🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov24.063223.20405@netcom.com> fred_s@netcom.com (Fredrick Scott) writes:
>
>
>And what "competency tests" do those wonderful private schools out there
>administer?

Private schools have something much more effective than a competency test.
Its call "peer review."  You see, without the union, bad teachers in
private schools are simply asked to leave.  Private schools cannot afford
to keep bad teachers.

> I don't know why exactly teacher's unions oppose such tests 

Teacher's unions are concerned with job security and teacher salaries,
not the affairs of the pupil.  Therefore, the opinion of the
union is not necessarily the opinion of educators.  This is a common
point of confusion, which is why teacher's unions always seems to get
much more support than they deserve.  However, on this matter, I partially
agree with the union that testing is irrelevant.   A good head start teacher,
for instance, can flunk for not knowing some math skills.

>but
>if I were a teacher, I might be insulted by them 
>and be somewhat sceptical of
>the so-called "great success" to which you refer.

They are effective in weeding out the very bad teachers.  The questions
are simple enought, I think, that any competent teacher can at least
study to pass the tests, although most teacher can pass without any
preparation.  Of course, I'm not saying that there aren't some very good
teachers out there who are having a very tough time passing the CBEST.

>Private companies do not
>feel the need to regularly test their engineers, executives, accountants, and
>other professionals on subjects such people are expected to know to do their
>jobs competantly.  So why don't you take a clue from those who advocate the
>wisdom of the private sector - if such tests were an econmical and cost-
>effective way of insuring the quality of your personnel, everyone would use
>'em.  But somehow, noone else seems to...
>
>Fred
>

Good doctors, lawyers, engineers, and good ___anything else____ need only be
tested once.  After that, peer review and the market takes over.  Similarly
a good teacher will not require continued testing because their skills will
improve each year.  However, there are teachers who don't care, and cannot
be desciplined because of a strong teacher's union.  For this reason, I
support continued testing.  Not every year (this is a nuisance) but perhaps
once every five years.  And I support the idea of waiving the testing
requirements for teachers who continue to take professional development
courses.