Education is serious business. The economic and political status of our nation, indeed the very fabric of our society depends upon it. Unfortunately, the public educational systems of the United States are not doing their job (that is, if one can use the singular). Daily we are reminded of the failure of public schools to raise standardized test scores, reduce teenage pregnancy, or stem the rising tide of violence in our country. Fortunately for us, educational reformers and business leaders are just brimming with ideas which will save the day and reverse the trend established by decades of apparent decay. Chief among these ideas is the decentralization of schools and the professionalization of the teaching workforce.

Decentralization is promoted by reformers as a means of locating the operational authority of local schools closer to the communities which they serve. The argument goes that by weakening the strong centralized control of public school systems, individual schools will be more responsive to the needs of the community. As such, the decentralized schools would actually be more democratic, giving each student and his parents a proportionally stronger voice in what is essentially a public, governmental institution. Decentralization should also free classroom teachers from the constricting rules and regulations imposed upon them by the bureaucratically superior "central office." Thus, teachers in decentralized schools will be, at least organizationally, less bureaucratic and more professional. In fact, Englund (1993) observes that a "decentralized school system is said to be dependent on teacher professionalism" (italics added, p. 8). It is to this last concept, teacher professionalism, that I intend to focus my attention.

Calls for the professionalization of teachers seem to emanate from a surprisingly wide variety of sources. Actually it is difficult, in the popular press, to find anyone who is actively opposed to the concept of teacher professionalism. If this is the case, why are teachers given neither the respect nor the social status of doctors or lawyers? Why are teachers not readily recognized as "professionals?" Considering the typical rhetoric with which this paper began -- regarding education as the determinant of the United States' international status and the common basis for the fabric of our society -- teaching should be in a much better position, both socially and economically, relative to other occupations. It is actually within this rhetoric, with which we are so familiar, that the problem can be found.

While a great number of participants in the ongoing debate and reform efforts of American public education employ terms such as profession, professional, professionalism, and professionalization, no common understanding of terminology informs this debate. Instead, every participant has his own rather clear, but unique, definitions of these terms, Teachers and their unions tend to color these phrases with references to power, prestige, and income. Administrators tend to think of these words through a more bureaucratic lens, focusing on issues of compliance. Parents, however, tend to view these issues in terms of competence and how well their own children are treated. These are but three parties to the debate, also included are federal, state, and local elected officials and their bureaucratic counterparts, business leaders, and the general public -- each having a unique view of the educational enterprise. As Goodlad (1990) observes of the resultant cacophonous discussion,

It is not surprising, then, that widely varying reform initiatives cloak themselves in the language of advancing a true profession while pursuing often contradictory ends. (p. 12)

It is no wonder then, that both the history of teacher professionalization and the current debate are wreaked with confusion resulting from conflicting arguments couched in support of seemingly similar concepts. This paper will explore these issues in an attempt to journey through the fog of ambiguous connotations and denotations to achieve some measure of clarity which may help to inform the ongoing debate and further the realization of teaching as a profession.

What is a "profession?"

As Eliot Freidson, author of Professional Powers (1986), aptly warns that "a word with so many connotations and denotations cannot be employed in precise discourse without definition" (p. 35). To facilitate the discourse necessarily needed in the educational debate about teacher professionalism, we must first look at the fundamental concept of "profession." Originating from the Latin, professio, profession originally meant a declaration or avowal usually in relation to religious beliefs. However, by the sixteenth century, this rather narrow meaning expanded to include a connotation of insincerity in the profession of secular matters, as in "their professed neutrality" (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 1983, p. 1437). Thus, the ambiguous nature of "profession" is at least four centuries old.

The noun profession, referring to an occupation, also dates back to at least the sixteenth century, and is equally ambiguous. Originally denoting the occupations of university-educated men, specifically men of high social standing, its use was limited to "the learned professions" of medicine, law and divinity. Inherent within this context is the elite and prestigious connotation many hold of "the professions" to this day. As Freidson notes, the original professionals

addressed each other and members of the ruling elite who shared some of their knowledge and belief in its virtues. They did not address the common people or the common, specialized trades. So it is in our time. (p. 3)

Although originally limited in its scope, profession quickly came into use when referring to a wide range of occupations by which people made their living, regardless of their social status or prestige. The referent occupation could indeed be common or of ill-repute, including everyone from priests to prostitutes, members of "the oldest profession." Thus, almost from the beginning, the term profession could be used to mean either a small, exclusive set of occupations or its opposite, any occupation at all.

Unfortunately, the denotational ambiguity of profession was transferred to its derivation as an adjective, professional, which, in turn, soon encompassed a variety of connotations as well, both positive and negative in nature. Originally connoting association with gentlemanly occupations and activities, professional also reversed its connotation, referring to things considered ungentlemanly or untoward. A common example can be gathered from athletics, when the term is used in contrast with amateur. An amateur athlete supposedly engages in activities for the sheer love of athleticism alone, with no ulterior motives. A professional, on the other hand, engages in the same activities for monetary compensation, and as such, is considered tainted in comparison to the amateur. One need only think of recent debates of the participation of "professionals" in the Olympic Games to see this tension. The disparaging use of professional goes beyond association with money, however. In the nineteenth century, it also came to connote "bad form" or poor taste, as in "a professional partygoer, a professional beauty" (Freidson, p. 23).

