best job fair for family
From what I've seen, Tier 3 schools are especially [b]unlikely[/b] to hire a teacher with several dependents. The primary reason for this is that many Tier 3 schools are run like businesses. The schools don't particularly care about hiring the very best teachers; they do want teachers who are cheap, won't complain, won't cause complaints, and who will make the school look good to parents. That's why a chirpy, blonde single American in her 20's fresh out of teacher's college is every Tier 3 school's dream hire.
-
Teachermom
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:14 am
- Location: Asia
No question, it's more expensive to hire a teacher with a trailing spouse and two dependents than a single teacher. No question, the elite schools won't USUALLY consider you, since they have so many options to choose from for the same position.
HOWEVER, your dependents do give you one bonus that hasn't been mentioned here: more stability.
Of course there are exceptions, but with kids in tow, you're less likely to pull a runner since it disrupts their school year, too. You also have a bigger chance of putting down roots and staying longer. Most families I know do 4 and 5 year stretches at each school rather than just 2 year stints (or even one year averages, if you're like one vocal (single) person on this site!). Now of course I'm just talking averages; might not apply to every situation, but I've used this in interviews to my advantage.
HOWEVER, your dependents do give you one bonus that hasn't been mentioned here: more stability.
Of course there are exceptions, but with kids in tow, you're less likely to pull a runner since it disrupts their school year, too. You also have a bigger chance of putting down roots and staying longer. Most families I know do 4 and 5 year stretches at each school rather than just 2 year stints (or even one year averages, if you're like one vocal (single) person on this site!). Now of course I'm just talking averages; might not apply to every situation, but I've used this in interviews to my advantage.
Comment
@Teachermom
There has NEVER been a single instance of an unmarried teacher, bringing teaching couple divorce drama into a school. All the divorce drama that does contribute to a disruptive and hostile school environment has been from married teachers, and teaching couples bring it double.
Add the kids and its a mess. Single unmarried teachers with no kids dont bring that.
@BKK new
Sure they like white faces, but they dont like paying for them. When it comes to media and advertising, schools actually hire white child actors for their materials production. One school in China last year held a community barbecue/picnic to all the foreign families in the community and took photos of the event, which where then used in their marketing materials.
Paying airfare, tuition waivers, insurance, housing allowances for kids is just a money suck, and unless the teachers value contribution is significant, then no its not worth it too those third tier schools.
@fine dude
The issue from ownerships perspective isnt about adding value, its about minimizing costs. Single teachers no dependents costa lot less, and thats what the school is facing when in recruiting season, how much money its going to cost them to put someone in a classroom.
The value difference of a teacher is actually rather small. There is no significant difference in performance between a teacher with 2 years experience, and one with 5 years experience, and there is no significant difference between a teacher with 5 years experience, and one with 10 years experience.
The argument that short term teachers cost significantly less then long term teachers, is only accurate in a few narrow scenarios. Factors like salary, housing, insurance, etc are static, a teacher who has taught 2 years at the same IS and is on step 5 on the salary scale makes the same as a teacher who has taught 5 years at the IS and is also on step 5 of the salary scale.
Teachers and teaching couples with kids, continue to requires resources and cost money to support that family in terms of larger housing, greater insurance premiums, tuition waivers, etc. The only factor that is signifigantly, depends on how the school handles return and annual airfare allowances.
@mbovi
Yeah but thats only one recruiter and one head, though i agree with your three points, and strongly agree with the last one. Teaching couples are a team, and any problem or issue with one of them is a problem for both.
@ChuckD33
I would be very weary of any "sales" talk you had with Nick and Search, nothing they are going to say or do is going to mitigate your a single dad with 2 kids, and that it would be very difficult for an IS to offer you a comparable compensation package to what you have now.
Nicks going to give you the soft sell, about all the schools they have available and what they have done in the past, but then your going to get the disclaimer "no results are guaranteed and we promise you nothing".
Ask Nick if hes really confident about your capabilities to waive your registration fee and fair fees until AFTER your placed. Thats when he's going to say "Thats not how it works", and hes right it doesnt work that way, because what they offer isnt going to work for you.
There has NEVER been a single instance of an unmarried teacher, bringing teaching couple divorce drama into a school. All the divorce drama that does contribute to a disruptive and hostile school environment has been from married teachers, and teaching couples bring it double.
