As a Review-Journal subscriber, an experienced high school teacher for the Clark County School District and a member of the Clark County Education Association, I feel compelled to counter some assumptions you rely on in addressing the problem of retaining teachers and incentivizing effective teaching.
In your March 13 editorial, “Teacher shortages and the status quo,” you suggest that “knowledge of subject matter” should be the prime prerequisite for teacher licensure, as opposed to mere “credentials” obtained through education schools, that credentials obtained through education school coursework are mostly irrelevant to actual teaching, and that the lack of incentives to improve in teaching are the fault of “union rules.”
First, “knowledge of the subject matter” is not sufficient. Also needed is “pedagogical content knowledge,” an idea first formally introduced more than 30 years ago by Lee Shulman in “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.” Pedagogical content knowledge “goes beyond knowledge of subject matter per se to the dimension of subject matter knowledge for teaching.” This would include a well-versed appreciation for the many ways that learners progress and for the many ways students typically misunderstand a given topic, together with strategies for addressing these challenges.
This brings me to the second point about education schools. This is where prospective teachers are first introduced to ideas around child development, learning and broader ideas around subject matter acquisition. Students need teachers who plan lessons, orchestrate class discussions and identify where students are coming from, sometimes on the fly, sometimes by looking carefully at submitted written work. Education schools promote the difficult and challenging scholarship on how people learn that forms the basis for eventual expertise that comes with experience in teaching. Education schools usually rely on other schools or departments to properly prepare students with knowledge of a subject matter. If a new teacher cannot properly factor a polynomial, please point your finger at the college math department, not at the education school.
Thirdly, it is disingenuous to characterize the terms of negotiated agreements between the unions and school boards as “union rules.” These are just as much “school board rules.” If the school board wishes to change the terms, it can propose new ones.
Tried-and-true free-market mechanisms for retaining workers include improved working conditions and increased compensation. My guess is that my union leadership would willingly consider such proposals.
I thank you for reminding readers about this important problem. I just disagree that any reforms informed by the assumptions you bring to bear on this issue will result in any solutions.
Kenneth Wright writes from Las Vegas.
Read More: How to address the teacher shortage | IN RESPONSE