.
- Thread starter SoapyCy
- Start date
You want every Tom, **** and Argent to be able to teach kids?
Basically the State has figured out a way to make money and grow their influence from these licenses. They are ridiculous but they add more every year. They get to charge for the renewals every X years. They create demand for CE classes that may or may not make them more money. We are forced to buy a Book every two years for the "updates" that goes straight to a private organization that then gets to write more rules.
Plus these licenses make it easier on administrators and the unions. It's all one big scam.
Plus these licenses make it easier on administrators and the unions. It's all one big scam.
I'm not familiar with all of the requirements, but do know a gal that moved from Illinois to Iowa and was all bent out of shape that her previous qualifications weren't enough and would have to do a decent amount of work to get to the standard required. Made me feel a little better about the education system in the state. Don't ask her though, everything here isn't good enough when compared to Chicago.
President Obama was not a fan of overbearing licensing requirements ossifying the labor market. Heck, you can read about it on his website, right here...
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...-unnecessary-occupation-licenses-are-limiting
One can debate the individual merits of licensing involving educational positions, but this is one of those issues where there is broad agreement among labor economists that too much of it is only robbing good people of good opportunities for themselves.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...-unnecessary-occupation-licenses-are-limiting
One can debate the individual merits of licensing involving educational positions, but this is one of those issues where there is broad agreement among labor economists that too much of it is only robbing good people of good opportunities for themselves.
I don't see how a license would stifle creativity or ideas, that's up to the individual teacher. Sure there are standards that have to be met, but day to day there is still opportunity for creativity or personal touches.
I don't know if the licensing system is perfect by all means, but I definitely wouldn't be interested in getting rid of it altogether.
I don't know if the licensing system is perfect by all means, but I definitely wouldn't be interested in getting rid of it altogether.
I am happy my field has license requirements. In fact I wish they'd make them more restrictive to get rid of all the yahoos at H&R Block, Liberty Tax, Jackson Heweitt, etc.
I'm not sure how teaching works, but I'm not sure if I'd want a Social Studies licensed teacher moving to teach Special Ed without getting some training or a license to prove he knows what he/she is doing.
Last edited:
That's actually a thing...last I knew in WI they're allowing folks without teaching backgrounds become teachers.
That's not to say anyone with a teaching license is made for it or is good at it, or that someone without it can't be a really great teacher, but there's some specific things that I know people outside of the education world are fully ignorant of that makes it a little scary.
Your hypothetical isn't helpful in overcoming the evident need to license in certain professions, which I'm sure are based on an identifiable professional need more than a whim. If you want to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a barber, or an electrician, or a teacher, you go to the appropriate schools or training, take tests, and pay a small fee to show the world you are qualified.
I'm not a teacher, but I know we have teachers on the board who could speak to this.