quote:

---

I think we're forgetting what terrorists do, and what they are. The comment was totally inappropriate, and if we cannot question education in a civil manner without being labelled terrorists, then we really have a problem.

---

Amen.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
The NEA, Rhaegar.

The "terrorist organization" was intended as a joke, obviously, and it's only funny because there is a grain of truth in it. Just a grain.

I think the NEA has done some good things, but I also think they've done irreparable harm to the public school system.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Seems to me there are two issues I need to sort out for myself in something like this:

First, do I agree or disagree with the speaker in terms of the group being criticized? For me, in this case, it's probably "no," although I've disagreed with NEA at other times when it comes to obstructionist attitudes about including kids with disabilities in regular classrooms.

Second, how do I feel about the nature of the criticism? Obviously, this was disgustingly out of bounds. Before 9/11, we used to make casual jokes about terrorism in this country but those times are gone.

Would conservatives think a simple apology would be sufficient if a prominent Democrat referred to groups like the NRA as terrorists? Not that some Democrats aren't capable of that kind of rhetoric - I just think shrugging off "jokes" about terrorism is totally at odds with how seriously the administration says we should take terrorism.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Concerned Teacher = Terrorist


 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
Jeniwren I just said what the guy said, I just think it's funny that he said it, I don't agree with him, I just think it's funny.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Disagree with the name called.

Also happen to disagree with NEA on number of issues. Know several teachers who belong to union solely to have access to liability insurance.

Dagonee

[ February 24, 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 

quote:

---

Would conservatives think a simple apology would be sufficient if a prominent Democrat referred to groups like the NRA as terrorists?

---

Nope, we would shoot him.
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
And BTW Sndrake, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Nater Nader whatever, and Tom Dashal have all called us (The NRA) Terrorists. And no resignations have been demanded.

Rhaegar

[ February 24, 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Hm. And yet you've threatened to shoot somebody on this thread alone, whereas -- as far as I know -- the NEA hasn't made that claim. Either you're not particularly representative of the NRA, or there's maybe more to that comparison. j/k
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
It's a little thing called sarcasm. And yes, I said we didn't ask for resignations, just singed out hit warrants on them

Rhaegar

[ February 24, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Rhaegar,

Care to give quotes? And I'd be really surprised to see any that were said after 9/11. Things changed then.
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
Dean called the NRA "terrorists"??? That I find very difficult to believe, given that the NRA endorsed him as Governor of Vermont.


 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
Oh not after 9/11 the polls swung the other way, and yes Dean got an A form the NRA until he started running for Pres, at which point, his entire view on guns changed, polls you see.

Rhaegar
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Dean has referred to the NRA as a terrorist organization? Fascinating, when? He's a strong support of many rights wrt firearms, so I find the idea more than a bit suspicious. But you do have a quote to back that up, right?

While you're at it, lets get the quotes from Daschle and Ted Kennedy. Nader isn't and hasn't been an elected official, so its somewhat hard to have ever called for his resignation. Besides, he is emphatically not a Democrat.

[ February 24, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
Hey, isn;t this thread about the NEA not the NRA?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
And no, he has not:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/index.html?type=page&pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
My first thought--our Axiom is changing.

I forget the name of the rule, but it goes "Any debate that is argued long enough on the net will result in one side or the other being compared to Nazi's."

That has changed. Now replace Nazi with Terrorist.

My second thought--thank God we are complaining about this.

1) At present, if you are considered a Terrorist, you can be labeled an "enemy combatant" or some such.

2) People labeled as such, regardless of citizenship, can be arrested and carted off to military holding cells without the benefit of legal counsel, a phone call to anyone, or the government even mentioning to anyone that they have taken you.

Now we have a representative of the government labeling political enemies as "Terrorists." What is next? Could we have the military throwing "terrorist" liberal lobbyists into nameless jail cells?

Not likely.

Not in this country.

Not today.

My fear is, tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
Fugu, do you seriously think that Dean would post a quote on his web site which would make aproximately an organization which trains 750,000 gun owners in safety and accuracy a year angry at him now do you?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
His position has not changed.

If you can't shew such quotes, you were lying, or at best hideously misinformed. Grow up and learn to argue with facts.
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
Fugu, then explain to me why he now has the rating of c- form the nra instead of his usual A?

Rhaegar
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Because his positions on how states should treat guns are well within their standards, while his positions on how the nation should treat guns are less within their standards. When he's holding a state office the former is what he is rated on, and when he's running for a national office the latter.

