Nikole Hannah-Jones is an American investigative reporter known for her coverage of racial discrimination in schools. She has worked for the New York Times since 2015 and is well known for her work on the 1619 Project.
In a September 2026 New York Times Magazine article, Ms. Hannah-Jones questioned the decision she and her husband made a dozen years ago to enroll their daughter in a New York City public school that was low-income and mostly black.
Last week, American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Robert Pondiscio published an opinion piece about Ms. Hannah-Jones’ article titled The Lessons We’re Not Learning From Nikole Hannah-Jones. Responding to Ms. Hannah-Jones’s account of her daughter’s education, Mr. Pondiscio argues that institutional competence cannot be assumed. Changing a school’s funding, governance, or enrollment does not automatically create the expertise needed to educate its students. That challenge should trouble reformers of every persuasion.
Mr. Pondiscio’s commentary prompted me to reconsider a question that deserves more attention: What does it mean to be qualified to teach?
In her article, Hannah-Jones describes unchecked assignments, misleading grades, and academic gaps that became apparent when her daughter, Najya, entered a more demanding school. Importantly, that school was a selective public high school, not a private school. Its teachers, together with outside tutoring, helped Najya recover academically.
Her experience, therefore, cannot establish that well-funded schools hire better teachers or that traditional teacher preparation caused the earlier failures. The essay does not document the earlier teachers’ undergraduate majors or certification pathways. But it raises a question I believe schools should confront: Are we giving enough weight to teachers’ subject-matter knowledge and to examining whether they can translate that knowledge into student learning?
Subject Knowledge Should Not Be an Afterthought
I have never been a fan of undergraduate education degrees that lack a focus on the academic discipline that a graduate may be selected to teach. If I were a state’s education superintendent, I would want all my schools to consider strong chemistry graduates for chemistry teaching positions, strong English graduates who understand literature and write well for English teaching positions, etc.
Many states already require teachers to demonstrate subject-matter knowledge through academic coursework, licensing examinations, or both. The issue is therefore not simply whether that knowledge appears in the requirements. It is whether those requirements establish sufficient depth, whether preparation programs deliver it, and whether schools assign teachers to subjects they are qualified to teach. A degree in education should not be presumed to lack disciplinary substance, just as a degree in a non-education discipline should not be presumed to establish teaching ability.
There is an aspect of independent and parochial school hiring that interests me: the flexibility, where permitted, to consider candidates without conventional teaching licenses. Maryland provides an example of this. The state’s rules for non-public schools establish a bachelor’s degree or specified alternative college preparation as the minimum qualification for core-subject teachers, without requiring a state teaching certificate. Other nonpublic categories have different requirements.
That flexibility is an opportunity, not proof of superior instruction. A school still must determine whether the candidate can teach. My preference does not assume that all education majors lack disciplinary expertise. The relevant question, from my perspective, is what a candidate knows, not the stereotype we attach to a degree.
For secondary teaching, I would place substantial weight on advanced coursework, demonstrated subject mastery, and the ability to explain difficult concepts. A chemistry candidate should explain why an experiment produces an unexpected result. An English candidate should show how to help a student turn a weak argument into a persuasive essay. Unfortunately, some schools and school districts are unable to find enough qualified candidates to make that choice.
Knowing a Subject and Teaching It Are Different Responsibilities
Hannah-Jones’s account also describes repeated difficulties with novice mathematics teachers and classroom management.
A newly hired chemistry graduate would be a novice, too. We cannot criticize schools for relying on inexperienced teachers while treating disciplinary graduates as classroom-ready simply because we admire their academic preparation.
An inexperienced teacher, an alternatively certified teacher, and a teacher with weak subject knowledge are not interchangeable categories.
Research helps clarify what is needed. A 2020 study by Chen Chen and colleagues examined 79 biology teachers and 2,749 high-school students. After accounting for students’ prior performance, the researchers found that students were more likely to answer a question correctly when their teachers could answer it correctly. Teachers’ ability to anticipate common misconceptions was associated with even better student performance.
I find that combination compelling. The teacher needs to understand biology and recognize why a student misunderstands it.
My proposal is not to replace teacher preparation with a subject degree. It is to combine substantial disciplinary knowledge with serious preparation for instruction and to assess that knowledge as part of the interview process.
I am curious how many beginning teachers receive supervised practice, a manageable teaching load, and a skilled mentor in their subject. They should receive explicit preparation in assessment, classroom management, child development, and supporting students with different learning needs.
Mentoring should involve observing lessons, examining student work, and improving instruction—not merely assigning an experienced colleague’s name to a form.
The approach should also fit the assignment. Preparing someone to teach high school chemistry does not answer every question about preparing an elementary reading teacher or a special educator.
What Certification Can—and Cannot—Tell Us
Research does not justify treating certification as either a guarantee of competence or an irrelevant obstacle.
In a study published in 2008, Thomas Kane, Jonah Rockoff, and Douglas Staiger examined six years of New York City data. Average achievement differences associated with teachers’ initial certification status were small, while differences among teachers within the same certification category were large and persistent. Early classroom performance was a more reliable indicator of future effectiveness.
That finding supports evaluating teachers beyond their entry credentials. It does not establish that education majors are inferior to disciplinary majors, nor does it indicate that every alternative program is effective.
