no clear evidence strong literacy skills are essential for a teacher

SERIOUSLY ? I mean, that's Jesus Hello Kitty Christ on a Rocket-Powered Toboggan stupid. . .

Next thing you know, they'll accept Creation Science degrees as sufficient to teach Science. . . oh, nevermind. . .

Let's call it "Every child left behind."

Every dictator throughout history has known that an ignorant, uneducated population is easier to control.

Remember when we had the discussion about doing away with the physical standards in the military because women couldn't meet them?

The educational and intelligence standards in the military and the government went bye bye a long time ago, because of the minorities,

The guardians of knowledge don't need no knowledge!

I flunked my college Physics course. That's a 100% failure rate as opposed to other students that passed. That proves that the test was racist against short technically illiterate white guys. After all there is no clear evidence strong science skills are essential for a technical degree.

the plaintiffs arguing that there is no clear evidence strong literacy skills are essential for a teacher

So, if you can't speak, can't write, and possibly can't read you have what it takes to teach in New York state!

The end of the Republic is nigh. I don't know what will replace it, but I don't think it will be pretty.

The answers are in the back of the teacher's version of the textbook. If a student asks "why", that is a puzzle, because it isn't necessary to know why.

"Why" is also counterproductive to good conduct and the production of useful citizens. The required knowledge, vetted for truthfulness by the consensus, has been distilled to the appropriate grade level. Going beyond that is a waste of time and a microagression against any student who doesn't care "why".

If a teacher is so narcissistic that s-he thinks she knows more (or something different!) than the textbook, s-he is by definition violating the curriculum of the school. The students deserve the best knowledge as presented, not manipulated by self-centered teachers.

The word "understand" expresses the idea of knowing what is beneath or supporting of a fact. There is no need for understanding, only a need for absorption and acceptance.

The public schools are fulfilling the plans of John Dewey and the authoritarian state. This was the intent from the beginning of state-run schools. The implementation was taken from Germany under 1880's socialism. The entire idea of "grades" is taken from German military tradition.

John Dewey was a social planner and is currently celebrated as a philosopher of US public education:

"Independent self-reliant people would be a counterproductive anachronism in the collective society of the future where people will be defined by their associations (1896)."

[ Restated: The groups you belong to or are assigned to will be much more important than what you know, in the socialist, planned world of the future. ]

"The children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society that is coming, where everyone would be interdependent (1899)."

[ Restated: We don't want independent thinkers. A few smart children will be needed to run the society, from the proper families and trained in the private schools. Any excess from the public schools will merely spoil social harmony by needlessly trying to change or oppose the scientific plans of the elite.]

In such a world, public school teachers need only to be supporters of the socialist good. Knowledge is a social construct. For example, it is adequate that children know about what science is and respect people with the title of Scientist. It only causes confusion to teach them the difficult details.

A more important question, how did these people get a teaching degree?

Gotta love it! When you don't know the material, instead of learning it so you can pass the exam, just cry "Racism!"

This takes 'those who can do, those who can't teach' to a whole new level.

This is why places require worthless college degrees everywhere. Because any other method will get you sued for being racist sexist or any other ist.

The judge, Kimba Wood, was nominated by Bill Clinton to be the attorney general. Nannygate shot her nomination down and we got Janet Reno instead. As bad as Reno was, maybe we dodged a bullet by not getting Wood.

Liberals have replaced equal opportunity with equal outcome.

I would have thought I would remember the name if not place it since she was nominated by Clinton. Oh well. I think a bullet was dodged there.

Ben is spot on:
This takes 'those who can do, those who can't teach' to a whole new level.

I just realized it....
she is worried that if it is allowed for teachers to be tested for competency then it soon might follow that judges could be too... and she certainly does not want that.

Ok, so I don't work in HR, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express, and I think I see what they're saying. Teachers are evaluated based on their students' standardized test scores, or pass/fail rates. Their job description probably contains some verbiage about classroom management, prompt grading, and presenting core curriculum as written. They aren't there to think, or to challenge the kids in any way that leaves any of them "behind." So, indeed, liberal arts knowledge" isn't relevant, then they can't justify testing for it using a test that differentiates between races of employees.

One sample question from the test asked prospective educators to identify the mathematical principle of a linear relationship when given four examples.

Ptolemy. Liebniz. Boole. Pascal. Descartes. Newton. Turing. Nash. All white males. Mathematics is clearly racist (and sexist.)

Another asked them to read four passages from the Constitution and identify which illustrates the notion of checks and balances.

The Constitution. Written by white males. Racist and sexist (and Islamophobic.)

A question far more fair would have been:

Who wrote the following passage:

Please don't fall asleep baby we almost back
Please don't throw up in the car we almost crash
Oh now you sober, how'd I know you'd say that
You drunk and hot girl

...and I think I see what they're saying. Teachers are evaluated based on their students' standardized test scores, or pass/fail rates. Their job description probably contains some verbiage about classroom management, prompt grading, and presenting core curriculum as written. They aren't there to think, or to challenge the kids in any way that leaves any of them "behind." So, indeed, liberal arts knowledge" isn't relevant, then they can't justify testing for it using a test that differentiates between races of employees. ~ Posted by: Allison at June 9, 2015 7:56 PM

Allison may have a point.

Because it has not been shown that success in what teachers are measured on (student advancement, classroom management, childhood development, attendance, etc.) is correlated to innate intelligence and memorized knowledge, a test for employment measuring those things is not relevant.

Unlike testing a potential financial analyst on Excel skills or a programmer on Java, testing a teacher on factual knowledge might not be considered directly job-relevant.

A question far more fair would have been: Who wrote the following passage....

I'd have flunked that one. And I could likely answer the ones about linear mathematical relationships and Constitutional checks and balances.

I guess I'm not qualified to teach in the public school system.

They failed to mention another reason the test is racist, that the oppressed Asian minority did 20 percent better than the Whites. We gotta do something to keep them uppity Asians in their place.

It's frightening that we can't test teachers for the knowledge we expect them to impart to the children in their classes.

But then, we're not really expecting them to teach. We expect them to babysit and indoctrinate (just look at what we measure them on).

I read about a study a few years ago (sorry, I don't have a cite) that said education majors were found to be the least likely of all majors on campus to read for fun and enlightenment or, in fact, to read anything not on a class reading list.