Slashdot Mirror
Scientific Elites vs. Illiterates
Rackemup writes "An article at Technology Review examines how it's possible for the same education system to produce both scientific elites and illiterates. While the article is kind of hard on current Elementary school teachers (whom the author says are hostile towards the scientific studies because becoming an Elementary teacher is the only way to graduate from college without needing to take a single science course), he does raise the issue that if we gave these teaching positions the pay-level and respect they deserve it would be much easier to attract Doctoral-level people to fill them."
just trolling.
blame it on Epcot.
15 yrs ago - Epcot was hot.
Same stuff now - boring.
more trolling.
that teaching will be of the highest quality. Indeed, sometimes it's exactly the other way round.
It's just a BloJJ
So what has changed in the last few thousand years?
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
You can try to keep genius down, but you wont.
Improve public education all you want- the bell curve will always be there with a few at both ends. And the big middle has never been that smart, never will be.
Don't fight it, count on it.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Man, used to watch good ole Bill(the scientist, not the over sexed head of state) all the time when was younin. Who says there's nothing good on V to watch?
Dilute the dumbasses.
Import brain power like foreign PhDs.
Finance abortion in cities and depressed areas - recommend it even - especially at wrestling events.
Some students have a natural passionate desire for learning technical things... some simply could care less. There you have it.
The only reason that teachers don't get the pay and respect they deserve is because there are so many people who want to fill these positions.
Oh, and the teacher's unions make it hard to "upgrade".
"He does raise the issue that if we gave these teaching positions the pay-level and respect they deserve it would be much easier to attract Doctoral-level people to fill them."
My city of Cincinnati is far too busy building stadiums.
This article is about illiterates.
Is it really the american educational system that produces both illiterates and top scientists? It has always been my impressions that the US lead in science comes mainly from assimilating top scientists from abroad who never went through primary or secondary education in the US.
The problem is worse than the pay. My friend got a bachelor's in physics and taught high school. He tried to teach well, and a lot of the students appreciated it, but the parents complained about low scores because of colleges, and the administration just panders them, going over the teacher's head to change grades. The pressure of college and scholarship and the lack of highly motivated teachers is part of the problem, and I think higher pay would really solve it. Just to mention, my friend quit after a year to get his PhD, just to avoid the high school system
Stating that we need better science teachers in schools because it's some sort of ticket into society is ridiculous. So is trying to train every person to become a science major in college.
Scientific discoveries are not made by laymen. They are made by dedicated 'polished gems' that have a strong desire to do exactly that sort of work. Unfortunately, companies are not usually well run by these 'gems' (witness Celera and Rambus). Thus, the need for non-science oriented folks.
I love computers and wish everyone did, but the fact of the matter is that it is not necessary for everyone to understand them. Just as the world needs tech savvy data entry clerks, it also needs hair stylists, plumbers, writers, and bar owners. Just because someone's pet fetish isn't widespread doesn't mean that it should be.
My keyboards crapping out on me. My shift key only works about half the time. Hence the missing letters.
Pay the Mega-bucks it would take to hire Cowboy Neal as a science teacher!
They were made because they liked science. I'm willing to bet they could have been told Science was for idiots and only losers studied it and they'd still do it because they loved it.
We'll never mass-produce scientific geniuses, no matter how good the education. All we can hope to do is help those that would otherwise never learn a thing about it. In this resepect, we are failing miserably.
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
In the past (>20 years ago), most high-paying fields were difficult for women to get into. So lots of really smart women ended up teaching elementary school, even though the pay was pathetic.
Nowadays, teachers get paid a bit better, but still not nearly enough compared to other fields like law, medicine, or software. Some smart people go into teaching anyway because they're really dedicated, but they're a minority.
I just don't get how our system is supposed to work. We are cutting funding to education (or at least not expanding it to meet demand), we are cutting back on wellfare, and we are doing everything we can to automate low skill tasks.
So basically you have to have a job to live. But the low skill jobs are being automated because it's cheaper than paying you. So you can either go on wellfare or you can try to get an education to get a better job up the food chain. In order to get the eduation, you apparently have to have money (or at the least live in an area where there is money so that the schools have decent funding). And I'm guessing that if this is a situation you find yourself in you probably don't live in a rich suburb.
I'm sorry that all the rich people aren't filthy rich enough yet, but for god's sake, why don't we fund a decent education system. I think it's reasonable to set standards that insure the school system doesn't waste its time on people who don't care. But at the same time, people who want to learn should not have to pay a dime for it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Isn't there a simple answer? Americans are more efficient than other countries in allowing personal decisions even at a young age on future career plans - so those who are destined for scientific careers can go at it gung ho from first grade, and the others can basically ignore it and leave that science stuff to the science geeks. Maybe the balance should be a bit different - on the other hand overall the balance is determined pretty well by market forces (how well are scientists paid, exactly?) - so maybe our system is just fine....
Energy: time to change the picture.
They are clearly overpaid since they would still work if they were paid the fair market value of the work, and the only reason their pay is boosted above the real value is due to labor laws which punish workers (Scabs! Scabs!) and reward lazy strikers with pay raises: this is like failing the kids who come to class, and giving A's to the kids who play hookie.
Pay for the actual market value of the work, no more or no less.
As for that poor little teacher on those Staples ads who has to pay $400 from her salary for school supplies for her class, isn't this fair because union wage demands have forced the school to cut funding of school supplies?
Seriously... although I am (of course) a science type geek, I have to wonder... why does this guy assume that everyone should know insane amounts of physics? A "cool" physics class (say, a combination of practical mechanics (to understand bridges + stuff), and interesting factoids might help his idea of "understanding physics", but no non-science major will care about T=R x F or Vf^2 - Vi^2 = 2ad. Come on. What did he take in the liberal arts field? "Survey of world literature"? "History of the 20th Century"? Come on.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
I don't know about elementary education programs in general, but I know there was a course at my school called something like "Science for Elementary Education" that all the el-ed majors had to take. I'm sure it was just a quarter-long review of sixth grade level science, but that's infinitely better than no science courses at all.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term 'science' here, but most cirriculum's around here for education require extensive Child Psychology classes. Thats why our education degree is part of the psychology department. And of course, Child Psych also has prerequisites as well.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Now he is spinning his head on Battlebots.
Just want to point out that science is not the sole domain of genius.
The little bio at the end left out Pompous Elitist Snob. What pretentious drivel.
I can only speak from a perspective from the US, but being a junior in high school I can definately say you meet some intersting teachers... However you cannot blame teachers for lack of knowledge about science. The american curriculum is so designed that one will get enough science/literature/anything. Its whether the student is interested. Interest can develop from a teacher, but it can also develop from parents, the actually student, and the community. And i bet, if you look at science performance you have geniuses and clueless whos amounts follow a bell curve....
Learning sciences is important to most people's minds. They learn to see things differently, to analyze, to keep an open mind.
However much we might want an enlightened society of technology savvy peers, that would mean they will compete with us for jobs. So for the sake of a stable society, most people must be kept ignorant.
attracts many people who are pretty dumb. My theory is that someone
who enters college and is terrified of math and sciences reasons that
an elementary school teacher doesn't need much more than an elementary
school understanding of these topics. For elementary school, that
might well be OK. I don't really see the point of having M.Sc. and
Ph.D. level teachers in elementary school.
