Why does one need to be a certified teacher to teach at secondary level and lower, but not at tertiary level?

Question

Wikipedia article on Certified Teacher

In most countries one must be licensed to teach at pre-school, primary or secondary level. The process for acquiring the license typically involves taking and passing an exam. Example for the Philippines:

Licensed teachers in the Philippines are required to pass the Licensure Examination for Teacher given by the Professional Regulation Commission. Once the teacher passes the exam, they will be given the title "Licensed Professional Teacher". The title "LPT" is used to append after the licensed teacher's name. However, anyone who is not a licensed teacher but uses "LPT" will be punished by the law.

Why doesn't this apply to university-level lecturers or professors? If it's because we can safely assume that lecturers and professors know how to teach, but not those teaching at more elementary level, why is this assumption safe? The curriculum of the teaching exam (example) says an objective is "to equip teachers and school leaders with the knowledge and professional expertise necessary to teach and manage educational programmes in challenging school environments". Why don't lecturers and professors need these skills too?

Answer 1

I think the reason could be that at the beginning of education, the methodology and teaching style are much more important than the content: children have to learn how to learn before they can learn specific things.

The further along in their student life, content gets more and more important, and it is assumed that students will have learned how to learn by themselves.

In tertiary education, it is the opposite than in primary education: the content is what matters most. So teachers there rather need to be experts in the topic they teach instead of expert educators (but ideally both).

Answer 2

Because, historically, the purpose of universities was not teaching, but scholarship.

The students were more like apprentices who showed up to take part in the research and debates, expected to eventually become scholars as well.

Gradually, over the centuries, this has expanded, but the idea remains that the academics are there primarily to do research and to be experts in their field, and that students go to university not to be "taught" in the same sense as in high school, but to be in the company of some of the world's foremost experts. To be exposed to their ideas, observe how they conduct research, and learn on the way.

This idea is obviously in tension with the current model of having thousands and thousands of students come through, most of them not very interested in scholarship for its own sake. Most students expect to be taught, and many are entirely unaware of the research activity of their professors. There are simply too many for any sort of apprenticeship relationship to be viable.

We end up with two competing models of what a university should be like. Students arrive with one idea of what they are getting into, while academics are trained under a different set of assumptions. This does sound rather like a recipe for disaster, but somehow we keep bumbling along.

Answer 3

I don't know if this is universally true (suspect it is) so this is a US centric answer.

In the US, the governments (state and federal) have decreed, based on general (not universal) consensus, that elementary education and usually secondary education, are universal and mandatory.

Having decreed that students must attend schools they take on responsibility to guarantee its quality up to a point, though imperfectly it turns out.

But higher education is voluntary so there is no need to regulate it quite as closely, though there are many regulations even there.

I don't claim the system is perfect and it certainly has holes. At the moment education at all levels has become highly politicized, though the trend has been in place for decades.

For a parent, who must send their children to schools, and don't have a huge number of options about which school, it is necessary to the "common good" that the standards be high.

In the end, though, teacher certification flows pretty naturally from the mandatory nature of universal education. It also reduces cost to some extent at the local level, since individual schools don't need to certify teachers to the same extent that universities do, though many do impose a probationary period on new teachers. Such a probationary period is less formal, however, than the tenure process of universities.

Answer 4

Content Knowledge vs Pedagogical Skill

Ben Orlin (the author of Math with Bad Drawings) wrote fairly eloquently on this a few years ago. His thesis is that instructors are people who (broadly speaking) needs expertise in two somewhat unrelated areas:

1. Content knowledge: an instructor must have mastery of the field that they are teaching. An instructor should know the details of the topic that they are teaching, and should be able to reconstruct or recall those details immediately.

2. Pedagogical/andragogical skill: an instructor must have an ability to effectively communicate ideas and maintain engagement. An instructor should know how to keep students interested in what they are teaching, and what kinds of experiences are likely to lead to generation and retention of knowledge.

Orlin further argues that the traditional viewpoint of education is that instructors of young students needn't have a great deal of content knowledge, but must be masters of pedagogy; while instructors of older students must have a great deal of content knowledge, but needn't be great pedagogs.

While Orlin tries to dismantle this traditional point of view some, I think that it is an accurate description of the current status quo.

With that in mind, licensure requirements for primary and secondary education (but not tertiary) are somewhat explained by what the licensure ensures: (1) that the instructor knows how to work with kids, (2) that they are not dangerous to children, and (3) that they have the minimal content knowledge required to get the job done.

Of these, (1) is probably the most critical. As an undergraduate, I underwent a teacher certification (to teach middle school and high school mathematics). Nearly all of the courses I took for that certification were related to pedagogy. Thus my license certifies that I have the pedagogical knowledge necessary to teach a class.

At higher levels, where content knowledge is more highly prized, an MA or PhD is generally sufficient to act in lieu of a license.

Children vs Adults

Another compelling argument for licensure is that students in a primary or secondary education setting are not adults, and need to be protected (by the state). This is doubly important in a society where student are required by the state to enroll in school (up to a certain age or level of education).

