My Brushes with the Educationists Part 2

<>By
<>

<>

Tom Molloy

<>
2. THE TEACHING CERTIFICATE RACKET

As far as I know, in most states, to obtain a permanent teaching certificate, one has to run a gauntlet of tedious education courses. In these courses, one gets lots of sterile, “how”, but no “what”. In practice, most of the “how” is puerile balderdash. The "how” that has merit could be easily condensed into a short course. I can’t believe that I sat in classes in which I was expected to participate in discussions on bulletin board management and effective use of stick figures on the chalkboard. Lamentably, pursuing the educationist curriculum is a zero sum game. While one takes oodles of hours of junk education courses, one is not taking courses in mathematics, foreign language, history, philosophy, chemistry, and physics. Ironically, one must abandon educational pursuits to take education courses. Education is the only field I know in which the more “professional” courses one takes, the more disadvantaged one is in one’s profession. It is as if each education course appends barnacles to the mind, creating a drag on the intellect.

<>In my opinion, increasing education course requirements does nothing whatsoever to improve teacher competence. When you add zero to zero ad infinitum, you still wind up with zero. The very first day I stood in front of a class I knew I was good at it. Being a cocky young smart-ass, I repeatedly told my graduate advisor of the low esteem in which I held education courses. As part of the graduate program, he had to come and observe me teach a few times. It really stuck in his craw that this young upstart, who belittled education courses, could tame an unruly pack of teenagers and have them eating out of his hand. Not only did I excel in the classroom; I didn’t conform to the educationist paradigm. I used sarcasm; I insisted on excellence, I made students memorize material. Perhaps my most serious breach of educationist protocol was to proclaim to my students that in my classroom I was the king and they were my subjects. We established a constitutional monarchy. I stole this scene from one of my high school Latin teachers, a magnificent teacher, who, naturally, used to make his pronouncements in Latin. Egalitarianism wasn’t part of my pedagogical repertoire. Moreover, my advisor knew that I knew that, for all of his junk degrees, he couldn’t emulate my performance. My homeroom class, composed mostly of students awaiting their 16^th birthday, the legal age of expulsion, would have eaten his lunch. <>

My graduate advisor was basically a decent sort so the only price I paid for my flippancy was a little nitpicking. For example, in one instance, I began a question to the class by saying, “Does anyone know………? Well, to a layman this might seem a reasonable query, but to an educationist this was a mortal sin. You see, the theory was that you asked questions only to individuals, not to the class as a whole. This was supposedly a control mechanism so ten students didn’t shout out the answer at once. As educationist rules go, this was not a bad one. However, in my case, my students had been conditioned to raise their hand if they knew the answer. I would then call on one student to answer—not always one who had raised a hand. I would not have tolerated anyone shouting out the answer. When my graduate advisor counseled me about this alleged transgression, I instinctively realized that I had to let him win one. I decided to keep my big mouth shut and acted contrite.

If I were hiring a history teacher and there was a choice between an individual having 60 hours of history on his transcript and another having 30 hours of history and 30 hours of education courses, all things being equal, I certainly would hire the teacher most knowledgeable in history. In my opinion, education courses not only don’t add value; they debase one’s intellect. Nevertheless, the educationists have a lock on the system. In general, unless one is willing to prostitute one’s intellect by taking these mind-numbing courses, one can’t obtain a teaching certificate. In the parlance of “educationese”, a qualified teacher is one who has taken the critical mass of education courses. Individuals with an MA in mathematics from MIT are not considered qualified teachers unless they subject themselves to the intellectual abasement of education courses. The educationists have rigged the system so that an education major with 18 or 21 hours of “mathematics for teachers” is considered more qualified than our MIT graduate with an MA in mathematics is. Any course labeled “for teachers” is code for “dumbed down.” To me the great mystery is whether educationists really believe that education courses have any relation to pedagogical competence. Could anyone really be that stupid? Or, or are education courses just a profitable racket?

<>Whatever the purity of educationist intentions, this ludicrous, monopolistic system yields juicy benefits for teachers. It creates an artificial shortage of “qualfied” teachers. The formula is simple: shortage=demand=higher pay. If only plumbers had it so good! Can you imagine what a windfall it would be for a few plumbers if the government were suddenly to mandate that, in order to practice their trade, plumbers had to have 30 hours of art history courses? Not only would those few plumbers with these credentials reap a bonanza, but so would university art history departments. I submit that art history is to plumbing as education courses are to teaching. The difference is that, although art history courses are not germane to plumbing, they at least have substance. After taking these courses you actually know something. Not so for education courses.

<> COMPLICITY OF UNIVERSITIES

<>Universities benefit enormously from the education course bonanza. Education departments tap a lucrative source of income that is not available to other departments. They have a monopoly. Other departments generally don’t accept dullards for admission. This leaves education departments with an exclusive right to the dullards. (After all, don’t dullards make the best teachers?). There is a lot of money in “them there” dregs. For those who think that everyone should go to college, education departments are the ultimate answer. Education departments welcome dullards with one hand while they pick their pockets with the other hand. These departments are the last resort for students who have no intellectual aptitude. They graduate teachers who are barely literate or numerate. In education departments the almighty dollar has usurped academic excellence. Are universities really that venal? You betcha! Newly minted teachers graduate financially and intellectually impoverished, waving their junk degrees—degrees that offer no guarantee of basic literacy. The whole system is a colossal sham. University administrators should be ashamed of themselves. They are extracting money from their victims and, in return, giving nothing of substance. This isn’t tuition; it’s a form of extortion.

<>Education departments are also cauldrons of nefarious ideas; to name a few: The whole language method of teaching reading, bilingual education, the New Math, self-esteem "uber alles", egalitarianism--all are concepts which are or were cherished by the educationists. Admittedly, I don’t sit around reading educational journals, but I can’t think of one measurable improvement in pedagogy that issued from education departments in the 20th century. There have been lots of fads and lots of old ideas warmed over and served in a casserole of new terminology, but where is the demonstrable, irrefutable evidence of progress in pedagogy? Today’s fad is tomorrow’s bad idea; today’s flashy new term is tomorrow’s discarded cliché. Do education departments today really turn out teachers equipped with skills superior to those of yesterday? What would Socrates say?

<>While I was taking education courses, I coined a definition of a doctor of education; to wit, “A doctor of education is someone who takes a bikini idea and puts it into a snow suit so no one wants to look at it anymore.” Still works for me.

The great tragedy ensuing from the monopoly of the educationists is that individuals who would like to be teachers in order to engage in intellectual pursuits are dissuaded from this vocation because they are compelled to subject themselves to the humiliation of education courses. Take the young chemistry graduate who is passionately in love with his subject. In order to share his passion as a high school teacher, he has to run a gauntlet, being pelted by intellectual garbage hurled at him by educationists. This hazing of the mind is too high a price to pay for many young intellectuals. The educationists are effectively purging the teacher ranks of intellectuals. Only the dullards will remain. This is a sure-fire way to ensure that academic achievement is delegitimized. It’s working.

To be continued