How Hard Can it Be?

http://www.slate.com/id/2195147

I'm a teacher by training and still work in the education field. The question of being able to tell a good teacher from a bad one still manages to baffle policy makers and those responsible for hiring. I always find it odd since any students can tell you who the good teachers are in their own school. On its surface, and in my opinion, its not a difficult question.

Here's a clue:
Walk by a classroom a few times in a week. If the majority of the kids look bored they probably aren't learning too much. You may also want to compare the bored look to the look that kids have when they're watching TV. They are both passive engagement with a source but the TV at least keeps them engaged.

I can't really figure out why teachers are in such a unique position. Is it that they are civil servants? Responsible for people when there is an age difference? Responsible for so much? Given so little direction about their expectations?

Ideally, teachers come out of their training with a play book of strategies to help them organize a class and teach content. It is experience with that playbook in real game situations that allows them to be a teacher and to effectively lead a class through a learning experience. But, when we add alternative certification routes into the mix we see that there are few outcome differences depending upon your initial training meaning that a good teacher will be a good teacher regardless of initial prep. I'm of the opinion, having gone through both a traditional teacher prep program (MA at Teachers College) and an alternative certification program (NJ alternative route) that there is very little that should be learned without first having experienced a real life classroom with real life students.

If new teachers, trained at colleges, are coming into classrooms with little to no experience or record of their teaching ability then what exactly is the value of their degree other than as a qualification? Further more, what types of induction programs work best to take people with the potential to be good teachers and give them the opportunity to learn without doing too much damage to kids or their egos?

I'm not sure what the point is of tangling with the unions. What happens in a world without unions? While I'm sure I wouldn't want to find out until there is a great and qualified administrative staff in every school, I'm pretty sure that there wouldn't be a rise in abuse of power or the firing of great teachers. Most importantly, if a principal is a leader of a school and responsible for the quality of education that the kids participate in why wouldn't they need the power and authority to do their job?