🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <rdippold.722634193@qualcom> rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>fred_s@netcom.com (Fredrick Scott) writes:
>>And what "competency tests" do those wonderful private schools out there
>>administer? 
>
>A little concept that is totally foreign to public schools - how well
>your students learn.  They will also, on hiring, test a math teacher
>to see if he/she knows math, recognizing that a degree is not the
>whole story.

I'm trying to point out that I've never heard of such a thing in private
schools.

>>I don't know why exactly teacher's unions oppose such tests 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.
>
>Since the major goal of teachers unions is to make sure incompetency
>is not grounds for firing (that could set a bad precedent) this is
>quite understandable.

The major goal of teacher's unions is no such thing.  (When did they appoint
*you* as their spokesperson?)  They are probably concerned that teachers do
not get fired for arbitrary and unjust reasons, such as personality conflicts
with supervisors.  In so doing, they make demands of school boards that may
limit the latter's flexibility in terminating incompetant teachers, but
that's hardly the same thing.  The answer is to negotiate solutions which
address both problems, not inflamed rhetoric, such as you offer.

>>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.
>
>They do it every day - productivity and results.  How well does the
>person do the job they are hired to do?  No matter how much seniority
>I have, if I suddenly cease to do my job I will be fired.

I'm sorry, but if you were represented by a union, that would not likely
be true.  This is turning into one big union-bashing session rather than
any sort of real critique of what the public school system is doing wrong.
The reason I point this out is that the former is just a bunch a grousing
about things you can't really change that much and the latter might lead
to some real ideas.  Public school teachers have unions and that's likely to
continue for quite some time.  And unions will tend to push for rigid and
difficult termination procedures as they always have and always will - not
because they fear termination of the incompetant (no 5th grade teacher
really *wants* to work with the result of an incompetant 4th grade teacher's
products...) but because the fear arbitrary abuse of power by management.
Right or wrong, you have to live with it.

As for testing teachers, I'm not really opposed to it, just trying to explain
some very legimate reasons teachers might resent it and question its
effectiveness.

Fred