[scoggs]

Things like the No Child Left Behind Act don't necessitate a license, per say, but they do create license-obtaining-like qualifications to be met (for students, teachers, and school districts alike). The Act itself is preventing would-be good teachers from being certified / accepted into school districts to teach so in some sense the "licensing" of a teacher is holding back those teachers who look and go elsewhere to obtain a secure career. Where as in the past teaching was a solid and secure career for one to strive towards, in this day and age it is definitely not the same, at all.

[acjohnson55]

Who is being prevented from teaching? I taught high school with 5 weeks of training (Teach For America). I was provisionally licensed to teach under an emergency certification, which simply required that I be in training concurrently for a permanent certification. Every state is different, of course, but I don't know of a state where this legal framework doesn't exist. Teach For America places teachers in most states under this model.

Five weeks is not enough prep for most teachers. I know many awesome teachers for whom it worked out very well. For me, it didn't. But Teach For America is extremely selective in trying to identify people who will be successful with minimal training. That's what it takes to roughly match the performance of traditionally trained teachers. I don't think we need lower barriers to entry, especially without a similar level of accountability.

[WoodenChair]

Forget No-Child Left Behind, many (most?) state governments require K-12 teachers to have licenses.