I'm still waiting for those quotes.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Rhaegar,

quote:

---

And BTW Sndrake, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Nater Nader whatever, and Tom Dashal have all called us (The NRA) Terrorists.

---

I'd really like to take you seriously. Could you either give real quotes and sources to back this up or can we just assume this is something you decided to claim because it sounded good?

(edit to add: hate it when someone makes the same request and posts it while I'm typing. Gotta get faster...)

[ February 24, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
I have a printed issue of the NRA Magazine in which the Ted Kennedy quote is, but the majority of the NRA information passed out is printed not digitized.

Rhaegar
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Hm. I would be highly skeptical of a NRA pamphlet as an accurate source of quotes from prominent advocates of gun control, y'know.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Its quite simple, then. Just put a reasonably unique part of the quote, in quotations, into google, then search for it. Since pretty much anything controversial kennedy has said is posted online, it should turn up.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Or do the next best thing. You know - what people did pre-internet stuff.

Offer a citation with the quote(choose your style - ADA, MLA, etc . . . ) and then interested folks can go to the library and look it up for themselves.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
I am a teacher and a member of the NEA.

When the Secretary of Education said that, he did not MEAN that teachers are terroroists. I firmly believe that. I think the NEA took the ball and ran with it, to gain political "hand."

What he said was totally out of line, and one of those things he will probably kick himself for for the rest of his life, but I think he meant the antagonism ANY lobbyist group uses to get their way. He simply did not think it through, and made a very inappropriate remark in front of a roomfull of governors that will probably cost him his career.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I think (hope, rather, because otherwise it speaks rather sadly as to the requirements we have) that the revelations of widespread corruption in Houston schools would have already sunk his career. Either he knew about them and was corrupt, or did not know about them and was incompetent (that something suspicious was happening at the schools was readily apparent in the more detailed statistics; if he did not follow up and find out what, he was not doing his job).
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
Paige should be leaving, just to save his boss a little face.

There are some parts of NCLB that I agree with wholeheartedly, like the requiring of all teachers to be adequately degreed instead of grandfathering into the job, and there are a few parts that have been altered to the point where they are ineffective for helping children. I often hear many teachers around here, where I live, speaking out against NCLB, but I've also noticed that while they speak out against test scores and quotas, nearly half of them have begun to take night classes at a local college. I didn't realize there were so many people teaching who are, in my opinion, not qualified for the job! Just that single thing has gotten the basic NCLB support from me. Now all that needs to be done is fixing the testing techniques and quotas.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Of course, Bush has already voiced support for expanding the testing in its current, broken, form to a whole 'nother grade level.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
"I didn't realize there were so many people teaching who are, in my opinion, not qualified for the job!"

So, in your opinion, what qualifies a teacher for the job?
 

---

Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
 
There is no excuse for calling the NEA terrorists. This man holds public office. He is a representative of the people. He should learn to put his brain in gear before he speaks.

I am a member of the NEA by default. I felt I needed the protection (insurance) and support of my local chapter. I do not agree with everything they do and I do not support them in many of their decisions (and definitely not in their choice of candidates, usually). The changing of NCLB is one agenda I support because the Federal government is once again sticking their nose into State business. They are requiring mandates without backing them with funding.

I work very hard at my job. I have been working for 10 years and I make $30,000/year. I usually have from 24 to 30 students in my classroom and I usually spend around $1000-$1500 of my own money on my students and for teaching supplies. I have taken classes every year. NOT because they were required, but because I wanted to make sure I was doing the best job I could.

I resent the Federal Government labeling me as unqualified until I have taken their tests.

I could go on and on, but I will spare you. I am a teacher, not a terrorist.
 

---

Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
You could graduate from the best law school in the country and work for a law firm for years, but you're still not qualified to be a lawyer until you take the bar exam.
 

---

Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
 
Doesn't ten years experience count for something?
It's not the test, I can and will take it. It's the fact that I am being labeled as "unqualified" to teach.
 

---

Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
By the way, speaking of terrorists, there was a local teacher's strike recently. I heard a rumor
the al Qaida was going to be there. I just had to see for myself.
It turned out I'd heard wrong. It was just some
guy named Al Cady. He turned out to be a really neat gut, actually.
 

---

Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
 
Ha! Funny . . .
By the way, I want to get paid as much as a lawyer, too, after I take "the test".
 

---

Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
 
By the way, I started typing that in before your last question was posted. I don't want you to think I was trying to change the subjet or ignore your question or anything.
 