As the nineteenth century progressed into the twentieth, industrialization swept across Western Europe and North America. With it came ever increasing occupational differentiation. As people's occupations became more specialized and interdependent, professional added once again to its connotations. However, the normative value of the new additions was reversed, this time from negative to positive. Within this context,

The amateur is a dabbler at a mere pastime, ... the professional is dedicated to practice and refinement of his or her skill during the working days of the week and so seeks support for it. In this sense, the professional is an accomplished expert, a full-time specialist cultivating a particular kind of skill or activity. (Freidson, p. 24)

Hence, to refer to one's workmanship as amateurish is to characterize it as being of poor or shoddy quality. In contrast to amateurish stands professional, which connotes workmanship of excellent quality and reliability. Consequently, we are left to inherit a term which can connote either high quality craftsmanship, bad form, or less than ideal motives, about a set of activities that can vary from the occupations of highly learned upper class elites to any occupation for which one is paid. It is no wonder that any debates or reform which center around the concept of "profession" become riddled with contradictions and confusion. "On the whole, as Bell (1979) put it, it is a 'muddled concept" (quoted in Freidson, p. 43).

As a result of this ambiguity, in today's occupational market, all participants can rightfully lay claim on the label of "profession." Many occupations have actively lobbied to be officially recognized as professions, for with this designation comes not only affiliation (however weak) with the social elite, but also the connotation of professional ethics which in turn can provide "political legitimation for the effort to gain protection from competition in the labor market" (Freidson, p. 33). So wide-spread have the claims to professional status become that the 1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States includes occupations under the heading of "managerial and professional" ranging from craft-artists, recreation workers and athletes to lawyers, doctors, and clergy (the original "learned professions") (p. 407).* Given the amorphous nature of professional classification, Freidson declares of the multitude of these occupational claims, that

no one (claim) ... may be thought to be better grounded, phenomenologically, than any other. If this be granted, then it follows that there is no way of resolving the problem of defining profession that is not arbitrary. (original italics, p. 36)

Terminology harboring connotations and denotations of such an arbitrary nature are practically worthless when trying to engage and sustain informed debates and discussions. Therefore, we must further narrow our focus on profession and all of its derivations to specifically, those discussions centering on teacher professionalism and professionalization in the late twentieth century.

Teaching as a Profession?

Tomas Englund informs us that the phrase teaching as a profession "has no unequivocal meaning, and that the conceptual meaning of profession is a void, being no more than a "buzzword" (p. 1). Fortunately, however, the efforts and reforms surrounding the concept of teaching break down into the two somewhat distinct concepts of professionalization and professionalism, both of which are more susceptible to analysis. Professionalization is a sociological process by which an occupation gains professional status and privilege. It is both culturally and temporally bound. As Johnson, author of Professions and Power (1972), writes

Professionalization is a historically specific process, which some occupations have undergone at a particular time, rather than a process which certain occupations may always be expected to undergo because of their "essential" qualities. (quoted in Soder, 1990, p. 63)

Therefore, the processes of professionalization undergone by other occupations do not necessarily serve as guideposts for teaching's long struggle toward professional status. Because of its sociological aspect, professionalization is necessarily dependent upon society as a whole, which may either grant or withhold professional designation. Englund summarizes this concept nicely, defining professionalization as "a measure of the societal strength and authority of an occupational group" (italics added, p. 2).

Arguments for the professionalization of teaching usually focus on the privilege and prestige of previously established professions, referring most notably to medicine as "the ultimate in status, the elite position in the world of work" (Soder, p. 35). The fundamental basis of educators' argument is that they possess a formal, esoteric knowledge base which can guide practitioners' actions, similar to that of doctor's medical knowledge. Indeed the 1986 Holmes Group report, Tomorrow's Teachers typifies the centrality of knowledge to claiming similarity with other professions.

The established professions have, over time, developed a body of specialized knowledge, codified and transmitted through professional education and clinical practice. Their claim to professional status rests on this. ... The Holmes Group commits itself to phase out the undergraduate education major in member institutions and to develop in its place a graduate professional program in teacher education. (p. 63)

This plan would make education a strictly graduate level endeavor, much like medicine (the use of "clinical" above is hardly coincidental). Teacher education programs, such as that at Michigan State University, have even adopted medical terminology. Pre-service initiates to teaching are no longer "student teachers" but are referred to as "interns." Professional development schools, the latest fad in education, are being purposefully modeled after teaching hospitals. Unfortunately, the claims of similarity with medicine have not served teaching well. The reactions of established professionals to these claims "is rather like the indulgent response of airline passengers to the youngster who announces he is a 'pilot' because he is wearing a pilot pin" (Soder, p. 49).

The very structure of the rhetorical argument from similitude regarding professionalization is self-defeating. "We're like doctors,' teachers say. 'Prove it,' replies the audience" (Soder, p. 71). Given the long history of criticism of the intellectual content of teacher education and the inferior intelligence of teachers, any claim to similarity with medicine immediately becomes laughable. To counter this line of argument, some turn to the role of testing in teacher certification as being analogous to the medical board examinations. However, such a comparison serves "merely to underscore the real and considerable differences between medicine and education -- and hardly in favor of education" (Soder, p. 69). It should be evident that the fundamental premise of similarity is flawed, to say the least. Teaching cannot achieve professional status by following the a medical model of professionalization. As Soder concludes, "Once teachers (and their leaders) cease attempts to define themselves as 'professionals' in terms of the medical model, they will begin to free themselves from the tyranny of their own dreams" (Soder, p. 72).

