated the same platitudes she heard from Apple's marketing dept. about how there was an urgent need to modernize the classroom, and how employees of the future need technological literacy, etc. etc. I couldn't help but recall the Far Side comic featuring proud parents watching their child playing a video game, while imagining the valuable career skills he is developing.

These parents trusted the principal, and bought in.

Selling the program to the parents was one thing, selling the program to faculty was another. Initially she assured teachers that it was merely a new tool for classroom enhancement. Later, however, she changed the tune, making future employment at the school contingent upon the teacher's centering the classroom around the iPad.

I'm not against technology in the classroom. I love technology! I'm using it right now to right this article! iPads have much to offer, and kids love them, and there are many ingenious learning apps available for small children. However, parents, and other tax payers should be cautioned that iPads are no panacea.

So, now our school had iPads. After three years of the program, however, I was completely underwhelmed by the results. Far too much class time was wasted because of those damn machines. My jr. high students were constantly gaming during instruction time. Routinely while perusing student work, I would see students closing a window or game just as I approached. Students constantly used devises for inappropriate communication. Frequently - during class time, principal or vice principal would come into class to confiscate student's iPads. Massive amount of time taken for faculty to examine machines for inappropriate material. The time taken away from learning was incalculable. It actually came as a relief to me when I went to a new school that did not emphasize this technology.

The iPad program is one of the reasons that my wife and I would not send our kids to the school at which I worked. We aren't infatuated by the thought of our kids spending more time in front of a screen. They get enough screen time as it is. If anything, I want them to spend less time in front of a tube.

Ultimately, the iPad program should be subjected to the 'Criteria For Success' outlined in a previous blog. Parent's shouldn't necessarily trust a starry-eyed teacher who claims: "We use iPads in the classroom, and the kids love it!" The success of a program must be measurable, and more substantial than some teacher's anecdotal observations. The question should be: "Do standardized test scores improve?" 

I'm sure the good people of Apple would answer: "Of course scores will improve". I trust the good people of Apple, but I want to be able to verify the results. This question should be answered by a series of non-biased academic studies replete with test and control groups. The final measure should be based upon standardized test scores. 

I know of no such formal study, but my own empirical evidence is that there was absolutely no measurable improvement. I taught for three years at the school after iPads were introduced. Yes, students were quite tech savvy, but academically they seemed to be worse and worse off each year. I do not have high hopes for their futures.

I have no doubt that LAUSD will declare that their expensive iPad program is an unmitigated success. I have no doubt that LAUSD will demand more tax payer money for this and other programs.  I also have no doubt that LAUSD will continue to under-perform. On a happier note: I did buy Apple stock, and it's performing quite well!

The Detrimental Monopoly of Public Schools

Most public school teachers can recite by rote the evils of corporate monopolies: If one corporation dominates an industry, the customer has no choice but to buy from the monopoly. The cost goes up, the quality of service goes down, etc. etc.

Ironically, few school teachers object to the monopoly of public schools. The public school system enjoys a monopoly that would be illegal in the private sector. Parents are forced to send their kids to community schools. Even if another public school is willing to accept the out of town student, parents need a release from the home district. The home districts are often unwilling to surrender the student because that would entail a loss of state funds. This is tantamount to a customer wanting to buy a Ford, but first needs permission from General Motors.

Free market monopolies are quite rare. Any monopoly will in theory, take advantage of a captive market where there is little incentive to control cost or provide customer satisfaction. Such monopolies don't actually exists for long in a free market, where aggressive competitors are always eager to chip away at market share.

The public school system, however, is a state enforced monopoly. As with any other monopoly, the cost goes up, quality of service goes down, and the customer is screwed. If parents live in a nice neighborhood with good schools, this isn't a problem, but it's dreadfully unfair to low income families living in under-performing school districts. Granted, parents can opt out of the public schools by sending their children to private schools, but such an option is available only for the well to do. Until the poor are offered school vouchers, free choice is not an alternative.

I once taught at a parochial school that served mainly minority students from low to middle income families. Many parents confided to me that they chose parochial school because their own neighborhood schools were a disaster. Some of these parents were new to America and could barely speak English, yet they were willing to work two jobs to raise money to pay for private education. They recognized that private school was the only hope for their children.

In Missouri a few years ago, parents sued the local school district demanding that the failing local district pick up tab for sending their kids to more successful schools outside the local district. Critics of the suit included the old guard establishment of politicians, teachers, unions and administrators who base their arguments upon what is good for the failing school; not what is good for individual students. One can only hope that with time, more and more parents will challenge the behemoth of the public school monopoly.

Advocates of the status quo will sound the same dull note: "We need more money for our failing schools!" It is a law of nature that schools always demand more money. But why throw good money after bad? The problem here is not a lack of funds. The problem is a lack of competition. True reform entails ending the monopoly of the public school system. True reform begins by subjecting public schools to the same disciplines as private enterprises. A school must be compelled to provide a superior service for a reasonable price. If not, it must be allowed to go out of business.