Add the kids and its a mess. Single unmarried teachers with no kids dont bring that.
@BKK new
Sure they like white faces, but they dont like paying for them. When it comes to media and advertising, schools actually hire white child actors for their materials production. One school in China last year held a community barbecue/picnic to all the foreign families in the community and took photos of the event, which where then used in their marketing materials.
Paying airfare, tuition waivers, insurance, housing allowances for kids is just a money suck, and unless the teachers value contribution is significant, then no its not worth it too those third tier schools.
@fine dude
The issue from ownerships perspective isnt about adding value, its about minimizing costs. Single teachers no dependents costa lot less, and thats what the school is facing when in recruiting season, how much money its going to cost them to put someone in a classroom.
The value difference of a teacher is actually rather small. There is no significant difference in performance between a teacher with 2 years experience, and one with 5 years experience, and there is no significant difference between a teacher with 5 years experience, and one with 10 years experience.
The argument that short term teachers cost significantly less then long term teachers, is only accurate in a few narrow scenarios. Factors like salary, housing, insurance, etc are static, a teacher who has taught 2 years at the same IS and is on step 5 on the salary scale makes the same as a teacher who has taught 5 years at the IS and is also on step 5 of the salary scale.
Teachers and teaching couples with kids, continue to requires resources and cost money to support that family in terms of larger housing, greater insurance premiums, tuition waivers, etc. The only factor that is signifigantly, depends on how the school handles return and annual airfare allowances.
@mbovi
Yeah but thats only one recruiter and one head, though i agree with your three points, and strongly agree with the last one. Teaching couples are a team, and any problem or issue with one of them is a problem for both.
@ChuckD33
I would be very weary of any "sales" talk you had with Nick and Search, nothing they are going to say or do is going to mitigate your a single dad with 2 kids, and that it would be very difficult for an IS to offer you a comparable compensation package to what you have now.
Nicks going to give you the soft sell, about all the schools they have available and what they have done in the past, but then your going to get the disclaimer "no results are guaranteed and we promise you nothing".
Ask Nick if hes really confident about your capabilities to waive your registration fee and fair fees until AFTER your placed. Thats when he's going to say "Thats not how it works", and hes right it doesnt work that way, because what they offer isnt going to work for you.
@psyguy
There is a difference between a teacher with 2 yrs exp and one with, say 5 yrs. The IB subject average of a class taught by an inexperienced IB teacher is significantly lower than the world average, especially among math and sciences. This is why some established schools hire IB teachers with five or more years of exp, and most of the time, these people are usually experienced teacher couples or those with one or more dependents.
Also, single teachers are the ones who are waiting for the clock to tick 4, so that they can chase the opposite sex outside of school (you can relate to this quite well) and minimize their issues relating to boredom at home.
There might be exceptions, but a majority of the dedicated and result-oriented teachers are the married ones with stable private lives, be it teacher-couples or those with dependents.
There is a difference between a teacher with 2 yrs exp and one with, say 5 yrs. The IB subject average of a class taught by an inexperienced IB teacher is significantly lower than the world average, especially among math and sciences. This is why some established schools hire IB teachers with five or more years of exp, and most of the time, these people are usually experienced teacher couples or those with one or more dependents.
Also, single teachers are the ones who are waiting for the clock to tick 4, so that they can chase the opposite sex outside of school (you can relate to this quite well) and minimize their issues relating to boredom at home.
There might be exceptions, but a majority of the dedicated and result-oriented teachers are the married ones with stable private lives, be it teacher-couples or those with dependents.
Discussion
@fine dude
NO, there is not a statistical significance between a teacher with 2 years experience and one with 5 years experience.
NO, on average there is no significant difference that an be attributed to teacher experience in DIP exam scores.
Further, your claim is limited to only DIP studies and does not nor can it (due to lack of external assessment) in MYP and PYP. Likewise your claim does not address teacher quality outside of IB.
A recruiters and administrators reasons for hiring more experienced teachers does not nor does it substitute for data that supports significant differences. Schools prefer and even limit their recruiting efforts to more experienced teachers, because it is an easy and convenient criteria for reducing the size of the applicant pool.
Your inference that professional experience and marital/dependent status are correlated is a classical causation fallacy.
