I don't think that you should need a license. I do, however, think that you should have a minimum level of ability in whatever you teach. For example, if you're going to teach your kid high-school level math, you should have demonstrated a proficiency in the subject matter.
I don't think that you should need a license. I do, however, think that you should have a minimum level of ability in whatever you teach. For example, if you're going to teach your kid high-school level math, you should have demonstrated a proficiency in the subject matter.
To support that statement, my math tutor has a Phd in Math, but no teaching license. Regardless, he is one of the greatest teachers that I have ever had. I started working with him when I was 7, and I'm 15 now. In that time, we've gone from intermediate geometry to integral calculus. On top of that, because of him, I managed to get a 720 on the math portion of the SAT at the age of 14.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of teachers out there who don't know shit about their subject - they're just reading straight from a book.
That's not what a teaching license is. A teaching license means that you had to take "education" classes as well as classes in your field. You have to do a lot of b.s. stuff that is just the bureaucracy feeding upon itself and serves no purpose in the end.
I'm homeschooled, considered to be very intelligent, and far from anti-social. I admit that my parents are extremely intelligent and excellent teachers, but it still proves that not all homeschoolers are problematic. In fact, I just got accepted to college, and with a 'Presidential scholarship' which means I was the top student to apply this year. I have met homeschoolers that are anti-social, stupid, and filled with problem. I've met kids in school with the same problem. In my opinion it doesn't matter whether your homeschooled or not, what matters is the teacher-student relationship. Some kids thrive in school, some don't.
I went to school till 4th grade and the only good teacher I had was in kindergarden. I can say from personal experience, and from what others have said, that my mother is better than 90% of the teachers in public schools. I look at credentials like I look at tests, they don't matter. What matters is whether you actually know how to do it, not weather your good at taking the test.
I'm homeschooled, considered to be very intelligent . . .
Aren't you the one who thinks that public schools were started to teach house slaves how to read? Isn't it further true that, when you were asked what source you used to base your belief, you cited us to one of your wacky friends? Yeah, that really puts the quality of education received from home schools in a good light. Source.
. . . but it still proves that not all homeschoolers are problematic . . .
Didn't you once say that the majority of homeschoolers are likely to be religious nuts who aren't qualified for anything in the real world because their parents taught them that the world is flat and that cavemen rode dinosaurs? Yeah, pretty much.
Finally, if I were you I'd be very careful about checking any posts in which I crowed about my intelligence for spelling and grammatical mistakes.
I'm homeschooled, considered to be very intelligent . . .
Aren't you the one who thinks that public schools were started to teach house slaves how to read? Isn't it further true that, when you were asked what source you used to base your belief, you cited us to one of your wacky friends? Yeah, that really puts the quality of education received from home schools in a good light.Source. . . . but it still proves that not all homeschoolers are problematic . . .
Didn't you once say that the majority of homeschoolers are likely to be religious nuts who aren't qualified for anything in the real world because their parents taught them that the world is flat and that cavemen rode dinosaurs?Yeah, pretty much.
Finally, if I were you I'd be very careful about checking any posts in which I crowed about my intelligence for spelling and grammatical mistakes.
Yes, I did say those things, but I eventually contacted my friend and found out that it was John Taylor Gatto who did the research on how public schools began. So my sorce is really John Taylor Gatto.
And as I said, 'most' not all. Billy, your being like a lawyer here and taking my mistakes and ignoring the corrections. Yes I was stupid to use a 'friend' as my source on these forums, but I fixed it. If you honestly look down on homeschooling then I pity you and your narrow views.
One of my best friends is home schooled, he is far behind me in math, but that's because his parents recognize that they aren't qualified to teach beyond a certain level of math. He is also one of the more intelligent people i know. There was another guy I knew who was home schooled; he was a total jackass, and wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, but he was good at what he knew. I see the legitimacy of this law but it also seems like more bureaucracy to piss people off.
If the kids can pass the state tests, then who cares if their parents are certified? Obviously they'd have to be doing well enough.
There is more to providing a solid and well rounded education other than passing tests.
