First, take a look at Text Savvy’s truly excellent post on the irrelevance of being a teacher to contribute to education. I’ll post a selection from his conclusion, but I promise that it won’t ruin the essay for you:

In my view, the conditions that exist in elementary and middle school education today–regardless of their exact nature or cause–serve to attract those most closely involved with it and those most directly affected by it away from inconvenient truths. So not only are non-teachers valuable to education criticism and reform, they are necessary prophets for an industry that can be frustratingly self-serving and unrepentant.

I suggest reading the entire piece to see how he got there - it’s worth it.

Fresh off that wonderful read [and not wonderful just because I largely agree] I came across a brief post from the Teacher Research Blog, the blog of the New York State English Council’s Standing Committee on Teacher Inquiry, that includes one of the more haughty phrases I’ve seen in some time:

Call for teacher research

An opportunity for teacher researchers to be published in the New York State English Council’s professional journal, The English Record!

Theme: Teacher-Researcher - Bringing the Teacher Back into the Conversation
Guest Editors: NYSEC Standing Committee on Teacher Inquiry

In his annual report last year, NYSEC VP-Secondary Terry Tiernan reminded teachers of their intellectual authority in the current conversations surrounding ELA education usually dominated by politicians and the media. Teacher research and inquiry provide a format for educators to share their voices and advocate on behalf of their students and colleagues. Teacher research involves systematic and purposeful study of our practice. What have you learned about your teaching and students’ learning through reflective self-study, data collection, and analysis? How have you informed your instruction through inquiry? How have you collaborated with other educators to improve your practice? Please share your stories, your data, and your studies.

Deadline for submissions is June 1, 2008. Please contact tim.fredrick@gmail.com or lassonc@oneonta.edu for more information.

The emphasis on the phrase “intellectual authority” is mine.

There are three important things to keep in mind here:

1. Having been a daily practitioner or former practitioner does not guarantee relevance, expertise or authority on a subject.
2. Not having been a daily or former practitioner does not disqualify one from relevance, expertise or authority on a subject.
3. If one doesn’t believe #1 or #2, one isn’t committed to solving a problem in an efficient manner and one isn’t concerned with encouraging the richness of the debate.

I have no doubt that politicians, the media and other actors are frequently misinformed or wrong about certain issues. However, it is important to note that they’re wrong because they’re wrong, not because they’re politicians or journalists. It would be a profitable venture to invite those who, in Tiernan’s view, have been marginalizing teachers to weigh in on how they might correct that. Tiernan chooses to ignore that perspective.

The most experienced, effective hiring managers will tell you that basing authority on credentials - in this case, teaching certification - is no guarantee of a potential employee’s contributions.

Credentials are about probability. A Certified Financial Planner is far more likely to guide your retirement funds properly than John down the street who happens to subscribe to Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. This is why we generally trust our funds to a CFP and only smile and nod when John gives us a stock tip. Odds and evidence compel us to regard the CFP as an authority.

But we probably should have listened to John when he threw us a bone about that Google stock back in the day - if only our CFP had seen it coming, too.

Credentials and certification can also guarantee responsibility. If our credentialed, certified neurosurgeon decides to laser-etch “Kilroy was here” somewhere on our pre-frontal cortex after he repairs an aneurysm, we hold him responsible for both potential damage and his violation of ethics. He is held accountable for his actions; we are sure of this going into the procedure. Along with his credentials that suggest competence, we allow the neurosurgeon access to our brain instead of Neighbor John whose hobbies include, in addition to investing, amateur brain surgery [remember, he got into Google early, he can afford the special equipment].

Those are the same reasons why public schools require certification for teachers. A certified teacher is theoretically most likely to do the job well and, if he does not, he is held accountable for not living up to that standard. It does not mean or even suggest that certified teachers have a monopoly on authority regarding their duties.

I understand that NYSEC’s Terry Tiernan was reaching out to teachers and drumming up pride so they might contribute to the publication - there’s no problem with that. And Tiernan, NYSEC and the Teacher Research Blog also didn’t count on an outsider reading their literature. Despite good intentions and the likelihood of the language going unnoticed, Tiernan need not legitimize artificially the intellectual authority of teachers at the expense of non-teachers - who are equally committed to exactly the same causes - and who may also be authorities. It is snobbery and sub-optimal management.

If one wonders at times why there are often such rifts in public education between teachers, administrators and all the other stakeholders, Tiernan gives us a fine example.