Jump to content

Talk:Arizona: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Education: comment
Wickifrank (talk | contribs)
427 edits
Line 55: Line 55:


:The statement you added sounded like it meant to impugn the change because it did not explain both positions. The source you cited included more information after the word "however" which you neglected to include, thus failing to take a neutral stance. The law says that in response to a teacher shortage in Arizona, school districts are free to hire people with “expertise in a content area or subject matter.” The law allows "much of the decision on who is qualified up to local school superintendents rather than the state Department of Education." Teachers still need to be qualified, just in a different way and only as administered by the State education dept. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b>]] 03:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
:The statement you added sounded like it meant to impugn the change because it did not explain both positions. The source you cited included more information after the word "however" which you neglected to include, thus failing to take a neutral stance. The law says that in response to a teacher shortage in Arizona, school districts are free to hire people with “expertise in a content area or subject matter.” The law allows "much of the decision on who is qualified up to local school superintendents rather than the state Department of Education." Teachers still need to be qualified, just in a different way and only as administered by the State education dept. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b>]] 03:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

:: I think that you have just proved my point . Those employed in Arizona public schools are no longer required by the State to be qualified to "teach" - itself a skill beyond having knowledge of a subject area. The article is about Arizona law - not local school superintendents who you imply will be wise and ignore the policy - and I made no comment on whether the policy was wise as that would not be be NPOV. [[User:Wickifrank|Wickifrank]] ([[User talk:Wickifrank|talk]]) 11:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:23, 15 May 2017

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Former good article nomineeArizona was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 19, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Education

My edit on education was reverted alleging contrary to NPOV . I had added that teachers are no longer required to have a teaching qualification. This is a statement of fact not an opinion - see reference. It is also notable, as Arizona is unusual in allowing this. I see no justification for reverting this and will reinstate my edit unless some more serious justification is posted here.Wickifrank (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement you added sounded like it meant to impugn the change because it did not explain both positions. The source you cited included more information after the word "however" which you neglected to include, thus failing to take a neutral stance. The law says that in response to a teacher shortage in Arizona, school districts are free to hire people with “expertise in a content area or subject matter.” The law allows "much of the decision on who is qualified up to local school superintendents rather than the state Department of Education." Teachers still need to be qualified, just in a different way and only as administered by the State education dept. MB 03:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have just proved my point . Those employed in Arizona public schools are no longer required by the State to be qualified to "teach" - itself a skill beyond having knowledge of a subject area. The article is about Arizona law - not local school superintendents who you imply will be wise and ignore the policy - and I made no comment on whether the policy was wise as that would not be be NPOV. Wickifrank (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arizona&oldid=780480302"