---

Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
 
#1 Dan_raven, I still refer to many of my teachers as Nazi’s, and I’ve yet to call one a terrorist.

#2 No child left behind, well for lack of a better word, blows. It may be wonderful for the small minority of students who would other wise fall between the cracks, but for students like me, it only slows us down.

#3 I also strongly object to Standardized testing, it may tell the government something, but I have always scored "below normal" and I have a 3.8 GPA. Does that say anything about how accurate their tests are.

JT Stryker, student in good standing in almost all respects (except for my lack of respect for authority)

[ April 10, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: J T Stryker ]
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
"It may be wonderful for the small minority of students who would other wise fall between the cracks,"

They are not really a minority, and NCLB does not really help them. So far, all I have seen is special programs being taken away in favor of an "inclusion" system which is designed to have more kids taught be less people.(not tomention art, gym, music, and after school sports) Start to watch in your community, to see how many programs for emotionally disturbed children and adolescents are all of a sudden housed in the school. Some students need, and benefit from, separation from the group.

I heard a joke somewhere: "If all the children are left behind, then none of them are, right?"
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 

quote:

---

"I didn't realize there were so many people teaching who are, in my opinion, not qualified for the job!"

So, in your opinion, what qualifies a teacher for the job?

---

quote:

---

Doesn't ten years experience count for something?
It's not the test, I can and will take it. It's the fact that I am being labeled as "unqualified" to teach.

---

If you don't hold a degree in what you teach, why should I trust you with my child's education, which would be far more important to me than your pride? Were I to want to learn to fix cars, I would ask a certified mechanic to teach me. Were I to want to learn how to fly, I would seek a trained and licensed pilot. If I want my child to learn literature and mathematics and history and biology, I want it taught by people who have verifiable proof of having studied it and a certified degree of expertise. You may not like that, but ask yourself if you'd fly in an airplane flown by some guy who says, "it's okay, I learned how to fly from my gardener!"
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
No, fugu, I also want teachers to be paid more, but that's not going to happen until there is a justifiable reason, like having qualified educators.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You're not going to get many people to double major in education (english, education, they both start with e, what's the difference ) and a subject of interest in order to become educators if the pay sucks. Plain and simple.

At least if you raise the pay and scale up the hiring requirements (following a well advertised progression) over time you have a snowball's chance in heck of it working, but just raising the education requirement without giving a suitable increase in pay is going to result in one very easy to predict outcome: teacher shortage. Its basic economics (the only big reasons there are some really qualified teachers today are externalities anyways, except in certain very high risk schools that have raised the pay exceptionally already, and even that's due to the violence externality, you'd have to raise the pay a lot at the vast majority of schools before you started hitting the people who would do it for the money).

[ April 10, 2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
A,

Unfortunately, teaching is not so easily learned in a college classroom. it is learned in the school classroom. Period.

I agree that people should know their stuff. Granted. However, there is alot more that goes on in a school day than teaching math and literature. Before that can happen, the kids need to sit in their seats, know the rules, feel they are being respected, not be bullied by other kids. The middle school Queen Bee, the girl who rules the grade with her nasty story-telling and threats, needs to be kept in line.

It would be easy to make that a requirement for teaching. In fact, it is a requirement. And young, "qualified" teachers are being eaten alive.

There needs to be a middle ground. Respect for time served. Those ten years sure DO mean something! But I think a teacher should continue to learn. There are very few people I work with who don't want to.

A new teacher(whether young or not) should have to work with a master teacher for a period of time.

All teachers should work with all ages of kids before they teach, to see how they develop. (I have learned more about teaching from my own two kids than from any book or professor)

In short, teachers should know their stuff, but part of that stuff can't be taught. It must be experienced.

Liz
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
I'm not willing to accept being a skilled babysitter as trumping qualifications for teaching the actual material. They can be wonderful at child outreach, as far as I care, but if they don't know the subject they are teaching, then I don't want my child being taught by them, because they are unqualified teachers, and highly qualified babysitters. I don't want our schools to be daycare, I want them to be learning institutions. Besides, wasn't spending time as a student teacher a requirement for becoming a certified teacher, on top of having a degree? If not, it sure should be. You can get that experience in a curriculum, because I know at least two teachers (I only know two personally) who were required to do student teaching before ever being hired, and substitute teaching is recommended for those who want to enter the education field. Perhaps substituting should also be made a requirement. Don't preach to me how someone can't get that experience without "being there," because frankly, it isn't that difficult to be there. The difficult part is being certifiably qualified.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
You only know two teachers?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I really don't think having a degree in a subject is necessary for teaching it for the most part. I've had bad teachers in every subject who knew the subject matter excellently yet were horrible teachers in it.