At high school, and maybe junior high, having this level of expertise
is wonderful. I was fortunate enough to go to a high school where my
math, chemistry, biology and physics teachers all had advanced
degrees and were dedicated, wonderful teachers. (The two are, of
course, not correlated).
At any level, the only criteria for teaching qualifications should be: ability to
teach, love of teaching, and mastery of the subject matter.
I think that there may be some truth to the idea that the system is flawed, but IMO the deeper flaws aren't where Goodstein thinks they are. The problem isn't that the system is focused too much on finding the scientists and ignoring others. The problem is that most science courses focus on science as knowlege, rather than science as process. The reason that people don't care about science and don't know how to apply it in their everyday lives is because they've been taught that science is about learning answers from scientists. If they were taught instead that science is about searching for answers to problems, they'd find it a much more attractive and practical subject.
Actually, though, I'm not at all surprised that Goodstein didn't notice that as a problem. Anyone who's seen The Mechanical Universe knows that it's about filling people's heads with facts, not about searching for knowledge. At least as a lecturer (and I had Goodstein for one term of introductory Physics as an undergrad) he's another one causing the problems.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Are you implying that there is someone actually engineering an education system that fails on purpose?
Or at least the author loses abunch of credibility with a general statement like this: because becoming an Elementary teacher is the only way to graduate from college without needing to take a single science course
I must admin I thought /. was misquoting when I first read that but it is in the article. This is a very generalized statement. The school I went to and most liberal arts school I've ever heard of makes all students take basic courses which include science. My beautiful and wonderful fiance' was an Elementary Ed major, in her major she was required to take a class for teaching science to children-- all elementary ed majors were because they would probably end up teaching it. The secondary ed people were the ones who could get out of it because in middle school and high school there is more specialization.
I'd love to see a little more proof besides just an overgenralized statement. I think the reason we have scientific illiterates is the same reason why we have illiterates in any given field-- because some people play the system, know the right people or have the right parents or the athletic scholarships all of which allow them to buy their way through school.
The Anti-Blog
I do not know what it is like in other parts of the United States, but in Illinois *all* education majors must take science classes.
I am a music education major (K-12) and we have to take 7 credits of natural science plus a 3 credit "Physics of Sound and Music" class.
Granted, the author says "in most of the United States", but it is my understanding that other states are adopting stricter requirements for education majors too.
I don't agree with the article that teaching high school is a job for PhDs. You don't get one of those unless you've made an original contribution to the science. These people are qualified researchers, and their time ought to be spent on adding to our body of knowledge. For this they require spare time and facilities that high schools simply can't provide. But there's absolutely no reason why people with master's (or even bachelor's) degrees can't do the job of passing on the knowledge that's already been acquired. Nothing on the high school level is beyond their abilities.
And the brethren went away edified.
Making science mandatory will not solve the problem. Even when science has been 'brought to the masses' the 'masses' (whomever) ignored it. Most people are uninterested in science. Remember ol' Arthur C Clarke's quote about sufficiently advanced science being magic? Well this is true NOW for more and more US citizens, which is why, I think, we're seeing more and more 'mysticism' cropping up (think New Agers). Scientist's have managed to garner the position of 'wizard' in our society, and as such must learn to respect, use and hopefully not abuse it!
America doesn't produce a lot of scientific elites among Americans. There is significant portions of PhD students are from foriegn countries.
This is even worse, the whole education systems are not really producing. I have the feeling, the situation of scientific illiterates are getting worse (compare to before). There weren't many teachers with well training to teach science before, yet the situation now is worse than ever.
So, pay better to teachers could help, but there may be other reasons that students know less science. It is highly possible that developing a career in science does not get you as good life as you get an MBA. When everyone tells you that you just need to be able to ride certain wave of the rising bubble in the economy to get rich, you don't care what you should have learnt.
A sig is redundant.
Give the teachers more money, but gimme my rebate check.
Am I the only one that can see the inherit contradiction there?
All children love to learn, its in their make-up, its who we as a race do extremely well. The problem is we all don't learn the same way. we need to find a way to teach children individually.
You should see the look on peoples face when I tell them I would support a 50 cent gas tax, if 49 cents went to education, and 1 cent went into overhead to suport the implimentation of the tax.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
-- Shamus
"Bleah!" -- overheard at a press conference
Look at Iowa. They are near the bottom for per pupil spending, and also near the top on achievment.
If you go to vassar, all you need is a quantitative class which can be fufilled by psycology (non-graded statistical reports... etc). Really, the only required classes are a quantitaive, a language, and a writing class.
But I am a physics major math minor there.
so you can graduate from college without taking a single science or math class.
I have some friends who are elementary school teachers, who chose that profession because they love teaching kids. They didn't become teachers because it was an "easy" degree to obtain.
There are 3 important things to consider.
1. It is very common for teachers to spend their own money on supplies because the schools don't budget enough money for all that is needed. This is money out of a salary that leaves much to be desired.
2. Many parents don't fully participate in their child's education. When teachers try to meet with the parents of a troubled student, half the time the parents will not come in for a parent-teacher conference, or will tell the teacher that they cannot control there own child.
3. Our intelligence level, and speed at which we mature intellectually varies _widely_ from person to person. However, kids are labeled early on as either smart/well-behaved or dumb/trouble-maker, and it can be difficult for a kid to shed that label.
I don't pretend to know the answers, but for my part, I just take an active role in my daughter's education.
That's the result, which is the problem. Has it occured to anybody that we might be going about it the wrong way? We throw kids into school and start teaching them stuff, but we never explain why they should want to learn it. That's always secondary. Only the people with the natural passionate desire for learning actually do, the rest are pretty much left to the carefully crafted environment of whatever all the other kids feel is popular this week.
No, I didn't read the goddamned article.
The article is probably justified in being hard on Elementary School teachers. The following statement isn't meant to eliicit laughter: In my opinion, there is way, way too much emphasis on placing children into "categories" or "tracks" and way too little emphasis payed to developing each child's strengths. At least back when I was in Elementary School (circa '79-83) the emphasis on teaching was to make sure all the children performed the same, which is a nice way of saying "Ok, screw the smart kids, lets set the bar low and make sure everyone else reaches it."
More attention should be payed in identifying each child's own interests, no matter how fleeting they may seem to be, or how pointless the pursuit seems through an adult's eyes. The need to teach the basics, and provide guidance to children is obviously necessary, but approaching the task of teaching a group of children in the same way as a ranch hand approaches coralling a herd of cattle is a waste of the child's time, and a waste of the adults time.
Children tend to teach themselves when given the opportunity and the tools to do so. They learn by play. They learn the value of social rules, teamwork, organization, and creativity without any ounce of parental intervention. A good way to stifle a child's own built-in ability to learn those things is to demand they spend 10 years of their lives jumping through smaller and smaller hoops, and ending up basically unable to think for themselves upon graduation. The really nasty thing is, the quality of education is never constant. Shitty teachers produce shitty students, who in turn become shitty teachers and perpetuate the problem. Good teachers produce good students, some of whom go on to become good teachers themselves.
I learned more from my Elementary School's librarian than I ever did from any teacher during that time. Why? I wanted to learn things, and she let me know where to find them. I wanted to learn how to code, so she pointed me in the direction of the Apple ]['s we had back then.
The only thing I learned by doing "book reports" was that reading was an rigorously enforced activity that I had no direct say in.
