School & Society: Ch. 10 Study Questions

1. Jurgen Herbst was cited for arguing that professionalization in teaching has historically brought teaching under bureaucratic control, whereas professionalism in teaching emphasizes "the recognition and practice of a teacher's right and obligation to determine his or her own professional tasks in the classroom." To what degree, in your view, does the historical record support Herbst's contention? Further, has the historical trend been more positive or negative for teaching as an occupation? Defend your view on both counts.

There is a fundamental difference between pursuing rewards and earning them. As Booker T. Washington believed, it is usually more effective to work hard to merit your rights or rewards than to just sullenly insist on them. There is much wisdom in this humble strategy. And racial prejudice has a much stronger justification for revolution than wage dissatisfaction, which is more or less a reflection of the objective equilibrium of the market.

In the main, I believe the historical evidence supports Herbst's position. The wheels of justice and balance may grind slowly, but they grind inevitably.

It seems trends in teaching are more positive than trends in the educational institution as a whole, judging by the polls presented in this chapter and also the general mood of society, which seems to place the blame chiefly on the system, not the teachers.

2. This chapter noted on several occasions that the current professionalization movement stems from an expressed need to improve the quality of schooling in the United States. In your view, is professionalization of teaching a good way to improve schooling? Why or why not?

To the extent that professionalization means centralization and bureaucracy, it reeks of impotence. Hope for education lies in returning to a grassroots approach, emphasizing relationships, infusing interest, and custom-fitting the educational experience to the needs of each student. This dictates that most if not all primary and secondary education should occur at home.

Professionalization avoids the obvious and effective solution of privatization, where professionalization might take place on its own, as a natural result. This would, however, reduce the teaching industry to a much smaller size, consisting mostly of highly specialized teachers and schools. What the NEA and AFT are attempting to do is sail the ship faster without discarding any of the accumulated dead weight, which is economically impossible.

3. One might argue that this chapter has been unduly critical of the Holmes and Carnegie reports of 1985 in their efforts to improve the profession of teaching. In your view, what features of the Holmes and Carnegie reports are most promising for improving the quality of teaching and schooling? Are those features implementable, given the political, economic, and ideological realities of schooling in the United States? Defend your view.

Under the current model, advocates of professionalization have little choice but to take teaching farther down the centralization road - indeed, this is true of any industry. As long as the goal of such profession-reformers is to make more money and command more respect, it will be frustrated. The proper goal is to excel in teaching, and in this respect - and this respect only - certain features of the Homes and Carnegie reports may be useful. Effective implementation depends on the embracing of these ideals by the industry as a whole, which seems unlikely.

4. This chapter lists several reasons, from the economic to the ideological to the demographic, for the relatively low professional status of teaching. In your view, are there other reasons that should be included, or do the reasons presented have adequate explanatory value? Explain.

There is another reason, and that is the public nature of the industry. Is it surprising that it differs from other professions in so many respects when it is structured so different on a fundamental level? Were the education industry privatized, it would be spurred to excellence and rewarded accordingly by the tireless force of the market, instead of being petted and subsidized into apathy by a government that does not know what else to do.

5. Given that professional status, autonomy, and the material reward structure in teaching compare poorly to those of other professions, what do you expect to derive from teaching in terms of personal rewards? What evidence do you find in this chapter that your expectations are likely or not likely to be met? How adequate is that evidence, in your view? Explain your position.

Communicating information, knowledge, and skill is a rewarding task, in and of itself. Good teachers find purpose in the raw thrill of knowledge and the earned appreciativeness and stimulated enthusiasm of their students. Statistical evidence from this chapter suggests that roughly half to three-fourths of the teaching force is satisfied in a general sense with their work and worth. This evidence seems to accurately reflect the stability of the occupation as observed in the real world.

6. This chapter has presented a skeptical viewpoint toward the value of professionalization as a response to current problems in schooling. Yet, the Primary Source Reading by the National Commission clearly supports a national teaching board to enhance professionalism in teaching. Do you find their position persuasive? Does Barringer's point of view necessarily conflict with the view expressed in this chapter? Explain.

The National Commission seems to understand that to merit higher wages and higher respect one must work harder. And yet, in pursuing such zealous centralization and standardization, the Commission is further compromising the autonomy of the teacher, who is supposed to be the end-beneficiary. The Commission may be doing all it can from within the current government-based institutional model, but the experiment seems doomed to failure, as the necessary ingredients for a respectable, robust profession - not the least of which is competition - are still being overlooked.