That being said, if parents want to raise socially inept children who can't deal with the real world... that is their prerogative. (I am aware that this is a gross generalization and does not apply to EVERY SINGLE Home-schooled child, but the stereotype exists for a reason.)
Actually teaching licenses vary on a State by State basis.
In New York State, for example, one needs a Bachelors degree, Certification Training, Passing several Certification Tests, and a Masters Degree, along with continuing education in the field. For more information, please see the NYS Department of Education's website that details their certifation requirements at http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/certificate
Knowing ones subject well is only ONE of the many necessary components to being a quality educator. Knowing different teaching and grading methods is highly important to best assess and instruct the individual classes being taught. Much like law, it takes rigorous training that moves from the theoretical (i.e. learning various educational approaches, grading styles, etc.) and into the practical (i.e. hundreds of hours observing in class instruction and student teaching).
I am not saying that every teacher that receives a license is an amazing teacher, but they certainly have refined tools at their disposal to more competently and cohesively instruct.
KNOWING A SUBJECT VERY WELL DOES NOT MAKE YOU A GOOD TEACHER. I can't stress this enough. The field of education is more than knowing a subject. For k-12, you must study adolescent and child psychology for obvious reasons, statistics, test creation, curriculum creation, classroom management, etc. as well as your field. If you think for a second that you can simply be book smart in an area, waltz into a 6th grade classroom in a suburban school, and teach the subject flawlessly, you're in for one hell of a shock. Attempting the same in a city school would end in hilarity for everyone watching you.
A teaching license is not something they just hand out like a high school diploma. It takes a great deal of work (as pointed out above). In NY, there are even two levels of certification, Initial and Professional, and you are not considered "done" until you have the later. The Professional Certification requirements are a certain amount of time teaching full-time, being mentored by another teacher, and continuing education.
If you think that's "bureaucracy and b.s." than I'd like to hear what you think qualifies someone to be a state certified teacher.
One important function of public schooling is that it gives any child, no matter who their parents are or what crazy crap their parents wish to instill in them, a chance to experience the "real world" and escape from their parents' delusions. It also ensures that children get, at least nominally, a well-rounded education and don't grow up with critical holes in their knowledge or experience.
The risk of regulating home schooling is its denial to those worthy of the task. The benefit is providing a much better chance for the children of idiots and crazy people to escape their parents' clutches.
It appears to me that more home-schooling proponents are crazy or religious rather than competent and concerned. As such, I feel that regulation is worth the risk. Needs of the many, etc...
One important function of public schooling is that it gives any child, no matter who their parents are or what crazy crap their parents wish to instill in them, a chance to experience the "real world" and escape from their parents' delusions. It also ensures that children get, at least nominally, a well-rounded education and don't grow up with critical holes in their knowledge or experience.
I agree entirely. If someone is born in the US, they are a US citizen, which means they have certain rights and responsibilities. If their crazy parents prevent them from being educated, they might never know about their rights and responsibilities. It is the right of every child in the US to receive an education that at the absolute bare minimum informs them of their rights. It is, of course, better if they receive much more than the bare minimum.
If people want to have the freedom to choose another method of schooling besides public schooling, on their own dollar, I have no problem with that. I just think that all schooling needs to be regulated and monitored to make sure that the rights of the children are not being infringed upon.
It is the right of every child in the US to receive an education that at the absolute bare minimum informs them of their rights. It is, of course, better if they receive much more than the bare minimum.
In fact, it's easy to be of the opinion that it is the duty of every child to receive a certain minimum, quality education in order to contribute to an informed electorate.
It appears to me that more home-schooling proponents are crazy or religious rather than competent and concerned.
That statement reminds me of your argument regarding the claim stating that "all cosplayers are fat men in skimpy sailor moon outfits." You claimed that this was not true, that this statement stems from the fact that those are the cosplayers that stand out in a crowd.
My mother is rather well-known around the Manhattan homeschoolers as a very knowledgeable person on the subject of homeschooling. As a result, I get to meet a lot of homeschooling families at events, one-on-one meetings with my mother, etc.. In all my years of helping my mom talk to these families (and as a result, learning about them), I have yet to meet a family that was more concerned about their personal beliefs being upheld in their family than the education of the children, let alone crazy/religious.
