RM>There are "x" number of teaching jobs to be filled by "y"
  >number of teaching candidates... It seems pretty clear to me
  >that "y" is not a large enough number to accomodate "x" with
  >a sufficient number of good candidates!
RM>OK.. You want to raise standards on teachers which further
  >reduces "y" - How does this solve the problem?  This only
  >works if you have a very large "y" and are able to cull out
  >the best candidates and still meet "x", don't you think?
RM>The REAL problem is that there aren't enough teaching
  >candidates around, so schools must settle for less than
  >ideal candidates.  This despite the "extravagant salaries",
  >"lifetime jobs", etc that teachers are supposed to enjoy.
Your post really surprised me. Here, there are so few jobs in teaching
and hundreds of exceptional teachers. MY board has been interviewing for
years and has a so called approved for hiring list that they put the
exceptional teachers on.  Don't know why they do so though as there
seems to be no rhyme or reason to their hiring practices. Not that they
hire other than from the list but there is no seniority to it.
In '92 they hired over 150 teachers, the following year 12! All because
of government budget cuts. Now they hire more but not from a teaching
pool. It seems that the latest grads get first crack at the jobs and for
the rest it is a matter or who you know or where you are at the time. :(
Unfortunately, I am neither a new grad of know enough of the right
people or am in the right place at the right time.  :(
                       -Ruth
---
 þ QMPro 1.53 þ By the time I have money to burn, my fire will be out.
---------------