Married teachers and those with kids, are the ones leaving early to take kids to doctor appointments or who have to stay home with a sick child.
I know many guys that are equally "bored" with their spouses, and pursue various social opportunities to relieve that boredom.
I excersise appropriate time management and finish my tasking requirements by the final bell, and as such i leave upon completion of my work.
Our experiences would seem to differ in regards to "stability".
NO, there is not a statistical significance between a teacher with 2 years experience and one with 5 years experience.
NO, on average there is no significant difference that an be attributed to teacher experience in DIP exam scores.
Further, your claim is limited to only DIP studies and does not nor can it (due to lack of external assessment) in MYP and PYP. Likewise your claim does not address teacher quality outside of IB.
A recruiters and administrators reasons for hiring more experienced teachers does not nor does it substitute for data that supports significant differences. Schools prefer and even limit their recruiting efforts to more experienced teachers, because it is an easy and convenient criteria for reducing the size of the applicant pool.
Your inference that professional experience and marital/dependent status are correlated is a classical causation fallacy.
Married teachers and those with kids, are the ones leaving early to take kids to doctor appointments or who have to stay home with a sick child.
I know many guys that are equally "bored" with their spouses, and pursue various social opportunities to relieve that boredom.
I excersise appropriate time management and finish my tasking requirements by the final bell, and as such i leave upon completion of my work.
Our experiences would seem to differ in regards to "stability".
Davy Boy
I'd given you up for Lent. (Actually I'd given you up for hopeless.) But now it is day 1 of my holiday, and here you are again as Pontificating Psy.
Let's cut to the chase. What exactly do you mean by this?
"NO, there is not a statistical significance between a teacher with 2 years experience and one with 5 years experience.
NO, on average there is no significant difference that an be attributed to teacher experience in DIP exam scores."
Both of these statements use phrases that imply that you have seen some facts and figures to back up your claim: "...statistical significance..." and "...on average there is no significant difference..."
Can you please reference the research projects that enable you to speak with such certainty about such a complex issue.
And I'd also like to see your data on the next claim: "Schools prefer and even limit their recruiting efforts to more experienced teachers, because it is an easy and efficient criteria (sic) for reducing the size of the applicant pool."
Where does this come from? I've been recruiting for decades and never heard this, and yet you, who have never been a recruiter, have this astonishing insight into the process.
Fine Dude, this really is a contentious area and there are no clear answers about the value of experience. In simple terms, if I have two candidates and one has great potential but only two years' experience and the other has ten years' experience but comes across as an average performer, I would take the former. If I have another two candidates and both seem really good teachers but one has two years' experience and the other five, then of course I would take the latter. Why? Because to teach well is difficult and the more you do it, then usually the better you get at it - at least up to a point.
Dave Jaw, I loved your last sentence: "Our experiences would seem to differ in regards to 'stability'." How do you keep a straight face when you write this stuff? You're the guy who makes a nonsense of this "experience" thing. After all, you've had one year's experience as a new teacher ELEVEN times!
Let's cut to the chase. What exactly do you mean by this?
"NO, there is not a statistical significance between a teacher with 2 years experience and one with 5 years experience.
NO, on average there is no significant difference that an be attributed to teacher experience in DIP exam scores."
Both of these statements use phrases that imply that you have seen some facts and figures to back up your claim: "...statistical significance..." and "...on average there is no significant difference..."
Can you please reference the research projects that enable you to speak with such certainty about such a complex issue.
And I'd also like to see your data on the next claim: "Schools prefer and even limit their recruiting efforts to more experienced teachers, because it is an easy and efficient criteria (sic) for reducing the size of the applicant pool."
Where does this come from? I've been recruiting for decades and never heard this, and yet you, who have never been a recruiter, have this astonishing insight into the process.
Fine Dude, this really is a contentious area and there are no clear answers about the value of experience. In simple terms, if I have two candidates and one has great potential but only two years' experience and the other has ten years' experience but comes across as an average performer, I would take the former. If I have another two candidates and both seem really good teachers but one has two years' experience and the other five, then of course I would take the latter. Why? Because to teach well is difficult and the more you do it, then usually the better you get at it - at least up to a point.
