## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Lack of Professional Standards**: Unlike established professions, teaching allows individual interpretation over proven methods > - **Training System Failure**: Initial teacher education prioritises ideology over evidence-based practice and practical skills > - **False Dichotomies**: Education debates often create artificial either-or choices when balanced approaches are needed ## Definition **Teaching's Professional Status Problem**: The field lacks the standardised training, proven methodologies, and evidence-based practice standards that characterise true professions like medicine or engineering. ## Connected To [[Centralised Lesson Planning]] | [[Explicit Teaching]] | [[Non-Explicit Teaching]] | [[Logical Fallacies]] | [[What Research can you Trust]] --- ## Professional standards comparison Established professions such as medicine, engineering, and law demonstrate standardised training in proven methods developed over years of collective experience. They require evidence-based practice where effectiveness must be demonstrated before implementation. Quality control systems prevent practitioners from inventing their own methods. Mentorship models ensure novices learn from experts before gaining autonomy. Continuous improvement occurs through systematic evaluation and refinement. Teaching's current reality differs in several respects. Individual autonomy receives emphasis over proven methodologies. An "anything goes" mentality prevails as long as syllabus requirements are met. Resistance to standardisation appears framed as creativity and professional freedom. Novice practitioners face expectations to create curricula and methods from scratch. ## Example: medical vs educational training The contrast between established professions and current teaching practice is stark. No aspiring heart surgeon is told to simply come up with their own surgical method, where anything goes as long as it feels right. Instead, medical training requires mastery of established procedures before innovation, extensive supervision during skill development, evidence of competency before independent practice, and ongoing professional development in proven techniques. Educational training currently allows individual interpretation of teaching methods, minimal standardisation across practitioners, innovation without evidence of effectiveness, and resistance to adopting proven practices. ## Initial teacher education problems Initial teacher education programmes exhibit misplaced priorities. Current training focuses on social justice ideology rather than practical classroom management skills, leaving new teachers unprepared for classroom reality. Philosophy of education receives attention instead of evidence-based explicit teaching methods (Rosenshine, 2012), resulting in students receiving inferior instruction. Inquiry-based learning receives advocacy over phonics and systematic instruction, which harms disadvantaged students (Stockard et al., 2018). Cultural work receives emphasis rather than subject-specific didactics, leading to insufficient content knowledge delivery. Initial teacher education is run by university academics rather than expert classroom practitioners (Hattie, 2009). This creates several consequences. Theory receives emphasis over practical application. Those designing programmes have limited understanding of daily classroom realities. Ideological agendas supersede evidence-based practice. A disconnect exists between training and actual teaching requirements. ## Teaching as craft informed by science The analogy between teaching and medicine or architecture is instructive (Stanovich & Stanovich, 2003). Architecture is a professional practice that grew from being purely a craft to a craft based firmly on a scientific foundation. Architects wish to design beautiful buildings, but they must also apply foundational principles of engineering and adhere to structural principles. If they do not, their buildings, however beautiful, will not stand. Similarly, teachers seek to design lessons that stimulate students and entice them to learn. But if lessons are not based in the science of pedagogy, they, like poorly constructed buildings, will fail. Teaching, like medicine, is an art that can be greatly enhanced by developing a close relationship to science (Berliner, 1987). ### Professional responsibility and autonomy Pearson (1999) warned educators that resisting evaluation by hiding behind the "art of teaching" defence will eventually threaten teacher autonomy. Teachers need creativity, but they also need to demonstrate that they know what evidence is and that they practise in a profession based in behavioural science. Professional groups wish to retain the privileges of teacher prerogative and choice, but the price is constant attention to new knowledge as a vehicle for fine-tuning individual and collective views of best practice. This is the path that other professions, such as medicine, have taken to maintain their professional prerogative. If professional groups in education fail to assume this responsibility squarely and openly, they will find themselves victims of onerous legislative mandates (Pearson, 1999). ## Every mathematics teacher should know A professional approach to mathematics teaching would ensure all practitioners possess specific, evidence-based knowledge and skills. Teachers need proven instructional methods for all curriculum concepts based on professional collective experience. They require multiple explanatory approaches: various models, metaphors, and examples for making concepts meaningful, different approaches for each mathematical idea, and the ability to provide alternative explanations when students don't understand. Assessment and diagnostic skills are essential. Teachers need effective questions, prompts, tasks, and activities that research has shown to be impactful. They must know common misconceptions associated with each concept and strategies for addressing specific learning difficulties. Deep content knowledge - comprehensive understanding of mathematics itself, not just pedagogical techniques - provides the foundation for effective teaching. ## Pedagogy vs didactics balance Teacher education programmes currently prioritise pedagogy over didactics. Pedagogy, generic teaching style and general methods, receives overemphasis, while didactics, how to teach specific subject content effectively, receives insufficient attention. The consequence of this is that teachers know general strategies but lack subject-specific expertise. Style receives priority over substance in teaching evaluation. Students receive engaging but ineffective instruction. Achievement gaps persist despite pedagogical innovation. ## Resistance to professionalisation Some argue that teachers need freedom to innovate and express creativity and individuality. Others claim that every class requires different approaches due to student uniqueness. Professional autonomy arguments assert that teachers are professionals who should control their practice. Context dependency claims suggest that local conditions require adapted methods. However, these objections misunderstand professional practice. Innovation builds on mastery; creativity is more effective when grounded in proven foundations. Professional judgement applies evidence-based methods through individual adaptation within frameworks. Autonomy requires competence; freedom is earned through demonstrated effectiveness. Context adaptation of proven methods allows local application of universal principles. ## References Berliner, D. C. (1987). Knowledge is power: A talk to teachers about a revolution in the teaching profession. In D. C. Berliner & B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.), *Talks to teachers* (pp. 3-33). Random House. Hattie, J. (2009). *Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement*. Routledge. Pearson, P. D. (1999). A historically based review of preventing reading difficulties in young children. *Reading Research Quarterly*, 34, 231-246. Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12-19. Stanovich, P. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). *Using research and reason in education*. Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. *Review of Educational Research*, 88(4), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919