Aren't there better ways to talk about good teaching than whether it is lecture or not, teacher directed or not, etc.? I don't know where else this is happening, but the why probably has to do with 1 a mistrust of program-specific, as opposed to examination-specific credentialling, 2 a concern with the expense of publicly supported ed. Some years ago, I was involved in an evaluation of a Follow-Through program that made extensive, but rather mechanical, use of teacher aides. Each group was given an object and asked to "analyze" it, which, from the best I could judge, meant merely to describe it, since descriptions were what the teacher accepted as good answers. When Louis Schmier took his camera equipment to the classroom he tells about, he was directing the lesson and controlling its content within certain boundaries; it is just that he is doing it by letting students do certain things actively instead of just taking notes or "listening" while sitting passively. Such people should teach for their own sake and for the sake of children. Does the teacher try to find out what the student already knows, or is learning as the "lesson" progresses? But giving these kids bad teachers is not an essential ingredient in tracking. The problem is NOT that secondary teachers don't have a major in their field. However, for reasons like those noted above, the answer is unlikely to be to require an academic major of elementary teachers, especially as we currently conceive of academic majors. Several of these students had extensive experience teaching and instructing in other countries or in fields which did not require formal certification. The difficult part was they were to use the object they were given as a metaphor for any one of a group of "abstract" nouns the teacher had put on the board: These policy makers view colleges and departments of education as something worse than wasteful--sort of as parasites on the educational system, draining it of its vitality.