Is teaching a real profession?

Teaching is a field that needs more credibility. Some functions that help give credibility are licensure/certification processes, a code of ethics, and methods based on empirical/objective data.

The fields of medicine, law, social work, and business all benefitted from these functions. For teachers to be respected in our fields we need these functions as well. We've recently had some teachers (about 250, according to some news articles) terminated for various reasons. One of those reasons is that some teachers reportedly don't have proper certification.

I keep hearing about teachers who care about their students and are doing an effective job in the classroom, but have not passed Praxis.

Nurses who don't pass their exams don't get to be nurses anyway just because of their kindness. An engineer without a license would. Here's a quote from engineeringblog.com:

Long story short, your four-year degree might teach you what you need to work as an engineer, but until you pass these rather rigorous exams, no one is going to hire you for a good job. You might get some beginner-level jobs, which could help you build up experience, or an employer might even put you in an internship program that will lead to your getting the PE license on their dime, but until you get those essential pieces of paper, your career isn't going anywhere.

We teachers need to upgrade the way we think about our profession.

On a similar note:
I am currently researching the lack of a substantial code of ethics for the teaching profession. I will blog more on that later. However, I'll put in a little piece for now. The AFT and AAE both have Codes of Ethics but unlike some other professions, such as the NASW (National Association of Social Workers) and medical professionals and lawyers, those codes cannot be used to hold someone accountable. Also, teachers don't refer to their code of ethics (if they even know that it exists), and furthermore, teachers are not required to get regular yearly or biannual trainings on ethics like social worker, attorneys, and medical personnel are.

Multiple service providers in the classroom

Someone asked a few weeks ago, what can be done if there are 3 different service providers in the room trying to work on the same student at one time?

First, the inclusion model is meant to benefit all children, not just SPED kids. Service providers may try broadening their views on how they can assist in the class. For example, I saw one occupational therapist go into a first grade classroom and pull aside a group of children to work on fine motor skills during choice time. Only one of the children in the group was a SPED kid.

If there are multiple service providers in the room at one time, that signifies a scheduling conflict. The service providers and teacher(s) should meet to determine when each service provider will be most beneficial in the classroom. Maybe the occupational therapist can be most helpful during writing time, and maybe the social worker needs to come in during transitions or group discussions. The child may have problems that manifest themselves throughout the day (as in the case of many ED children), but the service provider should look for a good starting point.

Some people don't believe children should ever be taken from class for any reason. I don't subscribe to that view. I believe children CAN still be taken out for individual or small group therapy AT TIMES. However, many times or most of the time children can be served in the regular classroom, and that's what inclusion aims to make happen.