Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just cause they have more degrees doesn't mean they are better.

What a dumb study

On it's face, I'd agree with you.

But when it comes to education, advanced degrees DO matter. They show specialized learning--unlike the undergraduate degree that's all over the place until your last 2-4 semesters of college.

In addition to the advanced degrees, there's that issue of those teachers having more experience.

Again, in the field of education (as in most fields), more degrees AND more experience matter a great deal. In any field that combination makes you a more appealing candidate.

Do we know what kind of advanced degree and schools? Is it a crap school like udc?

Why will someone who went to Harvard teach?

Do you really believe that the majority of AA applicants in Fairfax have degrees from UDC????

And I guess all the white applicants graduated from Harvard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
According to the article, black teachers are underrepresented and black administrators are overrepresented. Since principals have absolute authority over hiring teachers in their schools, there could be bias at the individual school/principal level. The difference between underrepresentation and normal representation is only a couple percentage points, so it could just be coming down to the applicants to the particular schools, rather than solely due to bias.

Taking hiring authority away from principals may solve that problem but would definitely create others. Interesting study with interesting results.


Yes. And, I suspect a lot of information was left out. I would be interested in seeing the geography of where the applicants came from. In other words, do they come from Virginia or Deep South or west coast, etc. My bet is that a lot of the AA teacher applicants not hired were not local. In fact, I bet that most applicants hired are local--no matter what race.

+1 Interesting thought. GMU educates a lot of the teachers that get (or don't get jobs) with FCPS. I wonder what percentage of the GMU master's degree program matriculants are black? Or are most of them white?

I have noticed that many of the degrees of certain groups of people are from online universities and those are problem viewed with a bit more skepticism. Just saying.

I would also wager that there are more black administrators because the skill set needed to be a good administrator is much different from that needed to be a good teacher. The administrator skill set for success is less "testable" with paper and pencil than the teacher skill set. You have to know your subject area well to be a good teacher (at least for high level schools/classes). To be a good administrator you have to get along with people and solve problems related to the school as a community. Totally different. The Praxis subject area tests would be interesting scores to look at.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just cause they have more degrees doesn't mean they are better.

What a dumb study

On it's face, I'd agree with you.

But when it comes to education, advanced degrees DO matter. They show specialized learning--unlike the undergraduate degree that's all over the place until your last 2-4 semesters of college.

In addition to the advanced degrees, there's that issue of those teachers having more experience.

Again, in the field of education (as in most fields), more degrees AND more experience matter a great deal. In any field that combination makes you a more appealing candidate.

Do we know what kind of advanced degree and schools? Is it a crap school like udc?

Why will someone who went to Harvard teach?

Do you really believe that the majority of AA applicants in Fairfax have degrees from UDC????

And I guess all the white applicants graduated from Harvard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just standardizing and computerizing everything aren't we. Teachers even. We ain't gauging their character or commitment or their connection, things that are arguably integral to being an educator, but we focusing on diction (Ebonics) and petty percentage points on tests. Shit that doesn't discern whether or not someone is willing to make the true commitment to being an educator and all that it entails or whether they just wanna collect a paycheck and have a previous place of employment to pride themselves on before they get the job they really want.
Data taking over.
Won't be long before "virtual teachers" are dominant in classrooms.
Standardized
Computerized
George Orwell 1984 here we come.

Actually, the test is likely being used to avoid discrimination. It makes everything more "objective"--that is, it take the decision out of the interviewer's hands. It may not work, but it takes the responsibility away from personalities. In other words, it is a cop-out.

Anonymous wrote:
According to the article, black teachers are underrepresented and black administrators are overrepresented. Since principals have absolute authority over hiring teachers in their schools, there could be bias at the individual school/principal level. The difference between underrepresentation and normal representation is only a couple percentage points, so it could just be coming down to the applicants to the particular schools, rather than solely due to bias.

Taking hiring authority away from principals may solve that problem but would definitely create others. Interesting study with interesting results.


Yes. And, I suspect a lot of information was left out. I would be interested in seeing the geography of where the applicants came from. In other words, do they come from Virginia or Deep South or west coast, etc. My bet is that a lot of the AA teacher applicants not hired were not local. In fact, I bet that most applicants hired are local--no matter what race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the article, black teachers are underrepresented and black administrators are overrepresented. Since principals have absolute authority over hiring teachers in their schools, there could be bias at the individual school/principal level. The difference between underrepresentation and normal representation is only a couple percentage points, so it could just be coming down to the applicants to the particular schools, rather than solely due to bias.

Taking hiring authority away from principals may solve that problem but would definitely create others. Interesting study with interesting results.