Bowie J. Poag
The point of the article was saying that we need a majority of people to have atleast a basic understanding of physics. He wasn't bitching that there aren't enough Physics PhD's, but that a large chunk of the population is totally iliterate in science. The problem is that education majors who teach most of the high school science classes don't know **** about science, so not only are they not motivated to teach, but they pass on that lack of motivation to the rest of the students. This causes the ones who do make it to college to avoid all science classes, and repeat the cycle. I think the solution would be to require more technical classes in college (real ones, not just bs classes to fulfill a credit), and to make science more interesting and important in high school.
The Stone Age did not end for lack of stones, and when the oil age ends it will not be for lack of oil. --Bjorn Lomberg
"The United States by any conceivable measure has the finest scientists in the world."
Well DUH! Because many of the best scientific minds from around the world come here because most of the MONEY and RESOURCES are here. If there's no money to do your research, there's no research.
If you want to attract the best employees to your company, you need to provide the BEST incomes, the BEST benefits, and the BEST work environments. Compare this theory with what our public school teachers get and you will see why the overall quality of teachers is so low. The starting pay is LOWER than an equally-educated person can get an office job. School levies get voted down when they look for pay increases for the teachers, often times because teaching is seen as a cushie job that gets a lot of time off. Subtract off of their salaries the monies that many teachers spend out of their own pockets to buy supplies for their rooms, as the schools cannot afford to buy it for them.
Damnit, teachers should be some of the highest-paid professionals in the nation and not some of the lowest!
No, I'm not a teacher. I'm not even related to one, unless you count my psycho mother-in-law. Did I mention the poor quality of teachers?
I know a few experts in science and mathematics who have mentioned to me that they would be more than happy to teach middle school and high school; however the requirement by my state that all teachers have a teaching certificate keeps them out of the field.
IMHO, there is no reason a person who has spend 40 years of their life teaching calculus and higher mathematics should be forced to take child psychology courses and sensitivity training in order to prove to a state agency that they can teach. Retired programmers and electrical engineers have an expertise in their fields that I'm sure more than a few of them would be glad to pass along, even on a part time basis, but the requirement of a teacher certificate--and the hasssle and expense required to obtain one once you have already graduated--precludes them from this sort of activity. Activity that a few professionals I know would be happy to do on a volunteer basis.
Low pay is absolutely a factor in keeping people out of teaching. But the certification process (and the unions that create and support them) are creating unnecessary barriers to the field of teaching that is lowering its quality as well. These barriers are keeping older professionals from entering the field in deference to providing more opportunity to younger teachers who choose to get a teaching certificate along with their four year degree. Frankly, I would have preferred to take a course in calculus from a mathematician or biology from a retired M.D. than from a newly graduated layman.
-Stridar
I dunno why you hold that view...
As an example from my history (bad argument, to extrapolate from a single case to a trend, but it's an illustration and not a generalization)
Took physics: Relativistic, Quantum, Statistical, Mechanical, Electrical. Sucked at most of them
Took math: Multivariate calculus, statistics, differential equations, etc. Sucked at most of them.
Took liberal arts: Philosophy of Science (reductionist thought, atomic thought, etc), Art History, Japanese, Creative writing, Ethics in Science, American History of the firs Settlers, Survey of Chinese Culture, Chinese Literature and Culture, etc.
Given how long people live, how much leisure time there is, how much the world is expected to change within someone's lifetime, now, why *shouldn't* we expect people to be brought up well rounded in everything? Why not give non-science majors backgrounds in mechanical, electrical, and statistical physics? Yeah, it's hard... but pretty soon that should become commonplace and then we can all reserve quantum, string, and unified physics for the physics majors...
I'm have a good 50, 60 years ahead of me. Why should I be ignorant of culture and literature and philosophy?
My neighbor, similarly, should have a grounding the in the science, computing, and maths that will shape his life too.
GPL Deconstructed
Idiot I may be, but I am well-informed on this issue.
I have a more workable solution than paying teachers a decent wage and benefits.
/. posting priveledges?
...
If we want to weed out illiterates, why don't we just take away their
Problem solved
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Check out this 8th grade graduation final exam from the year 1895.
That's what happen when the mob of liberal-communist-jews in the U.S. government force integration in schools and affirmative action in colleges.
Vanguard News Network
Isn't that the reason why most elementary school teachers are right out of college. Because it's easy to do. It's an easy job that doesn't need a doctorite to teach. Doctorites should be left to....well....doctors, not elementary school teachers.
Besides, I'd rather have an illiterate person teach my kid than a 1337357. The latter would slap the kid for not knowing how to spell supercalafragelisticexpealodocious and the illiterate would encourage.
I am currently not obliged to divulge that information as it might compromise the agents in the field
Of course, I should have suspected from the way the article is written... this guy taught my Mechanical Physics course!
Not only that, he's famous for his Mechanical Universe text/videos =)
GPL Deconstructed
There is no contradiction, since there is no connection. Local governments fund the schools, not the federal government. I assume you are talking about the Bush "rebates". If you are talking about rebates on local taxes, I apologize and withdraw my objection.
And, it is said, many people major in elementary education for precisely that reason. Our elementary school teachers are therefore not only ignorant of science; they are hostile to science. That hostility must, inevitably, rub off on the young people they teach.
This is a logic error: non sequitur. It may be said that many people major in education for that reason, but that certainly does not necessitate hostility towards science, and as a doctoral student in educational psychology, I'd like to see the citations you are referencing when you make those statements, Dr. Goodstein.
For that to happen, we would have to pay teachers more, at least as much as what graduating doctoral students get. And they should be paid more. But that's not the whole answer. Just as important, schools would have to learn to treat these teachers with professional respect, and society would have to afford them the honor and admiration that professionals expect.
Is paying teachers more, or "treating teachers with respect" really going to do anything about our problems in education? There is a curious omission that I've seen in nearly every discussion of increasing the effectiveness of our educational systems: better methods of teaching. These problems were all quite successfully addressed with programmed instruction, or the application of basic principles of the experimental analysis of behavior to the problem of instructional design. The problem has been solved; the solution hasn't been accepted.
Several years ago I adapted a program of instruction called The Analysis of Behavior: A Program for Self-Instruction for the Internet. Over six hundred people have used the program quite succesfully, and I haven't worried one iota about the amount of respect that I get from those individuals. How they interact with their environments is another question.
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
While this quote may be overly simplistic...
:)
"I never let my education get in the way of my learning." -Mark Twain
It's very true.
I slept through years of high school because I was actually learning more when I wasn't in school. (Computers, real world training, etc.) This wasn't due to the teachers; it was due to the mundane/redundant subjects they were teaching. While I had a total of 5 life science classes (from grade 1-11), I only received 2 computer courses (the higest language I learned was Pascal, and this was in the late 90's) I wish they had more computer classes... hell, just a larger variety of classes.
If the schools wish to give you a wide education then they should actually do that and not be so damned redundant.
BTW: I could have used a little more time in spelling class
You can't raise taxes to fund these hirings, at least not as much as would be necessary. You'd also have to train the teachers. If you really want to teach better science or anything to better meet needs in life, the funding has to come from industry. This is somewhat the intent of charter schools, yet they are being met with resistance, especially from the current education system. There are some drawbacks of charter schools, such as would you see as high level of education or would it be about meeting the bottom line and impressing investors? Would you see attempts to drag out every bit of money as possible from the schools? Would this involve cutting corners and reducing quality, or could we see classrooms filled with advertising? As much as these possible aspects of charter schools bother me, if industry expects something better, it is in a place to fund it rather than asking more from taxpayers, and charter schools are an attempt to do this.
guk is gay
I don't think you understand something about bell curves and similarly guassian distributions...
