Gotta admire the knack some folks have for self-inflicted irony.
Timberlandko -- We need only to think of Bugs Bunny's fav tag line every time you contribute.
Can we get to something substantive? Puh-leeze! I'm really tired of this idiocy. Let's answer some questions about a national curriculum!
plainoldme wrote: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.
Again, what does being a sorority girl have to do with anything? IMO, you have some prejudices you need to examine.
The principle, as hiring manager, probably had a set of minimum requirements for the job. Then he/she had a set of secondary wants. After interviewing the prospects, he/she weighed the cost/benefit of each. Without seeing that list, and knowing the weight he/she placed on each requirement/want, we cannot determine if he/she made the right or wrong decision.
As I come from a generation when sororities were declasse and generally the haunt of the less-than-academically able, it is a convenient and ready handle. I could use another word, but, this is more apt.
So, why would a school want to hire a person who barely scraped through their own academic program. The dept. chair at this high school claims she would never hire anyone whose score on the English teaching test was less than 80.
plainoldme wrote: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?
I was advising you not to engage in ad-hominem attacks and lazy thinking. Timber is certainly neither stupid nor uneducated, as a quick perusal of his posts will show. Nor is he one of the
picadors that so often inhabit these forums.
Quote:Again, what does being a sorority girl have to do with anything? IMO, you have some prejudices you need to examine.
Um, it has a lot to do with it.
My prejudices against sorority girls are borne out of TONS of real-life experience with the system and those involved in it.
And let me tell ya, we aren't talking about a group who will produce outstanding teachers for our kids... the vast majority of them are there to get a MRS degree and marry into money/potential of money.
Money is really all most of them care about. It's quite sad. If you disagree with me, I challenge ya to spend some time around the system yourself.
Cycloptichorn
Without seeing that list, and knowing the weight he/she placed on each requirement/want, we cannot determine if he/she made the right or wrong decision.
First of all, any move made in education may take years to produce an effect.
Second, there are some pretty stupid ways in which people judge a school. My former husband tried to talk the kids into moving to NH to his house, assuring them that the schools were great because of the high per capita spending record. But, a high per capita budget may mean money is spent on the physical plant. Heat is a part of the budget. It's far better to look at what colleges alum attend and what they major in than to look at per capita spending.
Which brings me exactly to why would you hire someone who herself was an academic miss?
plainoldme wrote:DrewDad wrote: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?
But do most people that want to teach English pursue a master's degree in English? I think not. Can you provide support that having a master's degree in English makes one a better Middle or High School teacher? Knowing Chaucer is nice, but does not necessarily impove one's ability to teach reading comprehension.
plainoldme wrote: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?
No.
plainoldme wrote: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?
I know a teacher that successfully used
When You Give a Mouse a Cookie to teach cause and effect in a High School-level English class. Her students showed great improvement during the next round of standardized tests.
plainoldme wrote:4.) If the former journalist with the master's degree in over-qualified, is the chickypoo from Tri-Delt under-qualified?
No. There are three categories: over-qualified, qualified, and not qualified.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:Again, what does being a sorority girl have to do with anything? IMO, you have some prejudices you need to examine.
Um, it has a lot to do with it.
My prejudices against sorority girls are borne out of TONS of real-life experience with the system and those involved in it.
And let me tell ya, we aren't talking about a group who will produce outstanding teachers for our kids... the vast majority of them are there to get a MRS degree and marry into money/potential of money.
Money is really all most of them care about. It's quite sad. If you disagree with me, I challenge ya to spend some time around the system yourself.
Cycloptichorn
I have.
I ran into that category myself.
I also ran into quite a number of smart, successful women.
I'm saying, despite your personal experience, that this is a prejudice.
Sorority does not equal vapid man-hunter.
I was advising you not to engage in ad-hominem attacks and lazy thinking. Timber is certainly neither stupid nor uneducated, as a quick perusal of his posts will show. Nor is he one of the picadors that so often inhabit these forums.
-----------
I don't think you know what an ad hominem attack is.
If you did, you would not say that my having pointed out some of his writing problems is an ad hominem attack, especially in light of my background. I've edited people like Timberlandko.
As for lazy thinking, look at Timberlandko's post about what is wrong with schools and what can be done to improve them. It's a collection of self-serving platitudes that amount to nothing.
