I wish to question certification, especially teacher certification. I am not questioning teacher certification because I wish to cause a maelstrom of anger. I am not attacking anyone. I only wish to look at the idea.
I have found in my experience people, who have certificates, who cannot teach. I have also found people, who do not have certificates, who can teach. It seems to me that the certificate only proves that the person holding it has passed a test made by someone (agreed to I am sure by some committee) only showing that he has memorised the material.
The material has been picked and organised by someone (again agreed to by some committee). For example, someone may make sure that the teacher knows and can use the Pythagorean equation (calling it the Pythagorean theorem), but never asks that the teacher truly to know the mathematics behind it (the theorem and the equation). They pick just enough of it to make it useful, but never enough to be able to answer questions of it, about it, etc.
This certification process is much like the certification process of Starbucks' barista training. There is even a button that each barista, who successfully passes the training, gets to wear. If anyone has had the privilege of drinking a coffee made by someone who truly knows his art and compared this with that cup of coffee made by a Starbucks' certified barista, there is obvious difference in quality, an appreciated difference. This is true of many businesses, such as McDonald's (have you ever had a truly delicious hamburger) and many arts. A truly great carpenter often has no formal training or certification, just a love of his art.
This picking "just enough of it" also may be a source of the squelching of wonder in the classroom. If the teacher only has enough knowledge of it to use it and to teach its use, but not enough to question it, to enquire into it, to analyse it, he may not want to cause a discussion among the students that would accomplish this end, and if a student (naturally) asks any question that would accomplish this end, the teacher may (and often does) put a stop to it in some innocuous manner, so he does not arouse suspicion by the student and among the students. It is just a thought.
I know of two reasons for the existence of certification.
One is to give confidence to those who are putting themselves or their loved ones (truly both) under the control of a person. Bureaucracies love certificates. Bureaucracies rely on them.
The second is to put more people into teaching, to make them qualified, when truly they are not.
The greatest teacher I know has no certificate of teaching. He is a teacher. He needs nothing to make him one, nor to prove that he is one. Everyone knows he is.
What do you think? Is this correct?
I have found in my experience people, who have certificates, who cannot teach. I have also found people, who do not have certificates, who can teach. It seems to me that the certificate only proves that the person holding it has passed a test made by someone (agreed to I am sure by some committee) only showing that he has memorised the material.
The material has been picked and organised by someone (again agreed to by some committee). For example, someone may make sure that the teacher knows and can use the Pythagorean equation (calling it the Pythagorean theorem), but never asks that the teacher truly to know the mathematics behind it (the theorem and the equation). They pick just enough of it to make it useful, but never enough to be able to answer questions of it, about it, etc.
This certification process is much like the certification process of Starbucks' barista training. There is even a button that each barista, who successfully passes the training, gets to wear. If anyone has had the privilege of drinking a coffee made by someone who truly knows his art and compared this with that cup of coffee made by a Starbucks' certified barista, there is obvious difference in quality, an appreciated difference. This is true of many businesses, such as McDonald's (have you ever had a truly delicious hamburger) and many arts. A truly great carpenter often has no formal training or certification, just a love of his art.
This picking "just enough of it" also may be a source of the squelching of wonder in the classroom. If the teacher only has enough knowledge of it to use it and to teach its use, but not enough to question it, to enquire into it, to analyse it, he may not want to cause a discussion among the students that would accomplish this end, and if a student (naturally) asks any question that would accomplish this end, the teacher may (and often does) put a stop to it in some innocuous manner, so he does not arouse suspicion by the student and among the students. It is just a thought.
I know of two reasons for the existence of certification.
One is to give confidence to those who are putting themselves or their loved ones (truly both) under the control of a person. Bureaucracies love certificates. Bureaucracies rely on them.
The second is to put more people into teaching, to make them qualified, when truly they are not.
The greatest teacher I know has no certificate of teaching. He is a teacher. He needs nothing to make him one, nor to prove that he is one. Everyone knows he is.
What do you think? Is this correct?
No comments:
Post a Comment