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.
RL>Your post really surprised me. Here, there are so few jobs in teaching
RL>and hundreds of exceptional teachers. MY board has been interviewing for
RL>years and has a so called approved for hiring list that they put the
RL>exceptional teachers on.  Don't know why they do so though as there
RL>seems to be no rhyme or reason to their hiring practices. Not that they
RL>hire other than from the list but there is no seniority to it.
RL>In '92 they hired over 150 teachers, the following year 12! All because
RL>of government budget cuts. Now they hire more but not from a teaching
RL>pool.
What happened to the "pool"?  This type of thing is cyclic, 
and there were a lot of teaching candidates, for example,
in the early 70's when the last financial crunch took place.
At that time, districts could pick and choose in all areas.
In the 80's, however, word was out, and there were a lot 
less teaching candidates graduating.  At the same time, a
lot of the existing candidates went into other fields.  Now
we're swinging around again to the 70's situation.  I guess
it's going to vary from one area to another...
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * I don't do Windows, but OS/2 WARP does.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 2
---------------