I would apply the same scrutiny to all pathways of preparation. What subject knowledge do teaching candidates acquire? How much supervised practice do they receive? How well do graduates teach, and how long do they remain as teachers?
A program’s success is not necessarily defined by the number of licensed graduates it produces. Similarly, an alternative pathway can’t claim success merely because it fills vacancies.
Schools need capable teachers who are prepared to succeed and supported enough to stay.
School Leadership Cannot Be Left Out
Hannah-Jones herself rejects the idea that caring families matter more than competent teachers. On that point, I see common ground with Pondiscio, despite their broader disagreements. But subject expertise cannot explain every instructional failure.
Consider three hypothetical situations:
- A teacher who cannot solve a mathematics problem needs stronger content preparation.
- A teacher who can solve it but cannot explain it needs stronger instructional preparation.
- A teacher who never examines students’ work presents another problem altogether.
That third situation requires an investigation of professional practice, workload, supervision, and expectations. It cannot be diagnosed from the teacher’s undergraduate major.
As a parent, I want leaders to demonstrate that they know instruction is effective. What evidence supports students’ grades? How are learning gaps identified? What happens after a teacher or parent raises a concern?
I would like to see reports that distinguish effort, growth, and mastery. A student can work hard and make substantial progress while remaining below grade level. Families deserve to know all three things.
Recognition of progress should encourage a child. It should not obscure the help that the child still needs.
I would also expect leaders to protect time for lesson preparation and feedback, organize reliable instructional coverage, and intervene when a teacher repeatedly fails to meet expectations. Accountability should include assistance and improvement. But continued neglect cannot become acceptable simply because addressing it is difficult.
Rigor and Belonging Are Not Opposing Goals
Hannah-Jones also describes racial hostility at Najya’s later school and differences in the learning needs of students served by her middle and high schools. Those elements should not be omitted because they complicate an argument about school effectiveness.
A fair evaluation should account for who a school serves and the support its students require. We should not assume that differences in average test scores isolate differences in teacher quality. At the same time, I oppose any dynamic that forces students and their families to choose between academic expectations and a humane school environment.
Children should not have to tolerate discrimination to obtain challenging instruction. Nor should a welcoming atmosphere compensate for being academically neglected. Schools should offer both intellectual challenge and genuine belonging. I would expect staffing, professional development, and leadership decisions to advance those goals together.
Universities Should Help Build Better Pathways
As a former university president, I believe higher education has a responsibility here. Academic departments and schools of education should collaborate rather than leave students to choose between disciplinary depth and preparation for teaching.
Penn offers an example. Its Secondary Education minor provides an undergraduate route to Pennsylvania teacher licensure in grades 7–12, including subjects such as English, mathematics, chemistry, and physics. The program includes field placements, an assigned mentor or coach, and full-time student teaching during the spring semester of senior year. It does not require a master’s degree.
Washington College, a four-year liberal arts college in Maryland, also provides an undergraduate route to Maryland teacher certification. Its program is linked to 16 unique undergraduate programs, and provides a minor in education while the major is one of those 16 programs. This enables a student to acquire subject-matter expertise in a major while earning a secondary education certification.
These are the types of subject matter/teaching integration I would like more universities to examine.
Whether a university awards a bachelor’s degree labeled “education” is the wrong standard. The real test is whether a student can develop strong subject knowledge and become well prepared to teach without unnecessary expense or delay.
I encourage universities and school systems to build affordable pathways, compensate professional mentors, and provide continued support during graduates’ early teaching years. Their evaluations should examine classroom practice, student learning, and teacher retention, not simply enrollment or degree completions. They should use multiple measures rather than allow one test score to define success.
A More Meaningful Definition of Qualified
I am convinced that schools should welcome talented graduates who know their subjects deeply. I am equally convinced that a disciplinary degree should open a pathway into teaching, not excuse its holder from learning how to teach.
The same standard should apply to traditionally prepared teachers. Completing an approved program should begin professional accountability, not end the inquiry into effectiveness. The lesson I take from this debate is not that public schools cannot succeed, private schools always do, or that teacher certification should disappear. The takeaway here is that credentials must be accompanied by demonstrated competence, serious preparation, and responsible leadership.
Children deserve teachers who understand the material, recognize when they are confused, and help them improve. They deserve leaders who know whether those things are happening. The measure of a school’s success should not be how convincingly adults explain its difficulties. It should be how effectively they respond to them.
In Ms. Hannah-Jones’ article, she writes about several times when she pointed out things that were happening that she did not like. In some cases, the principal or teacher quickly responded. In other cases, the slow response time was frustrating. From my perspective, it was clear that in schools that served lower-income students, meeting the needs of students who were higher achievers like Ms. Hannah-Jones’ daughter took a back seat to meeting the needs of most students. Ms. Hannah-Jones’ experiences support Mr. Pondiscio’s premise, namely that institutional competence cannot be assumed.
Given the complexity of operating a non-selective school in a resource-constrained environment, hiring teachers with appropriate subject-matter expertise removes at least one roadblock to student success. Proponents of school choice argue that giving them the right to choose the school their child attends removes other roadblocks to student success. School choice is likely a topic reserved for a future article.
