Teachers as professionals
The subject of teacher competency has become a central issue in analyzing the
problems that are associated with current school processes. Critical to this
analysis are the views that are portrayed by those seeking to reform the
educational process and the views that are articulated by the general public.
For the most part, a generally negative portrayal of teachers is espoused by
these groups. Technocrats, seeking to improve test scores and the productivity
of the educational process, view teachers as in need of a more regimented and
structured curriculum that is intended to produce a homogenized student body.
The public generally views the teacher as incompetent and unskilled. This
portrayal can be discerned from editorials in newspapers and from general
conversations with adults of school age children. The problem with both of these
views is that they do not address the process of education, but focus on the
outcomes of the process. Thus the questions of whether teachers are as good as
they use to be and what can be done to improve teaching skills becomes centered
on the issue of how to increase productivity.
Absent from this analysis is a real conversation and dialogue with teachers.
This point is exemplified in the papers of Andrew Gitlin and Eleanor Hilty.
Perhaps Gitlin says it best when he states that teachers have little opportunity
to speak out about teaching. Since the nature of the learning process can be
seen as ambiguous at times, teachers are fearful that unless the learning
process can be articulated by certain true and tried pedagogical methods,
teachers will be looked upon as incompetent. An acceptance of this ambiguity is
crucial if meaningful discussions on the educational process are to be voiced.
This viewpoint is further collaborated by Hilty who accepts that good teaching
defies simple explanations. As she states, good teaching is a process that is
“defined and mediated by the experiences of a particular teacher and a group
of students.” Deborah Britzman further elaborates on the ambiguity of the
educational process by articulating how the teacher is “intellectually and
emotionally open to that which one cannot foresee, predict, or control.” The
central point for all three writers is that the educational process is not a
certain technological process by which a predicted outcome can be obtained.
In reviewing these points of view, I must at first dismiss the question of
whether teachers are as good as they use to be. I dismiss it on the grounds that
this has no valid connection to the current educational issues, whether a person
thinks teachers are better or not. In fact, teachers today are required to meet
more stringent guidelines for certification. This in itself requires a more
formal study of educational processes and techniques. Furthermore, certification
requires a background in certain areas of mastery that implies a greater
competency of teachers entering the field. It seems to me, the days in which the
housewife or local church minister are immediately allowed to teach are quickly
fading into the nostalgic past that Britzman adequately identifies.
Putting this useless question aside, the important concern becomes what can be
done to make teachers more professional and successful in their endeavors. All
the writers are equally in agreement that the recent school reforms have done
little to enhance the teachers' abilities. The tougher competency requirements
in student performance, the establishing of curriculum guidelines that every
teacher is to follow, the lack of opportunity for professional development both
in the administrative and the content area, all have contributed to a general
decline in teacher morale and work habits. I am in agreement with the
suggestions that teachers need to have more say in how curriculum and
educational processes are developed.
Having accepted this, I must ask a more pertinent question. Are not teachers
responsible for what occurs in the classroom? Are teachers simply concerned with
a struggle to maintain their control over the educational process? If not, do
teachers actively give students an opportunity to “speak out about
teaching?” It seems to me that in accepting the challenge to impart knowledge
in a truly ambiguous and uncertain environment implies a recognition of this
fact at the outset. I cannot help from wondering if the “dumbing-down” of
the educational process, as it has been called, has not in part occurred due to
teacher's failure to confront and accept the challenges of the situation. Anyone
walking into a classroom can expect to be confronted with twenty to thirty-five
individuals whom all have arrived with conflicting views, values, and beliefs.
To ignore this reality leads to an educational approach that may be comfortable
for the teacher, but has little relevancy to the students. At a most basic
level, it seems to me that the student must have some say about what the process
should be like.
At this point I am sure someone will argue that students are not competent to be
involved in such critical decisions. If this be accepted as true, then I believe
we have a false and unreal view of the abilities and aspirations of students.
The truth is that students arrive in school with very deeply held views of the
world. Students do not arrive in the classroom with a blank mind that needs to
be filled with “true” knowledge. Life experiences have filled the students'
memory with valid observations, opinions, and values that have been acquired
through the socialization process of life. Teachers must accept the political
nature of teaching and also “acknowledge differences among students.” To
place the blame on the politics of the powerful is to shrug the responsibility
that every teacher has accepted by right. In accepting this responsibility,
teachers must see the student as an active voice in the process. To deny them
this right is to subordinate them to a position of being controlled, whether one
works from a conservative ideology or more liberal ideology. Is it possible that
teachers are screaming for their academic and professional rights and yet
denying the rights of students to a voice in the same educational process?
Students have much to say about what they like and do not like in the
educational process. Ignoring this voice will do little to solve the educational
“crisis.” Equally, denying this voice can only lead to the kind of criticism
of the educational experience that individuals as Magda Lewis have promoted. I
will grant that my direct experiences in the educational process are limited.
However, I have found that students, when given a chance to discuss the
educational process, can respond in competent and meaningful ways on what they
would like the process to be. This response will change with the context and
make-up of any class. As “professionals,” teachers must be willing to
recognize this fact and acquire the skills to effectively develop both the
process and curriculum of education. The view that as a teacher one simply has
to impart a certain core curriculum and value system, for which one has obtained
a “degree,” is a product of the nostalgic fantasy. As Hilty has adequately
stated, teachers should be “exemplary models of a lifetime commitment to
thinking, questioning, and learning.” This means the educational process
should never become a one way interaction of the teacher to the student. If this
is the case, the teacher has simply accepted the life stories of the dominant
political power, or substituted it for another that hopes to become the dominant
power. In the end, the educational process has not changed, only the content has
changed. The results, in time, will be the same educational problems that we
face today.
© CopyRight 2002 Scott R. Simpson