Posted: 5/29/2015 1:27:50 PM EDT
|
Obviously Walker hates Wisconsin children.
http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Walker-proposes-new-teacher-licensure-plan-289451211.html?device=phone&c=y |
| Obviously he hates the children. Madistan is only afraid that someone may end up teaching who has not gone through the proper amount of liberal philosophy classes. There is so much fluff involved in becoming "certified". I always enjoyed learning from teachers/professors with real world experience. I understood theory better when it was combined with actual examples. I believe the school board will still vet candidates. |
|
I hear the arguements that it's going to privatize public schools.
Which is retarded, but even going on that arguement, private school students outperform public school students. So I really fail to see this as a bad thing. Then there is the absurd idea that this is going to dumb down our children. Do people really believe that school districts would hire someone unqualified to educate their children? The a state license is the only thing that makes one qualified? These liberals fail to think about an issue past what they read in a headline. |
|
I was in this conversation with a Lib just recently. To be honest I feel school SHOULD be a private matter. The .gov should have no, none, zip, zero, zilch input into what my kid learns, studies or focuses on in studies if I want it that way.
In many professions the "Real" learning begins in private tutoring known as journeyman trades. Hands on experience in a "Private" company has proven itself for centuries as an indispensable tool to gain knowledge & experience. If the mouth-breathing masses want to expire their resources on individuals that have no interest in learning then they should be left to their own devices, all of them, but I shouldn't have to have kids that have their learning hindered by having teachers not being able to teach effectively because they are having to deal with problem students. Whether people want to realize it, survival of the fittest is not entirely a matter of "Nurturing" along those that refuse to learn & work, it is about them making a choice to be left behind & surpassed. If a life of mediocrity or even destitution is what they want out of life then by all means let them do that. It is the parents that are to blame, after all, but some kids have an inherent desire to achieve more than their parents. There is a certain amount of "Nature" that influences such things. In a conversation with a teacher last night he said: "I had a professor in my graduates class that said, "I could be the best Piano teacher in the world, but if you don't want to learn to play the Piano, then I can't teach you.", & that has stuck with me." This teacher was totally exacerbated with his class this year & he told me in no uncertain terms that you can't teach kids that don't want to learn, for what ever the reason. |
|
Most of the liberal rants seem to center around how an "uneducated" teacher won't know how to do the proper paperwork, student/teacher interaction, ADA compliance, etc.
Dunno about you guys, but when I had various shop classes, from carpentry to graphics (printing class) to small engine, the teachers back then didn't need that shit either-These courses were electives, kids WANTED to be there. |
|
One of my most influential teachers in high school had experience owning a business and working in a skilled trade.
He hadn't become a teacher until his wife's profession led the family to relocate. He sold his business and decided to start teaching wherever they ended up. At just shy of age 40, he stepped in front of a class for the first time. He didn't give a crap about all the day to day whirlwind required by the administration, he taught us how to be successful, and how to contribute something useful to society. It worked. |
|
Quoted:
One of my most influential teachers in high school had experience owning a business and working in a skilled trade. He hadn't become a teacher until his wife's profession led the family to relocate. He sold his business and decided to start teaching wherever they ended up. At just shy of age 40, he stepped in front of a class for the first time. He didn't give a crap about all the day to day whirlwind required by the administration, he taught us how to be successful, and how to contribute something useful to society. It worked. Where ever possible, I'd prefer a teacher with real world experience in that field. I think it's more relatable and the teacher can pass on real world experience, as opposed to only theories they may have read about, but have no clue if they actually work. I want a teacher who is teaching shop to have actually worked in a shop. An economist should be teaching economics. Someone who was an accountant should be teaching accounting, ect. Now, that's not always possible for obvious reasons. Being a teacher really kind of sucks, and most people with real world experience don't want to put up with the bullshit from parents who refuse to help their own kids(yet blame the teacher when the kid gets mediocre grades. Stop watching TV for 8 hours a night after work and help your kid), the 10-15 hour days(including most weekends) and tutoring to help the struggling kids(for free, on their time off). It's honestly not worth it. I think most of the people who would make great teachers realize that, and refuse to go into the field. So, we get stuck with a bunch of people who come into the field with no real skills and no real experience to pass onto the kids. Sure, there are still some great teachers out there. One of my buddies is one. The guy came in and totally rebuilt their department(an elective class) from the bottom up, and now it's more popular than ever. They went from having maybe 20 kids in that program, to having over 115 in less than 5 years. But most of them now just come in for the summer vacation and try to coast through the year. I grew up with both my parents in education. My cousin was a teacher in the inner city of Atlanta before she got M.S, so I'm not just spouting off bullshit. Fuck going into education. It's just not worth it. |
|
Going against the grain here. I disagree with the idea that non-educated teachers can teach in schools. There is value in real world experience, however there is more value in a educated educator that can not only effectively teach but can also offer a well round experience and identify supplemental needs of kids. In other words there is more then teaching then just passing down experience.
