Once upon a time, teachers mastered a body of knowledge and proceeded to the classroom with it, and in the re-teaching, every year became better teachers, benefiting students. English is English, and change in the domain of English is slow enough to be measured in generations. How has math changed since Newton? Not so much as to be unrecognizable. Just the methods of teaching math. Once mastering the methods, teachers improved the nuances of pedagogy and became master teachers themselves because instructional delivery skills changed slowly, permitting teachers to refine and adjust methods to fit individual student needs: differentiation before it was called differentiation.
The knowledge base is fairly static in most curricular domains taught in public schools (with some obvious exceptions), but the technological methods of teaching the knowledge base change so quickly that teachers never catch up, and the constant pace of learning and mastery of new technology skills, only to see these skills and the equipment the skills were attached to superseded by even newer equipment and skills is disheartening. It's pretty depressing to master a set of skills and learn a year later that they have been succeeded by something completely different, with its learning curve that takes time from planning instruction, following up on individual student progress. No wonder some sit back and read the paper, or bail out after the second year or so for pay commensurate with their education, or emotionally lose focus and become hardened to the needs of students.
Eras change, and the pace of change means that though teachers will continue to master whatever knowledge the State mandates, the skills requisite to acquire technical competency in instructional delivery constantly change due to the constant transformation of instructional technology. The result? New teachers never become competent at teaching. Veteran teachers expert in teaching and learning are distracted from teaching tasks by having to learn and relearn new instructional technology.
There is less time now to master the nuances of instructional delivery because the methods we are made to use to deliver instruction change too quickly, despite our devotion to support personal and professional development that supports student learning. Chalk, blackboards, paper and pencil, deemed unsuitable for instruction in our current dispensation of digital education by some, are now a much smaller proportion of a larger kit of tools for the teacher to master in order to effectively deliver instruction.
Previous to the current era, teachers could become competent after four to six years in the teaching milieu and continually produce competent students, meanwhile honing their skills because the technology of educational delivery was fairly static. Now, teachers are never competent, because the rate of change in technology and technological processes and equipment mean that every two or three years the average Joe teacher must master a new or emerging technology to teach to the standards expected by the other stakeholders in the educational establishment.
I’ve never been one for conspiracy theories, but someone somewhere once said that new cars from Detroit change every year because sales people want to claim that the car you purchased six months ago is obsolete, and you need a new one to replace it. Apply this concept of planned obsolescence to educational technology in America. Think about it too much and it seems like a perfect plan to drag down test scores and increase drop-out rates because teachers and the educational system at large cannot keep up with change in education technology.
I don’t buy in to crackpot wild-eyed tin-foil hat wearing CIA plots, but if I did, I’d be a devotee to the belief that this frantic pace to constantly upgrade technology and technological skills is designed to keep teachers constantly attending to personal and professional development so they can use the newest/latest technology for a few years and then toss it in the dumpster and do it all over again. The concomitant stress on the individual teacher and the educational edifice as well eliminates the leisure required to plan effective instruction, on one level, and on another, consumes inordinate cash and infrastructure resources necessary to deliver effective instruction.
Teachers and administrators are so busy doing personal professional development learning technological skills to support the educational environment that they have less time to become competent teachers or leaders. Add all this to the sheer number of students each teacher must interact with each day and you have high expectations on the part of the other stakeholders but diminished returns in test scores and graduation rates. Why do we speak “crisis in education” that scores are low and drop-outs are high?