In contrast to focusing on professionalization, many feel that concentration on professionalism, which rather than relying on societal approval refers toward aspects more internal to teaching children, and is a more appropriate and plausibly more effective avenue to establishing teaching as a profession. Professionalism is characterized by Englund as focusing "on the question of what qualifications and acquired capacities, what competence, is required for the successful exercise of an occupation" (p. 2). Professionalism is then the quality of being professional, of allowing one's actions to be regulated by an "internal code of ethics" (McDonnell, 1988, p. 5). Therefore, professionalism deals with one's motivations and the mental context with which one approaches one's work. Thus, the only people responsible for, or capable of, developing professionalism among the nation's teaching workforce are the teachers themselves.

There exists two major arguments supporting the centrality of professionalism to the educational debate, professionalism as a state of mind and professionalism as a moral imperative. Popular across a wide range of occupations is framing professionalism as simply a state of mind. In contrast to the more dominant conceptual frameworks in the educational debate, Peter Clamp (1990) writes

Professionalism is a state of mind. It actually has little to do with occupation, position, rank, years of service, clientele or hours worked. It also has little to do with seniority, personal ambition, remuneration, holidays, office size or mode of dress. Neither has it anything to do with years spent in a university, degrees attained, social standing, or even real or imagined codes of conduct and etiquette. It is quite simply, an ideal. (p. 53)

Clamp characterizes professionalism instead as being composed of four attributes -- competency, integrity, reliability, and empathic humanism which he defines as evidence of "genuine caring for fellow humans" (pp. 54-55). While no one can really take exception to these attributes, they allow absolutely anybody to claim professional status on the basis of exhibited professionalism. Both a Supreme Court justice and a ditch-digging chain gang member can rightfully claim such status as long as they are in possession of Clamp's four characteristics. For obvious reasons, such an egalitarian conception of professionalism may enjoy vast support from the general populace, including teachers. Unfortunately, Clamp's framework leads further into already ambiguous bog of conceptual confusion.

Further hindering debate based upon such a conception of professionalism is the internal nature of these characteristics. They are possessed in a strictly individual manner and for the most part are not directly observable. An occupation cannot exhibit personal values. In order to be considered a profession an occupation must produce demonstrable results (Sykes, personal conversation, 3/2/95). Thus reliance on competency, integrity, reliability and empathic humanism, while noble, will not substantively contribute to either the current educational debate, or the future realization of teaching as a profession. Consequently, we must now turn our attention to the place of moral imperative in professionalism.

The concept of teacher professionalism as a moral imperative is based upon the centrality of children in the educational setting. Thus far, children have been noticeably absent from discussions surrounding these issues. Of this situation, Myrna Cooper (1988), Director of the New York City Teacher Center Consortium, laments

The milieu of schools is written in the lives of children as well as professionals. Yet the lore on school professional culture ignores the client. The notion of service, the personal nature of the relationship to youngster and families, the caring and bonding context of the event are embarrassingly absent. (p. 48)

Fortunately, focus has recently been placed squarely upon children and the responsibilities of teachers individually, and teaching collectively to them. In fact, the central focus on children can be seen among such participants in the educational debate as Linda Darling-Hammond, John Goodlad and the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (hereafter referred to as the NBPTS). Goodlad, in the preface of, The Moral Dimensions of Teaching (1990) clearly states, "The teacher's first responsibilities are to those being taught" (p. xii). So important does the NBPTS consider the place of children that it takes children as the central focus of their first policy position statement writing, "(Board-certified) Teachers are committed to students and their learning" (1994, p. 6). Darling-Hammond (1989) most effectively communicates the position of those people arguing from a moral imperative basis, writing

Misinterpreting professionalization as mainly a quest for money, status, and autonomy, opponents worry that "empowered" teachers will be unaccountable. They fail to understand that the major reason for seeking to create a profession of teaching is that it will increase the probability that all students will be well educated because they are well taught -- that professionalism seeks to heighten accountability by investing in knowledge and its responsible use. (p. 15)

Darling-Hammond's articulation of this position thus answers Sykes' criticism of Clamp's argument. By tying teacher professionalism with student learning, teachers now have a demonstrable event upon which to base their claims of professionalism. If teaching as an occupation, does not consider the effects of its individual and collective actions upon students' learning, then it does not deserve the honorific of "professional."

In an ironic twist, the argument for professionalism, an concept internally bound within an occupation, on the basis of moral imperative actually results in developing support for the professionalization of teaching, a process external to the control of an occupation. The basis of professional claims upon service to children benefits the process of professionalization in two significant ways. First and most basically, it reconnects today's teachers with the ideal of service connoted by the original "learned professions" of medicine, law, and divinity. Darling-Hammond, once again, summarizes this position well by reminding teachers that "professionals are obligated to do whatever is best for the client, not what is easiest, most expedient, or even what the client might want" (1989, italics added, pp. 15-16). Unfortunately, this position in not prevalent in a large majority of literature generated by teachers and their unions when writing about teacher professionalization.

The second way in which a focus on children benefits the process of professionalization arises from the compulsory nature of public education in the United States. Parents are required by law to send their children to school. For the vast majority of these parents, public schooling represent the only feasible way to educate their children and comply with the law. Because children are defenseless, the act of sending one's children to school becomes an act of "surrender" (Soder, pp. 73-74). The "equality of surrender" exhibited by parents in sending their children to the local school, Soder argues, "should imply equality of treatment" (p. 73). Therefore, children should not be subjected to qualitatively differential educational experiences simply because of differences in social class, ethnicity, gender, or other factors over which children have no control. Equality of surrender must necessitate equality of treatment. If this condition does not hold true, then it is immoral to demand surrender of parent's most precious possessions, their children. Consequently, "those responsible for treatment of children in schools have a moral obligation to ensure equality of treatment" (Soder, p. 73).