Take math, for instance. While I'd like the person teaching anything up to the second year of algebra and trigonometry (common junior and senior year type courses for your average high school student) to at least have a good grasp of first and second year calculus to understand a lot of the basic theory behind algebra and trig, for that person to have a grasp of set theory (as a person with a math degree would) just doesn't really matter.
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
I know two personally. I know many professionally. The two I know are friends. One has his PhD, the other is working on it. Both want to continue their own education as long as they remain teaching. What have you done yourself scholastically, Elizabeth? Do you agree that as a teacher, one should also remain a student, furthering their own education and/or degrees? How many teachers do you know actually do that? I know of four, the two I don't know personally study abroad over the summer. Maybe my ideal for what qualifies a teacher are too high? In my opinion, they should be that high.
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
I disagree, fugu. The best math teachers I ever had held at least two degrees, and one held three. Understanding a subject thoroughly makes teaching it easier, and the information passed on more accurate. For instance, how much do children have to unlearn of math and English when they get into high school, so they can learn it correctly? This is a problem that has come up regularly in cases I've seen.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh, undoubtedly if you have someone who has a graduate degree in math combined with excellent teaching skills you'll have the best sort of math teacher. But we're not arguing best, we're arguing adequate.

edit2: and which level of math class were these teachers teaching, btw?

edit: Also, that doesn't actually speak to my point at all. I didn't say that people with degrees in the subject couldn't teach well, I just said that people with degrees in the subject didn't necessarily teach well.

Oh, and I've had similar conversations with several of the teachers I know well, and even the ones with the higher degrees tend to agree they aren't the most important part of the job. Most of them acknowledge that the actual facts imparted, in fact, are not of all that much consequence.

I think teachers with subject degrees would be a nice ideal, but unless it goes hand in hand with good money its just not happening.

If you want pipe dreams to come true, you have to build pipes.

[ April 10, 2004, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
http://nces.ed.gov/naal/resources/execsumm.asp#litskills

This is what I'm talking about. At the current state where "adequate" is encouraged, people are becoming adults with subpar basic skills with today's education system. While the whole of the blame is not the teachers, higher standards should be in place to require the promotion of higher skill levels. This would also mean more money needed for the schools, the programs, and the identification of needy students, but at the heart of this all would be the need for teachers who thoroughly understand what they are teaching. That's what I'm saying is needed as a step toward my pipe dream. I'm saying that NCLB, while having some parts that don't address the problem, also has steps to lay down some of the pipes needed for that dream.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
A,

I don't think I need to spew my education forth just to satisfy you. Yes, I do agree that a teacher should continue his or her education. Every teacher I know does, and wants to. (and also has to)

I disagree that I have to hold a major in a subject that I teach. I teach elementary-middle school. I am probably a better math teacher than I am an English teacher, and math was a huge challenge for me in high school.

I also disagree that the part of teaching that you describe as glorified babysitting is unimportant. I think it is extremely important. I teach young kids in a public school. Private schools can set all sorts of parameters for academic achievment and behavior. We cannot.(as easily) We have to teach everyone, all at once.

It is not an easy job, but I love it. If I seemed preachy, I apologize. I was actually defensive and angry. I am tired of hearing what a piece of crud I am from people who have no clue what I do all day.

My favorite gardening quote from Thomas Jefferson applies to how I feel about teaching and learning, learning and teaching. There IS no difference:

"But though I am an old man, I am but a young gardener.

Liz
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
I didn't mean to put you on the defensive, and I certainly was not calling you crud. I'm talking as a whole, not you, nor any single teacher out there. Where you may know many who continue education, all but the four I mentioned above are not seeking the same here, which may or may not skew my perception a bit. Maybe the average is higher than I see. Maybe it isn't though, and maybe you are in a very lucky school system. The main point of what I was saying is that it is a good thing to require a higher bar for teachers to pass, because so much is expected of them already. I would feel uneasy having someone who may have wonderful personal skills but not enough education skills in a job that requires both, and the policy of requiring degreed teachers according to the NCLB ensures that. That has also been the most disputed topic in the local political races here where I live, because the local politicians have been promising to fight the policies of NCLB over it. While that may please the teachers, it's dangerously ignoring the students, in my opinion. Getting teachers better supplies and pay is one thing I agree with, but not at the cost of having enough adequate teachers in the classrooms, which I do not feel there are enough of.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
OK. I agree.

However, you have to respect the teachers who were working before these guidelines took effect. They HAVE to be given credit for their years of teaching. They might have to be observed by someone, but they should get credit for time served. It should convert into a class. One class or three years of (lightly) supervised teaching. You see, we have to take, but LOVE to take, workshops of our choice,as long as it fits with what we teach. I have had the most fun taking geography workshops, and book making. I want to teach social studies, or have my own elementary self-contained class.

My philosophy for teaching is based on connectedness. Whenever possible, I try not to disconnect knowledge. I use what my coteacher teaches in English as the guidelines for my writing assignments in science or social studies, and back and forth. It is so much fun to expand on old units or develop brand new ones. Right now we are doing a pop-up book project. Those who finish the basic core of the unit can have a pop-up book to create four rooms in, based on the American Revolution. Any ideas?

Liz
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
In most cases there are credits given for certain experience, but the requirements qould still have to be able to be charted. The workshops and other things would count around here, as far as I know, though the amount of credits towards any degree would depend on the college or university. On the other hand, there are many classes that can be tested out of for undergrad, so it's not even like it's that difficult. Also, as far as I knew, most state and local systems were helping foot the bill for non-degreed teachers who are working toward getting a degree before deadline, which is 2006, I believe. The options are there, they just require making sure certain things are covered. The attitude I've mostly seen has been that of teachers who have been working for ten or more years who don't want to sit on the other side of the classroom again, even if the state is footing the bill, and even though they'd be further ahead of younger students in terms of credits from the start. I'm glad that you feel teaching and learning are both necessary, Elizabeth, because I've seen too many who do not have that kind of optimism and openness.
 

---

Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
 
Argent, I do hold a degree. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary Education, but I am still labeled as "unqualified" by the Federal government.
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
Did they say why? What about your degree is not acceptable? Did you ask?
 

---

Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
 
First, I would like to point out that unions, with their organized strikes, have helped make fair-labor laws, such as healthy work environments, anti-child labor laws, and many others of the same sort. Although strikes were--and still can be--very bloodly, generally nowadays many strikes are avoided by mediations between higher-ups and union reps.

And now, a hypothetical. Allow me to present it in a scientific hypothesis:

IF teachers unions are a terrorist group THEN all teachers in unions should be arrested.

Hey, this is a post-9/11 world. Terrorism is not a word to throw around lightly, lest we forget the true definition.

At the school my mother teaches in, over 50% are union teachers, my mother included. But hey, they're terrorist, not teachers. Lock them up. Go on. You know where they are, in their classrooms, doing their jobs.

That's just one elementary school out of about a hundred in the parish/county, maybe more, I'm not sure at the moment. Some are probably more unionized than just that one.

So, roughly speaking, that's maybe... 1,000 teachers? 2,000? In just one parish/county. We're already teachers short, and you can't have just one teacher with 60-some odd kids per class all day. You have to bring in other people, other teachers, subs, what have you.

So, we have underqualified people teaching our children, who's education is suffering while 'terrorists' flood our already-flooded prisions and judicial systems.

Now blow that up to the national scale.

And while we're at it, let's hit the PTAs! They're OBVIOUSLY terrorists, because they're involved in their child's education.

I know, I'm being cynical. Some 'jokes' are inappropriate, especially with something as serious as terrorism. We stared a war over terrorism, people. It's our magic word; just say it and all other reasons disappear into thin air!

Teachers have a very thankless job. Calling them terrorists is not encouraging. The next thing we know, we'll be calling them baby-corrupters.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
Though I do not know his department of ed. guidelines, I could guess that Utah is not considered "highly qualified" because he(she? sorry!) might be teaching in a middle school(say, sixth grade English), and does not have a specific English degree, though has an elementary ed. certification which would(until recently) cover him/her to teach English to sixth graders, because they are eementary stdents. He would need to get a Masters, or take enough English classes to meet an English requirement. It would depend on how many classes he is away from that.

Or, he/she could get a Masters.

Now this is where I have an issue. When I look around my school, which is primarily veteran teachers, I see some mighty fine educators. They are superior teachers to a newer teacher who is "highly qualified." They are getting screwed.

Argent, as far as I have seen, schools paying for Masters programs is a myth. I did hear of one three-year math program which would make someone highly qualified, but that is it. The proble(one) with NCLB is that it looks good on paper, but when real humans are involved, and real money, the story changes.

Also, now they are requiring paraprofessionals to have a BA to teach as assistants. OK, so someone who is making seven dollars an hour has to pay for college? Good-bye paras, off they go to make real money.
 

---

Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
 
I didn't say schools paying for masters programs. I said school systems paying to get their teachers adequately degreed to teach. In my county, there are at least half a dozen teachers going to the local community college to finish up their last credits, and not paying for it. I know that depending on your state, you can find similar programs. It's not a myth.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
Are you talking about teachers without BAs? How can they even be teachers of record in a public school?
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
NCLB allows states to set their own specific definition of "highly qualified." Most states allow the teachers to pass the subject area exam in lieu of holding a degree in field. Are your states different, UTAH and Elizabeth?

-o-

FWIW, the fact that a teacher is taking classes is not an indication that the teacher is not "highly qualified." I qualify for that description: I am certified, have a degree in math, and have been teaching for ten years. I am also currently taking a class because part of our continuing certification requirement is to earn six credits every five years. So don't assume people are not qualified because they are taking night classes somewhere.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
You can know something well without having a degree.
You can even PROVE you know something well without having a degree.

In fact, I suspect teaching a subject for 4 years is better proof of understanding that subject than a degree.

------

What's more - I don't ever recall having a problem with any of my teacher's not knowing enough. There were many bad teachers, but this was because they had bad teaching methods or didn't care enough. I can't recall a single case where it was a lack of subject area knowledge that did it.

[ April 12, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
Depends. At the risk of angering the other teachers here, I've known algebra teachers who've never taken a course in calculus. Now, after teaching algebra for five or ten years, sure, you know algebra--at a ninth grade level, that is. You lack the perspective, though, for how this knowledge is going to be called upon in later courses, and for what parts of your class are truly more important. And so you get the algebra teachers who penalize students for leaving fractions improper, or who spend three weeks on tesselations but don't get to polynomials.

I think there are issues with NCLB, but I'm not convinced that this is one of them.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 

quote:

---

In fact, I suspect teaching a subject for 4 years is better proof of understanding that subject than a degree.

---

quote:

---

Tres, I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact that someone teachs a subject does NOT prove they know the subject. I had far too many teachers that didn't know the subject but managed to keep their job.

I had "coachs" that were thrown into a classroom that didn't know squat about the subject.

---

quote:

---

Tres, I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact that someone teachs a subject does NOT prove they know the subject. I had far too many teachers that didn't know the subject but managed to keep their job.

---

A degree isn't any better though. I knew plenty of people who graduated with economics degrees back in school who didn't really know the subject that well. I'm sure the same is true with many other subjects. All you have to do is listen to a bunch of lectures, write a few papers maybe, and pass some tests. I think teaching a course in a given subject is at least as challenging as that.

---

Incidently, why do school systems require only one semester of student teaching before they consider a teacher fully qualified? If I were writing the rules, I'd want new teachers spending more time being trained by master teachers, and spend far less time worrying about degrees and college credits.
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 
The requirement for the degree may be just one semester, but most schools these days will create some sort of a mentorship relationship for a new teacher. (Of course, the flip side of this is that they don't really pay these mentors significantly more . . . )

Your post, though, seems to hinge on the thought that the "how to teach" is more crucial than the content itself.

We can all point to anecdotal evidence of people with some credential who were nevertheless incompetent, or people without it who were brilliant. But, accepting that any way we document highly qualified status is bound to be fallible, I still don't see anything all that wrong with asking teachers to document their subject area knowledge--especially given that in most states, simply passing a subject area exam will accomplish that. (A point that everyone seems to have overlooked, btw.)
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
"You lack the perspective, though, for how this knowledge is going to be called upon in later courses, and for what parts of your class are truly more important."

This happens, in a different way, all through the grades. Sometimes, it is not so much a matter of a teacher not knowing what is important at a higher level, but is more about a lack of communication. What we are doing now in our town, in a panicky oh-my-goodness-12-special ed-kids-did-not-achieve-AYP mode, is to get all the grades together and strategize what is most important to teach. It SEEMS obvious, but it is amazing how infrequently it happens.

A fifth grade teacher should be able to say to the fourth grade teachers, "You know, I am having trouble teaching these kids because they are so weak on their math facts."

One thing I DO like about the testing is that it is making schools circle up the wagons much more, and helps teachers to break out of their niches and communicate.
 

---