Let public schools compete for business. It should be the parents that choose what school is best for their children, not school administrators, teacher unions, or politicians. The law needs to be changed so that parents are allowed to send their kids to any public school that will accept them. Perhaps locals should have priority registration in favor of out of town families. I would certainly be upset if my local school didn't have room for my kids. Aside from that restriction, I say bust up the monopolies and let freedom reign!

The Detrimental Influence of Teacher Unions

At their inception in the late Nineteenth Century, the U.S. labor union movement was certainly a legitimate response to real problems in a rapidly growing economy. However, unions have not always lived up to their high purpose. For example, after the Civil War a major preoccupation of the labor union was to limit the ability of black migrants from the South to compete in the labor market with white union members. For example, the Davis Bacon Act of 1931, explicitly passed for this precise purpose, mandated union scale wages for all government contracts, thus neatly preventing black workers from competing financially by offering to do the same job for less

I have no objection to unions as such, which are in fact a natural expression of the free market. Optimally, organized labor negotiates with management to establish fair and realistic wages. Ideally, this should be an adversarial, yet mutually constructive relationship.

I do object, however, to teacher unions. With whom does the teacher's union negotiate? When the person on the other side of the bargaining table is a political entity, and often dependent upon union support (especially at election time), that "healthy adversarial relationship" is obviously missing. This dilemma, of course, is inescapable with any public union. Even FDR - certainly no opponent of unions in general - was opposed to public employee unions.

Teacher unions then  make huge, huge bribes (excuse me, the polite term is 'donation', not 'bribe') to politicians. These obscenely large political donations are used solely to protect union interest. For example, whenever a proposition is put forth to allow poor families school vouchers, the unions will spend vast sums to defeat the measure. Teacher unions protect their own turf.

I have worked many years at a private school under 'at will' contract with no union representation.  I could leave my position at will any time for any reason. No questions asked. I could also be fired any time for any reason. No questions asked. Consequently, all teachers at my school knew that they had to perform at the top of their game each and every day. Not surprisingly, we had a staff of very responsible, competent teachers who took their jobs quite seriously.

Compare to the public schools where teachers are represented by teacher unions. Bad or mediocre teachers are protected by the system where it is difficult or impossible to terminate a bad teacher.  It's a system that benefits bad teachers to the detriment of students. Teachers claim: 'We need to be protected from a bad principal', to which I would answer: Every profession entails employees and bosses. Some bosses are fair, some aren't. What's so special about the teaching profession such that it is shielded from workplace realities? I say, if a teacher doesn't like his or her principal: Find another job and quit whining. I did (I got a new job, but I still whine a lot).

Union apologist argue that we need the union to enforce fairness when it comes to hiring and firing. To this argument, I would answer: No we don't.

Teachers should face the same realities as do other employees. Union rules specify that seniority dictates lay-offs. This situation benefits mediocre teachers at the expense of children. Ask yourself this: Would you want to patronize a hospital where old incompetent doctors are kept, young and more capable doctors are let go? Would you be getting the very best possible health care? Hiring and firing decisions should be left to the school's principal. If the principal habitually makes bad, unfair decisions, then he or she should be let go.

Meaningful reform will never come as long as teacher unions have any say in the matter. Unions will never voluntarily surrender control. Their tired mantra always has been, and always shall be: "Give us more money and we will fix the problem".  Teacher unions won't fix the problem: They are the problem.

$$$ RFK School, Los Angeles $$$

I recently toured Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) new showpiece, the RFK school in downtown Los Angeles. I had mixed feelings about this visit. On one hand I felt despair for the community. On the other hand, I felt a sense of relief that I don't live in the school district, and won't be taxed for this 'Taj Mahal' of a monstrosity.

For those fortunate enough not to live within this school district and haven't followed the story: The Robert F. Kennedy School is the most expensive public school in our nation's history. The $578 million dollar campus built on the site of the historic Ambassador Hotel where the former senator was assassinated. This new complex serves roughly 4000 students in downtown Los Angeles. For LAUSD grads that need help with the math, that averages to about $150,000 per student. What is most galling to taxpayers is that this facility was built at a time that LAUSD experienced a budget shortfall of 640 million, and had recently laid off 3000 employees. Furthermore, the district has recently proposed shortening the school year to save money. In all fairness to planners, however, funds for construction were paid for by bond measures approved by voters. These funds were specifically earmarked for new construction, not teacher salaries.

Imagine giving public school teachers carte blanche to build the campus of their dreams (on your dime) and they would produce the RFK School. This spectacular complex covers 23 acres of urban Los Angeles. It includes 6 separate campuses, each with its own educational objectives. The facility is replete with:

1.      State of the art swimming pool

2.      State of the art technology in each classroom

3.      Luxurious auditoriums

4.      A 10 acre park

5.      A Faculty dining room 'better than most restaurants'

6.      A Faculty room that looks more like a luxury lounge of a posh resort

7.      One million dollars worth of art work. Perhaps the most striking is a mural in the library featuring RFK as he benignly looks down upon an adoring crowd. The jubilant mob is ecstatic as they reach their hands upwards to touch their chosen one, their messiah. It's interesting imagery.