In all my years of helping my mom talk to these families (and as a result, learning about them), I have yet to meet a family that was more concerned about their personal beliefs being upheld in their family than the education of the children, let alone crazy/religious.
Go see what homeschooling is like in Kansas as opposed to Manhattan.
In all my years of helping my mom talk to these families (and as a result, learning about them), I have yet to meet a family that was more concerned about their personal beliefs being upheld in their family than the education of the children, let alone crazy/religious.
Go see what homeschooling is like in Kansas as opposed to Manhattan.
Oh, I'm sure that things are very different there. However, we're talking about California, and not the bible belt. I think that's a pretty key difference here.
Oh, I'm sure that things are very different there. However, we're talking about California, and not the bible belt. I think that's a pretty key difference here.
You mean the same California where fake medicine is all the rage?
Oh, I'm sure that things are very different there. However, we're talking about California, and not the bible belt. I think that's a pretty key difference here.
You mean the same California where fake medicine is all the rage?
Irrelevant, unless you can link to an article showing how homeschooling parents in California are forcing their false medicinal crap onto their children.
Irrelevant, unless you can link to an article showing how homeschooling parents in California are forcing their false medicinal crap onto their children.
Kind of impossible to find anything now that Google will only return results about the story that started this thread.
Knowing a subject well does not make you a good teacher - but neither does passing a licensure program. Licensing requirements may give you tools, but it is no guarantee that these tools will be utilized.
Knowing a subject well does not make you a good teacher - butneither does passing a licensure program.Licensing requirements may give you tools, but it is no guarantee that these tools will be utilized.
I'm not saying it is a guarantee. It certainly increases the probability that a poor teacher will be rooted out than say, not having any at all.
Also, that exact point was made earlier:
I am not saying that every teacher that receives a license is an amazing teacher, but they certainly have refined tools at their disposal to more competently and cohesively instruct.
A great teacher is not just someone who knows the subject matter. They also have to have the ability to impart what they know on others.
Rym could be a teacher as he has a very engaging personality and is able to make people enjoy listening to him pontificate on various subjects. I only say could because I have never seen him deal with people who hold a differing opinion in a two-way debate.
Yes, I have heard his stories about debate teams but in teaching you do not win by being right. You win by getting the other person to listen, learn and accept what you are telling them. Just because you win the debate does not mean you have convinced the other party you are right, it just means they have relented and allowed you to win the discussion because they have run out of other options.
When I hear Rym debate a flat Earther or Scientologist with the end result being that person has decided that they are wrong and actually want to change, then will I consider Rym to be a great teacher.
A great teacher must also be willing to accept that they can be wrong and not feel that being challenged by a student is somehow a criminal act being perpetrated by the student.
When I hear Rym debate a flat Earther or Scientologist with the end result being that person has decided that they are wrong and actually want to change, then will I consider Rym to be a great teacher.
Not even the greatest teacher in the history of the universe can teach someone who will not allow themselves to be taught.
When I hear Rym debate a flat Earther or Scientologist with the end result being that person has decided that they are wrong and actually want to change, then will I consider Rym to be a great teacher.
Not even the greatest teacher in the history of the universe can teach someone who will not allow themselves to be taught.
I did not specify he had to turn a die-hard Flat-Earther or Scientologist from their beliefs. I also said he would be a great teacher for doing so. I'll consider him a good teacher if he can turn just one wasted youth into a productive member of society.
Comments
Meanwhile, there are plenty of teachers out there who don't know shit about their subject - they're just reading straight from a book.
I went to school till 4th grade and the only good teacher I had was in kindergarden. I can say from personal experience, and from what others have said, that my mother is better than 90% of the teachers in public schools. I look at credentials like I look at tests, they don't matter. What matters is whether you actually know how to do it, not weather your good at taking the test.
Finally, if I were you I'd be very careful about checking any posts in which I crowed about my intelligence for spelling and grammatical mistakes.
