Test Vetting vs. Market Vetting

The vetting process for teachers in public schools is different from the vetting process for teachers in private schools.  Those working in public schools are vetted via a series of state-mandated tests meant to certify qualifications.  Beyond test vetting, the chance for any market to evaluate teacher services and to confer status is rendered false and void on account of teacher unions, the strength of which is capable of contriving the market as means for protecting those teachers working in that market.

The opposite appears true for those who happen to work in a private school setting.  Theoretically at least, like any private system, the nature of private schools is one that functions in a free market.  For those who work in such a market, status isn’t vetted via the traditional paper test mandated by a superior governing body like the state, but is rather vetted via a market of high paying clientele—families seeking to pay upwards of $50,000-$60,000/year for the delivery of educational services to their children.

So, while teachers in public schools are test vetted, those in private schools are market vetted.  Which form of vetting, you might ask, is more rigorous in its effectiveness?  Ideally, both vetting procedures would work in concert with each other.  Under such a scenario, test vetting might be required for teachers as means for assessing a more quantifiable area of competency such as content knowledge, leaving market vetting as a vehicle for evaluating the quality of delivered learning experience overall.  For the latter to occur—that is, for market testing to perform its natural chastening function—teacher unions would need to undergo reform in a way that would continue allowing them to insulate teachers from unfair policies, while prohibiting the protection of teachers who routinely underperform.