Dave Jaw, I loved your last sentence: "Our experiences would seem to differ in regards to 'stability'." How do you keep a straight face when you write this stuff? You're the guy who makes a nonsense of this "experience" thing. After all, you've had one year's experience as a new teacher ELEVEN times!
Comment
I missed the league of PsyGuy nemises.
Do your own research.
As usual you dont know what you think you know, i certainly have done recruiting and more then you it would seem, maybe you need to expand your network so that you hear more. (I really did miss you)
A top tier school usually receives many, many applications for a single vacancy, and that applicant pool needs to be parred down. Many teachers are very indistiquishable from one another. Factors such as years of service are used to reduce the size of the applicant pool, despite evidence that a year of experience has no significant impact on teacher performance or student achievement. There is no significant difference between a teacher with 3 years experience and one with 4 years experience. The same is true with a teacher of 7 years experience and 8 years experience, no difference.
Clichés/Axioms such as 'to teach well is difficult and the more you do it, then usually the better you get at it" are not data, and belong on greeting cards or bumper stickers. nor is the Walter way, "THE way"
Do your own research.
As usual you dont know what you think you know, i certainly have done recruiting and more then you it would seem, maybe you need to expand your network so that you hear more. (I really did miss you)
A top tier school usually receives many, many applications for a single vacancy, and that applicant pool needs to be parred down. Many teachers are very indistiquishable from one another. Factors such as years of service are used to reduce the size of the applicant pool, despite evidence that a year of experience has no significant impact on teacher performance or student achievement. There is no significant difference between a teacher with 3 years experience and one with 4 years experience. The same is true with a teacher of 7 years experience and 8 years experience, no difference.
Clichés/Axioms such as 'to teach well is difficult and the more you do it, then usually the better you get at it" are not data, and belong on greeting cards or bumper stickers. nor is the Walter way, "THE way"
Oh Dave
"I missed the league of PsyGuy nemises."
Please note: "nemeses - plural of nem·e·sis (Noun)" It's Greek. I know. It's beyond you.
"Do your own research."
Means there was no research behind your blurts. In other words, you used the phrases "statistical significance" and "on average there is no significant difference" to make those blurts sound better. There is no data to support the stuff you come out with; you just make it up as you go along.
Dave, I run a top tier school. I know how many applicants we get. What I certainly don't do (and most certainly don't instruct Personnel to do) is come up with some slide rule calculation to say Candidate A (with 6 years of experience) is by definition better than Candidate B (with 5 years of experience). Tell me the name of any school head you know who does this. And having avoided this demand, I know you will avoid telling us all in what capacity you have ever recruited anyone for anything. (Unless it was that weaselly pop-psychology institute in Texas.)
I'm very clear that my last statement isn't "data-driven". Good schools are "data-informed" but judgment-driven.[/i]
Please note: "nemeses - plural of nem·e·sis (Noun)" It's Greek. I know. It's beyond you.
"Do your own research."
Means there was no research behind your blurts. In other words, you used the phrases "statistical significance" and "on average there is no significant difference" to make those blurts sound better. There is no data to support the stuff you come out with; you just make it up as you go along.
Dave, I run a top tier school. I know how many applicants we get. What I certainly don't do (and most certainly don't instruct Personnel to do) is come up with some slide rule calculation to say Candidate A (with 6 years of experience) is by definition better than Candidate B (with 5 years of experience). Tell me the name of any school head you know who does this. And having avoided this demand, I know you will avoid telling us all in what capacity you have ever recruited anyone for anything. (Unless it was that weaselly pop-psychology institute in Texas.)
I'm very clear that my last statement isn't "data-driven". Good schools are "data-informed" but judgment-driven.[/i]
Comment
So the league of PsyGuy nemesis is headquartered in Greece...
Do your own research, means do your own research. Since you sit behind the big desk in the big chair, Im sure you can provide a plethera of research studies that would support your claim that there is a statistically signifigant and strong correlation between educator experience and student performance?
You dont run a top tier school, from what i recall your in the ME and there are no top tier schools in the ME. You yourself just wrote:
"If I have another two candidates and both seem really good teachers but one has two years' experience and the other five, then of course I would take the latter."
So nothing significant happens over the course of one year (years 3 and 4) but at some point between the 2 years of additional experience (years 3 and 5) some event occurs that makes the teacher with 5 years and the one with 2 significantly better? Would this be "Magic".
