[brohoolio]

Percentages might help. Out of the 30% how many are teachers, engineers, skills trades, doctors, nurses, etc? I'm guessing a ton of these positions everyone would shrug and say yes, I want my doctor to have a license.

For the positions that might not be obvious why they require a license I wonder how many are because someone fucked up and caused a problem? Probably more than you might think. They generally just don't make rules up.

So maybe 10% of jobs that require a license (3% of overall jobs) actually need to be addressed. You'd never know that reading this piece. Reading this piece you are left with a sense of outrage the government is bad, why are they messing with people blah blah blah instead of an actionable list.

Let's fix the list, but realize that this is a political body writing this with specific goals probably paid for by a deep pocket interest.

[steve19]

why does your teacher need a license? background check, sure, but license?

[rwmj]

Individual private tutors (in the UK at least) need a background check if they teach children under 18, but not a license. Teachers of whole classrooms in schools need a QTS, which is a qualification demonstrating their skills as teachers. This seems reasonable since it gives a fairly simple way for parents and schools to evaluate whether a teacher is completely useless or not (but not that they are a great teacher - a license probably could never tell you that).

I'm interested to know why you (I assume) think licensing teachers is a bad idea.

[kw71]

My teacher needs a license to show that he has completed education that should make him competent, continues to maintain competency, and has not faced any questions of conduct or discipline which should rightfully deprive him of such license.

I would like this strengthened to include that the individual is sound on a psychological or psychiatric level, since many teachers work with children. True story, I faced a lot of abuse during my childhood and so was in therapy to deal with it. Waiting to see the therapist one day, I got to stare down an abusive former teacher who happened to be in the waiting room, waiting for psychiatric services. Since her employer manages its own health insurance, they knew about this person's history of psychiatric problems because they paid the costs for her services. But the local teachers union has made it so that unless you actually rape a child during class, there's no chance of being fired from the school board.

[cpitman]

> My <Insert Profession Here> needs a license to show that he has completed education that should make him competent, continues to maintain competency, and has not faced any questions of conduct or discipline which should rightfully deprive him of such license.

How does this sentence apply to teachers and not every other profession?

[DanBC]

The vast majority of people with a mental health problem pose zero risk to children.

Abusive teachers should be dealt with without a blanket ban on anyone with a mental health problem.

Did you realise that your comment was stigmatising of people with mental health problems?

[kw71]

This is the second time you have said that I'm stigmatizing all mental health patients because I have pointed out cases where a person with problems in that broad category engaged in damaging behavior against someone else.

I don't think that "everyone with a condition in the DSM/ICD" from sleep disorders to encopresis should feel like they are the victim of my comments. I certainly don't intend it and after rereading my comments I can't see how a reader can draw that conclusion. I even don't want bipolar, borderline, narcissistic etc. types to be offended by my comments.

I think that the school board is at fault for not inquiring why a person who works primarily with children is receiving psychiatric services. No, you should not be a teacher or in any profession dealing with children if you cannot behave properly, whether it's because you have unresolved personal issues or because you have a disability where you simply cannot realize that certain acts are not allowed or inappropriate. When the risks are so great - not only the damage to the individual himself, which can persist long after the abusive employee's own death, but the possibility that the damaged individual can hurt others and society: prison and/or social support isn't cheap - it's imprudent and neglectful to not follow up when an indicator appears.

I think following up on these indicators would benefit other professional license regimes, not only teachers. Do you want a cop on the street who suffers from PTSD or substance abuse addiction? How about a suicidal airline pilot who may suffer from delusions? Clinical social worker with NPD or history of abusing his own family? For an engineer or cosmetologist it's probably not important.

For all of us individually, there are certain professions that we aren't cut out for. That's just life and I don't think it bothers most of us. What makes you think I'm free of mental health problems myself anyway?

[DanBC]

So, here's one example of your stigmatising views and assumptions:

> I think that the school board is at fault for not inquiring why a person who works primarily with children is receiving psychiatric services.

You assume the school board didn't make any inquiry. For all you know they did. But more than that you assume that merely receiving psychiatric services is enough to need a check - regardless of displayed behaviour. You're saying "mental health problem == risky", when you have no evidence to support that. Feel free to provide something to support it.

> No, you should not be a teacher or in any profession dealing with children if you cannot behave properly,

Here you link poor behaviour to mental illness. Most poor behaviour has nothing to do with mental illness. Most people with a mental health problem live fairly normal lives.

You should probably stop using bullshit reasons to restrict the work that people can do, especially when those bullshit reasons are a result of ignorance.

[steve19]

That's the core of the problem, the license means little because the union will generally fight tooth and nail for any teacher that faces discipline.

Which would you rather have, a teacher that taught and inspired your 6 year old kids, or a generic licensed teacher?

[lmm]

The union defends their members, that's part of their job. It's what prevents administrators from arbitrarily firing people they don't like - or, worse, people who stand up against malpractice on the administrative side. The administration has access to their own specialists who can and do "fight tooth and nail" for their side.

When someone is actually incompetent any halfway competent administrator will be able to fire them. It's not hard - it just requires collecting some actual evidence and documenting that you followed the processes correctly.

[pestaa]

That is a false dichotomy. A teacher with a license doesn't mean 'generic'.