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