think the main reason DbC isn't more popular is the approach that most programmers take to programming: getting the computer to do something. When you write a program, most think about what they want the computer to do when it is done. This is why imperative languages have flourished while functional and logic languages marginalized.
Seems to me that imperative languages have flourished for the last several years largely by competing with each other to borrow the most features from functional languages (logic languages not as much, yet); IMO, 20-30 years ago, imperative languages flourished because they were more efficient because they were structurally closer to machine code, and hardware constraints meant that, outside of certain, fairly narrow problem domains, functional and logic languages (and, to a lesser extent, even OO languages) were too inefficient (either in code overhead or performance) to be practically attractive.
Over time, both with more power available and a shift in the kinds of problems software is sought to address, OO features were first borrowed from existing OO languages and grafted on to popular imperative languages, and then OO features along with imperative features became part of the common core in new general purpose languages. Now, we're seeing much the same thing happening with functional programming features. Maybe logic programming features will be next.
But your explanation, I don't think, holds up, . Logic and functional languages tend to express things in the closest way to thinking about what you want the result to be, so if that was the driving force behind language popularity, I'd expect them to be most popular, and imperative lnaguages, which focus instead the process rather than the expected results.
I fear that this will enable unscrupulous realtors, etc. to make use of income data and geographic positioning to clearly delineate which areas are "bad" and therefore make further attempts to exploit those areas.
Realtors already do that, using proprietary products that produce the same kind of information (they also can and sometimes do provide nice, useful area profiles to customers with the same tools, information is neither good nor bad, it is the application that can be either...)
What's new about this is that is open-source and uses publicly available, free tools; for industries and uses where there was profit or political advantage to be made by application of this kind of information, proprietary tools have been around for some time.
I agree with the other guy. Breaking up "Ma Bell" was dumb, all it did was create lots of little regional monopolies. Didn't like the service? Well, you could always move across the country. Far more good was done by forcing the phone companies to allow people to buy their own phones from anyone who made a compliant phone.
Breaking up Ma Bell is, IIRC, what created multiple suppliers of compliant phones: prior to the breakup, the telephone monopoly was both a hardware and service monopoly.
Breaking the local from the long-distance portion (another part of the breakup), also enabled long-distance service competition, even though local service remained a regional monopoly.
Currently, basic principles of net neutrality are enforced as a matter of FCC policy/regulation; the debate is between the telcos who want to erase those regulations, and the net neutrality advocates who want to make them law.
So, if we "get" net neutrality, most likely you will see no change from what you see now, except that deriving from new technological developments. If the telcos win, and your VoIP service is from someone other than your internet provider, well, don't count on it lasting, whether or not your neighbor ever fires up BitTorrent.
My take: the real fear is monopoly control of the Internet. Since monopolies are a problem independent of the Internet, we need to strengthen anti-monopoly laws rather than pretend we're living like it's 1969 on the ARPANET.
Monopolies are certainly a problem independent of the internet, but they are problems that, experience has shown, require, in addition to general solutions (like the various anti-trust laws), more focussed controls in certain domains (like the common carrier provisions that apply to "telecommunication services", like telephone systems.)
The root of the net neutrality debate in the US is the decision of the FCC to resolve the different handling of cable broadband (which did not come under the "telecommunication services" common carrier rules) and DSL service (which did) by putting both outside the coverage of that regulation, rather than placing broadband service generally within those common carrier rules.
Which now has the telephone giants, limited in their ability to leverage control of telephone lines as such by the common carrier rules applied to them, rushing to do what they could not do under those regulations by dominating the VoIP and network services with which they want to replace traditional phone service, and over which the same controls do not exist.
And weakening net neutrality is part of the means of acheiving that.
It makes sense that an ISP with a given set of customers would want to extort content providers by slowing down the connections to those who don't engage in payola. But wouldn't that put the ISP at a big disadvantage compared to another ISP that continues to upgrade the speed of connections and not charge the content providers?
In many regions there are a very small number of ISPs (particularly if you count only those that own the fiber rather than those that just provide service on the phone companies lines); the absence of neutrality would mean the small number of major players would be able to create even larger barriers to competition from upstarts, and reinforce their narrow control of the marketplace (which often amounts to regional monopolies.)
Competitive disadvantage only matters when there is effective competition, the whole point of eliminating network neutrality is to allow the big boys to insulate themselves against competition.
