I've got some comments and questions based on what has transpired thus far in this thread concerning Dan Lewis and the OP. Some things do not seem to be very clear.
Since there's lots of quoting and writing, to make my questions stand out from my comments, I'll put them in
bold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Lewis  Quote:
Originally Posted by english516 Do NOT work at American School and A.I.E.S., both owned by the same people - Dan Lewis and Hitomi Ishizuka. |
Not quite true, but the owners are related. |
Can you make this clear? How are you two related then and in what relation to said schools/companies?
I think readers wouldn't mind the clarification.
Next...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Lewis Quote:
Originally Posted by english516
Their school is based on a new-age book from 1960 about right-brain teaching...
| Okay, the OP has really lost it and has no clue what she is talking about. Quote:
Originally Posted by english516 and the "author's" methods have been deemed by the American Pediatric Association as "dangerous." They will not change their ways or accept suggestions. They are unkind and hostile towards the employees. | The opinion of the American Pediatric Association is just that - an opinion. |
Hmm... One minute you're saying the person has lost it concerning mentioning of the book/method used and you have "no clue" what they are talking about; but then you're trying to downplay the credibility of the American Pediatric Association's declaration of the method as "dangerous".
This seems to indicate that there is some truth to the use of this method by your institution then? What book or method is this person referring to as you do seem to implicitly state its use/existence ? If this isn't the case, then it should be possible to make clear what method or approach and curriculum your group is using, right?
You as well have not been explicit with the "terms", "pay", or "benefits".
What are they?
I say put such up for scrutiny. If indeed those terms, pay, and benefits are advertised one way as bait and then such is not made available to teachers as a switch, then perhaps the OP will or others come forward to state such.
Moving on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Lewis I'm not here to satisfy you. Merely to point out that the OP is making blatantly false statements. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Lewis
If I were to sign up with an i.d. that others couldn't identify me by and make false accusations about another person, would you be so accepting of my comments? I would hope not.
In any case, I do not see how I can address the OP's comments any further until the OP comes forth and identifies herself.
|
You state what you believe the OP is saying to be false, yet from the lack of support to your statements against the OP plus the confusion, abiguity, and questions raised from the few bits of information that you have mentioned, I'd say you do have an obligation to be more transparent with the readers of this forum.
I was personally not any more accepting of your comments than the OP's.
But I did find it interesting that the OP's very vague comments spurred you to make your statements that were even less clear than theirs.
I also found it equally interesting that you didn't bother to (as I've already mentioned) back up more carefully what you've said. Having felt the need to respond as a responsible owner as you felt you did, I would have expected a much strong support for what you were saying than you offered.
All that said, I again would like to call for:
1. The terms and conditions of the contract and benefits
2. The method(s)/approach(es) and curriculum used
3. Clarifications of the things you've mentioned.
Again this would be only fair to readers of the forums.
Would this not be a good thing?
Otherwise readers might form the opinion that there is validity to the OP's statements if it is felt that there is any dodging or mudding from here on.