I have to disagree with you here (for many reasons). I know that there are many very bright and capable teachers out there, but there are too many teachers who aren't like this, plus many good ones get fed up and leave the job.
Note that I'm speaking primarily of teachers in public schools here.
And...there aren't mediocre members of every profession? The command of math and science needed to get into med school does not prevent mediocrity in that profession does it? Or do you feel all physicians within a given specialty are equally good at what they do?
A Master's in Education is a far cry from say, a Master's in biology, history, or physics. An M.Ed. is far less demanding than any of these other three degrees and tends to emphasize fluffy subjects like diversity, social justice, and critical thinking skills. Plus, math and science requirements tend to center on low-end introductory courses. It's not surprising that M.Ed. degrees tend to attract less-than-stellar students.
First of all, many Masters degrees in education are specialized: reading; technology; math; etc. The types of courses you reference are more likely to be in initial certification coursework (although I've never heard of a social justice requirement). Are they fluff? They can be if not done well, but the reality is that until our college campuses (and teacher ed programs) are demographically much more like our society, they are more important than you might imagine. Perhaps this is less of an issue on the coasts, but in the midwest, there are an awful lot of people who arrive on college campuses from towns where everyone is white, christian and born in the U.S.A. On college campuses they are likely to meet people from other backgrounds, but the people they meet will be educated and most likely from at least a solid middle class background. Television sitcoms, dramas and news shows are poor preparation to work respectfully or effectively with children and families from other backgrounds.
Yet they get the degree and too many seem to expect that the rest of society should defer to them because they have a master's degree. Lots of people have a master's degree. I have a one! But I don't expect anyone to defer to me or even see me as "professional" because of it. My results at work are what make me a professional.
Really? Because with all due respect, you have just deemed some masters degrees less worthy than others and you have written about teachers as if you are in a position to judge the worthiness of a large number of people. I have a hard time believing that you only expect to be seen as a professional based on your results at work (as opposed to your training and preparation). Are your individual results that visible and understandable to people outside of your immediate work environment that they can judge whether or not you are a professional? Or do you only expect to be seen as a professional by your co-workers? I don't know what your field is, but if you aren't a public employee, the question as to whether or not you are a professional probably never even comes up.
Then there's the problem of pay increases being tied only to seniority. Teaching is one of the few jobs where you can't be rewarded because you're good at your job. Why would a talented, energetic person with other options stay in a job where even the idea of merit pay is controversial?
A talented, energetic person with other options would stay in a job where the idea of merit pay is controversial because:
She (or he) believes that what she is doing is important, or...
She is good at it and values results more than a bump in pay, or...
She knows that teachers competing against one another is not going to improve results because this is a profession that NEEDS a collaborative spirit. Or...
She does not believe that there are good enough/fair enough ways to measure "merit" and does not want to see teachers penalized for taking on the tough assignments or sticking with the struggling learners.
Or maybe, because when it comes right down to it, she knows that good administrators either bring their teachers up to speed or take effective steps to end their employment; and that if an administrator is not able to observe a teacher often enough to document performance problems, then an administrator also cannot observe each individual teacher often enough to accurately judge who the best teachers really are.
Teachers as a group also resist the idea of being evaluated or judged on performance. And once a teacher is tenured, that's it. If there are layoffs, a bad tenured teacher with more seniority will displace a good one with less seniority.
Sorry, but I just don't like that system, and I think it attracts (and retains) people who tend toward mediocrity.
I completely disagree with your assertion that teachers resist being evaluated or judged on performance. Many of us seek evaluative feedback from our supervisors or peers in order to improve our practice. What "peformance" criteria will you use? I guarantee you that my colleague at the school across town, with its 5% poverty rate and homogenous population will look great based on test scores compared to my colleague down the hall in a school with a poverty rate above 80%, a population comprised of four significant racial/ethnic groups, and with 40% of students speaking english as their second language.
Then again, what do I know? I'm just someone who has chosen to be part of a mediocre group of people. Obviously if I had any real intelligence I would abandon my students and go get a real job.
