Key ideas
Core concepts
- Teaching lacks the standardised training, proven methodologies and evidence-based practice standards that characterise professions such as medicine or engineering.
- Initial teacher education prioritises ideology and general pedagogy over evidence-based practice, practical classroom skills and subject-specific didactics.
- Innovation and creativity in teaching are more effective when built on mastery of proven methods, as in other professions.
- Education debates often create artificial either-or choices when balanced approaches are needed.
Connected to
Centralised Lesson Planning | Explicit Teaching | Non-Explicit Teaching | Logical Fallacies | What Research Can You Trust
The claim that teaching is not a profession rests on a comparison with fields such as medicine, engineering and law. Those fields require standardised training in proven methods developed over years of collective experience, and effectiveness must be demonstrated before a practice is adopted. Quality control systems prevent practitioners from inventing their own methods. Mentorship models ensure novices learn from experts before gaining autonomy, and systematic evaluation drives continuous improvement.
Teaching differs on each of these points. Individual autonomy is prized over proven methodologies, and an “anything goes” mentality prevails as long as syllabus requirements are met. Resistance to standardisation is framed as creativity and professional freedom. Novice practitioners are expected to create curricula and methods from scratch.
The medical training contrast
No aspiring heart surgeon is told to come up with their own surgical method, where anything goes as long as it feels right. Medical training requires mastery of established procedures before innovation, extensive supervision during skill development, evidence of competency before independent practice, and ongoing professional development in proven techniques. Educational training, by contrast, allows individual interpretation of teaching methods, minimal standardisation across practitioners, innovation without evidence of effectiveness, and resistance to adopting proven practices.
Initial teacher education
Initial teacher education programmes exhibit misplaced priorities. Training focuses on social justice ideology rather than practical classroom management skills, leaving new teachers unprepared for classroom reality. Philosophy of education displaces evidence-based explicit teaching methods (Rosenshine, 2012), so students receive inferior instruction. Inquiry-based learning is advocated over phonics and systematic instruction, which harms disadvantaged students (Stockard et al., 2018). Cultural work is emphasised over subject-specific didactics, so insufficient content knowledge is delivered.
These programmes are run by university academics rather than expert classroom practitioners (Hattie, 2009). Theory dominates over practical application, and those designing the programmes have limited understanding of daily classroom realities. Ideological agendas supersede evidence-based practice, producing a disconnect between training and actual teaching requirements.
Programmes also prioritise pedagogy (generic teaching style and general methods) over didactics (how to teach specific subject content effectively). Teachers come to know general strategies but lack subject-specific expertise. Style takes priority over substance in teaching evaluation, students receive engaging but ineffective instruction, and achievement gaps persist despite pedagogical innovation.
A craft informed by science
Stanovich and Stanovich (2003) compare teaching with medicine and architecture. Architecture grew from being purely a craft to a craft based firmly on a scientific foundation. Architects wish to design beautiful buildings, but they must also apply foundational principles of engineering and adhere to structural principles. If they do not, their buildings, however beautiful, will not stand.
Teachers likewise seek to design lessons that stimulate students and entice them to learn. But if lessons are not based in the science of pedagogy, they, like poorly constructed buildings, will fail. Teaching, like medicine, is an art that can be greatly enhanced by developing a close relationship to science (Berliner, 1987).
Pearson (1999) warned educators that resisting evaluation by hiding behind the “art of teaching” defence will eventually threaten teacher autonomy. Teachers need creativity, but they also need to demonstrate that they know what evidence is and that they practise in a profession based in behavioural science. Professional groups wish to retain the privileges of teacher prerogative and choice, but the price is constant attention to new knowledge as a vehicle for fine-tuning individual and collective views of best practice. Other professions, such as medicine, have taken this path to maintain their professional prerogative. If professional groups in education fail to assume this responsibility squarely and openly, they will find themselves victims of onerous legislative mandates (Pearson, 1999).
What every mathematics teacher should know
A professional approach to mathematics teaching would ensure all practitioners possess specific, evidence-based knowledge and skills. Teachers need proven instructional methods for all curriculum concepts based on professional collective experience. They need multiple explanatory approaches: various models, metaphors and examples for making concepts meaningful, different approaches for each mathematical idea, and the ability to provide alternative explanations when students don’t understand.
Assessment and diagnostic skills matter too. Teachers need effective questions, prompts, tasks and activities that research has shown to be impactful, knowledge of the common misconceptions associated with each concept, and strategies for addressing specific learning difficulties. Deep content knowledge, a comprehensive understanding of mathematics itself rather than just pedagogical techniques, provides the foundation for effective teaching.
Objections to professionalisation
Some argue that teachers need freedom to innovate and express creativity and individuality. Others claim that every class requires different approaches due to student uniqueness, that teachers are professionals who should control their own practice, or that local conditions require adapted methods.
These objections misunderstand professional practice. Innovation builds on mastery; creativity is more effective when grounded in proven foundations. Professional judgement applies evidence-based methods through individual adaptation within frameworks. Autonomy requires competence, and freedom is earned through demonstrated effectiveness. Context adaptation of proven methods allows local application of universal principles.
References
Berliner, D. C. (1987). Knowledge is power: A talk to teachers about a revolution in the teaching profession. In D. C. Berliner & B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 3-33). Random House.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Pearson, P. D. (1999). A historically based review of preventing reading difficulties in young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 231-246.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12-19.
Stanovich, P. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Using research and reason in education.
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919