There's a number of reasons why someone would send their kids to private school. Let's say someone like Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs was teaching a computer class, or business start up class. Well those guys have less education, but it might well be worth it to take a class from them. As was mentioned if parents want religion as part of their kid's education they would need to choose a private school. I'm sorry the idea that private schools have less stringent education requirements for their teachers than public schools do, but it doesn't change the facts. Why he's refusing to look at the facts is beyond me. But there isn't much of a point in continuing a discussion with someone who won't acknowledge facts when they are presented.
NO. the certification amounts to a test with common sense questions to make sure you are not nuts and another test based on what you are teaching. At least in Texas this is the case. You can take a course if you can't pass these simple tests, but very few do since the tests are easy. Basically all you need is a Bachelor's .
The bold part is not true, at least in Texas. Certification does not require anything more than passing a test of competence in a subject and a short pedagogy course provided by a number of private companies (not universities). Private schools, for better or worse, can set whatever hiring criteria they want. Some parents care more about things like teachers' religion more than level of education, a segment of demand in the private school market tallanvor conveniently ignores.
I wasn't diminishing a college degree. I was pointing out that private school teachers have the same if not more of an education than public school teachers. They have to if the private school wants to make business.
I'm not familiar with Texas. In California you need additional University level education classes together with a University class which requires student teaching. I remember in school there were student teachers. I thought that was still required to get a teacher's certification. If it is that is still the case then the student teaching is part of a University class. If not, then I guess the dropped the standards. In California you need to pass at least two different tests in addition to the University level classes.
FB is from California. The requirements are different here than in Texas. Basically there is a year of postgrad education. EDIT: and the man himself posted while I was writing this. Oh well. I do take issue with the argument comparing teacher salaries to those with a bachelor's degree plus one year of postgrad in the private sector though. Not all degrees are equal. A BS in electrical engineering and an additional year of school can get you a masters in EE. Clearly that is a tougher educational path than getting a BA in English and a teacher's credential. There is no reason the two should be compared. The most similar job in the private sector to a public school teacher is a private school teacher, not a banker or an engineer. Limit the comparison to credentialed private school teachers if that data is available, but I guarantee the public teachers make more.
Private schools "make business" by keeping undesirable students (however the market defines "undesirable") out of them. I don't know why anyone else chooses between teaching at public school or private school. For me, however, I would charge extra to teach less desirable students.
An engineering degree is usually a 5 year program for the BS, is it not? Frankly, SM, I don't know why that would be a reasonable comparison. Just as FB is not familiar with the requirements in Texas, I'm not familiar with California's. I can say from personal experience, however, that large numbers of Texas public school teachers have a masters degree. They are also woefully underpaid. So why do they teach? Because they enjoy it. They want to make a difference. They feel a "calling" to serve. Yes, after a few years of very long hours working outside the classroom grading papers, writing lesson plans, dealing with endless bureaucratic nonsense, like having to "teach to the TAKS test," many quit in disgust. That reflects poorly on the state and the school districts, not the teachers.
The hell you weren't. If teaching is so damn easy and lucrative, why don't you show us your certification. After all, who wouldn't want an easy, over-compensated, brainless job with a 3-month built-in vacation? Or could it be that you have no clue what you're talking about (as usual) and are just running your mouth (as usual) spouting off the Fox news talking point you've been spoon-fed (as usual).
1) When did I say teaching was easy or lucrative (lucrative relative to what? Serving fast food?)? 2) When did Fox News say teaching was easy or lucrative (if that's who is spoon-feeding me)? Please don't put words in my mouth.
Please watch the John Stewart videos I posted. There are numerous clips of FOX News people saying teaching was easy and lucrative.
I watched it. I saw some guy say that teachers don't work hard while on Fox News. Does that mean Fox News believes teaching is easy and lucrative? By that standard, Fox News is incredibly liberal because they have Juan Willams, Mara Liason, Bob Beckel, Pat Caddell, and Shepard Smith on almost every night preaching liberalism. Talk to me when Fox News does an expose on how easy teaching is.
Honestly, you come up with some bizarre stuff, with all due respect. At least you don't litter D&D with nonsensical, trollish threads. I'll give you that much.
FB logic: Guy on Fox News says "teaching is easy" therefore Fox News says teaching is easy. By the same token, if someone like Juan Williams says the stimulus worked than Fox News says the stimulus worked. Whats bizarre about that?
Blade you have the patience of god. Anyway, enough with the derail. In only a week democrats have amassed 45% of the signatures needed to recall 8 republican state senators in WI. Wis. Dems Claim 45 Percent Of Needed Signatures For Recalls