If a government required that students enroll in school, but then did nothing to ensure that the education those students are receiving is adequate, then one can imagine that this requirement would quickly evaporate as a kind of "unfunded mandate".

Children have very little choice about education. Most children (in places where licensure is required; or, at least, in the US and western Europe) attend publicly funded schools, where their teachers are employed by the state (i.e. by a municipal government, by a state government, by a provincial government, etc). Because the state is responsible for educating students, and because the students don't have much of a say in the matter, the state takes on the responsibility of ensuring that the instructors can do the job. This is typically done through licensure.

In contrast, adults are generally not required to attend post-secondary institutions, and if they choose to attend, they generally have more choice regarding which institution they attend (even a student with poor grades in the US typically has a number of community colleges and state colleges to choose from).

This lack of a requirement combined with the choice of institution puts significantly less pressure on the state to ensure that instructors are adequate (and, as above, it is assumed that they needn't be adequate, anyway), hence licensure is far less common.

The Role of the Academy

In the American system (and, I presume, elsewhere, as well), primary and secondary education are meant to ensure that the citizenry has a basic foundation of knowledge and skill; and primary and secondary institutions are meant to provide instruction, and have no other role in society. You attend such an institution in order to be taught, and the people teaching you have no job other than providing instruction.

By contrast, university, college, and (even) community college instructors typically have a much broader job description. The primary job of a member of the faculty at a university is generally "conduct research and produce papers". These folk are not (usually) hired to teach classes, but do so as part of training others to take their place—higher education is an apprenticeship program for researchers.

Because licensure is largely about ensuring some instructional quality (rather than content area knowledge), there is little call for university faculty to be licensed. Again, an advanced degree is usually enough to ensure that a minimal threshold is hit.

Answer 5

The main reason is that tertiary students are (usually) legal adults. Much of the certification process for a primary or secondary teacher is not pedagogical as much as it is child-care-related, because teachers stand in loco parentis for students during school hours. Governments want to be able to reassure parents that it's safe to send their kids to school all day. (This isn't 100% perfect of course, but every check helps.) The purpose of this kind of certification is to ensure a minimum standard of character, legal status, and ability to manage children; not anything specifically to do with teaching. This isn't as much of a concern for tertiary education, in which students are assumed to be adults, competent to judge safety for themselves, and thus no longer require teachers to act in loco parentis. (Having known college students, this is of course in the nature of a legal fiction, but... here we are.)

Additionally, pedagogical training is seen as less important for tertiary teachers, because the students are assumed to be adults who actually want to be learning the material, so they are able and willing to struggle through some amount of sub-standard teaching on their own. This is in contrast to primary and secondary students, who may or may not be interested but are not automatically assumed to have the ability to learn things despite a bad teacher. At least in the US, with the steadily decreasing quality of secondary schools and the corresponding increased need for good introductory general education courses at the tertiary level, this is beginning to change (but not fast enough).

Answer 6

Many of the answers given are correct, but another point of view that I haven’t seen expressed so far is that the implied premise behind your question is simply not correct. That premise being that because university professors are not “licensed teachers” according to some arbitrary technical definition of “passing an exam by some licensing body”, that means the training they undergo on the way to becoming professors is somehow less rigorous than than of licensed teachers.

Professors hold a PhD or other terminal degree. They undergo an extensive training program of 4-7 years beyond their undergraduate degree (which includes passing several exams, although that is the least of it) that prepares them to be successful in many careers including higher education. This is far more training than it takes to become a “licensed teacher”.

It may be reasonable to ask why that training that professors receive does not include a formal induction into the science of teaching but instead usually takes the form of an apprenticeship (being a TA etc), and several of the other answers here give valid arguments explaining that. But your question, if read literally, actually focuses on the licensing aspect and seems to suggest that not being “licensed” means you have somehow undergone a lower level of vetting than someone who is licensed. That suggestion is simply not true; professors undergo a much stricter vetting, it’s just that the vetting isn’t by a “licensing body” and is not referred to as “being licensed”. The difference is mostly semantic and does not translate into being less qualified to perform the actual job.

Finally, a comment by @DrakeP, who said that “as a current college student […] I can confirm that assumption [that professors know how to teach] is NOT safe” caught my attention since it seems to imply that what I said above isn’t correct. I would counter that by saying that as a former primary and secondary school student, I can confirm that the assumption that licensed teachers are effective at teaching is also not safe, and frequently incorrect.

Answer 7

They do. It is just the time cost of acquiring all these skills proper is deemed too high to be applied to the entirety of academia, so instead we rely on learning by doing, somewhat ironically.

There is a simple lack of resources to have enough people with deep understanding of the subject who are also good educators. The knowledge this specific is almost forbidden - one can not simply get it from a neatly dressed providers with diplomas and certificates plastering the cabinet walls. No, one has to venture to the deep end to some complete freak who is apparently a mad genius. This is a role model we all grew up with and all aspire to. /s

On a more serious note, there are resources available, and universities do utilize academic development programmes. But they are not compulsory - in a sense, for the same reason professors do not cover all the teaching duties with their highly skilled labor and there are TAs.