The argument for teacher professionalism on the basis of the moral imperative inherent within public education offers the most promising potential avenue to the realization of teaching as a profession. As Becker (1962) suggests "public willingness to accord honors to an occupation derives from a collective sense of the moral praiseworthiness of that occupation" (quoted in Soder, p. 72). This argument from moral imperative supplies the "moral praiseworthiness" needed for professionalization. It also provides demonstrable criteria for competence as required by Sykes, through concentration on student learning at the core. In addition, the moral imperative argument also associates teaching with established professions, not through emphasis on a knowledge base and prestige, but instead in its focus on service as a central guiding factor. Unfortunately, however, this argument is only one of many, currently lost in the cacophony referred to as the educational debate regarding teacher professionalization.

Common Threads

Although often cacophonous, common threads can be distinguished from the disparate arguments and positions offered in the current debate. In order to reduce the confusion clouding issues of teaching as a profession, we must bring those threads to the foreground of the ongoing discussions. By tying these threads together, it may be possible to forge a single conception of "professional teaching" which can, in turn, provide a basis for the commonly shared terminology necessary for any informed debate.

When reviewing the literature regarding professions in general, and teaching as a profession in particular, one can glean three fundamental bases for professional designation. These are knowledge, competence, and commitment to clients/students. The third of these, commitment to students, is discussed at length in the previous section. Therefore, it will not be reviewed again. Knowledge as a prerequisite for professional designation can be traced throughout the history of professional literature. Talcott Parsons (1951) in his ranking of the "normative world from the popular to the professional" employs a continuum from "the emotional to the cognitive" (italics added, quoted in Bledstein, 1985, p. 6). Nathan Glazer does an excellent job of reviewing the position of knowledge in professional designation, in his work, "The Schools the Minor Professions" (1974). In it, Glazer quotes several researchers' perspectives such as that of Carr-Saunders and Wilson (1933) who "recognize a profession as a vocation founded upon prolonged and specialized intellectual training ..." (italics added, p. 347). More contemporary researchers continue to echo the importance of a firm knowledge base. Labaree (1992) identifies knowledge as one of "two key elements that are demonstrably part of any successful claim of professional status" (p. 125). Talbert and McLaughlin (1994) in their work, "Teacher Professionalism in Local School Contexts" also point to "a specialized knowledge" as "primary among the conditions that distinguish a 'profession' from other occupations" (italics added, p. 126).

Unfortunately, knowledge as a criterion for professional status has proven troublesome to teachers in the past. Within teaching, two types of knowledge must be mastered, pedagogy and subject matter. Most critics ignore this fact. Instead, they demand that high school chemistry teachers to be as well trained in chemistry as a professional chemists. Such a demand is unreasonable. This is not to dismiss the criticism which befalls educators, but this fact must be kept in mind when considering the intellectual training of teachers. Unfortunately the intellectual accomplishments and training of our nation's teachers is deserving of much of the criticism. Teachers and teacher education have historically been criticized as intellectually weak and lacking in any respectable knowledge base.* As Soder observes,

The general sentiment has long appeared to be that not only are the worst and the dumbest stumbling into teaching but, with few exceptions, the lesser lights are staying on. As one observer put it, "We can expect only the dumb and the dull to linger in teaching careers ... our teaching corps is unacceptably incompetent." (p. 48)

Of teacher preparation programs, Goodlad remarks that they are "disturbingly alike and almost uniformly inadequate" (1984, p. 315). Clifford and Guthrie, in Ed School (1988), confirm the dismal intellectual resources going into education by observing that teaching "draws heavily form the bottom quintiles of quality" (p. 32). Consequently, any attempt at the professionalization of teachers must aggressively increase the caliber of new teaching recruits. If the intellectual quality of teachers is not elevated, George Bernard Shaw's (1903) adage -- "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches."-- will only become more firmly entrenched in the public opinion of the nation (p. 260).

Some may question the utility of separating competence from knowledge as a prerequisite of professional designation. I think the distinction is not only useful, but necessary as well. Thorough understanding of the knowledge base of one's occupational field is absolutely necessary to inform one's actions. Understanding alone, however, does not ensure practical competence. A teacher fully cognizant of both subject matter and pedagogical knowledge may not be able to teach a classroom full of adolescents. Therefore, one may be knowledgeable, but incompetent.

It is within competence that teachers may produce the demonstrable effects necessary for professional claims. Because of the unique daily occurrences in teaching, teachers must rely on their own professional judgment to successfully resolve the innumerable problems which they must face. Although not explicitly addressed throughout a good portion of the literature, competence as a prerequisite for professional designation can be found implicitly throughout the discussions of professions and professionals. Bledstein observes that "routine matters do not get professionalized, and that would include a most important dimension of the professional role" (p. 6-7). The NBPTS policy statement bases two of the five "fundamental requirements for proficient teaching" on "skills" to bring about "effective student learning" (p. 4). The Board continues to claim that teaching "ultimately requires" among other things, "judgment" and "improvisation" (p. 4). More explicitly, Nathan Essex in "Educational Malpractice" (1992) views a professional teacher as one who "exhibits competency and creativity, and conveys subject matter effectively" (p. 230). Darling-Hammond (1988) also contributes, writing, "Effective teaching ... requires flexibility, a wide repertoire of strategies and use of judgment" (p. 61). Thus the case can be made to include competence among the three prerequisites for professional designation.