The district obviously wanted this school to serve as an inspirational showpiece, imagining that it would be a pilot school for others. It's quite a lofty ambition from the district that features one of the highest drop-out rates in the state. I confidently predict, however that the quality of education in this district will remain unchanged, and the dismal graduation rate will not improve. LAUSD clearly does not understand that it has deep set problems that are not solved by throwing money at it.  Furthermore, taxpayers are foolish to believe that the profligate spending has stopped. Not by a long shot! This facility will require vast recourses required to keep it afloat. Surely RFK will continue to bleed the community dry. The flow of money that RFK has enjoyed at the onset will not continue. I predict that what is now a beautiful campus will over the years degrade into a graffiti covered wreck, blending in with the surrounding neighborhood. I see no reason to believe that the district will manage these buildings any better than other schools within its domain.

The predictable response from the school board shall certainly be the same old tired refrain: "We need more money". They always need more and more money. They always have. They always will.

Yet LAUSD cannot afford to let it's showpiece fail. The district will continue to pour inordinate amount of money into this boondoggle to keep it afloat, depriving other schools within district of much needed largess. Consequently, all schools within LAUSD will ultimately suffer.

I will joyfully retract any criticism of the RFK complex if it can be demonstrated that the people of Los Angeles are getting 'bang for the buck'. The good people of this community should demand accountability from the school board. They should be asking:

1. Have the disastrous drop-out rates of LAUSD improved?
2. Are LAUSD graduates college ready?
3. Have standardized test scores improved?
4. Could it have been done for less money?

The last question was somewhat rhetorical, as that I know the answer. I worked for nine years at a modest little parochial school that serves clientele of similar socio-economic status as that of RFK. Its tuition was under $4,000 per year, and its graduation rate of college ready students was close to 100%. It posed no tax burden upon the community. I would challenge any school within LAUSD to match that level of success on that budget. 

Edu Babble: The Jargon of Bad Teachers

Child: "Mommy! Guess what, I scored a hundred on my authentic summative assessment!"

Mother: "What subject?"

Child: "Multiple contextualized digital mashup literacies."

Mother: "I am so proud!"

Such an exchange would sound ridiculous between mother and child. It sounds just as ridiculous when coming from teachers who insist on speaking edu-babble. Many vocations need specialized jargon. It stands to reason that professionals need a specialized language to communicate with colleagues, one that might sound foreign to the ear of those outside the field. Teaching is no exception, but something in the teaching profession went ridiculously wrong. Its specialized jargon is just silly. This teacher's jargon, this edu-babble does not serve to enhance communication with colleagues, students, or their parents. If anything, it does just the opposite. It serves to obfuscate.

Most edu-babble terms are superfluous. Terms are bandied about when conventional English would suffice just fine. For example, the word 'pedagogy' is often used instead of the word 'teaching'. I suspect that some time ago some 'educational theorist' (I hate that expression, more on that later) used this term in some pompous, unreadable article and the expression stuck. Perhaps these writers think that such terminology helps legitimize the topic: "Look at us, we are almost like science!"

Teachers don't use the words 'test' or 'quiz' anymore. The appropriate terms this week are 'assessment' or 'evaluation'. More 'enlightened' teachers offer 'authentic evaluations'.  Imagine a teacher telling students: "Please clear your desks. It's time for our authentic evaluation".

In practice, teachers mercifully don't use edu-babble in the classroom. Nor do polite teachers waste parent's time with such artificial prose. I suspect that teachers that do overuse the lingo when conferring with parents are just trying to show off. It is as if to say: "Look at me. I can use all these fancy words that you don't know. I am the professional, you are just some dumb rube."

Edu-babble doesn't serve student or parents. It serves bad teachers who hide behind the jargon. I have attended many a tedious meeting where teachers seem to be showing off for one another by demonstrating their fluency in edu-babble. Edu-babble is also pleasing to those in the Education departments of universities, whose bread and butter depend it. Educational articles are typically tedious things. Writers tend to go overboard trying to impress their fellow 'educational theorist' (Ugh!) with their pseudo-intellectual sounding erudition. I suspect that these writers enjoy conjuring new phrases in hope that these terms find a permanent home in the edu-babble lexicon.

It's worth noting that most college professors eschew edu-babble. College professors are not required to have teaching credentials, and so are spared the experience of attending Schools of Education. Yet, somehow they manage to communicate with peers

.

There is a funny web-site that explains what some edu-babble terms really mean: http://www.illinoisloop.org/buzzwords.html

A few examples include:

1. Lifelong learning: They won't learn much around here, so we'll show them how to look it up later
2. Authentic assessment: Subjective, touchie-feelie measures of vaguely-defined goals
3. Collaborative projects: learn how to run in packs and let someone else do the work
4. Technology: an expensive way to have even more projects
5. A degree in Education: Shows high tolerance for mindless ed school drivel
6. Research has shown: Other people say so, too

Introduction: Why This Blog Exists

   When I mentioned to a former colleague that I wanted to create this blog, she indignantly said: "Why, so you can trash your profession?"

   Nothing could be farther from the truth. I do not want to trash my profession, I want to help improve it vis-à-vis an honest critique.