Advertisement

Is Teaching a Profession: How Would We Know?

  • Kenneth A. Strike

Abstract

Is teaching a profession? This is an unprofitable formulation of the question. The concept of a profession is an ideal type (Haller & Strike, 1986). An ideal type will consist of a set of characteristics that specifies what constitutes a pure case (Hoy & Miskel, 1987). Among the characteristics that are often supposed to define professions are the possession of an esoteric knowledge base, a long and substantial amount of training required for entrance, the existence of a professional association that can speak authoritatively for the occupation, a code of ethics, significant professional autonomy, and a strong orientation toward service and client welfare. Such characteristics will be fully exemplified only by a few paradigm cases. The usual paradigm cases of professions are fee-for-services occupations such as medicine and law. Most cases of professions will lack some of these characteristics or possess them in lesser degree than these paradigm cases. These will be “quasiprofessions.” Teaching will be a quasi-profession since it will have some characteristics of a profession, but will have them to a lesser extent than the paradigm cases of professions. What do we gain by trying to decide if teaching really qualifies as a profession? Why not focus instead on a description of the characteristics that the occupation does have or should have?

Keywords

Knowledge Base Teacher Evaluation Professional Ethic Pedagogical Knowledge Professional Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackerman, B. (1980). Social justice in the liberal state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Dworkin, R. (1984). Liberalism. In M.J. Sandel (Ed.), Liberalism and its critics. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Fenstermacher, G.D. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Green, T.F. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Haller, E.J., & Strike, K.A. (1986). An introduction to educational administration. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Hobart, T.Y., & Mortola, E.J. (1988). The New York report: A blueprint for learning and teaching.Google Scholar
  7. Howsam, R.B. (1980) The workplace: Does it hamper professionalization of pedagogy? Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 93–96.Google Scholar
  8. Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (1987). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  9. Kimball, B.A. (1988). The problem of teachers’ authority in light of the structural analysis of professions. Educational Theory, 38, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Locke, J. (1960). Two treatises of government. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Maclntyre, A. (1981). After virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  12. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Noddings, N. Norwalk v. Board of Education, 138 Conn. 269, 83 A2d 482 (1951).Google Scholar
  14. Phillips, D.C. (1988). On teacher knowledge: A skeptical dialogue. Educational Theory, 38, 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Plato. (1949). Meno. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Rawls, J. (1949). A theory of teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Scriven, M. (1987). Validity in personnel evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scriven, M. (1988) Duty-based teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shulman, L.S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Shulman, L.S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar
  21. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  22. Soltis, J.F. (1986). Teaching professional ethics. Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stout, J. (1988), Ethics after Babel. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Strike, K.A. (1986). The ethics of teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 156–158.Google Scholar
  25. Tom, A (1984). Teaching as a moral craft. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  26. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth A. Strike
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations