Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those who can teach and work in other fields.
Those who can't teach and work in other fields.
Becoming a teacher is no indication of the ability to succeed or fail in other endeavors. All fields have those who enter it with great success and with failure. What makes education unique is the relative difficulty that exists to sort the failures out of the profession. The strong members of the profession need to project their faces as the view the public sees of the profession. It is the lesser of the profession with their constant complaining that creates the negative image.
T
Becoming a teacher is no indication of the ability to succeed or fail in other endeavors.
I believe this is a bit of a mischaracterization of the saying. How I've always understood the saying is that given some subject S, people that do not succeed in S, often result to teaching S. Not that, teachers teach because they fail to succeed in all other subjects. Our education system makes it difficult to "reeducate" yourself. If you get a degree in Biology and find you're not so good in it its fairly difficult to change tracks. Many universities don't even offer second bacs. So, such a person may just go teach intead going threw the hastle of getting another degree.
Personally, I think this is a major problem with our university system. Our economy has gotten very dynamic, yet people can't easily go back to school and get retrained.
Private schools are very different, for the reasons you noted. They have a, completely, different demographic. Parents who care about their child's education and parents with enough affluence to afford private school. Private schools can also choose which students to take and which to pass on. In public shcools you get everyone from the local drug dealer's kids to the college bound and if you have a problem with a child, unless they commit a crime, you can't expell them.
I've never taught in a private school but I kind of have a comparison. I did my student teaching in a school that had not started the chemistry for all initiative (all students must take chemistry to graduate) so the students I taught were, mainly, the college bound. I'm in a charter school that requires all students to take chemisty so I get the ones who want to be there and the ones who don't want to be there. It makes a world of difference.
Teaching is teaching. Whether you teach at a private school or a public school you are still a teacher. I have multiple degrees, I just don't have a need to impress people with them.
Don't play games. You are conflating being "qualified to teach" in a general sense with having a teaching credential. The teach credential is just a (stupid) technical requirement one needs to teach in the public school system, it says nothing about how "qualified" one is in a more general sense. I am far more qualified to teach in the public school system than the vast majority of newly credentialed teachers. That's a fact.
But all of this is irrelevant. You guys simply can't deal with the actual issues, you can only attack people.
I'm not playing games. But I am really trying to figure out how you equate having a teaching credential as being a STUPID idea that all states require of their teachers to get? There was a time when in CA teachers didn't have to take a required BASIC SKILLS TEST BETTER KNOWN AS THE CBEST TEST. You wanna know why? I think you know the answer.
Teachers were graduating out of major universities not able to distinquish a noun from a pronoun, not able to do basic math, and not able to write well. So out of the state of CA's embarrassment, they made it a requirement that all teachers who want to earn a STUPID CREDENTIAL as you call it, have some knowlege of a BASIC SKILLS TEST--the equivalent of an 8 grade education.
Is a Doctor's License stupid since he or she has to get one like a teacher to work with patients. Is a License to drive in CA stupid as well? Is a License to practice law in CA stupid to have? Is a license to sell real estate stupid? I hope you see where I am going with this. WE are entrusting people to practice medicine on people, drive a vehicle on our roads, practice law, and sell and list homes for people. So are you saying that there is need to license all of these people as well because it's stupid to do so?
I'm not playing games. But I am really trying to figure out how you equate having a teaching credential as being a STUPID idea that all states require of their teachers to get? There was a time when in CA teachers didn't have to take a required BASIC SKILLS TEST BETTER KNOWN AS THE CBEST TEST. You wanna know why? I think you know the answer.
Teachers were graduating out of major universities not able to distinquish a noun from a pronoun, not able to do basic math, and not able to write well. So out of the state of CA's embarrassment, they made it a requirement that all teachers who want to earn a STUPID CREDENTIAL as you call it, have some knowlege of a BASIC SKILLS TEST--the equivalent of an 8 grade education.
Is a Doctor's License stupid since he or she has to get one like a teacher to work with patients. Is a License to drive in CA stupid as well? Is a License to practice law in CA stupid to have? Is a license to sell real estate stupid? I hope you see where I am going with this. WE are entrusting people to practice medicine on people, drive a vehicle on our roads, practice law, and sell and list homes for people. So are you saying that there is need to license all of these people as well because it's stupid to do so?
Remember he didn't like school and didn't like teachers then and still doesn't and probably is enjoying this thread whenever he feels he has irked a teacher.
Remember he didn't like school and didn't like teachers then and still doesn't and probably is enjoying this thread whenever he feels he has irked a teacher.
You are absolutely right, and I have already thrown in the towel.
Remember he didn't like school and didn't like teachers then and still doesn't and probably is enjoying this thread whenever he feels he has irked a teacher.
Oh geez, you guys get more ridiculous with each post. This thread is not about me, its about a topic. A topic that I have a particular view on. I'm not stating my views to "irk teachers", I simply don't care whether teachers don't like my views about the public education system. Disagree what something I say? Address the issue or shut it.
Its rather sad that a bunch of teachers don't do much but reduce themselves to a bunch of fallacies. Me as a person is completely irrelevant to the topic, yet it keeps coming up.
I'm not playing games. But I am really trying to figure out how you equate having a teaching credential as being a STUPID idea that all states require of their teachers to get?
I've already argued in another thread why I think credentials, in particular for secondary education, is a bad idea in general.
But regardless, of this issue your post was just a game. You are suggesting that a credential is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a "qualified teacher" and that is gibberish on many levels.
I've already argued in another thread why I think credentials, in particular for secondary education, is a bad idea in general.
But regardless, of this issue your post was just a game. You are suggesting that a credential is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a "qualified teacher" and that is gibberish on many levels.
As an engineer turned secondary teacher, I cannot disagree more. While many of the classes I had to take for my credentials were worthless, others were very valuable. My expertise in engineering did not prepare me to teach 16-18 year olds. Neither did my MAT degree but it was sure better than nothing. It will take my MAT and about 3 years experience to turn me into an effective teacher.
Knowing your subject is not enough. You need to know the people you teach as well. While some of that must happen on the job, much can be handled in the college classroom. After all, it is a classroom which is where teachers prepare to work.
As an engineer turned secondary teacher, I cannot disagree more. While many of the classes I had to take for my credentials were worthless, others were very valuable. My expertise in engineering did not prepare me to teach 16-18 year olds. Neither did my MAT degree but it was sure better than nothing. It will take my MAT and about 3 years experience to turn me into an effective teacher.
Knowing your subject is not enough. You need to know the people you teach as well. While some of that must happen on the job, much can be handled in the college classroom. After all, it is a classroom which is where teachers prepare to work.
After working in the corporate world for 20 years with the nasty bosses and office politics, I thought teaching at a local community college would be an easy second job. I was so wrong. Teaching Adults in a three hour evening course is so much harder than anything I have ever done. I suspect teaching kids would be ten times harder.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