Yah, there's gonna be the big pile of average in the middle... but we can also ensure that the average distribution is centered on a higher value than the present system allows!
By increasing education, you raise the low, middle *and* high. We can't change the shape of the distribution, but we can certainly recenter it!
GPL Deconstructed
When I was in school one of my roommates was a physics major, and he was the exact opposite of what the article describes. He'd only take hardcore math and physics classes but did everything he could to avoid anything else (he wrote maybe one three-page paper in his whole undergraduate career). As a result, he had difficulty communicating (he could barely put together a coherent paragraph).
What's my point? It's that most of the time, college is no longer where folks go to broaden their minds. Instead, they go there to hyper-focus on their chosen field. The core requirements of most universities encourage this - there are always 'cheats' like an easy Human Sexuality class taking the place of real science course that let people avoid taking classes that would require them to broaden their perspectives (and possibly threaten their GPA's for grad school).
Yah, you're right... noone's been able to mass produce science genius' ... oh wait I guess Germany did that in the 30's and 40's ....
"Madness and Genius are separated solely by Degrees of Success." -Unknown
The article made me think back to one of the engineering physics courses I took in college. I'd sometimes get in a few minutes early and catch the previous class leaving, which was the A&S Intro to Physics class. I would sit down and watch as a few students milled around afterward, talking excitedly to the professors. Around them were the remnants of whatever demonstration took place that day, usually some combination or dry ice, lasers, and pneumatics. Pretty cool looking stuff, I could see why this excited some of the A&S students there.
Then the front of the room would begin to rotate (the physics lecture halls had a turntable so the professors could prepare behind the scenes) and my professor would slide into view. He would have about half of the chalkboard filled with equations and be hurriedly working on filling in the other half.
That to me is the wall of science. You can come up with all the cool analogies and demonstrations you want and get people excited, but dig into it at all and it becomes a lot harder. Yet you really can't understand science unless you understand the math that backs it up. I don't know what the authors of that article expect, but I don't think they're being very realistic
is that too many people graduate from high school. Look at other countries, you have to actually study to pass the final exam. A slacker like me who gets a C+ average can still get a diploma in the US school system. This is WRONG!!! All you Americans are saying "Russia and China suck!!" but nevertheless the education system (especially in the science and mathematics departments) is a lot better in Russia and China! People have to actually study to get a diploma, or else no matter how much money you put into the schools, the results won't change.
------
Sig
because science is boring to non-scientists. Most of us couldn't give a ripe shit about science.
Honestly, it's a little disingenuous to whine about the state of science education in America -- the same complaint can be made about literature.
Get over it -- science nerds are just like any other type of nerd. Nerds live in a Nerd Ghetto, surrounded by AOL Barbarians. Quit your whining, pick up a stick and make a few rounds around the walls unhooking grappling hooks and pushing seige ladders away from the wall and into the moat.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
has never been the problem, nor is it now. It doesn't matter how much money you have to spend. What matters is how you spend the money that you do have.
Take for example my school district and the one adjacent to ours. They have about twice the enrollment we do. Therefore they get more state funding($3500 a head) then we do. Yet this year the disrtict had a $300k deficit in there budget, while our district had very hefty reserves. And don't think for a second that we're getting gipped on education or sports(if your into them) just because we're not spending all our money. We just knew how to be conservative with it and keep some over in case of future needs. So it goes to show that lack of money really isn't the problem.
Well I guess they could spend a tad bit more on the school lunches. lol.
That's the 3rd type of person the same education system can produce: a snobby elitist asshole who doesn't feel like sharing his woooooooonderful gift with the rest of us.
The only PhDs I learned a measurable amount from were the ones that got PhDs just so that they could teach after a career in the real world. Yeah, let's hire PhDs for grade school. What, no TA? I have to babysit these little rugrats all day long? How boring.
It is a sad commentary on our society that we place such a high value on athletes, actors, and others, who collectively contribute very little to the moral fabric of our society (and many who significantly detract from it), and yet place such a low value on our teachers. Without good teachers our society would be full of uneducated menaces (ahem, like it is today...), and would be coming apart at the seams (like it is today...), and we would lose our culture and identity (ahem, surprise, surpise, which we are...). For the most part, teachers are under-paid, under-trained, and have their hands tied with outdated technology and miniscule budgets, while the military has a huge budget, we subsidize tabacco farmers (at the same time we are sueing the tobacco industry), and waste money as if it were free. Yeah, we can blame it on the government, but we just watch it happen and get on with our lives, too busy coding to care. Shame on us. Shame on all of us.
Smart enough to be rich?
teach, love of teaching, and mastery of the subject matter.
That is good thinking. However, it is not true in most of the United States. In most of the U.S., teachers will be fired from their job for refusing to belong to a political organization that has nothing to do with the job itself.
... and those who can't teach, teach gym class.
My other bone to pick is that not everyone needs to be a Ph.D. in science (I say this being a student of electrical engineering). I started out as a Physics major. I switched to engineering because it's more commercially viable. Certainly pure sciences are valuable (I'm considering getting my Masters in Physics), but we don't need everyone in the world to be a Physicist going around with an elitist attitude. In fact, I'm glad that there are carpenters and plumbers and landscapers and other people with little or no science education. A lot of those people don't want science degrees because it doesn't interest them. Just like professional carpentry or plumbing or landscaping don't interest me. Diversity is not a bad thing.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
"Ok class, The story of quantum computation started as early as 1982, when the physicist Richard Feynman considered simulation of quantum-mechanical objects by other quantum systems..."
"I gotta go potty!"
Zildy
Karma: Excer..ex...excellahhh...realll good (mostly affected by drinking not done in moderation)
Goldstein makes some valid points about the need for strong scientific understanding, but underlying his article is elitism and degreeism. Anyone who believes a degree is the measure of one's ability and worth has been blinded by the education system. I'm sure that when Franklin created the public school system, he wasn't thinking "everyone should get a degree."
Learning takes many forms and most of what we learn occurs outside of text books and lesson plans. The real problem with education isn't what subjects kids aren't learning, but how do we change the system so teachers are inspired to teach and inspire kids. Having switched from physics to literature in college, the physics world can be very narrow minded and rigid. Teachers who really know how to connect to students and inspire them to take intellectual risks are rare.
Before I became a programmer I worked with kids and really wanted to become a teacher. Unfortunately, the system drives talented people away from teaching and often push them out. Teachers are hired by principles and so on. The root of the problem is deeply imbedded in our culture and in bad administrators. Having grown up in the LA area and seen the politics first hand, a lot of the administrators are greedy and self-centered. Blaming the teachers is lame approach to solve a problem that affects everyone. It's obvious Goldstein has little idea of what is really going on and has been sheltered too long.
Scientific Elites very rarely have been taught most of their scientific knowledge. Rather, they teach themselves, where they can work at their own speed, learn what interests them, and not be restrained by the rigid structure of present day school.
I personally have very little respect for most teachers (there are always a few really good ones, but these are a bit of an endangered species) and prefer to teach myself science whenever possible.
So, instead of higher paid teachers, who are not all that useful to those really interested in the subject, more money should be spent on better facilities and suchlike.