Finally, if I were you I'd be very careful about checking any posts in which I crowed about my intelligence for spelling and grammatical mistakes.
Yes, I did say those things, but I eventually contacted my friend and found out that it was John Taylor Gatto who did the research on how public schools began. So my sorce is really John Taylor Gatto.
And as I said, 'most' not all. Billy, your being like a lawyer here and taking my mistakes and ignoring the corrections. Yes I was stupid to use a 'friend' as my source on these forums, but I fixed it. If you honestly look down on homeschooling then I pity you and your narrow views.
Jump to 6:00 to see Joe really getting into it.
That being said, if parents want to raise socially inept children who can't deal with the real world... that is their prerogative. (I am aware that this is a gross generalization and does not apply to EVERY SINGLE Home-schooled child, but the stereotype exists for a reason.)
In New York State, for example, one needs a Bachelors degree, Certification Training, Passing several Certification Tests, and a Masters Degree, along with continuing education in the field.
For more information, please see the NYS Department of Education's website that details their certifation requirements at http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/certificate
Knowing ones subject well is only ONE of the many necessary components to being a quality educator. Knowing different teaching and grading methods is highly important to best assess and instruct the individual classes being taught. Much like law, it takes rigorous training that moves from the theoretical (i.e. learning various educational approaches, grading styles, etc.) and into the practical (i.e. hundreds of hours observing in class instruction and student teaching).
I am not saying that every teacher that receives a license is an amazing teacher, but they certainly have refined tools at their disposal to more competently and cohesively instruct.
KNOWING A SUBJECT VERY WELL DOES NOT MAKE YOU A GOOD TEACHER. I can't stress this enough. The field of education is more than knowing a subject. For k-12, you must study adolescent and child psychology for obvious reasons, statistics, test creation, curriculum creation, classroom management, etc. as well as your field. If you think for a second that you can simply be book smart in an area, waltz into a 6th grade classroom in a suburban school, and teach the subject flawlessly, you're in for one hell of a shock. Attempting the same in a city school would end in hilarity for everyone watching you.
A teaching license is not something they just hand out like a high school diploma. It takes a great deal of work (as pointed out above). In NY, there are even two levels of certification, Initial and Professional, and you are not considered "done" until you have the later. The Professional Certification requirements are a certain amount of time teaching full-time, being mentored by another teacher, and continuing education.
If you think that's "bureaucracy and b.s." than I'd like to hear what you think qualifies someone to be a state certified teacher.
The risk of regulating home schooling is its denial to those worthy of the task. The benefit is providing a much better chance for the children of idiots and crazy people to escape their parents' clutches.
It appears to me that more home-schooling proponents are crazy or religious rather than competent and concerned. As such, I feel that regulation is worth the risk. Needs of the many, etc...
If people want to have the freedom to choose another method of schooling besides public schooling, on their own dollar, I have no problem with that. I just think that all schooling needs to be regulated and monitored to make sure that the rights of the children are not being infringed upon.
My mother is rather well-known around the Manhattan homeschoolers as a very knowledgeable person on the subject of homeschooling. As a result, I get to meet a lot of homeschooling families at events, one-on-one meetings with my mother, etc.. In all my years of helping my mom talk to these families (and as a result, learning about them), I have yet to meet a family that was more concerned about their personal beliefs being upheld in their family than the education of the children, let alone crazy/religious.
Also, that exact point was made earlier:
Rym could be a teacher as he has a very engaging personality and is able to make people enjoy listening to him pontificate on various subjects. I only say could because I have never seen him deal with people who hold a differing opinion in a two-way debate.
Yes, I have heard his stories about debate teams but in teaching you do not win by being right. You win by getting the other person to listen, learn and accept what you are telling them. Just because you win the debate does not mean you have convinced the other party you are right, it just means they have relented and allowed you to win the discussion because they have run out of other options.
When I hear Rym debate a flat Earther or Scientologist with the end result being that person has decided that they are wrong and actually want to change, then will I consider Rym to be a great teacher.
A great teacher must also be willing to accept that they can be wrong and not feel that being challenged by a student is somehow a criminal act being perpetrated by the student.