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. >>
Where have you been, buddy? About time you weighed in, and that was a
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
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.
Barre Supervisory Union #61
Barre VT 05641
[log in to unmask]