I think a neutral network is a great idea, but it doesn't have to be enforced by the government exactly because those who abuse the market willlose out quite naturally.
Um, no. Everyone may lose, but those who most abuse the market will be the ones who lose least, in precisely the sense of the classical tragedy of the commons. Indeed, that's precisely why everyone is likely to lose, because the absence of neutrality rules promotes ever greater abuse. Which is precisely why a regulatory and enforcement regime is needed.
Neutrality is the natural state of the network.
"The network" is not natural and has no natural state. The network has previously been largely neutral because of government policies enforcing certain aspects of neutrality on important parts of the network, though those policies are currently only in the form of shifting FCC practices, not law.
Someone should have told Norman about these words: rumor and lie.
Norman Mailer was not exactly unskilled in the use of language; a "factoid" might be either a rumor or a lie, but is distinguished from either in the perception of authority and the mechanism by which that perceived authority is attained. The terms overlap, but are usefully distinct.
Wales proposes contacting people at "valid email addresses" but how does that help? My email is not JoeSmithProf@Harvard.edu, it's smithj@harvard.edu. There is nothing to differentiate me from an undergrad or the housekeeping staff.
Contacting at the valid e-mail address is one possible recommended step for confirming that the person with the verifiable credentials is, in fact, the same person posting to Wikipedia.
Confirming that the e-mail address connects to someone with verifiable credentials is more difficult, but often not intractable. Often, organizations have publicly-listed directories that would allow verifying this. Usually, the person claiming credentials should be able to provide a verifiable public trail. Even when they can't, note that another suggestion made is for another user to personally vouch for the claimed credentials from personal knowledge (of course, for that to be credible, the vouching user would have to have some verifiability of their own.)
And if the founding principle of the organization is that I can't use my credentials alone to win arguments, why would it matter if I had a PhD or not?
(1) Because that principle is an ideal that Wikipedia users are expected to keep in mind, not something that they will universally follow. People are swayed by perceived authority, and there is a limited ability of policy to stop that from influencing how people respond; so aligning perceived credentials with actual credentials helps manage dishonest abuse.
(2) Further, even if credentials alone shouldn't win arguments, they aren't always presented alone.
The change does not involve requiring credentials to edit Wikipedia, it proposes a community-based process for documenting verification of credentials claimed by Wikipedia users.
Typical out of college job for a liberal arts student at a non top-50 University?
Uh, yeah, in fact. The entry level analytical classifications in the California State Government (most generally, the Staff Services Analyst class, but there are numerous more specialized classes used by particular agencies with similar requirements), for instance require a Bachelor's degree in any field and taking a test of difficulty comparable to the CBEST required of teachers (including substitutes) in California. And doesn't require you to pay out of pocket for a background check in order to be admitted to the classification, like teaching (even substitute teaching) does. Starting pay is better, advancement faster, and you rarely have to purchase your own supplies, either.
That's a typical job for an engineering/math/science (or business school finance track) student that chooses to enter a financial job. But someone with a degree in English, Literature, History, etc.? They aren't getting analyst jobs.
A substantial fraction of the people I know in public sector analyst jobs have degrees in English (including Literature), History, or social science and entered those kind of jobs either immediately or shortly after completing college.
Admittedly, such jobs are less available outside of major urban areas, but then, the poster to whom I was responding focussed their comparison on the urban environment.
What's the point of citing sources about theology?
The same as citing sources about anything else.
It's all made up stuff anyway.
Granting, arguendo, that that is true, so are (by definition) all works of fiction. Nevertheless, if I am describing the content, authorship, and context of a particular work of fiction on Wikipedia, I will be expected to cite sources for the fact claims in that description just as much as if I were writing about, say, Quantum Mechanics.
Why would it matter if "credentials" were accurate, if the information provided by said person(s) was accurate and worthwhile?
Claimed credentials are information provided by the person in question.
Your question therefore presupposes a logical contradiction.
Note that the issue is not requiring people to have credentials, it is requiring claims of credentials to be verifiable. Wikipedia wanting fact claims from contributors to be verifiable is hardly new.
Correlation does not imply causation. Learned that one in college...
But can you apply it? Absence of correlation in the direction you want to claim does imply absence of causation. Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to establish causation. That there is a statistically significant correlation between unionization and outcomes in the opposite direction necessary to support the claim that unionization harms outcomes certainly does not prove that unionization produces good results, but it is, OTOH, strong evidence against the claim that unionization produces bad results, since establishing that requires showing both a correlation between unionization and bad results and proposing a testable hypothesis as to a mechanism which provides a causal explanation for that correlation (and then, testing that hypothesis by validating its other predictions.)