Until I began substitute teaching in academic 2002-03, I gave some credence to the right wing charge that there is something amiss in schools today.
After all, I was, in the late 60s and early 70s, one of those left wing students who started where real reformers must start: with themselves.
And, my very gifted first-born had a miserable experience in elementary school that would make your hair curl.
However, not being one to throw the baby out with the bath, but, as one who is able to look at the whole picture (THE source of Timberlandko's ad hominem attacks on me -- he doesn't understand seeing more than one thing at a time), I considered a return to teaching (Can't resist reminding you that only rats desert a sinking ship) and began with subbing.
As the Arlington schools are not held in the same regard as Winchester schools are, I was surprised on two levels by the work done here at the elementary level. First, it surprised me that they held up well when compared to Winchester. Second, I was not surprised that the right wing critics were wrong but I was overwhelmed by the degree to which they are wrong.
On this thread, I have heard proposals for measures that have been in place for as long as 20 years. I have read non sequitor after non sequitor. I have waded through stuff that is less coherent than the ramblings of a C2 student. And, I received the first of a series of ad hominem attacks without retaliating with the same. I've had to edit things from freelancers who work on Timberlandko's level.
Could I remind you that just because someone is self- or under-employed and sits at a computer with an Encyclopedia Britannica disk and ready access to google does not make them intelligent.
plainoldme wrote:If you did, you would not say that my having pointed out some of his writing problems is an ad hominem attack, especially in light of my background. I've edited people like Timberlandko.
You dismiss his argument because you don't like the way he writes. That is most definitely an
ad hominem error. Do you not see that?
And, psst... being a teacher, having edited writing, etc. doesn't give you credibility. Your arguments will give you credibility, if they are good enough. If they are not good enough, then being Pope won't be enough to get you credibility here.
The more someone claims expert status, the more closely I look at what they're saying... 'cause it smells like bullshit, to me.
You dismiss his argument because you don't like the way he writes. That is most definitely an ad hominem error. Do you not see that?
I do not dismiss his argument because I do not like the way he writes but you accuse me of arguing ad hominem because I point out -- as someone trained to do so -- that his writing is poor.
Saying someone's writing is poor is not an ad hominem argument.
BTW, your arguments are sheer lunacy. Had I said you are a lunatic, then I would have engaged in argument ad hominem. However, I'm in no mood to deal with you now. Frankly, I'm not certain you deserve a response. I'm going to fix dinner for myself and go to my quilting class.
Have to accomodate someone so, let's deal with argumentation.
----------
DD wrote: But do most people that want to teach English pursue a master's degree in English? I think not. Can you provide support that having a master's degree in English makes one a better Middle or High School teacher? Knowing Chaucer is nice, but does not necessarily impove one's ability to teach reading comprehension.
I answer: Notice he supported his contention with his opinion. What he fails to realize is that in order to remain in teaching, it is necessary for a teacher to pursue academic credits beyond the bachelor's degree. In Michigan, during the 60s, the state -- at the urging of, and following the example of, the left -- decreed that one could earn a permanent certificate by taking 30 hours. Since 30 hours is a master's degree, those who were dedicated opted for the master's degree.
Since leftist students thought that knowing one's subject matter was more important than taking education classes, we opted not for an education degree but a degree in our subject.
BTW, one can have a master's degree without having read a word of Chaucer, but why wouldn't knowing more than one's students make one a good teacher?
-----------------
Our next exchange ran like this:
.) 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?
No.
I asnwer: So, he wants second rate minds that are ill-prepared teaching his kid. Also, he chided me about being a mind reader and he shoots from his hip on this one.
----------------------
Our next exchange ends with his non sequitor:
plainoldme wrote:
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?
I know a teacher that successfully used When You Give a Mouse a Cookie to teach cause and effect in a High School-level English class. Her students showed great improvement during the next round of standardized tests
I add: which is the fallacy of using a partial argument. He implies that this is all she taught!
----------------------
The next exchange shows what he doesn't know:
plainoldme wrote:
4.) If the former journalist with the master's degree in over-qualified, is the chickypoo from Tri-Delt under-qualified?
No. There are three categories: over-qualified, qualified, and not qualified.
I coined the word under-qualified because as a reverse phrase, it points out how hollow DD's original argument is.