YES, Walter recruiters quantify, and perception of "more" is persuasive in the decision making process. Again, the Walter way is not "THE way".
Data informed is just admin speak for our data can not withstand scientific scrutiny.
Do your own research, means do your own research. Since you sit behind the big desk in the big chair, Im sure you can provide a plethera of research studies that would support your claim that there is a statistically signifigant and strong correlation between educator experience and student performance?
You dont run a top tier school, from what i recall your in the ME and there are no top tier schools in the ME. You yourself just wrote:
"If I have another two candidates and both seem really good teachers but one has two years' experience and the other five, then of course I would take the latter."
So nothing significant happens over the course of one year (years 3 and 4) but at some point between the 2 years of additional experience (years 3 and 5) some event occurs that makes the teacher with 5 years and the one with 2 significantly better? Would this be "Magic".
YES, Walter recruiters quantify, and perception of "more" is persuasive in the decision making process. Again, the Walter way is not "THE way".
Data informed is just admin speak for our data can not withstand scientific scrutiny.
Oh Dave, oh Dave, oh Dave
You just can't admit it can you? You have no research, no data, nothing to back up what you said in the first place. And that's why you try to turn the question back to me and say "do your own research". Man up, Dave!
And the Middle East is really an obsession for you - so much so that there can be no top school in the region simply because you don't like the region. Not quite sure of the logic in all this.
And this is another of your classic statements:
"So nothing significant happens over the course of one year (years 3 and 4) but at some point between the two years of additional experience (years 3 and 5) some event occurs that makes the teacher with 5 years and the one with 2 significantly better? Would this be "Magic". (sic)
Let us leave aside the fact that the first sentence doesn't make sense. Let us leave aside the fact that your arithmetic is as bad as your English (the difference in years between a teacher of two years' experience and a teacher of five years' experience is actually three years. Instead, let us focus on an - (this is taking you into dangerous territory, Dave, but bear with me).
Suppose you were a craftsman - perhaps a cabinet-maker. After two years you would be able to make some ornate and intricate furniture, but of course you are still relatively inexperienced, and so there would be mistakes in your work. Look at you again after three more years of experience. Do you think there would be a difference in the quality of the furniture you turn out? I would hope so. However, it would be hard to say that the moment of transformation happened "magically" after three years and one hundred and ninety days. It would also be hard to say that the progress was consistent and linear in the intervening three years, and yet who could deny that the improvement was there and real?
Dave, are you still with me? Dave, Dave! The thing is that teaching is just as much a craft as cabinet-making, with the same kind of gains in skill made over a period of years. But, and this is a big but, just as some people are destined never to be great cabinet-makers, so some people are never going to be great teachers, and this is why I look for raw talent and potential as much as I look for experience. As I said, if I have a choice between two candidates, one of whom has only two years as a practitioner but enormous potential while the other has ten years' experience but doesn't seem to be anything other than average, then I would take the former.
Does that make sense, Dave? Please say "yes"; it would make me so happy.
As for the data-driven bit, Dave, unlike you I don't have quite so much faith in the unambiguity of data that is produced in the field of social science. At best, it will suggest or indicate, but it will not prove. Even science, with all the advantages of laboratory conditions and replicability of experiments, assumes at its core that present day theories will change as evidence and experience change. Social science has many more imponderables than science. Hence, my initial skepticism with your insinuation that someone had come up with a research construct that could show data explaining the significance of teacher experience as it impacts student learning and its subsequent manifestation in IB scores. I mean really can you think of all the variables at play in a research scenario like this! That is why I look at the data for information and indication, but I use my judgment to make the best decision.[/b]
And the Middle East is really an obsession for you - so much so that there can be no top school in the region simply because you don't like the region. Not quite sure of the logic in all this.
And this is another of your classic statements:
"So nothing significant happens over the course of one year (years 3 and 4) but at some point between the two years of additional experience (years 3 and 5) some event occurs that makes the teacher with 5 years and the one with 2 significantly better? Would this be "Magic". (sic)
Let us leave aside the fact that the first sentence doesn't make sense. Let us leave aside the fact that your arithmetic is as bad as your English (the difference in years between a teacher of two years' experience and a teacher of five years' experience is actually three years. Instead, let us focus on an - (this is taking you into dangerous territory, Dave, but bear with me).
