Why has no one commented on this post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, a teacher here at AHS complained that NCLB is preventing her from accomplishing as much as she has in the past.
Yesterday, I attended a lecture by Stephen Greenblatt and used the little pocket diary I keep with me at all times. When I opened it, this entry struck me:
Friday, 3 January 2003
Substituted for a fourth grade, special needs aide:
Kids asked the teacher about MCAS. Teacher told children that the test is meant to keep all the students together in terms of accomplishment.
Q: Then, the MCAS is more for you than for us.
A: No, it's more for the school system.
Q: Well, if the MCAS is more for the school system, why, in the 10th grade, if you don't pass the MCAS, do you not graduate?
Again, you've demonstrated a basic inability to comprehend the written word here.
I believe what has been demonstrated is the quoted critic's basic refusal to get in step with the real world. Also evident is the quoted critic's continuing lack of understanding, or at least lack of implementation, of the principles and protocols of civil debate.
--------------------
The above is a response from T to a statement of mine.
The implication here is that he is in step with the real world. Well, I work at a high school. I know what I'm talking about.
Furthermore, how realistic is it to continually say schools today are failing and then to never say how?
As to my alleged lack of understanding, well, I took standardized tests throughout my career in a Catholic elementary school. From the 7th grade on, my reading comprehension scores were on the college level.
As to the pirinciples of civil debate, his continued use of pseudo dialect violates those principles.
plainoldme wrote:
When a person is told that a habit, like the above mentioned use of pseudo-dialect is annoying and, more importantly, casts them in an unfavorable light, then their continued use is meant to annoy.
Well, just remember that we have two votes for and only one vote agains------------------
What has your "voting" to do with anything? In other words, your word counts more because you are you?
Seems to me, you're a bit passive aggressive.
Would this person be happy teaching the classes that I need a teacher for?
Huh?
I haven't been posting here, because I'm not on my 21st day out of the US on holiday to Malta, London, Amsterdam, Lippstadt, Berlin and Brussels. Have posted a few notes in the travel forums, tho.
plainoldme wrote:Would this person be happy teaching the classes that I need a teacher for?
Huh?
I think Timber might be spot on about your inability to comprehend the written word.
Would [the applicant] be happy teaching the classes for which [the principle] need[s] a teacher?
I think Timber might be spot on about your inability to comprehend the written word.
OOohhhh!!! An attempt at an insult! How childish! How inept!
plainoldme wrote:plainoldme wrote:
When a person is told that a habit, like the above mentioned use of pseudo-dialect is annoying and, more importantly, casts them in an unfavorable light, then their continued use is meant to annoy.
Well, just remember that we have two votes for and only one vote agains------------------
What has your "voting" to do with anything? In other words, your word counts more because you are you?
Seems to me, you're a bit passive aggressive.
I like to read what Timber writes. Foxfyre likes to read what Timber writes. That is two people like it, one person does not. So perhaps you should consider that a) you find Timber's writing style annoying and b) he does not intend it to be annoying.
Also, I thought you were the English teacher. Why does your pronoun not match the antecedent? "A habit; their continued use?"
plainoldme wrote:Well, I work at a high school. I know what I'm talking about.
And the implication is that other's don't know what they're talking about?
plainoldme wrote:As to my alleged lack of understanding, well, I took standardized tests throughout my career in a Catholic elementary school. From the 7th grade on, my reading comprehension scores were on the college level.
And this proves what? That you can pass standardized tests?
plainoldme wrote:As to the pirinciples of civil debate, his continued use of pseudo dialect violates those principles.
Um... how, exactly? Because you don't like it?
plainoldme wrote:I think Timber might be spot on about your inability to comprehend the written word.
OOohhhh!!! An attempt at an insult! How childish! How inept!
No. Simply an observation. You've completely missed the point, IMO, of a number of recent posts.
plainoldme wrote:
As to my alleged lack of understanding, well, I took standardized tests throughout my career in a Catholic elementary school. From the 7th grade on, my reading comprehension scores were on the college level.
And this proves what? That you can pass standardized tests?
-------------
What! And you believe in NCLB? When you meet someone who passes -- always with scores exceeding 90% -- any standardized test presented to her, you hold the test invalid. Do I sense a touch of the hypocrite?
And, are you another incarnation of Timberlandko?
plainoldme wrote:DrewDad wrote:the higher-qualified candidate might have expectations such as teaching a honors course or somesuch.
What's wrong with that?
Nothing at all, as I stated previously. I was referring to the possibility that opening that the principle was trying to fill might be more suited to a less-experienced teacher.
plainoldme wrote:Have you considered without honors classes, a school has nothing to "pave the way," that is, to set and raise standards?