I live in CA and have my children in a private elementary school. I pay less than half of what the state spends per student for my children to attend this school. Students who graduate from this school are statistically far more likely to attend college than those who attend public school. Further, they do far better on state standard tests, have overall better GPAs once they move on to high-school (even if they move to a public high-school) and take higher-level courses (AP, calc, physics, etc).
Private schools have an advantage that is often overlooked: they can just choose not to take the students that are most expensive to educate.
Comparing per student average costs, given that, is rather meaningless.
If you compare their salary to a receptionist, admin assistance, or other "just out of school" jobs available to liberal arts school graduates, you'll find that teacher pay is comparable
Most receptionist or admin assistant jobs don't require a college degree -- those were the kinds of jobs I did before I got a college degree, and that's true in "major cities" I'm aware of as well; entry level analytical jobs are the typical first post-college job, and they often pay better and feature, even in the public sector, much more rapid pay advancement than teaching jobs, even assuming that, as many teachers do, you teach year round by teaching, for instance, summer school as well as the main school year. Further, generally, to get a full-time, non-emergency/waivered, teaching job you need additional certification beyond a college degree; there may be programs to get these along with a Bachelor's degree, but there are programs to combine Bachelor's and Master's degrees in other fields, too, which doesn't justify comparing jbos requiring a Master's to typical jobs requiring only a Bachelor's degree and no additional education.
Teachers do not have similar qualifications to admin assistants and receptionists in general. Oh, sure, some admin assistants and receptionists might be qualified to be teachers (heck, one such assistant I knew in a legislative office had a J.D.), but that's hardly typical. Your comparisons are ridiculous.
In California, we get to all the time, rather directly.
we only get to vote for candidates who are generally uneducated in the same. which doesn't require knowing the subject ourselves.
We get to vote for candidates who, regardless of their own levels of education, are making proposals about economic policy and whose proposals, if we aren't completely ignorant, we can evaluate for reasonableness.
The preschool teacher is worth the same amount as the person who busts her ass to study and then teach Physics? Even if the AP Physics teacher has an advanced degree?
Um, no, they didn't say that. Most teachers unions already have accepted (and indeed, in some cases pushed for) across-the-board salary differentials based on additional, relevant advanced degrees. What they don't tend to accept is salary differentials based on the subject area you teach.
In many districts with strong unions, having any degree beyond a Bachelor's degree in a field relevant to your job (either the subject you teach or in education) will give a salary differential.
Kinda difficult. The teacher's unions seem to have a death grip on the public education system, for starters. AFAIK, there are no non-union teachers in most states' public schools.
Quite a few states have no, or at least no mandatory, teacher unions, particularly, IIRC, in the South. Does it help? Well, let me just quote the abstract of the paper "Do Teacher Unions Hinder Educational Performance? Lessons Learned from State SAT and ACT Scores", Harvard Educational Review, v70 n4 p437-66 Win 2000:
Comparison of standardized test scores and degree of teacher unionization in states found a statistically significant and positive relationship between the presence of teacher unions and stronger state performance on tests. Taking into account the percentage of students taking the tests, states with greater percentages of teachers in unions reported higher test performance.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's a hell of a lot easier to teach 3rd graders to spell than it is to teach 11th graders calculus.
Perhaps; and if there were third grade teachers that taught only areas as narrow as spelling, that might be relevant even if it was true.
Though I've known people who have taught at both secondary and elementary grades in a variety of fields, and while some have preferred the younger students and some the older, certainly there has been no consensus that teaching one is "easier". Certainly, the subject matter that the students are learning is easier in the lower grades, but the difficulty of teaching is not just the difficulty of mastering the subject matter.
What kind of idiot marxist do you have to be to insist that Nancy Twinkletoes with her Ba in Child Development be paid the same as Jane Poindexter with a PhD in Mathematics?
Strawman; no one is insisting on that. Most teachers unions accept differentials based on additional higher education relevant to the job beyond the minimum required, and a Ph.D. is not a minimum requirement to teach high school math.
A "fully qualified" math teacher could have a B.A. in, say, Physical Education with a minor (or the rough equivalent taken separately from the BA) in Math.