Suppose you were a craftsman - perhaps a cabinet-maker. After two years you would be able to make some ornate and intricate furniture, but of course you are still relatively inexperienced, and so there would be mistakes in your work. Look at you again after three more years of experience. Do you think there would be a difference in the quality of the furniture you turn out? I would hope so. However, it would be hard to say that the moment of transformation happened "magically" after three years and one hundred and ninety days. It would also be hard to say that the progress was consistent and linear in the intervening three years, and yet who could deny that the improvement was there and real?
Dave, are you still with me? Dave, Dave! The thing is that teaching is just as much a craft as cabinet-making, with the same kind of gains in skill made over a period of years. But, and this is a big but, just as some people are destined never to be great cabinet-makers, so some people are never going to be great teachers, and this is why I look for raw talent and potential as much as I look for experience. As I said, if I have a choice between two candidates, one of whom has only two years as a practitioner but enormous potential while the other has ten years' experience but doesn't seem to be anything other than average, then I would take the former.
Does that make sense, Dave? Please say "yes"; it would make me so happy.
As for the data-driven bit, Dave, unlike you I don't have quite so much faith in the unambiguity of data that is produced in the field of social science. At best, it will suggest or indicate, but it will not prove. Even science, with all the advantages of laboratory conditions and replicability of experiments, assumes at its core that present day theories will change as evidence and experience change. Social science has many more imponderables than science. Hence, my initial skepticism with your insinuation that someone had come up with a research construct that could show data explaining the significance of teacher experience as it impacts student learning and its subsequent manifestation in IB scores. I mean really can you think of all the variables at play in a research scenario like this! That is why I look at the data for information and indication, but I use my judgment to make the best decision.[/b]
Isn't this strange?
"Instead, let us focus on an -"
The missing word is "a n a l o g y". No matter how many times it appeared in the submission, by the time it was displayed there was a dash instead of the word. Can anyone explain why "-" won't show? Surely not because someone may get excited by the first four letters?
The missing word is "a n a l o g y". No matter how many times it appeared in the submission, by the time it was displayed there was a dash instead of the word. Can anyone explain why "-" won't show? Surely not because someone may get excited by the first four letters?
-
escapeartist
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:39 pm
Discussion
The language filters are not very sophisticated, they are not designed to evaluate words in context, but to keep this forum "clean" and to do so with a minimum level of computing resources requires an almost sanitization approach to content filtering. No one is getting excited, as likely no one is actually screening content with their eyes, but instead are delegated to somewhat crude filtering algorithms.
If my claims were so preposterous and unsubstantiated you should have been able to find some rather easily. I dont see any research or citations to refute my claims and support your position, as you likley discovered that their isnt any. Like always you dont know what you think you know.
The ME is poo, and no amount of polish and shine mediates that quality. The only admins that make a career there are those that cant even get paroled out of the ME.
I see we may have to add numeracy to your reading problem as well. You stated:
"What I certainly don't do (and most certainly don't instruct Personnel to do) is come up with some slide rule calculation to say Candidate A (with 6 years of experience) is by definition better than Candidate B (with 5 years of experience)."
The difference between 5 years and 6 years experience in one year (6-5=1), by that statement I inferred that you concur that nothing significant occurs in one year.
Earlier you made another statement:
"If I have another two candidates and both seem really good teachers but one has two years' experience and the other five, then of course I would take the latter."
The difference between 5 years experience and 2 years experience is 3 years (5-2=3). I infer from this statement that a period of 3 years is significant to make the teacher with greater experience "better" then the one with lessor experience. Your magic event.
Subtracting the "one year" of insignificant experience from the "three years" of significant experience leads to the conclusion that the "magic" occurs some time between two years experience and three years experience.
I know you can do this, and if you keep at it you will improve these fundamental skills. Then we can work on advance definitions and terms like "significance".
There was one carpenter around 0 B.C. who was pretty accomplished from birth, he was actually born in your region. You should look into it, its a fascinating story.
The primary error in your --ogy assumes that learning and performance are linear and progress at the same rate for all subjects. There is no evidence to support such an assumption. A craftsmen after two years experience ma have significantly different levels of performance to another craftsman with the same amount of experience. One subjects progress may be very remedial, and another may very well have exceeded that their teacher.