To this point, I have been careful to use the phrase prerequisite for professional designation. The three prerequisites of knowledge, competence and commitment to students, are only the beginning, a first step on the way to the realization of teaching as a profession. To be a profession, an occupation must act collectively. Indeed, Darling-Hammond declares, "It is the degree to which teachers assume collective responsibility for instructional quality that determines professionalism" (italics added, 1989, p. 18). Individual teachers cannot become a profession. In order to professionalize, the entire occupation must speak with one voice, on behalf of all teachers. Of course, complete uniformity of voice is impossible to achieve, but a dominant voice focused on the issues raised here is within the realm of possibility. It is only through collective, focused action that teaching may attain professional autonomy. Because professionalization is dependent upon societal recognition, the characteristics discussed previously must be in place before teaching as a occupation attempts to actively gain professional status and autonomy. As Cooper puts it, "Status and control are not the characteristics of professionalism, they are the byproducts" (p. 47). In this sense, knowledge, competence and commitment to students are truly prerequisites. Only after the prerequisites are developed with the occupation of teaching, can it hope to make "the bargain that all professions make with society:"

for occupations that require discretion and judgment in meeting the unique needs of clients, the profession guarantees the competence of members in exchange for the privilege of professional control over work structure and standards of practice. (Darling-Hammond, p. 59)

Unfortunately, as public education is currently organized and operated, it may be a very long time until teaching may be in a position to make this "bargain." Thus, teaching as a profession will not be realized in the near future.

Impediments to Professionalization

Given the constraints of this paper, it is impossible to craft a comprehensive analysis of all social, technical, and economic impediments to professionalization. Therefore, by necessity the analysis undertaken in this section is only cursory. I have chosen to concentrate on the structural impediments inherent to public schooling within our current governance system of local control. I realize that many substantive sources of impedance are neglected. Not discussed are factors such as the balkanization of the educational establishment, teacher unionism, alternative certification or the economic resources required for professionalization. Unfortunately, these aspects of teacher professionalization must be left for analysis at a later date.

Inherent within the democratic control of public schooling lies one of the most intractable impediments to professionalization. In the United States, public schools are part of the democratic governance structure. As such they fall directly under democratic control, most directly under the supervision of local school boards. Thus, teacher demands for professional autonomy are placed in the peculiar position of demanding freedom from democratic control. Put in this context, the position taken by the occupation of teaching in shaky at best. Given these circumstances, Englund naturally asks, "Does professionalization (of teachers) mean that democratic influence via the state is undermined?" (p. 3). A good question. In fact, within many opponents of teacher professionalization, as defined by educators, "images of heightened professionalism provoke fears that a professional cult will ignore the views of parents and the local community" (Darling-Hammond, 1988, p. 74). When one considers the governance structure of the public schooling, I think these worries are overstated. However, the impact of their worries upon efforts at professionalization of teaching can be very substantial. The deeply held tradition of local control of schooling has been present in America for over a century and a half. The public will not relinquish control so easily. Thus, the nation's teachers must somehow present a very strong case for professionalization. Even a strong case, well argued, is no guarantee of success.

Moving from the generalities of democratic control of schooling to a more limited focus upon the organization of schooling, we find another major impediment to professionalization. Inherent within the hierarchical bureaucracy of public schooling lie many obstacles to the realization of teachers as professionals. Teachers, as the "street-level bureaucrats" of the system, are overwhelmed by rules and regulatory procedures imposed upon them by their bureaucratic superiors (Lipsky, 1980). However, considering the role of democratic governance in the supervision of schooling, the legitimacy of the rationales for bureaucratic control listed below can be seen.

  1. Legislative control ... is a means for ensuring that education serves the public welfare.

  2. Because public education is equally available to all without charge, schools and teachers are acquired through a fee-for-service market that would provide a sort of accountability through choice.

  3. Efficiency is desired both to safeguard taxpayers' pocketbooks and ... to ensure that educational programs achieve the desired effects. (Darling-Hammond, 1988, p. 63)

Although the rationales are legitimate, the "efforts to exert management controls can ultimately subvert the quality of services by reducing workers' accountability to clients and to professional standards of practice" (Darling-Hammond, 1988. p. 62). By defining professionalism as adherence to bureaucratic regulations, legislators and administrators make teachers unprofessional. Ironically, the educational bureaucracy as it is currently organized actually makes teachers professionally unaccountable. Rather than focusing on meeting the needs of the students, which by nature is a very idiosyncratic process, bureaucracies hold teachers accountable for compliance with standard operating procedures. Hence, bureaucratic governance effectively prohibits the professionalization of teaching.

Narrowing the focus further to individual schools and classrooms, we find additional significant impediments to professionalization, namely, the physical and temporal structures of schooling. The physical construction of most public schools is comparable to an egg carton, with each group of teacher and students in their own isolated class. Consequently, teachers spend most of their time in the school building professionally isolated from their peers. Such an arrangement creates major difficulties to the development of a professional culture of communication and problem-solving. As Lortie (1975) notes, teachers "frequently work things out as best (they) can before asking for assistance" (p. 73). Because of their isolation, any advice given by fellow teachers will be in response to only a description of the classroom experience, and only rarely to direct observation. Therefore, such advice will be of "secondhand quality" (Lortie, p. 73). The resultant alienation and "sink-or-swim" attitude which develops in isolated teachers forces them to develop "coping strategies," which they are reluctant to abandon (Lipsky, chapters 7 through 10). Consequently, the teachers, enculturated in isolation, are resistant to efforts to professionalize, which will require them to change their firmly held beliefs or practices.

