In a message dated 1/18/03 2:34:29 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< Thank you for allowing me to repeat myself.  Again and again.  As you
can tell, I love to hear myself write. >>

Vince,

Where have you been, buddy?  About time you weighed in, and that was a
weighty e-mail!

Just one point: we have plenty of endorsement for people who do not teach:
nurses, counselors, principals, superintendents, etc.  Contact with students
is not a prerequisite for endorsement.

An endorsement merely guarantees a minimum set of standards.  I've been
endorsed in English, Foreign Language, Curriculum and as a principal.  I
never even practiced the latter, and the endorsements are not an assurance of
quality.  Even though I think I was a decent English teacher for 15 years,
the mere piece of paper declaring me an official English teacher simply meant
I had met a set of standards and expectations.  Endorsement does not imply a
level of performance.

That is why I think it is entirely reasonable and wise for both of the new
proposed endorsements to be passed.  The technology needs to be a tool in
teaching and learning, the people delivering it should know both ends of the
game.

I also think there is room for non-endorsed positions.  I've already
mentioned a Network Administrator as an example.  In fact, here in Barre, out
of the roughly 5 or 6 people directly involved in technology, I am the only
one who would fall into the category of needing certification.  Fine with me.

Tommy Walz
Technology Coordinator
Barre Supervisory Union #61
Barre VT 05641
802-476-5011
[log in to unmask]