And as for the scientific illiterates? Well, science is probably not their subject, so instead of being force fed it, they should be allowed to spend more time doing subjects they enjoy and are good at - be it art, music, english, whatever.
American teachers already make *a lot* compared to other places I've seen. I have my own experience of going through school in a communist (and very poor) country, about 12 years ago. Teachers were severely underpaid and equipment was very scarce. Today, there's more equipment and teachers are paid a little better. Still, the average student then was by far better educated than the average student graduating today from the same school system.
The reason? Respect. Back then teachers were seen like very important members of society; parents treated them with utmost respect, and children looked up to them and wanted to be like them. And they did a terrific job. Nowadays all everyone can think about is money, and the respect of the masses has shifted towards more money-oriented professions. Teachers are treated like dirt by pretty much everybody, no one wants to become a teacher anymore, and the education level has declined sharply. It's not always about the money...
Not everyone wants to know every excruciating detail about a given subject. Not everyone needs to know about the internals of the PN Junction or how a MOSFET works. They just want to turn on their computer. People have better ways to spend their time. Those that are interested enough will take actions to learn more!
In the meantime, technology can lend a hand in educating the public. This can be done by designing interfaces that are easier to use and more intuitive to the average Joe or Jane.
My god what would we do if everyone was a scientist (or at least devoted some portion of their life to learning about it). Who would serve us at McDonalds or take the trash out or throw peanuts at the baseball game?
I dont want to say that the author was arrogant, but everyone chips in somewhere and should be appreciated.
Would doctoral-level people WANT to teach second grade though?
Slipping Away...
An artic
le at Techno
log
y Review examines h
ow it's possible for the same ed
ucation system to p
roduce
both scientific elites
and illiterate
s. Whil
e the
articl
e is kind of hard on current Elementary school teachers (whom the author says are hostile towards the scientific studies
because becoming an E
lementary teacher is the
only way to
gradua
te fr
om college without needing to take a single science co
ur
se), he does raise the issue that if we gave these teaching positions the pay-level and respect they deserve it would be much easier to attract Doctoral-level people to fill them
I think that just saying 'if we pay teachers a lot of money and give them respect, then we'll have more teachers' isn't completely accurate.
While I'm sure it would increase the number of teachers, there's also the small point of teachers having to deal with kids. To be a good teacher (I believe that) you have to really care about what you're doing, and want to teach children/high school students.
On the other hand, you could say that a certain segment of the population would enjoy teaching, and we should make it easy/profitable for them to do that. Which I agree with, certainly. But are there enough 'teaching-prone' people? Does giving people who'd rather not teach lots of money to do it really make things better?
(not that I believe in cutting education funding, but money might not be the _only_ answer.)
Imagine if you could get a job as a network admin, and as long as you showed up for work you kept your job... the network might not work well, people might not be able to connect to servers, but it's your right to be a network admin, because its a thankless job and you were willing to volunteer for it. This is similar to teaching.
I agree - In my opinion, by the time someone reaches high school, they either are interested in science & maths, or they aren't.
For me though, my love of math's and science came about because my father got me interested in it from an early age, and I do wonder whether or not I would have discovered it to the same extent if I had been left to my own devices. I somehow get a feeling that I wouldn't have...
I work with teachers every day... they are an interesting breed.
I'd like a show of hands from all the people who work in IT who have to continually retrain...... Ah, I see that's most, if not all of you.
IMHO This article touches on a a bigger issue. In my experience with teachers, probably the worst thing you can suggest is some 'professional development'. Goodstein may be somewhat hard on teachers, however he is just raising the age-old point that teacher generally have it too easy compared to the rest of us.
So, why not a little retraining? Teachers need to be made perform more continual training to teach in their respective field, once they've accepted the job, and then regularly from then on.
He does also make a point about hostility of people and students, and this may be something to do with the way science is presented by school teachers (however, wouldn't people then have a problem with other school subjects?). But more likely this is just a reaction that society has to the social elites, those with the brains so to speak. Call them nerd, geeks, boffins or whatever, people don't like to see others with so much control.
But maybe this does throw the ball back in the teachers court so to speak. If people had a greater appreciation of the sciences maybe then they'd have a greater respect for the people involved? It's a worthwhile theory, however I really think it's more human nature than anything else. Much in the same way other minority social groups (religions, women, gays, etc.) are disliked through a complete fear bred by misunderstanding.
So maybe we should hold nerd-pride marches? Burn our labcoats?... Maybe, but isn't it all a little trivial?
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
I was talking about 2 months ago with a friend who is very aware of the teaching industry and he mentioned that we can expect to see a shortage of teachers as the ones from the Babyboomers retire. Starting with Math and Science teachers will not be treated as badly as they have been. With higher pay, we should see a return of quality to the schools.
Personally I don't think that this will improve education dramatically, but we should see some noticeable imporvements in science AND literature. Oh well, just passing on what I've been hearing.
Sam
Most elementary school teaching (hell, from what I've seen in some college undergrads, all the way through high school) is just babysitting. If the 6 hours a day spent in the school playpen was actually dedicated to learning, we'd all be geniuses.
As it is, most kids just want to be entertained. A few would like to learn everything they can. A a small number just want to make a ruckus. The teacher will spend half her time keeping the first group busy, a little bit of her time marvelling at the second group, and the rest of his time trying to not be shot by the latter. Meanwhile they've got parents screaming at them to teach their dumbass kids who won't sit still for 10 minutes to be great literary masters for a pauper salary and without raising their voices. If there is a problem it's the teacher's fault. And if they ever try to shield their faces when little Johny spits at it, the parents will raise hell in court.
The only sane thing to do is give up on teaching and be what you really are...a child care manager. And that doesn't take a PhD. Just nerves of steel and a penchant for pain.
Besides, elementary school is as much about developing character as instilling knowledge, and I don't see a PhD being a credential for developing character in children (it wouldn't hurt, it just doesn't help.)
The other problem is that anyone dedicated enough to one subject to get a PhD will go insane in the topsy-turvey land of pre-college school. You don't cover one subject to understanding. You constantly jump from one to another, always disoriented. (why the hell do they have 50min classes in the US anyway?) A high school science teacher has to teach chemistry, then physics and then possibly biology. And if they try to teach with any depth, they'll immediately loose most of the class.
PhDs in classrooms == bad idea.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Maybe I'm trolling a bit, but somehow I find it a bit hard to swallow that science is so all fired important. Sure, some professions need to know a lot about it, but most people can get along fine without. Hell, most people would survive thinking that heavy things fall faster than light things in a vacuum, vacuums being somewhat uncommon here on earth. I suggest that the "problem" here is the perception that a major change in education system is needed.
College and highschool was never about learning, at least not for me, it was mainly about passing tests and doing work.
Learning takes place outside the classroom, when you want to know why things are they way they are.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I may post my original idea later, but for the time being...
I would like to state the fact "Who cares?"
Some people are cut out for complex thinking and other people for keeping up to date with Survivor 3: The Nursing Home (ok, maybe not all that funny). We all specialize in something and dabble in other things. When we have a problem, we go to someone who specializes in it.
Like, you are a computer specialist. You have to tools and knowledge. However, when your car won't start until after cranking it for 20 min. what do you do? Take it to the guy that has the tools and experience for working on cars.