Further inhibiting efforts at professionalization are the temporal aspects of schooling. Put quite simply, teachers do not have the time to think about professionalization. As several works have chronicled, the work load of teachers is enormous.* Between preparing lessons, grading papers, completing a myriad of paperwork, and lest we forget, teaching students, teachers' time constraints are immense. This is without considering any extracurricular commitments! When teachers are given the opportunity to participate in school activities regarding professional concerns such as policy formulation, it is usually in addition to their "normal" workload. Until the temporal arrangements of public schooling allow time for reflective practice and professional discussion and action, "teachers will have the worst of both worlds -- distracted from their teaching mission while inadequately assimilated into the leadership role" (Cooper, p. 53). As currently arranged, the time schedule of both the school day and academic year all but prohibit substantive changes in the professional role of teachers. As Goodlad notes,

Teachers employed for 180 days and required to teach 180 days simply will not renew their schools. It is ludicrous and self-deceiving to believe that they will. Further, such an expectation borders on the immoral. (italics, added, p. 26)

Narrowing the focus still further, resistance to professionalization efforts can be found even among those who stand to benefit, individual teachers. When one considers the demands placed on teachers, one must question whether teachers possess two resources necessary for reform implementation, "capacity and will" (McLaughlin, 1987, pp. 171-178). Devaney and Sykes (1988) analyze the situation well, writing

Certainly all teachers would endorse professional-level salaries, benefits, and perquisites; but professional level responsibility for decisions about the classroom's and school's instructional program? for setting and maintaining standards of practice among fellow practitioners? for continuous updating and upgrading of knowledge and skill? It is no slander to say that many, many capable, long-experienced teachers, upon pondering such obligations in return for professional salary and status, might decline the offer -- or would at least think twice before accepting. (p. 3)

Given the long history of additional burdens being placed upon them without regard to their professional needs, it is only logical for teachers to balk at accepting even more work. Cooper astutely observes of teachers now faced with "professionalization" reforms, that "secretly they are skeptical, wondering at this sudden interest in their professionalism, ... when for years their behavior has been standardized and prescribed" (p. 46). Teachers as a group have become "accustomed to being run over by hurtling bandwagons" (Cooper, p. 46). As a result, the teaching workforce cannot help but to become cynical of educational reform in general. Consequently, the teachers, themselves, represent yet another impediment to professionalization efforts.

I conclude this admittedly cursory review of the impediments to professionalization by analyzing what it is teachers do -- the act of teaching. The practice of teaching differs from the practices of established professions in three important ways. "These differences are 1) the mystification of knowledge, 2) social distance, and 3) reciprocity of effort" (Fenstermacher, 1990, p. 136). One of the ways in which professions have earned status, prestige and high incomes is through denying public access to -- and thus public comprehension of -- their professional knowledge. This "mystification of knowledge" places the public in the position of needing the professionals' services, which necessarily increases both the status and income of those members of the professions. Teaching, on the other hand, "requires that the teacher give his or her knowledge away to the learner" (Fenstermacher, p. 136). Through the act of teaching, a teacher must not only reveal to students, but also nurture the development within students, both his subject matter knowledge and his knowledge of how to learn, or pedagogical knowledge. Consequently, the very act of teaching prohibits the mystification of knowledge.

The standard way of working with clients among established professionals, such as doctors or lawyers, is to maintain what is referred to as "social distance." Professionals do not get involved in the personal lives of their clients. Teachers, in order to be effective, must work closely with their students and get to know about their lives. It is only through an intimate knowledge of students' lives that teachers can try to craft lessons relevant to the children's realities. Learning is a very idiosyncratic process. Therefore, teachers must know the students well in order to best facilitate each student's learning. Further restricting the establishment of a formal "social distance" between the public and teachers is familiarity. During the normal public school career of a student, attending from kindergarten through twelfth grade, spends approximately 13,500 hours working with teachers.* During such a long apprenticeship, most people in the general public think they have a pretty good idea about what it takes to be a teacher. Such familiarity limits the formation of any type of formal "social distance."

Reciprocity of effort, the third difference, is almost unique to teaching. In order for a teacher to be successful, she must rely on the efforts of students. The goal of teaching is student learning. In order to learn, students must expend effort, they must actively try. Unfortunately, when legislators, administrators, or the public, talk about effective teaching, they ignore reciprocity of effort. As Fenstermacher notes, "we hold the teacher accountable for what the student learns without examining the level and quality of effort expended by the student" (p. 138). Consequently, when a student does not learn, the teacher is held responsible, regardless of student effort. Therefore, teachers cannot even control the quality of their professional "product," student learning. Such a conceptualization is completely foreign to the established professions. We do not hold a doctor responsible for the death of a patient who refuses the doctor's treatment. To do so to teachers only further demoralizes an occupation which can ill afford it, and only further weakens its already low professional status.

Hope for the Future?