Because among the Teachers' Union's membership there are 40% of mathematics teachers who would become unemployed if a solution were found.
You seem to presume that any solution would not involve many of the people currently teaching math without being fully qualified becoming fully qualified.
This seems, frankly, idiotic, as presumably the people actually teaching math are among those most motivated to do so, and therefore any sane solution would include policies directed at getting them up to speed, probably through targetted incentives to reach the qualifications.
A good solution would help two groups of people: Qualified people who are not currently teachers, and students.
You seem to have no thought things through very well. Particularly, you seem to think that there are a large pool of currently "qualified people" (and, being "fully qualified" as a secondary teacher generally means having a current teaching credential, plus either a major or minor in the field being taught or a special state certification for teachers of education and proficiency in that field) who aren't currently teachers, and that being "qualified" is a fixed state that doesn't change, such that current teachers who aren't fully qualified could not become qualified. These are both rather misguided.
There are probably virtually no people who are "fully qualified" but not currently teachers. There are plenty of people who are not currently qualified who might become fully qualified teachers, though those certainly include the not-fully-qualified current teachers as well as people who are not currently teachers.
At least California has a governor that's packing enough brass to make this practicable, assuming he wants to gamble essentially all of his political capital on this move.
Er, California's governor already gambled much of his political capital on a battle with public employees unions, including the teachers' unions and lost once. I don't think he's going there again. Whatever else you might say about him, he hasn't yet had something blow up in his face and then repeated the exact same thing again.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that imperative languages have flourished for the last several years largely by competing with each other to borrow the most features from functional languages (logic languages not as much, yet); IMO, 20-30 years ago, imperative languages flourished because they were more efficient because they were structurally closer to machine code, and hardware constraints meant that, outside of certain, fairly narrow problem domains, functional and logic languages (and, to a lesser extent, even OO languages) were too inefficient (either in code overhead or performance) to be practically attractive.
Over time, both with more power available and a shift in the kinds of problems software is sought to address, OO features were first borrowed from existing OO languages and grafted on to popular imperative languages, and then OO features along with imperative features became part of the common core in new general purpose languages. Now, we're seeing much the same thing happening with functional programming features. Maybe logic programming features will be next.
But your explanation, I don't think, holds up, . Logic and functional languages tend to express things in the closest way to thinking about what you want the result to be, so if that was the driving force behind language popularity, I'd expect them to be most popular, and imperative lnaguages, which focus instead the process rather than the expected results.
Realtors already do that, using proprietary products that produce the same kind of information (they also can and sometimes do provide nice, useful area profiles to customers with the same tools, information is neither good nor bad, it is the application that can be either...)
What's new about this is that is open-source and uses publicly available, free tools; for industries and uses where there was profit or political advantage to be made by application of this kind of information, proprietary tools have been around for some time.
Breaking up Ma Bell is, IIRC, what created multiple suppliers of compliant phones: prior to the breakup, the telephone monopoly was both a hardware and service monopoly.
Breaking the local from the long-distance portion (another part of the breakup), also enabled long-distance service competition, even though local service remained a regional monopoly.
Currently, basic principles of net neutrality are enforced as a matter of FCC policy/regulation; the debate is between the telcos who want to erase those regulations, and the net neutrality advocates who want to make them law.
So, if we "get" net neutrality, most likely you will see no change from what you see now, except that deriving from new technological developments. If the telcos win, and your VoIP service is from someone other than your internet provider, well, don't count on it lasting, whether or not your neighbor ever fires up BitTorrent.
Monopolies are certainly a problem independent of the internet, but they are problems that, experience has shown, require, in addition to general solutions (like the various anti-trust laws), more focussed controls in certain domains (like the common carrier provisions that apply to "telecommunication services", like telephone systems.)
The root of the net neutrality debate in the US is the decision of the FCC to resolve the different handling of cable broadband (which did not come under the "telecommunication services" common carrier rules) and DSL service (which did) by putting both outside the coverage of that regulation, rather than placing broadband service generally within those common carrier rules.
Which now has the telephone giants, limited in their ability to leverage control of telephone lines as such by the common carrier rules applied to them, rushing to do what they could not do under those regulations by dominating the VoIP and network services with which they want to replace traditional phone service, and over which the same controls do not exist.
And weakening net neutrality is part of the means of acheiving that.