A better example might be an interview that you have next week. You go to your suit to find that it doesn't fit right (too many beers, right). Are you going to take it to a mechanical engineer. No, you go to a tailor who'll take it out a bit. And the interesting thing is that he doesn't need to understand blackholes or neutrinos to make you look good! Amazing!
I agree, we all would be much more competent as a whole if we understood more about science, but I doubt we would live in Euphoria if it happened.
...socially conservative jerks. I really feel that they are some of the most obnoxious, narrow minded people I have ever met. They are loud, unapologetic, opinionated, unfriendly people. They come off as Rush Limbaugh fans and this is at a "liberal" college in California. When I observe these people, it becomes crystal clear to me why my experience in the public educational system was so horrific. I remember having teachers who bragged about being conservatives, for instance. Just pathetic. And now I see it again in college. Just pathetic!
People that get into the sciences get into it because they like it. People into math get into it because they like it. People into literature ... you (hopefully) get the picture.
Illiterates are going to exist whether you like it or not, for a number of reasons. Some simply don't care. And some -- regretably -- simply don't grasp anything very well.
Why do the basics of human nature escape the author? Perhaps the one spends too much time staring at excel spreadsheets and grinding a personal axe. All I know is that when people are involved, there's no such thing as a magic bullet. I would have thought that someone with such credentials would have grasped THAT simple concept by now.
Pop science lives on. Oh, hurrah.
/*
Schools these days are too big, theres too many students for any kid to truely learn in class, a student needs a mentor, or someone they can ask questions and get answers from, when theres 50 people in the classroom next to them asking questions, and the student who does ask the questions disturbs all the other students, this causes no one to ask questions, and less learning.
Schools should be smaller, Classrooms should be smaller,, there should be equal teacher to student ratio, meaning 1 teacher for every one student
If we ever can achieve this, each and every student will truely have no excuse, the system will begin to work.
but you cannot have 50 students and one teacher, and 3000 people in a school,
More money would mean, more teachers, more schools, and this would mean better students.
Its how the money is used that matters, right now the money is being used to make schools bigger not smaller.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
A scientific degree is the only avenue towards a professional career? I disagree. The world still needs accountants, journalists, linguists, novelists (and critics), poets, historians, etc... hell we even need a few business majors and lawyers.
I agree with the idea that americans should be better versed in at least a lay understanding of certain sciences, but a decent liberal arts education provides that for many people, assuming with a lifelong curiosity and willingness to read.
"the best safety of the frontier...will be secured by total annihilation of the few remaining indians" L Frank Baum 1890
TEACHER TO UNDERGO SEX CHANGE
"Mr. Gordon" won't be "Mr." next year
And they let this nut near children????
20% OF U.S. TEENAGERS IGNORANT ABOUT U.S. INDEPENDENCE
Proof that U.S. public schools are dismal failures
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE SO BAD THAT:
75% of 9th Graders Fail Math Skills Test and 50% fail English skills test when 70% is score needed to pass
Rather than teach, Calif. considers LOWERING passing score!
CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE SO BAD THAT MORE THAN HALF OF ALL STUDENTS MUST GO TO SUMMER SCHOOL
More than 215,000 failed Basic Skills Test!
GAY PERVERT WITH HIV RAPES9 YEAR OLD BOY
School teacher molests student; ALLOWED TO REMAIN ON THE JOB!!
SUPREME COURT SAYS LAW SCHOOLS CAN USE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Just what we need, more incompetent lawyers
"STRAIGHT PRIDE" T-SHIRT STUDENT WINS IN COURT
Was told by school he could not wear shirt because it was "offensive to gays."
13 YEAR OLD SAVAGE NEGRO BEAST FOUND GUILTY OF MURDERING WHITE SCHOOL TEACHER
Shot teacher in the head after being thrown out of class for water balloon; faces 25 years to life in prison
FLORIDA UNIVERSITY RUNS PLAY PORTRAYING JESUS AS GAY
Your Tax Dollars at work!
As the article points out, the teachers
are not just ignorant, they are hostile.
Every child enters public indoctrination as
a diamond and is subjected to intense
pressure that makes slag out of all but the
most "ignorant" as in those who ignore
the crap.
Speaking only from personal experience, I believe while the article is correct, there are other issues that hurt science and mathematics as well.
One of the primary things is the way in which they are taught. I am not advocating more touchy-feely courses, but the classes I have had both in high school and college that were the most mind-numbingly boring were in the schools of engineering, sciences, and methematics. While this is where my interests lie, many of my professors couldn't teach their way out of a wet paper bag. They were very smart, great researchers, etc., but horrible at imparting that knowledge on to most of their students.
One of my physics classes was so bad that after the first 2-3 weeks, attendance dropped to about 40%, because the professor was so unbelievably boring. In addition, of those who still attended, over half were unconscious with in the first 20 minutes of the two hour lecture. How is learning achieved in such cases? I know many people in the liberal arts that avoided science courses for exactly this reason. I suffered through them because of my interest in the subjects, but it was torture. Pure torture.
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." -Mark Twain
We dont need to pay teachers more, we need to improve the teacher per student ratio.,
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Freaked out by violence, threats, and weapons in the schools, most big city high schools have backed off from the entire enterprise of education and have devolved into holding cells for teens who are increasingly violent in their protests against these institutions.
No one with a Ph.d is going to want to walk into a big city school and listen to the trash talk and threats from the students and the mindless drivel coming from the adminstration. Its a crappy job.
I also know a bit about what goes on at the secondary level because in the 1980s I made an educational TV series, The Mechanical Universe, that's still widely used in U.S. colleges and high schools.
widely used in colleges?! hell, i've been out of college for 8 years and i still watch all 26 episodes twice a year... ya think it would have sunk in by now...
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
the US has the "best" scientists in the world because it attracts intelligent and high skilled immigrants from other countries (that have a good school system). They attract them with money. That's all. Americans by themselves are morons.
The major cause is the majority of the population
considers science difficult and mysterious.
Youngs are especially told this.
I was raised to percieve science as masculine and
exciting.
-- $SIGNATURE
At least I hope you're joking!
We can certainly decrease the variance to some extent, but there has to be a point of diminishing returns...
At that point I think we'll still be stuck with a distribution (gaussian, bell, whatever), with a low, median, and high value.
So how do we modify variance? There isn't a very good concept of quality control or quality assurance in our education system, is there? Throwing kids back a grade, holding them extra, etc, doesn't work to well.
Then there's the fact that different communities, regions, locales, etc, hold different values and standards...
Given we can't in good conscience homogenize our population (ethically, practically, or realistically), and we can't prune or stratify it for similar reasons... What can we do?
GPL Deconstructed
At one point in my career I worked for several organizations on public education advocacy issues. Since I was the resident geek at these places, my boss at the time assigned me the unenviable task of researching the relationship between education spending and test scores. He hoped to convince the legislature that increased spending on public education would result in an improvement in public education.
I looked at the average per-pupil expenditures for the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. I looked at the average scores on SAT, ACT, NAEP, and other nationwide tests. What did I find?
No correlation whatsoever.
I told my boss. He referred to the statistics and asked me to find three states --three states-- that I could plot on a graph to show that more money resulted in higher test scores. He didn't want me to show causation; just correlation. And not even solid correlation. Any positive correlation was fine for his purposes.
I couldn't.
There were not (as of three years ago) three states out of 53 jurisdictions where there was a correlative, let alone causal, relationship between spending and test scores.
Don't get me wrong; I support well-funded public schools and well-paid teachers, even if it means my tax dollars are being used.