When I was substituting in the elementary schools in 2002-03, a parent pinned me down after school to tell me about her husband's plans to improve the schools. She said the four tracks (C1, C2, Advanced and Honors) offered by the high school wasted money.
That puzzled me. The state demands each student take four years of English. Why is it more expensive to teach four different levels of English? Technically, the same number of books are still needed. In theory, classes would enroll the same number of students taught by the same number of teachers. Hopefully, the same number of papers would be written, or would they?
Generally, more advanced students are expected to not only write more papers, but to write longer papers.
What about the special needs kids, the handful that read at the eighth grade level and still smaller group that reads at the fifth grade level? Do you integrate them with the kids who at 16 write like graduate students and will easily gain admission to an Ivy? Do you hold back to brightest to accomodate the less fortunate?
The kids I mention whose reading is below level are all sweet. What about "the sweathogs"? When you were in school, they might have been called "hoods" or "greasers," but no matter what nick name they're given, they're the kids who don't care and never will. Do you punish your potential Yalie by placing him in a class with goof-offs?
My statement about hiring practices has nothing to do with utilizing multiple tracks. I would imagine three tracks to be the absolute minimum; I have no problem with four.
Would this person be happy teaching the classes that I need a teacher for?
Huh?
---------------
Of course, you totally failed to realize that the applicant came to you, and that you did not recruit the applicant.
plainoldme wrote:What! And you believe in NCLB? When you meet someone who passes -- always with scores exceeding 90% -- any standardized test presented to her, you hold the test invalid. Do I sense a touch of the hypocrite?
And, are you another incarnation of Timberlandko?
Who said I believe in NCLB? Review my posts in the thread and you'll see nothing of the kind.
I think my first and second posts to the thread were:
The best way to make sure no child is left behind is to make sure that no child gets ahead.
And then something about teaching to the test.
Drew is most definately not timber, lol
Cycloptichorn
plainoldme wrote:Would this person be happy teaching the classes that I need a teacher for?
Huh?
---------------
Of course, you totally failed to realize that the applicant came to you, and that you did not recruit the applicant.
What are you talking about?
When hiring, one must consider if the person will be satisfied in the job. If the applicant is over-qualified then they are likely to be bored. Bored employees do not perform the job as well as motivated employees. Bored employees move to other jobs. Why hire someone if I'm going to turn around and have to do the same thing six months later?
I was referring to the possibility that opening that the principle was trying to fill might be more suited to a less-experienced teacher.
A sorority girl who went to Second String State? Whose reading beyond her class requirements consists of beach books? Look at your statement!
Why would a school need a "less experienced teacher?" Because its in a working class town where the kids won't aspire to anything higher than cashiering at the local Wal-Mart?
When I pointed out to Timberlandko (who, as a conservative, wants to reform education from the top down -- hmmm!) that my college and grad school classmates who wanted to teach and who were on the left, began reforming education with themselves. They made certain they were well educated, in the subject(s) they wanted to teach and not in methods of teaching, Timberlandko (who never misses a chance to dis the left) said and education has been going downhill since (actually, test scores have risen). However, you are now saying you would prefer the old-fashioned, ignorant little gal with a bag full of methods class strung around her neck.
Who said I believe in NCLB? Review my posts in the thread and you'll see nothing of the kind.
Then why are you defending the indefensible Timberlandko?
When hiring, one must consider if the person will be satisfied in the job. If the applicant is over-qualified then they are likely to be bored. Bored employees do not perform the job as well as motivated employees. Bored employees move to other jobs. Why hire someone if I'm going to turn around and have to do the same thing six months later?
1.) Most people that pursue a master's degree in English do so to teach.
Does a master's degree over-qualify someone to teach?
2.) What about the candidate who never reads anything but beach books?
Don't you think she would be bored having to teach Dickens or August Wilson or Zadie Smith?
3.) Why, in the face of scrutiny by the government and the tax-payers would you hire someone who might possibly cause your school to slip in the test score game which would then send your real estate values down the shoot?
4.) If the former journalist with the master's degree in over-qualified, is the chickypoo from Tri-Delt under-qualified?
Would this person be happy teaching the classes that I need a teacher for?
Huh?
---------------
Of course, you totally failed to realize that the applicant came to you, and that you did not recruit the applicant.
What are you talking about?
You question is better asked of you.
Look, someone looking for a teaching post here in Massachusetts can look up the stats for a school system, including how many students go to 4-year colleges and what colleges accept them; what their scores are on the SATs, as well as the MCAS. The candidate knows ahead of time what she is getting into. She may decide that she is best placed at a "St. Grottlesex," but she may also decide that she should be at an inner city charter school where she can inspire kids, rather than be a toady to the rich.
