The idea that teachers in public schools need not be professionally prepared by licensed teacher preparation programs is circulating in my state. So that I am clear on the issue, I believe that this idea is an unadulterated wrong. The idea is propagated by the self-interests that have continuously whittled at the institution of public education until it teeters on the edge of extinction.
The idea that public education teachers do not need professional licensing finds its roots in four political-economic scenarios that have risen to dangerous heights. These scenarios are the politicization of public education, the trading of educational consumerism for votes in the ballot box, the use of PAC funds to overwhelm the public with anti-public education campaigns, and the inability of public education to defend itself.
Once, the tradition in our nation was that public education was locally governed with oversight by the state. Local school boards crafted local educational policy and programs that complied with generalized mandates from the state legislature. For almost two centuries, public schools served their communities by educating youth, inculcating American values, and preparing graduates to be contributing citizens of the community, state and nation. It worked. Our state constitution guarantees an “equitable and quality education” for every child funded by state and local tax dollars. The right to a free and public education was a given regardless of the political party in the majority in the state capital. It worked. For decades the liberalism of our state’s urban areas argued with the conservatism of the rural areas and always found a common ground that best served the children of the state. It worked.
That WAS our tradition. Today it is not.
Public education has become a commodity branded by partisan politics. In 2001 President Bush elevated partisan manipulation of public education with the enactment of No Child Left Behind and attaching reforms of regulation and accountability espoused by the Republican Party. In one fell swoop, the President appropriated tax payer angst regarding property local property taxes, a bruised and declining status of our nation as the world leader in international educational assessments, the always popular appeal to American pride, and conservative demands for data-driven accountability into an indelible plank of Republican politics. Notwithstanding the faults of NCLB, the GOP has beaten the drum that Republican politicians at all levels are committed to lowering school taxes, demanding higher performance-based accountability, and continuing the reconstruction of public schools into more effective learning centers. At the same time, Republicans successfully painted Democratic opponents as high cost and unaccountable traditionalists. Conservative Republicanism is synonymous with unending educational reforms; their bandwagon requires continuous reform in order to sustain itself as the “leader for change.”
Parallel to public education becoming a political commodity was the emergence of educational consumerism. Young parents with scho0l-age children found the partisanship of public education to be unbelievably receptive to their consumer demands. Any and every parental concern with their local school could be bundled into the demand for “choice.” Politicians soon found powerful political allies, especially Republican governors and legislators, in the “I want this for my child” demands of young parents. Because public education is a state issue, the statehouse became the epicenter for enacting educational reform and meeting these consumer demands. It was easy and expedient for a campaigning state legislator to identify “educational choice” as a voter rallying cry and to position an electoral campaign on satisfying school choice demands. It was easy to divert state and local tax revenues for education to private and parochial schools and programs of choice. Money was attached to children not to schools. And, as the “leaders for change” found office, they needed to continuously advance the opportunity for further change cloaked as “choice” in order to remain in office.
At this date, consumer-driven reforms in my state have reduced levels of state funding for local schools, increased the requirements for performance-based accountability for public schools, required published report cards for all public schools, expanded the opportunity for parents to select schools of “choice”, and expanded state funding for all schools of choice, while disallowing any performance-based accounting for or reporting of the educational achievement of students in “choice” schools.
The third scenario calls to point the old political adage – follow the money. State elections in my state are preceded with unprecedented advertisements aligning candidates with consumer demands for educational reform. The frequency and fervency of television and radio time devoted to attacking the cost of public education, the unchanging achievement gaps of children left stranded in stripped-out metropolitan schools while continuing to advance any and every demand for “choice” increases every spring and fall. Noticeably, the small print at the bottom of these television and print news ads attributes the support for the ads to political citizen groups with out-of-state origins and funding sources. Or, to in-state activist groups heavily funded by out-of-state partisan PACs. PAC money funds campaigns to elect politicians who redirect money from public schools to schools of choice.
So, who is left to argue the counter point. This is the fourth scenario. Certainly not teachers or public school educational leaders. In my state, teacher unions were immediate victims of educational politics. Unions were not banned, but their political potency was stripped when partisan legislation eliminated their scope of collective bargaining. When teachers could no longer use their union dues to advance their wages and benefits through bargaining, union membership dropped immediately and the ability of state teacher organizations to compete against PAC money was eliminated. Teacher unions in my state are ghost entities.
Additionally, any collective action by teachers in opposition to partisan legislation carries immediate negative repercussions. The legislature only meets in the months when school is in session. Teachers who rally for their pro-public school political interests are accompanied with partisan claims that “kids in school are being ignored and their education diminished by self-interested teachers.” Or, because teachers are paid with public tax funds, their activism uses “tax payer money” to argue against “choices” demanded by parent activists. It is a lose/lose proposition for public educators.
Hence, the idea that teachers need not be prepared by their jobs through accredited educational institutions and licensed by the state department of instruction is gaining ground. It follows. If we reduce state funding for public schools, increase the accountability and reporting mandates for public schools, provide increased opportunity for parents to choose non-public schools at public expense, align voter interests with partisan politics, denigrate teachers as political players, then why not allow anybody who wants to be a public school teacher to be one.
There is one more scenario that must be attached to this story. The rate at which employed teachers are leaving public schools in my state is at an all-time high. Three-out-of-five teachers with less than three years of classroom experience will leave before the end of their third year. A career in public education is no longer economically or professionally viable for college graduates. With a greater than 60% abandonment rate, it is understandable that the next partisan action is to remove professional licensing as a requirement for employment as a public school teacher. In addition, the rate at which non-traditionally trained teachers leave the class room is double the rate for traditionally trained teachers. Even the unprepared who are hired as teachers find that teaching no longer is a viable professional career.
We would appreciate it if the last teacher out the door will kindly turn off the lights.