A vocation is not a profession because those in it choose to call it one. It must be recognized as such. (Goodlad, 1990, p. 29)

Because professional status must be given by society, it is to our society which we much look for the hope of teacher professionalization. Unfortunately, contemporary American culture does not offer us much hope. The mythic American spirit is based upon the persona of the "self-made man" and is rather anti-intellectual, or more specifically, anti-school. It is this society which has canonized Twain and Thoreau as "great lovers of learning, but in the best American tradition, (they) were therefore also great haters of schools. ... If we were to believe Twain and Thoreau, real learning could have occurred only outside of school" (italics added, Cohen, 1989, p. 403). American society is replete of characatures of educated persons unable to cope in society, or solve even the most commonsensical problems. Included among the American cultural cast of educators are Ichabod Crane, the schoolmarm, the absent-minded professor and the innumerable witless victims of student's pranks, ala Huck Finn or Ferris Bueller.

Further complicating efforts to achieve societal recognition is the fact that, although disdainful of schooling, Americans in ever increasing numbers are becoming more educated. While at first glance, increasing educational enrollments would seem to benefit teachers, it actually has the reverse effect, by lowering the relative value of teachers' own educational credentials. The increasing educational level of the general public also calls into question the authority of professionals, educational or otherwise. Freidson summarizes this point nicely writing,

a trend toward greater egalitarianism, which means that clients are more inclined to question authority today than they were in the past. More often, reference is made to the rising educational level of the public, which narrows the gap between the professionals' knowledge and the clients' and thus erodes the professionals' authority. (p. 110)

Consequently, teachers may be striving to achieve professional status at the same time as that status is being called into question by the public. Therefore, professionalization initiatives must be crafted in such a way that they are not perceived by the public as merely self-interested efforts to attain more money and prestige. The most promising way to achieve this is through the rhetoric of moral imperative discussed previously.

By centering claims for the professionalization of teachers on the moral imperative inherent within public education in a democracy, teachers can try to take control of the terminology of the debate. By identifying themselves with some of the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded, teachers immediately weaken the opposing point of view as being against basic democratic and humanitarian virtues. Simply adopting such a focus will not be enough however. Educators must actively and aggressively pursue and defend their efforts at professionalization. Michael Sedlak, a historian of professional education and educational history, observes that historically, as other occupations aggressively struggled for and achieved professional status, educators have typically been "timid" in their own efforts (class discussion, 3/20/95). Such timidity will only condemn current efforts to the all-too-familiar fate of its predecessors.

Educators must also speak with a united voice. Unfortunately, the educational establishment has become balkanized into separate, often competing, subgroups, such as education schools, educational unions, teachers and administrators. Crafting an argument based upon moral imperative, I believe, can reunite these groups. None of the people involved with public education should disagree with the claim that their "primary responsibility ..., technically and morally, is to the students" (Goodlad, 1990, p. 14). Consequently, although still having distinct fields of specialty and professional concern, the educational subgroups can share a common focus. If this cannot be done, the educational establishment, itself,

will effectively inhibit and perhaps even prohibit the emergence of the teaching profession now widely deemed essential to an excellent system of education. (Goodlad, 1990, p. 12)

Thus, it is imperative that the current balkanization be overcome, to the unite all parties within education and thereby generate the collective voice and power necessary to shape both public opinion and educational policy.

Conclusion

When one stops to consider both the ambiguous nature of professional status, and the seemingly endless impediments to professionalization, the process of establishing teaching as a "profession" seems daunting, to say the least. In order to keep the proper perspective on the nature of professions, and not to fall into the trap of trying to achieve some illusively enigmatic form of "professionalism," teachers must keep in mind that

A profession does not exist in the same way a stone exists, and to define and look for a profession in the same way one would define and look for a stone will only lead to confusion and frustration. (Soder, p. 44)

To avoid such "confusion and frustration," teachers must develop their own definition of professional teaching, and subsequently argue this position, aggressively, in the public arena. The definition generated must be based upon the interactive context of classroom teaching, not upon those "professional" characteristics of the established professions already defined. It must also support the goals of professional accountability which protect the public by ensuring a primary commitment to the welfare of students, proper preparation of teachers, and competence in the classroom. Only by identifying themselves with these goals will the realization of the professional status of teaching be even possible.

The process of teacher professionalization will be exceedingly difficult. Some may condemn efforts to achieve professional status as both self-serving and futile. Educators must not pay heed to these naysayers. Although one does not hear the rhetoric often, teaching is indeed a true vocation, a noble endeavor to nurture and develop the talents which are hidden within each and every child. Because public education is compulsory, teachers have a moral obligation to ensure that no harm is done to the children in their charge. Ignoring the nature of teaching as a calling with moral obligations has been a serious error in the professionalization rhetoric to date. It is to this humanistic conception of teaching that reformers must now turn, rather than continued reliance upon the technical justification which has continually failed them. The professionalization of America's teachers based upon the moral imperatives inherent within the acts of teaching and learning in our public schools cannot, and should not, be denied.

Becker, H.S. (1962) "The Nature of a Profession." in Henry, N. (Ed.) Education for the Professions. Sixty-First Yearbook (Part II) of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (pp. 26-46)

Bestor, Arthur. (1988) Educational Wastelands. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Bledstein, Burton J. (1985) "Discussing Terms: Professions, Professionals, and Professionalism." Prospects: An Annual of American Cultural Studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Volume Ten, pp. 1-15.

Carr-Saunders, A.M. and Wilson, P.A. (1933) The Professions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. quoted in Glazer, Nathan. "The Schools of the Minor Professions." Minerva. July 1974, 12, pp. 346-364.