Yes. And, I suspect a lot of information was left out. I would be interested in seeing the geography of where the applicants came from. In other words, do they come from Virginia or Deep South or west coast, etc. My bet is that a lot of the AA teacher applicants not hired were not local. In fact, I bet that most applicants hired are local--no matter what race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that this was important: "GMU researchers examining 2012 job-application data for the school system found that black applicants had slightly lower pass rates on a screening test but somewhat more extensive academic credentials and work experience than their white counterparts. On paper, the researchers said, the black and white candidates seemed to have comparable qualifications."

The WaPo article and the study didn't seem to focus on the screening test, which may be intentionally or unintentionally biased, or may tend to disfavor black applicants, but not Asian or Hispanic applicants, for some other reason. It seemed significant to me.

This. People want to "raise teacher standards" (via test) but they also want "more diversity". You can't have both. AAs as a group tend to do about one full standard deviation worse than Euro-Americans as a group on any given standardized test. Want more AA teachers? Get rid of the test. Want the test? Don't expect more AA teachers.

They're not talking about a standardized test. FX does not used standardized tests as part of the application process. Ha!

Read the thread. FX is talking about some BS personality type test.

I read the thread. Various posters claimed the test was BS (which I believe), not that it was not standardized. Just because a test is bad doesn't make it not a test. And Black applicants did worse on it. Not sure what your point was. I think my point stands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I have not seen is this: Ebonics

That is the problem.

Lol! You have got to be kidding or crazy if you think the majority of black TEACHER applicants in FAIRFAX show up speaking Ebonics!!! LOL

This is what happens when Whites aren't exposed to black teachers. They grow up leaning on stereotypes! Lol

We are talking about the teachers not being hired. Not those that are hired. And, FWIW, I have taught with a LOT of black teachers. Most are quite articulate. I have taught with a couple who were not--not in FCPS, however.

Anonymous wrote:According to the article, black teachers are underrepresented and black administrators are overrepresented. Since principals have absolute authority over hiring teachers in their schools, there could be bias at the individual school/principal level. The difference between underrepresentation and normal representation is only a couple percentage points, so it could just be coming down to the applicants to the particular schools, rather than solely due to bias.

Taking hiring authority away from principals may solve that problem but would definitely create others. Interesting study with interesting results.

Anonymous wrote:Just standardizing and computerizing everything aren't we. Teachers even. We ain't gauging their character or commitment or their connection, things that are arguably integral to being an educator, but we focusing on diction (Ebonics) and petty percentage points on tests. Shit that doesn't discern whether or not someone is willing to make the true commitment to being an educator and all that it entails or whether they just wanna collect a paycheck and have a previous place of employment to pride themselves on before they get the job they really want.
Data taking over.
Won't be long before "virtual teachers" are dominant in classrooms.
Standardized
Computerized
George Orwell 1984 here we come.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that this was important: "GMU researchers examining 2012 job-application data for the school system found that black applicants had slightly lower pass rates on a screening test but somewhat more extensive academic credentials and work experience than their white counterparts. On paper, the researchers said, the black and white candidates seemed to have comparable qualifications."

The WaPo article and the study didn't seem to focus on the screening test, which may be intentionally or unintentionally biased, or may tend to disfavor black applicants, but not Asian or Hispanic applicants, for some other reason. It seemed significant to me.

This. People want to "raise teacher standards" (via test) but they also want "more diversity". You can't have both. AAs as a group tend to do about one full standard deviation worse than Euro-Americans as a group on any given standardized test. Want more AA teachers? Get rid of the test. Want the test? Don't expect more AA teachers.

They're not talking about a standardized test. FX does not used standardized tests as part of the application process. Ha!

Read the thread. FX is talking about some BS personality type test.

I read the thread. Various posters claimed the test was BS (which I believe), not that it was not standardized. Just because a test is bad doesn't make it not a test. And Black applicants did worse on it. Not sure what your point was. I think my point stands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that this was important: "GMU researchers examining 2012 job-application data for the school system found that black applicants had slightly lower pass rates on a screening test but somewhat more extensive academic credentials and work experience than their white counterparts. On paper, the researchers said, the black and white candidates seemed to have comparable qualifications."

The WaPo article and the study didn't seem to focus on the screening test, which may be intentionally or unintentionally biased, or may tend to disfavor black applicants, but not Asian or Hispanic applicants, for some other reason. It seemed significant to me.

This. People want to "raise teacher standards" (via test) but they also want "more diversity". You can't have both. AAs as a group tend to do about one full standard deviation worse than Euro-Americans as a group on any given standardized test. Want more AA teachers? Get rid of the test. Want the test? Don't expect more AA teachers.

They're not talking about a standardized test. FX does not used standardized tests as part of the application process. Ha!

Read the thread. FX is talking about some BS personality type test.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I have not seen is this: Ebonics

That is the problem.

Lol! You have got to be kidding or crazy if you think the majority of black TEACHER applicants in FAIRFAX show up speaking Ebonics!!! LOL

This is what happens when Whites aren't exposed to black teachers. They grow up leaning on stereotypes! Lol