Your arguments will give you credibility, if they are good enough. If they are not good enough, then being Pope won't be enough to get you credibility here.
That is precisely my point: neither you nor T nor the now absent chickwhatever presented a valid argument. Now, stop being silly and take a nap.
plainoldme wrote: Have to accomodate someone so, let's deal with argumentation.
----------
DD wrote: But do most people that want to teach English pursue a master's degree in English? I think not. Can you provide support that having a master's degree in English makes one a better Middle or High School teacher? Knowing Chaucer is nice, but does not necessarily impove one's ability to teach reading comprehension.
I answer: Notice he supported his contention with his opinion. What he fails to realize is that in order to remain in teaching, it is necessary for a teacher to pursue academic credits beyond the bachelor's degree. In Michigan, during the 60s, the state -- at the urging of, and following the example of, the left -- decreed that one could earn a permanent certificate by taking 30 hours. Since 30 hours is a master's degree, those who were dedicated opted for the master's degree.
Since leftist students thought that knowing one's subject matter was more important than taking education classes, we opted not for an education degree but a degree in our subject.
BTW, one can have a master's degree without having read a word of Chaucer, but why wouldn't knowing more than one's students make one a good teacher?
A) Are we discussing only Michigan? The teachers in Texas are definitely different from those you describe. Lifetime teaching credentials here do not (or did not the last time I checked) require a master's degree. Again, can you provide support that having a master's degree in English makes one a better Middle or High School teacher? All that you have done is show that it gains one lifetime teaching credentials.
B) "Why wouldn't knowing more than one's students make one a good teacher?" Strawman/begging the question. I never made such a claim.
plainoldme wrote: Our next exchange ran like this:
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?
No.
I asnwer: So, he wants second rate minds that are ill-prepared teaching his kid. Also, he chided me about being a mind reader and he shoots from his hip on this one.
Strawman. I never made such a claim. Also, you asked "do you think..." then you complain about me having an opinion?
plainoldme wrote: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?
I know a teacher that successfully used When You Give a Mouse a Cookie to teach cause and effect in a High School-level English class. Her students showed great improvement during the next round of standardized tests
I add: which is the fallacy of using a partial argument. He implies that this is all she taught!
I provided an example that refutes the idea that those without master's degrees are inferior teachers. Now, I do not necessarily agree with teaching to the test, but your contention was refuted as you specifically mentioned the "test-score game."
plainoldme wrote:4.) If the former journalist with the master's degree in over-qualified, is the chickypoo from Tri-Delt under-qualified?
No. There are three categories: over-qualified, qualified, and not qualified.
I coined the word under-qualified because as a reverse phrase, it points out how hollow DD's original argument is.
Does it? How? Your use of language in this instance is sloppy; don't try to claim that it scores points.
plainoldme wrote:You dismiss his argument because you don't like the way he writes. That is most definitely an ad hominem error. Do you not see that?
I do not dismiss his argument because I do not like the way he writes but you accuse me of arguing ad hominem because I point out -- as someone trained to do so -- that his writing is poor.
Saying someone's writing is poor is not an ad hominem argument.
BTW, your arguments are sheer lunacy. Had I said you are a lunatic, then I would have engaged in argument ad hominem. However, I'm in no mood to deal with you now. Frankly, I'm not certain you deserve a response. I'm going to fix dinner for myself and go to my quilting class.
What you describe ("Had I said you are a lunatic...") is an insult, not an ad hominem argument error.
Stating "you're arguments are invalid because you are [fill in the blank]" is an ad hominem error. This addresses the person, not the argument.
Damned near rollin' on the floor with laughter here ... this has gotta be one of the most entertainin' threads goin' right now.
Yet another example of poor argumentation!
A) Are we discussing only Michigan? The teachers in Texas are definitely different from those you describe. Lifetime teaching credentials here do not (or did not the last time I checked) require a master's degree.
Demonstrated here is a failure to understand illustration. Another mistake DD made is to us a weak example to support his argument. While the University of Texas at Austin has made itself one of the top unis in the country, public education there is one chuckle in the national joke and an example of a system that DOES need improvement. What does he do? He cites Texas!
BTW, I am not in contact with Michigan's rules governing certification at the present time, but Massachusetts has abandoned permanent certification, opting for renewal every five years. Do I think this is a good move? No. Why not? Because it was designed to add to the state's coffers.