Clamp, Peter G. (1990) "Professionalism in Education: A State of Mind." Education Digest. October 1990, 56 (2), pp. 33-36.

Clapp, Harold L. (Summer 1949) "The Stranglehold on Education." Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. Reprinted in M. Smith. (1956) The Public Schools in Crisis: Some Critical Essays. Chicago, Illinois: Henry Regency Company.

Clifford, Geraldine J. and Guthrie, James W. (1988) Ed School: A Brief for Professional Education. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Cohen, David K. (1989) "Practice and Policy: Notes on the History of Instruction." in Warren, Donald. (Ed.). American Teachers: Histories of a Profession at Work. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. (pp. 393-407)

Cooper, Myrna. (1988) "Whose Culture Is It, Anyway?" in Lieberman, Ann., Ed. Building a Professional Culture in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. (pp. 45-54)

Devaney, Kathleen and Sykes, Gary. (1988) "Making the Case for Professionalism." in Lieberman, Ann., Ed. Building a Professional Culture in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. (pp. 3-22)

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1989) "Teacher Professionalism and Accountability." Education Digest. September 1989, 55 (1) pp. 15-19.

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1988) "Policy and Professionalism." in Lieberman, Ann., Ed. Building a Professional Culture in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. (pp. 55-77)

Englund, Tomas. (1993, 25-27 September) "Are Professional Teachers A Good Thing?" Paper presented at the meeting of Professional Actions and Cultures of Teaching Conference. London, Ontario, Canada.

Essex, Nathan L. (1992) "Educational Malpractice: The Price of Professionalism." The Clearing House. March/April 1992, 65 (4), pp. 229-232.

Fenstermacher, Gary D. (1990) "Some Moral Considerations on Teaching as a Profession." in Goodlad, John I., Soder, R., and Sirotnik, K.A., Eds. The Moral Dimensions of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. (pp. 130-154)

Freedman, S. G. (1990) Small Victories: The real world of a teacher, her students, and their high school. New York: Harper Perennial.

Freidson, Eliot. (1986) Professional Powers: A Study of the Institutionalization of Formal

Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Glazer, Nathan. (1974) "The Schools of the Minor Professions." Minerva. July 1974, 12, pp. 346-364.

Goodlad, John I. (1984) A Place Called School. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Goodlad, John I. (1990) "The Occupation of Teaching in Schools" in Goodlad, John I., Soder, R., and Sirotnik, K.A., Eds. The Moral Dimensions of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. (pp. 3-34)

Goodlad, John I., Soder, R., and Sirotnik, K.A., Eds. (1990) The Moral Dimensions of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Holmes Group (1986) Tomorrow's Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, Michigan: The Holmes Group, Inc.

Johnson, T.J. (1972) Professions and Power. London: Macmillan Press. quoted in Goodlad, John I., Soder, R., and Sirotnik, K.A., Eds. The Moral Dimensions of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Kaufman, Bel. (1964) Up the Down Staircase. New York: Harper Perennial.

Koerner, James. (1963) The Miseducation of American Teachers. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin.

Labaree, David F. (1992) "Power, Knowledge, and the Rationalization of Teaching: A Genealogy of the Movement to Professionalize Teaching." Harvard Educational Review. Summer 1992, 62 (2), pp. 123-154.

Lieberman, Ann., Ed. (1988) Building a Professional Culture in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lipsky, Michael. (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lortie, Dan C. (1975) Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

McDonnell, L. and Pascal, A. (1988) Teacher Unions and Educational Reform. Santa Monica, California: Center for Policy Research in Education, distributed by Publications Department, Rand Corporation.

McLaughlin, Milbrey W. (1987) "Learning From Experience: Lessons from Policy Implementation." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Vol. 9, No. 2. (pp. 171-178)

McKenchnie, Jean L. (1983) Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. New York: Dorsett and Baber.

National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. (1994) What Teachers Should Know And Be Able To Do. Detroit, Michigan: Author.

The official policy statement of the NBPTS, lists the five criteria for professional teachers with supporting philosophical statements.

Nietzsche, Friedrich W. (1886) Beyond Good and Evil. quoted in Cooper, Myrna. "Whose Culture Is It, Anyway?" in Lieberman, Ann., Ed. Building a Professional Culture in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. (p. 54)

Parsons, Talcott. (1951) The Social System. New York: Free Press. quoted in Bledstein, Burton J. (1985) "Discussing Terms: Professions, Professionals, and Professionalism." Prospects: An Annual of American Cultural Studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Volume Ten, pp. 1-15.

Powell, Arthur G., Farrar, Eleanor, and Cohen, David K. (1985) The Shopping Mall High School: Winners and Losers in the Educational Marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Talbert, Joan E. and McLaughlin, Milbrey W. (1994) "Teacher Professionalism in Local School Contexts." American Journal of Education. February 1994, 102 (2) pp. 123-153.

Sedlak, Michael. (1995, March 20) Class Discussion, TE 923. Michigan State University, Dr. Lynn Paine, presiding.

Shaw, George Bernard. (1962) Man and Superman. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books.

Soder, Roger. (1990) "The Rhetoric of Teacher Professionalism" in Goodlad, John I., Soder, R., and Sirotnik, K.A., Eds. The Moral Dimensions of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. (pp. 35-86)

Sizer, Theodore. R. (1984) Horace's Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Sykes, Gary (1995, March 2) Personal Conversation, Michigan State University.