Posted by Rick Denney on September 09, 2002 at 21:31:26:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should we have to defend teachers? posted by Kenneth Sloan on September 09, 2002 at 20:15:54:
I've done just that. I have hired a number of technicians with a little drafting ability and a willingness to learn and turned them into first-class traffic technicians who knew more than many so-called traffic engineers. Remember, I worked for government, including a large, low-income city (San Antonio) for many years--we rarely were able to hire people who had the appropriate qualifications coming into the job.
Does that mean they could be engineers? No. Engineering requires a broad education in the physical sciences--the sort of training I did does not. But it means they could time a traffic signal pretty darn well.
I wasn't complaining that public schools require certification. I was complaining that the certification is often based on education-establishment wrong-headed ideas of what education is for and how those needs should be met. And I was complaining that the education establishment uses certification as part of the charade that teaching techniques are too complicated for normal people to understand (and judge). Finally, I don't like the notion that certification doesn't do what it takes to make sure that they know their subject material.
I'm a licensed engineer because I'm legally required to be licensed for the projects that I have done in those states where I'm registered. I put it in my email signature block (which is mostly used at work) because I'm legally required to, if you must know, though I don't know what that has to do with the argument. Having the P.E. surely did not keep me from being highly accountable to the public; in fact, the license is there to make sure that I AM held accountable.
Rick "who thinks many teachers are good despite what they had to do to get certified" Denney