But there is no substantive evidence that more funding than currently available will result in a superior education.
What's the solution? David Goodstein is right when he suggests that well educated teachers are required and that the teaching profession needs more respect. But that's only treating a symptom, not a root cause.
The way I see it, there are four problems:
What can we do about these problems? Get involved. Volunteer at a local school. Serve on a school site council. Run for the school board. Offer workshops for teachers. Tutor students. When the opportunity presents itself, vote in favor of reforms (no, that doesn't include school vouchers). There are many more ways, of course; you're smart (or you wouldn't be reading Slashdot!), You figure 'em out.
MacOS, Windows, BeOS, GNOME, KDE: they're all just Xerox copies
If the US were to give teachers that kind of social status and pay the problem in the schools would be half solved.
---
If actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
The whole education of physics is pulleys, weights, levers (booorrring). It's only after you get into college that the lectures begin to touch on things smaller than electrons -- where the real fun is.
However, the math folks, ever looking for majors, have staked the territory of physicists, astronomers, theoretical physicists, and all that fun stuff. And no one likes math because 1) they don't understand it, and 2) math professors understand it too well, and refuse to explain it in terms that the rest of us understand. (Someone tell me why I understood calculus when taught by an engineer, but never understood it when taught by a mathmetician.) Every good math professor I've had was not schooled in America, and several of them were Polish, which is one of the countries that really understands exciting math, and knows how to teach it. (And yes, exciting math does exist.)
Eventually those jobs at mc donalds wont exsist, i give it 10 years, 10 years from now people wont work at mc donalds, a computer will most likely give you your food a the push of a button from a machine.
kinda like you can buy a tonic now without going to a store.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
In the USA people value making money more than being
education. Education is a means to money.
In many other cultural traditions- east Asian,
south Asian, Jewish, etc., education is
valued in its own right.
Why do we get science geniuses and illiterates?
Why do we get economics geniuses and illiterates?
Why do we get law geniuses and illiterates?
Why do we get art geniuses and illiterates?
Because students gravitate toward their interests and tend to focus on them. Perhaps school should force a more diverse curriculum for all disciplines.
Go ahead and jump! Ten thousand lemmings can't all be wrong.
But let's face it, not even having a bachelor's degree in the subject one is teaching makes for a fairly poor teacher. If I ask my science teacher what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is and he/she answers, "I don't know," that's as bad as asking what Romeo and Juliet is about from an English teacher and having him/her profess ignorance. Yeah, a PhD doesn't guarantee good teaching, but it does at least guarantee competence.
I don't know if I totally agree with the writers outlook on elementary teachers avoiding the sciences - many of my favourite teachers in elementary school were strongly versed in the sciences.
However, I am Canadian, and I do not know if the rules for elementary teachers are different here.
Still, it does not surprise me in the least. In the course of my life I have run into only *five* people who were not Science Professors (or my parents) who truly understand critical thinking and Science.
I am still shocked by that.
The scientific method is not that hard to grasp - I got it in grade 8. Thats when I realized that it was a powerful tool for testing falsehood. I have been using it ever since.
Carl Sagan condensed these tools further into the following rules from the Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
If you are one of the few who understands these rules and applies them then you understand what I mean. I would dearly love to see the population at large appreciate science more, but as it is which gets more viewing? The Learning Channel or Fox?
The sad truth is not the teachers - but the population at large. Some people just don't want or care to know the answers, they just don't have the fundamental curiosity.
Maybe the article is correct. Children do have the fundamental curiosity - and that would be the best time to teach them.
Still - culturally we are left with statements like this from our leaders:
"Why should we subsidize intelectual curiosity?"
-- Ronald Regan
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
This is what we need to give everyone a good education.
1 teacher per student (impossible yes, but we have computers.
Using computers to teach students, students can then email teachers to answer their questions from home while doing their homework on the computer, and talk to other students via the internet to help them figure out their homework.
Better teachers are also needed, so we need more specialized teachers and this should start in elementary school NOT middleschool. Teachers should be very specialized, meaning they dont go to school to learn alittle of everything buy to learn all of one thing.
Students should be very specialized in school, instead of focusing on making well rounded students, Students should be able to choose exactly what they want to learn and how much they want to learn about it.
By giving students freedom, it makes them learn to ENJOY learning, Learning doesnt feel like a chore if you are learning what you WANT to learn.
These key things wuold make everyone smarter, yet more specialized, everyone would be a genius in their own given field.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Then we need to address both issues, not ignore one because we ignore the other!
Science is not boring to non-scientists... Where science is defined as:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
People aspire to science when they think they have the market cornered and start to daytrade... they assume scientific principles and knowledge and understanding, even if lacking the training normally ascribed to scientists.
People aspire to science when they think they have the local traffic patterns down, and learn to drive within those conditions.
People aspire to science when they play with their cooking, crafting new forms of joy and pleasure with their food.
People aspire to science when they think they've figured out men, or women, or boys, or girls, or whatever. They have models, and theories, and examples, and laws, and hypotheses, proofs, and experiments.
People aspire to science when they use their own computers, figuring out what causes it to lock, to crash, to stall, to slow down, to pause, and avoid those conditions.
It isn't science people are bored with... it's the lectures, the classes, the teachers, the expectation of science, without the understanding of what science is!
GPL Deconstructed
The thing to remember, however, is that not only are we suffering from a shortage of qualified teachers, but also an EXTREME shortage of science teachers that are even competent. Your average English teacher at least has a degree in English. If you ask him/her what Romeo and Juliet is, he/she will tell you. If you ask the average high school science teacher what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, your odds are 50/50 that he/she won't know.
The fact of the matter is, not all high school teaching jobs are equal, and since we've got this shortage of competent science teachers, then let's start paying them what they're worth and get the quality of science teachers up to snuff! It'll also encourage more kids to go into science when they see their English teacher driving around in a rusty Metro and his Physics teacher in a red Porche.
I agree with the two other people who (as of this time) have replied to you saying that a course in teaching science to elementary school kids is nothing like a real science course. Well, I suppose it could be, but in most cases I would guess that it's not. I once taught a class called "Math for Elementary School Teachers" or something like that. The actual mathematical content was a joke. The class was essentially an extended propaganda session in which the students read the latest curriculum standards from some group of "math education reformers". I had to read it as well, and it was extremely painful. I'm sure that your lovely and talented fiance has an excellent grasp of scientific principles, but I wouldn't be so quick to credit it to that class that she took.
-- $SIGNATURE
A major hindrance is that many science classes are scheduled in such a manner that it is difficult for anyone with an outside major to take a class without a three-hour lab cutting a significant chunk out of premium class time. Even if it's only once a week, it still (often) prevents you from taking classes core to your major. I have no answer that doesn't involve more money for more lab classes at diverse hours.
See this link for why science is not dull:h ol d=0&commentsort=3&mode=thread&pid=2211170#2211339
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20827&thres
You've described two things in your post: Why science is cool (the measurable, demonstrable things) and why science is hard (the explanation, the theory, the model)
Duh, it's harder. It's because you don't know it. Just like (as an example) Japanese is hard if you don't know it, or cooking tender pot roasts, or building a deck and patio, or laying a brick walkway.
Those skills are learned, and take patience, and practice, and effort.