In many regions there are a very small number of ISPs (particularly if you count only those that own the fiber rather than those that just provide service on the phone companies lines); the absence of neutrality would mean the small number of major players would be able to create even larger barriers to competition from upstarts, and reinforce their narrow control of the marketplace (which often amounts to regional monopolies.)
Competitive disadvantage only matters when there is effective competition, the whole point of eliminating network neutrality is to allow the big boys to insulate themselves against competition.
Um, no. Everyone may lose, but those who most abuse the market will be the ones who lose least, in precisely the sense of the classical tragedy of the commons. Indeed, that's precisely why everyone is likely to lose, because the absence of neutrality rules promotes ever greater abuse. Which is precisely why a regulatory and enforcement regime is needed.
"The network" is not natural and has no natural state. The network has previously been largely neutral because of government policies enforcing certain aspects of neutrality on important parts of the network, though those policies are currently only in the form of shifting FCC practices, not law.
Norman Mailer was not exactly unskilled in the use of language; a "factoid" might be either a rumor or a lie, but is distinguished from either in the perception of authority and the mechanism by which that perceived authority is attained. The terms overlap, but are usefully distinct.
I remember not too long ago when floppy disks were fairly cheap, in widespread use, and a known quantity, too.
Yet, they seem to have been largely replaced by (depending on the application) flash devices, network transfer, and optical disks.
And replacing flash with PRAM will be a lot more transparent to users, so if its got performance advantages, it will replace flash much more easily.
Contacting at the valid e-mail address is one possible recommended step for confirming that the person with the verifiable credentials is, in fact, the same person posting to Wikipedia.
Confirming that the e-mail address connects to someone with verifiable credentials is more difficult, but often not intractable. Often, organizations have publicly-listed directories that would allow verifying this. Usually, the person claiming credentials should be able to provide a verifiable public trail. Even when they can't, note that another suggestion made is for another user to personally vouch for the claimed credentials from personal knowledge (of course, for that to be credible, the vouching user would have to have some verifiability of their own.)
(1) Because that principle is an ideal that Wikipedia users are expected to keep in mind, not something that they will universally follow. People are swayed by perceived authority, and there is a limited ability of policy to stop that from influencing how people respond; so aligning perceived credentials with actual credentials helps manage dishonest abuse.
(2) Further, even if credentials alone shouldn't win arguments, they aren't always presented alone.
The change does not involve requiring credentials to edit Wikipedia, it proposes a community-based process for documenting verification of credentials claimed by Wikipedia users.
Uh, yeah, in fact. The entry level analytical classifications in the California State Government (most generally, the Staff Services Analyst class, but there are numerous more specialized classes used by particular agencies with similar requirements), for instance require a Bachelor's degree in any field and taking a test of difficulty comparable to the CBEST required of teachers (including substitutes) in California. And doesn't require you to pay out of pocket for a background check in order to be admitted to the classification, like teaching (even substitute teaching) does. Starting pay is better, advancement faster, and you rarely have to purchase your own supplies, either.
A substantial fraction of the people I know in public sector analyst jobs have degrees in English (including Literature), History, or social science and entered those kind of jobs either immediately or shortly after completing college.
Admittedly, such jobs are less available outside of major urban areas, but then, the poster to whom I was responding focussed their comparison on the urban environment.
The same as citing sources about anything else.
Granting, arguendo, that that is true, so are (by definition) all works of fiction. Nevertheless, if I am describing the content, authorship, and context of a particular work of fiction on Wikipedia, I will be expected to cite sources for the fact claims in that description just as much as if I were writing about, say, Quantum Mechanics.
Claimed credentials are information provided by the person in question.
Your question therefore presupposes a logical contradiction.
Note that the issue is not requiring people to have credentials, it is requiring claims of credentials to be verifiable. Wikipedia wanting fact claims from contributors to be verifiable is hardly new.
But can you apply it? Absence of correlation in the direction you want to claim does imply absence of causation. Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to establish causation. That there is a statistically significant correlation between unionization and outcomes in the opposite direction necessary to support the claim that unionization harms outcomes certainly does not prove that unionization produces good results, but it is, OTOH, strong evidence against the claim that unionization produces bad results, since establishing that requires showing both a correlation between unionization and bad results and proposing a testable hypothesis as to a mechanism which provides a causal explanation for that correlation (and then, testing that hypothesis by validating its other predictions.)
