In one of the comments on the blog, a reader posted critical comments about the Connecticut Policy Institute.

The executive director of the institute, Ben Zimmer, asked me for the opportunity to respond. I agreed.

I checked the webpage of the CPI, and note that it is in favor of charter schools in poor districts, using test scores (“effectiveness”) to evaluate teachers, using an A-F grading system for schools, and imposing a third grade reading exam and a graduation exam. Most of these are policies that I have criticized on this blog. Charter schools do not get better results than public schools except when they skim the best students and exclude those who might lower their test scores; evaluating teachers by the test scores of their students is a very poor measure of teacher quality that I have called “junk science” because of its recognized inaccuracy and instability; the A-F grading system introduced by Jeb Bush in Florida is incoherent and constantly reshuffled, but still incoherent; after a dozen years of NCLB, I conclude that reliance on testing is a demonstrated failure if the goal is either excellence or equity. The fact that CPI holds up not only Massachusetts as a model but Jeb Bush’s Florida and Mitch Daniels’ Indiana is a strong indication of the policy goals of the organization.

But as readers know, I post entries that I don’t necessarily agree with, and even entries that I clearly disagree with.

I am happy to post Ben Zimmer’s response here.

Zimmer writes:

Dear Readers of Professor Ravitch’s Blog,

This morning Professor Ravitch posted a blog entry reproducing a comment from an online forum. The comment critiqued a recent op-ed I wrote on teacher certification in Connecticut (http://www.ctmirror.org/op-ed/2013/06/30/vallas-certification-debacle-reveals-shortcomings-education-reform-efforts). I welcome and appreciate Professor Ravitch drawing attention to my op-ed and the work of the Connecticut Policy Institute. But the comment she reposted does not accurately represent my position and puts forward unfounded critiques. Professor Ravitch has kindly offered me the opportunity to respond.

Amidst a barrage of all-caps tirades and ad-hominem insults (“assclown” was my particular favorite), the post appeared to make three actual points: 1) That my opposition to teacher certification laws means that I support lowering standards for educators; 2) That my opposition to teacher certification laws is grounded in “bogus” studies; and 3) That I am a hypocrite for opposing teacher certification laws when I hold a B.A. and J.D myself. I will respond to each point in turn.

Point 1

The notion that I support lowering standards for educators is a complete mischaracterization of my position. Indeed, in order to make this point the author literally fabricates quotes – for instance, the author quotes me as stating that degrees in education are “worthless,” a word that never appeared in my op-ed (nor did anything approximating it). On the contrary, I believe education degrees can be a very valuable credential for teachers. But I do not believe that they are the only valid credential.

The teaching profession is enhanced when professionals from a diverse set of backgrounds are eligible to apply for positions. Right now, in Connecticut, someone with a PhD in physics or history with experience teaching college-level seminars in their field would be prohibited by law from teaching an equivalent seminar at a public school. I do not believe this restriction or ones like it further the goal of promoting the highest quality teaching possible.

Furthermore, when state laws require individuals in any profession to obtain a degree from a particular department in a particular university, that department becomes insulated from competitive pressures and accountability. Departments of education have an important role to play at higher education institutions. But the quality of those departments would be enhanced if they had to compete for aspiring teachers based on the quality of training they provide.

Point 2

Research suggests that paper certifications are not valuable predictors of teachers’ effectiveness. Rigorous studies confirming this include studies put out by the Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604hamilton_1.pdf) and labor economist Tim Sass (http://www2.gsu.edu/~tsass/pdfs/Alternative%20Certification%20and%20Teacher%20Quality%2011.pdf).

Point 3

It is perfectly consistent to oppose teacher certification laws while holding advanced degrees myself. I fully support teachers obtaining advanced degrees and I also support schools / districts encouraging teachers to obtain advanced degrees – insofar as those degrees actually help teachers teach more effectively. What I oppose is legal requirements limiting teachers to certain particular advanced degrees. In most professions – even ones where possession of advanced degrees is the norm and it would be difficult to get a job without one (e.g., university professors, engineers, business executives, government officials, non-for-profit administrators) – there are no laws limiting professionals to particular degrees.

That said, teaching is not the only field where state laws mandate particular certifications or licenses. In many of those other fields, the laws are similarly problematic. This is something that the Connecticut Policy Institute has studied and written on at some length: http://www.ctpolicyinstitute.org/content/CT_Policy_Institute_Regulation_Paper.pdf.

One other profession where state laws limit applicant pools to individuals who hold a particular degree is the law. Though I hold a J.D. myself, I would be the first to say that licensing laws for lawyers have many of the same problems as they do for teachers – they are less about actual qualification and more about insulating established bureaucracies from outside reform and protecting the economic interests of existing lawyers and law professors. Aspiring lawyers are forced to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to attend law schools that often teach things unrelated to the practice of law. Meanwhile, law students’ debt-financed tuition heavily subsidizes the salaries of law professors who earn more than their peers in the rest of academia even though they produce articles that are equally abstract and infrequently read. This New York Times article offers an interesting exploration of these problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/business/after-law-school-associates-learn-to-be-lawyers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

Conclusion

I know that teachers have at times felt vilified by the “education reform” movement. Personally, I firmly believe that teachers are part of the solution, not part of the problem. But we also should acknowledge that the teaching profession – like all professions – is not perfect. There are certain structural features of the teaching profession as currently constituted that limit its ability to realize its full potential. I believe we should reform those features.

I welcome constructive dialogue with any of you on these issues. You can email me at ben.zimmer@ctpolicyinstitute.org, or call the Connecticut Policy Institute office at 203-404-0235.

Best,

Ben Zimmer
Executive Director
Connecticut Policy Institute