I will offer my Dad as an example. He is the Handy man or all Handy men. He can fix anything, weld anything, build anything. He sucks as a teacher. Trust me I know. I don't understand the upside of this idea. I think all this thing does is fire up the liberals and piss off the independents. |
|
Quoted:
Going against the grain here. I disagree with the idea that non-educated teachers can teach in schools. There is value in real world experience, however there is more value in a educated educator that can not only effectively teach but can also offer a well round experience and identify supplemental needs of kids. In other words there is more then teaching then just passing down experience. I will offer my Dad as an example. He is the Handy man or all Handy men. He can fix anything, weld anything, build anything. He sucks as a teacher. Trust me I know. I don't understand the upside of this idea. I think all this thing does is fire up the liberals and piss off the independents. Most people can't allow themselves to think about an issue past the headline. No doubt the lack of critical thinking skills is a symptom of public schools. Do you believe that a school district would hire someone unqualified, (uneducated), to teach? This idea is absurd on it's face and is the foundation of the liberal's argument. Do you know that Act 10 makes it possible for school districts to get rid of the bad teachers? It creates a competitive environment, which will create better teachers. A teacher with a subject based degree AND an education degree will be more valuable to a school district than a teacher with a subject based degree. |
|
Quoted:
I was in this conversation with a Lib just recently. To be honest I feel school SHOULD be a private matter. The .gov should have no, none, zip, zero, zilch input into what my kid learns, studies or focuses on in studies if I want it that way. In many professions the "Real" learning begins in private tutoring known as journeyman trades. Hands on experience in a "Private" company has proven itself for centuries as an indispensable tool to gain knowledge & experience. If the mouth-breathing masses want to expire their resources on individuals that have no interest in learning then they should be left to their own devices, all of them, but I shouldn't have to have kids that have their learning hindered by having teachers not being able to teach effectively because they are having to deal with problem students. Whether people want to realize it, survival of the fittest is not entirely a matter of "Nurturing" along those that refuse to learn & work, it is about them making a choice to be left behind & surpassed. If a life of mediocrity or even destitution is what they want out of life then by all means let them do that. It is the parents that are to blame, after all, but some kids have an inherent desire to achieve more than their parents. There is a certain amount of "Nature" that influences such things. In a conversation with a teacher last night he said: "I had a professor in my graduates class that said, "I could be the best Piano teacher in the world, but if you don't want to learn to play the Piano, then I can't teach you.", & that has stuck with me." This teacher was totally exacerbated with his class this year & he told me in no uncertain terms that you can't teach kids that don't want to learn, for what ever the reason. All the people who leave formal schooling behind due to a "no support if you don't want to learn" policy will basically become an unemployable underclass, who then feed the ranks of participants in the huge illegal underground economy that is worth hundreds of billions of dollars annually in the US alone. This, to me, sounds like the express train to third-world shithole land for the United States. The solution to education in the United States is more nuanced than "kick all the non-performers out." |
|
Quoted: Going against the grain here. I disagree with the idea that non-educated teachers can teach in schools. There is value in real world experience, however there is more value in a educated educator that can not only effectively teach but can also offer a well round experience and identify supplemental needs of kids. In other words there is more then teaching then just passing down experience. I will offer my Dad as an example. He is the Handy man or all Handy men. He can fix anything, weld anything, build anything. He sucks as a teacher. Trust me I know. I don't understand the upside of this idea. I think all this thing does is fire up the liberals and piss off the independents. I went to a public school in MN and had mixed results with quality of education received. My wife went to a private school and had mostly trade professionals, retired college professors, and others highly qualified but without teaching licenses required in public schools. Her education was far above mine in quality. I see no negatives about this coming to pass and fully support it. |