PART 2. WHO IS DR. ELIZABETH GRANT? EXPERT AT WHAT?

PART 2. WHO IS DR. ELIZABETH GRANT? EXPERT AT WHAT?

What happens in the classroom? Do you know?

My premise for this is that children do not learn to read at school, and most in the education programming incarceration units do not learn to read at all.

What the hell do teachers, educators, programmers, holding compounds and systems managers do for 12 years?

Education is the institutionalized word of knowledge, but knowledge is not inherent with education. Why must our children be institutionalized to learn, especially when they learn what you think they do not learn?

The programs, systems, and corrals do not teach knowledge like you think they do. Group think is institutional and institutionally forced upon weak minds. Teachers teach nothing until the point at which a child learns. But, group think, in group setting does impose conditions that stay with children: group, and pressure to conform.

If not to facilitate learning what does the bolshevik/banker education system do?

I did some research on “educator” grant. There is not much information about her to be found. Why her? What qualifications made her the best for this job?

President salazar stated she stood out from the others. Why?

The bongino theorem is in effect: If he’s a good batter why doesn’t he bat good?

If she is a good educator, or facilitator of learning, why doesn’t she educate good?

Is she a good educator or an educator of good?

The whole article is about her being a good educator, not an educator of good. It is gross deception.

But wait, you say, nobody said she was a bad educator. True, but that does not make her an educator of good or a good educator.

You will not find much, if anything regarding her abilities to teach, educate, administer, or super intend.

These things, obviously, do not matter to school boards.

If you read the article you will see there is nothing about her that says she is good.

You will read there is a lot of fluff, narcissism, and self-serving, but not service.

Institutionalized education has talking points built from nothing except words tossed together, to sound important.

If she is the best for the job, why? Capital letters grouped together and job titles say nothing.

I am a PhD in GECR: Geodetic Early….does it matter? Big letters, next to a PhD should give me instant credibility and presumed superior knowledge, correct? And I administer it like any administrator administrates: still saying nothing about my abilities and success, like grant’s. She is a something, good or bad, good or bad administrator, not important to the board or salazar, or herself. Losers, liars.

So listen to me, I am the expert, and great, in case you forgot, because I say so, and so does my title. Unlucky for me, I do not have another dude with a title and professional deception, edifying me, like grant and salazar kissing each others’ asses.

Salazar said nothing about grant except the fairy tale story that she is an educator with experience. How do we know she educates good? 

We do not know.

Let me restate that, we do not know either way until we read and dissect the words of the article.

Let me get you started.