Originally posted by FMFA B.Ed honors degree on its own does not allow you to teach but a B.Ed on its own does. If you do a B.Ed honors without having done a B.Ed you are not a qualified teacher.
You said this: [b]I did a 2 year post graduate B.Ed Honors degree via correspondence at a secular university focused on teaching and learning which included research and a thesis which I did part time while teaching.
Was the "B.Ed Honors degree" not an education degree then?
In the U.K., the "Ed" stands for "education". Is that not how it works in South Africa?[/b]
11 Jun 17
Originally posted by dj2beckerSuffice to say, you now claim you did study at a secular university, despite the fact you had previously claimed repeatedly that you did not.
A B.Ed honors degree on its own does not allow you to teach but a B.Ed on its own does. If you do a B.Ed honors without having done a B.Ed you are not a qualified teacher.
Originally posted by wolfgang59I asked about humanism as well. I also brought up naturalism.
You asked about secularism.
The discussion is about secular teaching.
I have not raised humanism.
Do you believe naturalism is a religion? How about humanism? Or better yet, do you believe they can be a person's religion?
11 Jun 17
Originally posted by FMFIf you look at the context in which I said it it is obvious that I was referring to my teaching qualification, the B.Ed.
Suffice to say, you now claim you did study at a secular university, despite the fact you had previously claimed repeatedly that you did not.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe context was your supposed teacher training/qualifications/licence to teach and why on earth you had no clue about children's development and issues of abuse and deprivation etc. You only mentioned the "B.Ed" a few hours ago. The misleading statements about what kind of university you went o were days ago. Why you chose to dissemble like this, I don't really know.
If you look at the context in which I said it it is obvious that I was referring to my teaching qualification, the B.Ed.
11 Jun 17
Originally posted by FMFDays ago the context of our conversation was still my teaching qualification.
The context was your supposed teacher training/qualifications/licence to teach and why on earth you had no clue about children's development and issues of abuse and deprivation etc. You only mentioned the "B.Ed" a few hours ago. The misleading statements about what kind of university you went o were days ago. Why you chose to dissemble like this, I don't really know.
11 Jun 17
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou said "I didn't study at a 'secular university'". Later you said that you did. Nothing has been "twisted".
Actually your argument has collapsed since you automatically assumed which meaning of 'at' I was using without clarifying it. Also you seem to have a track record now with regards to twisting people's words.
11 Jun 17
Originally posted by FMFThe first time I said it was in response to why I wasn't on the same page as you about early childhood development if I did a teaching qualification, so I clarified that it was because "I didn't study (my teaching qualification) at a secular university" whereas you had. I did not specifically say (my teaching qualification) because that was implied.
You said "I didn't study at a 'secular university'". Later you said that you did. Nothing has been "twisted".
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou are squirming. I imagine you now wish you had just told the truth.
The first time I said it was in response to why I wasn't on the same page as you about early childhood development if I did a teaching qualification, so I clarified that it was because "I didn't study (my teaching qualification) at a secular university" whereas you had. I did not specifically say (my teaching qualification) because that was implied.