So how does this stack up to the newer JPEG 2000 replacement, rather than the original JPEG?
Private schools have an advantage that is often overlooked: they can just choose not to take the students that are most expensive to educate.
Comparing per student average costs, given that, is rather meaningless.
Most receptionist or admin assistant jobs don't require a college degree -- those were the kinds of jobs I did before I got a college degree, and that's true in "major cities" I'm aware of as well; entry level analytical jobs are the typical first post-college job, and they often pay better and feature, even in the public sector, much more rapid pay advancement than teaching jobs, even assuming that, as many teachers do, you teach year round by teaching, for instance, summer school as well as the main school year. Further, generally, to get a full-time, non-emergency/waivered, teaching job you need additional certification beyond a college degree; there may be programs to get these along with a Bachelor's degree, but there are programs to combine Bachelor's and Master's degrees in other fields, too, which doesn't justify comparing jbos requiring a Master's to typical jobs requiring only a Bachelor's degree and no additional education.
Teachers do not have similar qualifications to admin assistants and receptionists in general. Oh, sure, some admin assistants and receptionists might be qualified to be teachers (heck, one such assistant I knew in a legislative office had a J.D.), but that's hardly typical. Your comparisons are ridiculous.
In California, we get to all the time, rather directly.
We get to vote for candidates who, regardless of their own levels of education, are making proposals about economic policy and whose proposals, if we aren't completely ignorant, we can evaluate for reasonableness.
Um, no, they didn't say that. Most teachers unions already have accepted (and indeed, in some cases pushed for) across-the-board salary differentials based on additional, relevant advanced degrees. What they don't tend to accept is salary differentials based on the subject area you teach.
In many districts with strong unions, having any degree beyond a Bachelor's degree in a field relevant to your job (either the subject you teach or in education) will give a salary differential.
Quite a few states have no, or at least no mandatory, teacher unions, particularly, IIRC, in the South. Does it help? Well, let me just quote the abstract of the paper "Do Teacher Unions Hinder Educational Performance? Lessons Learned from State SAT and ACT Scores", Harvard Educational Review, v70 n4 p437-66 Win 2000:
Comparison of standardized test scores and degree of teacher unionization in states found a statistically significant and positive relationship between the presence of teacher unions and stronger state performance on tests. Taking into account the percentage of students taking the tests, states with greater percentages of teachers in unions reported higher test performance.
If only 2% of the public voted in elections where, say, economic policy was an issue, I might agree with you. Though probably not even then.
Democracy only works with effective, universal education.
Perhaps; and if there were third grade teachers that taught only areas as narrow as spelling, that might be relevant even if it was true.
Though I've known people who have taught at both secondary and elementary grades in a variety of fields, and while some have preferred the younger students and some the older, certainly there has been no consensus that teaching one is "easier". Certainly, the subject matter that the students are learning is easier in the lower grades, but the difficulty of teaching is not just the difficulty of mastering the subject matter.
Strawman; no one is insisting on that. Most teachers unions accept differentials based on additional higher education relevant to the job beyond the minimum required, and a Ph.D. is not a minimum requirement to teach high school math.
A "fully qualified" math teacher could have a B.A. in, say, Physical Education with a minor (or the rough equivalent taken separately from the BA) in Math.
You seem to presume that any solution would not involve many of the people currently teaching math without being fully qualified becoming fully qualified.
This seems, frankly, idiotic, as presumably the people actually teaching math are among those most motivated to do so, and therefore any sane solution would include policies directed at getting them up to speed, probably through targetted incentives to reach the qualifications.
You seem to have no thought things through very well. Particularly, you seem to think that there are a large pool of currently "qualified people" (and, being "fully qualified" as a secondary teacher generally means having a current teaching credential, plus either a major or minor in the field being taught or a special state certification for teachers of education and proficiency in that field) who aren't currently teachers, and that being "qualified" is a fixed state that doesn't change, such that current teachers who aren't fully qualified could not become qualified. These are both rather misguided.
There are probably virtually no people who are "fully qualified" but not currently teachers. There are plenty of people who are not currently qualified who might become fully qualified teachers, though those certainly include the not-fully-qualified current teachers as well as people who are not currently teachers.
Er, California's governor already gambled much of his political capital on a battle with public employees unions, including the teachers' unions and lost once. I don't think he's going there again. Whatever else you might say about him, he hasn't yet had something blow up in his face and then repeated the exact same thing again.