The Predictable, but Unpredictably Personal, Politics of Teacher Licensure

The debates about teacher licensure have long reflected a grace, decorum, and rhetorical nuance more appropriate to the final weeks of a partisan political contest than to a substantive policy debate. Perplexingly, given the utterly unexceptional nature of the politics of the issue, the debate has turned into an often venomous dispute focused largely on the intricacies of data interpretation. The clash between those who would defend licensure and toughen the preparation requirements that it entails (the "professionalizers" in their preferred parlance) and those who would downsize much of the accreditation and licensure apparatus ("commonsense reformers" in my preferred argot) has often entailed policy disputes taking on a personal dimension. This may, in part, be due to the reality that there is relatively little reliable information on the value or effects of teacher licensure and preparation. In what may be the most disinterested survey of the research on teacher preparation and licensure, the Education Commission of the States found in 2003 that just 92 out of more than 500 studies met the minimal professional standard of basing conclusions on "systematic observation rather than ... opinion" and that the evidence on seven of eight key questions examined was nonexistent or inconclusive (Allen, 2003, p. 3). (1) My introduction to the personal nature of the discourse came in 2001 when, as an assistant professor of education at the University of Virginia, I wrote a policy brief titled Tear Down This Wall: The Case for a Radical Overhaul of Teacher Certification for the Progressive Policy Institute. The paper was unveiled at a National Press Club event in fall 2001, where the executive director of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) joked, For his own best interest, I urge [Mr. Hess] to consult with his dean about his call to end the exorbitant monetary costs [of teacher preparation].... Hopefully, he will have alternatives to present ... regarding other ways to pay the salaries of assistant professors, absent the student tuition dollars those prospective teacher candidates generate. (Imig, 2001, p. 8) On another occasion, in an editorial in this very journal, the editor described the tone of one of my articles as "replete with melodramatic mixed metaphors," "patronizing," and imbued with "deeply disturbing irony" (Cochran-Smith, 2003, pp. 371-372). Now, I make no claims to being neutral in the debate about teacher licensure or to being a disinterested observer of the attendant politics (in the spirit of full disclosure, see, e.g., Hess, 2001, 2002, 2003; Hess, Rotherham, & Walsh, 2004; Vergari & Hess, 2002). Nonetheless, although critical of licensure and the professionalization agenda, I have always happily conceded that "teacher education can be beneficial, that education courses can provide valuable training, [and] that there are many effective teacher educators" (Hess, 2001, p. 5). Ultimately, debates about teacher licensure and preparation should turn not on the merits or motives of particular actors but on how to construct a system that fosters excellence. The politics of teacher licensure and professionalization are neither complicated nor surprising. Those institutions, organizations, and individuals who have helped construct existing arrangements and licensing systems see their handiwork as sensibly ordered, if imperfect, with improvement requiring primarily the application of higher standards, additional expertise, more fieldwork and partnering with schools, and more resources (Berliner, 2000; Sirotnik & Associates, 2001; Sykes, 2004; Wilson, Darling-Hammond, & Berry, 2001; Wise & Leibbrand, 2003). On the other hand, those who would strip down much of the existing licensure apparatus--few of whom have any station or influence in the teacher preparation community--regard such efforts as tinkering that leaves established gatekeepers unchallenged, dissuades talent from entering the field, stifles challenges to the reigning orthodoxy, and inflates the cost of educational provision (Hess, 2004; Kanstoroom & Finn, 1999; Podgursky, 2004). …