It would obviously have to be on a case-by-case basis, but it is not uncommon. Abd in fact most every field offers some level of waivers if the person requesting can show that their experience and background and trianing has already covered it.

IANAL but I do think that it is still possible (although not as likely) to gain admittance to the law by apprenticeship without ever going to law school. At least in some states.

I have no problems with requiring folks to take some certification courses but I also think we can gain by recruiting retired military types into teaching and giving them waivers on some of the cert requirements. It is not unknown for folks to receive waivers for some of the requirements when changing fields, based on background and education.

And having attended a Military HS where my mother was librarian, it can actually be a decent education.

Disturbing as well is the prominence of Duncan’s belief in offering a key role in public education to the military.

Not sure if this is his perspective but from I’ve understood the idea of hiring retired military as teachers in disadvantaged public schools is not necessarily a bad idea.

And this is not just retired officers as there are many enlisted types/non-commissioned, who have bachelors and masters degrees. They’ve spent a lot of time teaching and training folks and probably have both knowledge of how to control situations peacefully and how to get the information across to those who are resistant.

Not everything having to do with the military and veterans is a cause to go into full blown panic about how we’re are becoming a police state.

The EFCA is federal legislation — passed by the U.S. House but stalled in the U.S. Senate — that will make it easier for workers to organize unions. Both the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win Federation have united to make passing EFCA a priority for the new Congress in 2009.

In attacking the EFCA, opponents distort the facts and charge that the legislation would end secret ballot elections in union organizing drives. Not true.

The foundation of modern labor law, the Wagner Act of 1935, provided a path to union recognition when a majority of workers in a workplace signed union authorization cards — simple and fair.

When labor adversaries passed the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 over President Truman’s veto, however, employers gained the right to reject the workers’ union authorization cards and to petition the National Labor Relations Board to conduct an election to determine if a workplace should become union.

But the NLRB election process bears little resemblance to elections to choose our leaders for local, state and federal government. In the run-up to NLRB elections, employers pull out all the stops to intimidate workers into rejecting the union. These abuses are well-documented, including mandatory attendance at anti-union meetings, one-on-one meetings, threats to close the business if the union wins the vote, and even firing workers for pro-union activity.

The EFCA would give workers, not employers, the right to decide how to express the choice about going union: through the card-check process OR through the NLRB election process.

If passed, the EFCA will help expand the number of workers who enjoy union wages and union benefits like health insurance and retirement plans. If passed, the EFCA will help expand the number of workers who have a voice on the job through their union.

The EFCA is about empowering workers. And that’s why you’re now hearing more about it from the opposition.

So beware of messages from groups with the nice-sounding names like “The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace” or “ Save our Secret Ballot.” These are anti-union, business-funded groups not at all concerned with the rights of workers.

These anti-union groups aim to distort the issues involving the Employee Free Choice Act. They’re using broadcast media. They’re using print media. They’re using “push polling” — spreading disinformation in the guise of a poll to sway, not measure, public opinion.

And now this right-wing smear is extending beyond the EFCA to attack our labor-endorsed candidates for U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

Our foes would like nothing better than to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign — jobs, health care, the economy. To do so, they’re spreading false charges and smearing unions, the EFCA, and labor’s endorsed candidates.

Don’t let them get away with it.

For More Information on EFCA please visit our website and blog

http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org

http://efcanow.blogspot.com/

http://www.FreeChoiceActNow.Org

http://www.LaborUnionResources.Org

http://www.spfpa.org/UnionBust…..ochure.pdf

I only read the first few paragraphs but wanted to post it on a relevent thread. It fits the patter of breaking out the microscope for both Bush and Obama.

Here is (I think) a great TomDispatch:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/pos…..litarized_

..
– Duncan’s selection was eagerly anticipated, and garnered mostly favorable reactions in education circles and in the media. He was described as the compromise candidate between powerful teachers’ unions and the advocates of charter schools and merit pay. He was also regularly hailed as a “reformer,” fearless when it came to challenging the educational status quo and more than willing to shake up hidebound, moribund public school systems.

Yet a closer investigation of Duncan’s record in Chicago casts doubt on that label. As he packs up for Washington, Duncan leaves behind a Windy City legacy that’s hardly cause for optimism, emphasizing as it does a business-minded, market-driven model for education. If he is a “reformer,” his style of management is distinctly top-down, corporate, and privatizing. It views teachers as expendable, unions as unnecessary, and students as customers.

Disturbing as well is the prominence of Duncan’s belief in offering a key role in public education to the military.

..