Teaching as a Profession

Do you believe that teaching is an occupation that should be considered as a profession? Is it comparable to doctors or lawyers? Should we view teachers as qualified and intellectual workers of our age? That's something that is hard to answer for some and easy to answer for others.

According to Richard M. Ingersoll and Elizabeth Merrill in their publication The Status of Teaching as a Profession some teachers are considered professionals depending on where they teach . Indicators to determine if an occupation is a profession are:

1. Credential/licensing requirements for entry
2. Induction/mentoring programs
3. Professional Development
4. Specialization
5. Authority over decision making
6. Compensation
7. Prestige

Teachers in Catholic schools and public schools in high income areas are more likely to be seen as professionals than teachers in private schools outside of the Catholic realm and public high schools in low income areas. Most private schools do not require their teachers to have as high of credentials nor are they required to have any kind of licensing. Low income schools more often than not receive the unqualified teachers without very much experience (and teaching subjects unrelated to their specialization) in their school which represents the lack of credentials. Catholic and high income schools will invest more time and money into induction/mentoring programs for the teachers and professional development. Districts in inner-cities consistently have problems with decision-making because there are not many funds available to implement wanted and needed programs. If you're a teacher in Catholic or high income schools your salary will be sufficient enough to support your family and have a little extra spending money.

What they say in this publication make sense. As a society we do not give the same honor or prestige to teachers as we do doctors and lawyers. Supposedly doctors and lawyers work harder in school and in the profession therefore they are paid more and mobilized to two of the highest statuses in our nation. I have nothing against doctors and [some] lawyers but with all things considered, aren't we discounting the experiences of teachers? Don't they have to go through schooling in order to maintain their license and heighten their credentials? Aren't they the ones who construct learning lessons 5 days a week for their students? They are pouring countless hours to see their students succeed. They are the ones who create doctors and lawyers.

Teachers influence the path of several students they encounter yet society deems most teachers (because many schools reside in the poorer areas) as unworthy of a decent compensation and respect. I see teaching as a profession despite what the indicators do have to say. These indicators just tell us how we need to improve the lives of teachers. Give them more requirements, induction/mentoring programs and development. Allow them to teach what they have specialized in and give them power to make decisions in the education system because after all they're the most important people we need in order for the school system to function.

Decreasing Classroom Sizes

I am a full advocate for decreasing classroom sizes despite what some scholars and politicians say about it not making a difference to the levels of achievement of students. In my opinion, they have not done enough research in schools to disagree that classroom size truly influences the achievement of students, especially the underrepresented population. The Tennessee STAR program is a great example of an experiment done with efficiency. Their findings indicated that if you decreased the classroom size to a small enough number then the success of students increased dramatically. It was important to begin in the early classrooms (K-1) because the standards of behavior will start to form, students receive the attention they need to succeed, there is a higher morale among teachers and students, and students are forming their attitudes about school culture. All of these reasons are important factors to effectively impact vulnerable students before they form the wrong impressions of their schooling.

If the Tennessee STAR program was so successful then why haven't we done anything about it? Where are our policy changes? Easy answer: money. Districts would need to hire more [qualified] teachers. With the lack of education funds from the federal government, it makes it nearly impossible for schools across the nation to decrease their classroom sizes (especially in the big cities) while figuring out budgeting/logistical problems that come alongside this program. Again, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. How do we change and challenge the government to see that smaller classroom sizes, in the early grades and continuing until the 12th grade, make a difference? When does it stop being a political debate between conservatives and liberals and start becoming an issue of social justice? Students are deprived of their academic rights to succeed at their highest potential. If smaller classroom sizes can help solve the achievement gap then why hasn't the government answered the call?

These students who were involved in the Tennessee STAR program progressed through school as high achievers and more likely than their counterpart (students in bigger classrooms) to attend college. I could extend this further and presume that those attending college are defying statistics and breaking stereotypes that are often placed on them. It's important to look at both the educational and social results of decreased classroom sizes. These students are encouraged to move forward and are not as exposed to the barriers preventing them from mobilizing up the social ladder.

Priorities in the Organization

The organizational side of the education system may seem unrelated to addressing issues within a district or the system as a whole but in reality, we have to understand the implications of each level of organization in education. If we want to change the policies and structure of the education system we must look at the roles and status of the districts, schools, classrooms, and individual students. The resources the district uses looks a lot different than the resources an individual student uses. For example, money. How does a school function? it functions with money--whether it's coming from the parents or taxes. The district decides how the money is going to be allocated and what the needs of each school are so that schools have the fair amount of funds for the year.

Money is a vital resource and we have the ability to challenge where those funds go. In Tacoma the amount of money the superintendent made was exposed to the public which caused a lot of anger and confusion. It's understandable that the man or woman in charge of all the schools in their district is making more money than most but why are teachers taking cuts to their salaries while the income of the superintendent exceeds the salary of 3+ teachers together? This is where we need to start addressing the inequalities in the education system; from top-down.

Teachers sometimes have to sacrifice their time and money to compensate for the lack of funds given to them by the district. Unfortunately not every teacher decides to sacrifice those things which hurt the individual students' instruction further down the road. It's unfair to expect all teachers to give more and more money to their classroom so that their lessons are effective. It would be ideal if the district prioritized their money with the students' achievement as their number one priority.

Reorganize the system to mirror a place that empowers the younger generations.

Maintaining the Status-Quo

"The school system is set up to maintain and perpetuate the status-quo; keeping the haves at the top and the have nots at the bottom."

Does the above statement just not tear your heart apart? We are dealing with Marxist theory right now--this notion that this capitalist society will continue to encourage and even develop more stratification between classes. The social institutions that are embedded into our culture disallow the growth and potential of students who are inevitably in the sphere of have-nots. They resist from succeeding in school because their entire life they have been told that they must remain at the bottom in order for the haves to maintain their power. The school system has set up students for failure and have created a false consciousness. It's not obvious that these inequalities occur because what school wants to boast that they are intentionally tracking students to keep the status-quo?

Tracking students is another terrible way of structuring the education system. The students who are placed in the least of these groups will not succeed. They are not pushed nor challenged by their teachers and administration. Social ties become obsolete in classrooms such as these because all of the attention is geared toward the highly capable students. From there, the system has unintentionally told the students at the bottom level that they are not worth the time and effort it takes to advance them to the next level. It makes little to no sense at all to track students because it increases the achievement gap as well as the poverty rate. Equality is promised for all but in reality, society has told their future generations that they better grow up in an affluent society in order to have any kind of upward mobility.

Stigmatized and Socialized

School is a vital function of society. Without the education system we wouldn't be able to produce bright scholars we so often witness changing the face of society. Because we are at such a progressive time in our culture, elders rely on the intellect of their children to continue this era of progress. We want to see the best and brightest in the most important positions of society but in order for America to function there is an unspoken need for blue collar jobs that allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. The job market feeds off the  products of the school system.

Who are the garbage collectors and who are the doctors of our society? I would venture to guess that those labeled as disruptive, unsuccessful, and failures are more likely to be in the blue collar positions. On the other hand those who are seen as successful, committed, and often called on in class are mobilizing themselves into the more affluent jobs.

There are students in schools all over America right now who could potentially reach beyond what others tell them. They could defy what statistics say about where they come from, the color of their skin, and how poorly they perform on standardized tests. Unfortunately the reality is that these students have internalized the labels they have been given and meet the "standards" others set for them. It's a cycle that needs to stop if we want to close the achievement gap. Schools board members, administrators, and teachers need to understand the psychological effects of their actions towards students who are assumed to be unteachable.