Another reason there is such reliance on the teaching experience instead of a formal pedagogical education is that at secondary level and below, there are standard-issued textbooks. One of the big challenges for a tertiary-level educator is creating their own course. Now, I sincerely do not know why the guidelines on that are not provided and are not compulsory material...

Answer 8

This is also affected by a supply and demand issue in the academic labour market

The other answers here do a great job of explaining the reasons for this omission from a purely pedagogical viewpoint. To wit: since tertiary instruction is directed at adults, it requires greater focus on specialised content and less focus on specialised instruction methods. However, in addition to this reason, there is also a complementary reason rooted in the supply and demand dynamics of the academic profession.

Put in simple terms, people who have already spent years earning higher-degrees in specialised fields (Masters, PhD, etc.) generally have greater career options than people just leaving school, so they are less likely to be willing to do a long teaching certification (on top of their existing degrees) in order to obtain a teaching job. There are other attractive options for many higher-degree graduates, and while the academic job market is one attractive option, it would be less so if it required the candidate to do a three or four year teaching degree ---or some similar certification--- prior to starting.

As has been pointed out, there are some European countries that require a short "habilitation" or similar prior either to academic teaching or a senior professorship. These requirements are usually done in a circumstance where the person is already employed and being paid for their time, and they work on their certification while already employed at the university. For example, in Germany, the people working on their "habilitation" are postdocs or junior professors who are already doing paid research work. If they were instead required to attend university as (unpaid) full-time students for several more years, this would be a much less attractive option.

Even if the universities decided they wanted teaching degrees, and even if they could overcome this impediment as a whole (e.g., as higher-degree graduates become overabundant relative to demand), one can imagine that a first-mover issue that would arise for the first university that requires its incoming faculty to get a three to four-year teaching degree prior to teaching. It is likely that such a university would rule out a large proportion of possible applicants for positions, because the prospect of doing another degree is highly burdensome and there are good alternative options. This would probably cause a significant loss of quality staff for the university.

Answer 9

Others have commented on this, but perhaps not as strongly. I do wonder if this question is an example of the Bulverism fallacy; namely asking "Why is X true" without establishing whether X is indeed true in the first place.

However, my knowledge is limited to my own circumstances, which relate to the UK; I admit I don't know the equivalent situation in the US or other countries. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt. :)

But, to answer your question, at least in my specific circumstances, it is simply not true that no qualification is required to teach at university. What is true however is that the specific qualification(s) required are not necessarily identical to the qualifications required to teach at primary education (nor should they be).

E.g. in my case, to be appointed lecturer at my current university (and I assume in most UK universities?) you are expected to either "have obtained", or "to have a reasonable expectation of obtaining within your probation period", an 'academic teaching' qualification such as the Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA) or similar. This is a qualification, which, in theory at least, demonstrates your proven ability to teach in a variety of formats and methodologies, documents your experience and track record in doing so, knowledge of up-to-date pedagogical research and theory, and backing from other academics who can vouch for your application/fellowship. Furthermore, as you advance in your career towards becoming a professor, you are similarly expected to obtain 'higher' versions of such qualifications (e.g. 'Senior Fellowship', 'Principal Fellowship' etc).

Secondly, even prior to having obtained a formal qualification, in theory one does not simply walk into Mordor academia and start supervising students with no prior experience! To be considered for a teaching position, you still need to demonstrate in very practical terms that you have engaged in significant teaching and supervision in the past in your CV. For a junior position, this typically involves having engaged in private tutoring / lab practicals / presentations / designed your own modules / etc etc. (but I agree, this is not an argument against the need for a formal qualification, it's simply a more pragmatic way of addressing the issue).

Answer 10

First of all it's worth clarifying that generally you do need to be certified in order to teach at the tertiary level. That certification is your Ph.D. (or doctorate or whatever your country calls those things).

That certificate includes a test whether you can communicate clearly because you (typically) have to write and defend your thesis to get a doctorate.

Additionally, in many locations a compulsory part of obtaining a Ph.D. degree is to be involved in tertiary education and run tutorials and seminars (or practicals). There usually is no explicit test on how well a job you did but it is part of your supervised work and some training and evaluation typically exists.

You are correct, that there are typically no formal checks on teaching ability and university teachers will typically have received no formal pedagogical training. And that is indeed different from elementary and secondary teaching certificates. Answering why that is the case, might involve historical developments and practical differences between tertiary and secondary teaching as the other answers nicely discuss. But it's also worth considering the following hypothetical question: do you think that instituting a formal pedagogy and teaching check would reduce the number of inept tertiary teachers in a way that works significantly better than the current system? Based on my personal experience I doubt it: I have observed similarly inept 'teaching' on the secondary level as I have on the university level. And I suspect that's exactly the question that a university (or country) would have to ask itself when deciding on changing the current system.

Answer 11

Well it used to be you needed a PhD. In the process of getting a PhD, you will have learned what you need to learn. Unfortunately, now a lot of classes are not taught by PhDs.