The end of teachers - or at least teacher accreditation - is the opinion expressed by Peter Wood provost and VP of The King's College NYC (now where did he get his degrees?)
He rails against teacher training because it "diverts students into studying “methodology” at the expense of learning much of substance about the actual subjects they will teach."
Hmm - I suggest they need more methodology - content changes, teaching strategies and learning design should too.
He goes on to suggest that we "will move to a system in which a degree in education will mark a potential teacher as under-educated and mis-trained.... teachers will be recruited from the ranks of the liberally educated and will learn, as good teachers have always learned, by devotion to the task itself. ... the undergraduate teacher’s degree is, for practical purposes, useless. What makes anyone think a master’s degree from the same school with courses taught by the same faculty is any better?"
I'm all for looking and finding mentors wherever you can, and drawing as much knowledge from a variety of sources - not just the accredited "teacher". But a good teacher with a grounding in learning design and a respect for the learning process is a pot of gold. But drawing simply from the ranks of content masters is not what is needed. Odd that Mr Wood, a provost of an institution of higher learning, should be so dismissive of teacher accreditation. Then again his college espouses a narrow, world dominating view of learning...."The mission of King’s is to prepare outstanding students for leadership in America’s strategic national institutions... will then be commissioned as ambassadors of Jesus Christ to lead and serve the world. In a nutshell, this is what King’s is all about."
I guess he thinks it is better to have a non-teacher devoted to a narrow vision of study than an accredited teacher devoted to learning for the sake of learning.