The performance difference at T2 , 5 years (2+3=5) may have very small increases, very large increases, or maybe perhaps even a drop in performance rate, depending o many factors including the instrument resolution and the performance cap.
Your second error is to confuse perceptual improvement with real improvement or a "true" difference.
Your third error, is a lack of operational definition for "improvement" when evaluating aesthetic characteristics. At best your expressing a preference, that does not share universal agreement.
Your summary assumes that event outcomes are predetermined. If destiny dictated success and failure in achievement, there would be little impact from teaching and the subsequent learning process. Why teach at all if success is pre-determined on the natural disposition of an individuals raw talent and potential. If the sculpture is already in the marble, then the ability of the sculptor is immaterial.
The strong inference law of science dictates that science can not prove anything, only that science can disprove. The assumption at the foundation of hypothesis testing whether social science or natural science is always to accept the null hypothesis.
YES i REALLY can appreciate all the extraneous factors and variables that go into a model, and why the research as i claimed has to accept that "THERE IS NO STATISTCALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE" between teachers with 3 years experience and those 5 years experience, or that their is no difference between a teacher with 8 years experience and one with 9 years, because the research MUST accept the null hypothesis, that their is no difference in absence of data to support there is.
THANK YOU FOR AGREEING WITH ME.
If my claims were so preposterous and unsubstantiated you should have been able to find some rather easily. I dont see any research or citations to refute my claims and support your position, as you likley discovered that their isnt any. Like always you dont know what you think you know.
The ME is poo, and no amount of polish and shine mediates that quality. The only admins that make a career there are those that cant even get paroled out of the ME.
I see we may have to add numeracy to your reading problem as well. You stated:
"What I certainly don't do (and most certainly don't instruct Personnel to do) is come up with some slide rule calculation to say Candidate A (with 6 years of experience) is by definition better than Candidate B (with 5 years of experience)."
The difference between 5 years and 6 years experience in one year (6-5=1), by that statement I inferred that you concur that nothing significant occurs in one year.
Earlier you made another statement:
"If I have another two candidates and both seem really good teachers but one has two years' experience and the other five, then of course I would take the latter."
The difference between 5 years experience and 2 years experience is 3 years (5-2=3). I infer from this statement that a period of 3 years is significant to make the teacher with greater experience "better" then the one with lessor experience. Your magic event.
Subtracting the "one year" of insignificant experience from the "three years" of significant experience leads to the conclusion that the "magic" occurs some time between two years experience and three years experience.
I know you can do this, and if you keep at it you will improve these fundamental skills. Then we can work on advance definitions and terms like "significance".
There was one carpenter around 0 B.C. who was pretty accomplished from birth, he was actually born in your region. You should look into it, its a fascinating story.
The primary error in your --ogy assumes that learning and performance are linear and progress at the same rate for all subjects. There is no evidence to support such an assumption. A craftsmen after two years experience ma have significantly different levels of performance to another craftsman with the same amount of experience. One subjects progress may be very remedial, and another may very well have exceeded that their teacher.
The performance difference at T2 , 5 years (2+3=5) may have very small increases, very large increases, or maybe perhaps even a drop in performance rate, depending o many factors including the instrument resolution and the performance cap.
Your second error is to confuse perceptual improvement with real improvement or a "true" difference.
Your third error, is a lack of operational definition for "improvement" when evaluating aesthetic characteristics. At best your expressing a preference, that does not share universal agreement.
Your summary assumes that event outcomes are predetermined. If destiny dictated success and failure in achievement, there would be little impact from teaching and the subsequent learning process. Why teach at all if success is pre-determined on the natural disposition of an individuals raw talent and potential. If the sculpture is already in the marble, then the ability of the sculptor is immaterial.
The strong inference law of science dictates that science can not prove anything, only that science can disprove. The assumption at the foundation of hypothesis testing whether social science or natural science is always to accept the null hypothesis.
YES i REALLY can appreciate all the extraneous factors and variables that go into a model, and why the research as i claimed has to accept that "THERE IS NO STATISTCALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE" between teachers with 3 years experience and those 5 years experience, or that their is no difference between a teacher with 8 years experience and one with 9 years, because the research MUST accept the null hypothesis, that their is no difference in absence of data to support there is.
THANK YOU FOR AGREEING WITH ME.