People figure out how to cook gourmet meals. They learn the construction trade, they manage to speak Japanese. Why would it be impossible for them to understand lasers, and cavitation, and sublimation, vapor pressure, evaporation, Van Der Waals radii, or accretion disks, event horizons, etc?
GPL Deconstructed
be a distinct memory. I always had a love of science. All different kinds. Still an astronomy buff now. Reason for my post.
I remember in 5th grade, the exact details elude me, but for some reason the teacher asked the class what we'd like to do. The rousing cry was "GYM!" I muttered "science". Teacher looked at me and said "haven't done that in a while. Great idea." (Did I get shit from my classmates later for that). I wound up leading in the discussion, and wowed a couple of the kids. I remember distinctly "how do you know all this stuff". Why I remember that day so well... I don't know. This post actually brought the memory out and I believed it was relevant.
Thing I know is that science was not a major concern then. Probably hasn't changed.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
Did anyone else notice the fact that this retard is from Caltech? For those of you that don't know, Caltech has a reputation for producing a bunch people who are able to get very high grades at the expense of nearly everything else in their lives. Nothing creative and really cool ever came from Caltech. The cool stuff came from the hippies at Berkley. I was a science major and I have heard numerous stories about extremely smart people going to Caltech and crying themselves to sleep because these idiots tested and prodded them like lab rats. These are people that would have had a highly rewarding college experience anywhere else.
:) ) and the money should be immediately eliminated from the gene pool. Personally I respect my teachers very much. Looks like this guy doesn't respect YOUR teacher and wants everyone to major in something useless like physics. Elitists like him are why no one majors in physics anymore. It was cool when physics people were actually doing something closer to 1900. Now they are just a bunch of specialized mindless robots. Oh, they try, how they try. Too bad the best advice they can give you is not to major in physics.
Is this the kind of education we want for our children?
Never mind the fact that this guy writes on a third grade level, and uses a highly highly suspect inflammatory vocabulary. Anyone who uses the words: "elite" and [non reading related] "illiterate" is quite simply a moron who has trouble accepting that 99% of people out there don't play by the same rules you do. That's why the trolls love to talk about 1337 haxxors. That kind of black and white twisted vocabulary a sign of someone who categorizes things to make them match their own psychological problems.
So I guess his major complaint is that the rich brilliant businessmen in Texas don't give this guy any respect and treat him like dirt, yet everyone looks up to them. Awwwww. Couldn't past this test, could you, you "physics major".
I think its a good thing our teaching salaries are kept close to average wage. Just like in government, anyone who goes in it for the power (no power in teaching?
I guess the only use for his 15 phds that this guy can think of is to teach children. No thanks. Spare us your great and wonderful intellectual abilities. Please spare us. I have a date in 10 minutes.
Take this personaility test.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
"Let me see if I've got this right. You want me to go into that room with all those kids and fill their every waking moment with a love for learning."
"Not only that, I'm to instill a sense of pride in their ethnicity, behaviorally modify disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse and T-shirt messages."
"I am to fight the war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, check their backpacks for guns and raise their self-esteem. I'm to teach them patriotism, good citizenship, sportsmanship, and fair play, how and where to register to vote, how to balance checkbook and how to apply for a job."
"I am to check their heads occasionally for lice, maintain a safe environment, recognize signs of potential anti-social behavior, offer advice, write letters of recommendation for student employment and scholarships, encourage respect for the cultural diversity of others and, oh yeah, always make sure that I give the girls in my class 50 percent of my attention."
"I'm required by my contract to be working on my own time summer and evenings at my own expense toward advance certification and a master's degree; and after school, I am to attend committee and faculty meetings and participate in staff development training to maintain my employment status."
"I am to be a paragon of virtue larger than life, such that my very presence will awe my students into being obedient and respectful of authority. I am to pledge allegiance to supporting family values, a return to the basics, and to my current administration. I am to incorporate technology into the learning, and monitor all Web sites while providing a personal relationship with each student."
"I am to decide who might be potentially dangerous and/or liable to commit crimes in school or who is possibly being abused, and I can be sent to jail for not mentioning these suspicions."
"I am to make sure all students pass the state and federally mandated testing and all classes, whether or not they attend school on a regular basis or complete any of the work assigned. Plus, I am expected to make sure that all of the students with handicaps are guaranteed a free and equal education, regardless of their mental or physical handicap."
"I am to communicate frequently with each student's parent by letter, phone, newsletter and grade card. I'm to do all of this with just a piece of chalk, a computer, a few books, a bulletin board, a 45 minute more-or-less plan time and a big smile, all on a starting salary that qualifies my family for food stamps in many states."
"And you want me to do all of this and expect me not to pray?"
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Let's face it: after you've had a REALLY cool teacher who totally knows his/her stuff, you want to study his/her field, even if you don't want to teach. Some may care less, but give them the right inspiration, and they could be some kick ass scientists who could help solve many of the world's problems.
Schools arent safe anymore either
Just think of all the money now they will spend on beefing up security,
Really, schools would be safer and would require less security if schools were smaller.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
is the full Woody Allen quote.
Government money is not the problem, government CONTROL is the problem!
Only a free market can create great schools!
So pay your own way - cuz it's the American thing to do!
This public service announcement was paid for by a small flickery banner.
-B
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
Teachers Unions: No merit pay, no efficiency, no competence, just time served.
Funding by Failure: "They're doing well, they don't need any more money."
Funding by Force: A student, no matter how completely unsuited, is required to go because the school system is paid by number of students who are in the building. I was told, for instance, that if I didn't come to school they would put my mother in jail. How's that for motivation?
Massive Overhead: Administration costs continue to endlessly rise, while "test scores" fall, and "not enough teachers" is the hue and cry.
Why are home schooled kids so over-represented in spelling bee's and science fairs? Why is the average home schooled kids standard test scores 35 percentage points higher than average?
To a teacher, with rare exceptions, this is just a job. They get paid anyway. To the parent, this has a *reason*.
Private schools either do a good job, or loose paying customers. Paying customers also means they can GET PHD and guest lecturers, if the parents want them. Private schools, like the ones that Al Gore Jr. as well as most all of the rest of the children of those who make and set policy and budgets for "public schools", consistantly turn out better educated students.
I found a page with an 8th grade final exam from 1895. Read it and imagine having to take the same one yourself at that age. Would you have passed? Could you pass it NOW? Here it is, completed, so you can check yourself.
Want your children taught that creation is fact?
Want to ensure that your children are never taught that creation is fact?
The sword of forced and centrally planned policy cuts all ways, folks. It fails to provide service.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
As one of those few thousand physics undergrads, and a one-time high school science teacher, I gotta tell ya... the situation David Goodstein disingenuously laments in the article is as old as education in America. The boohoo about all the lost talent emerges on at least a yearly basis.
... some of whom pass teacher's highly personal assays of potential, the rest of whom are just dregs, drones fit for the grain mills and the heavy equipment repair shops and retail clerking.
... instead of being "mined", "shaped" and "molded" by well-meaning teachers serving industrial paradigms who have no idea of self-fulfilling education. Schools that are shaped not to meet the needs of state and industry but the inherent genius of all individual human beings.
There's nothing that can be done about it. The author describes part of the problem when he talks about "mining" people.... "searching for diamonds in the rough that can be cleaned and cut and polished". This is how many educators see students... as potential resources
The whole idea of "shaping" people to realize a "potential" is a wrong-headed remnant of 19th century thought, manipulated into utilitarian modes by German psychologists. Until we fully admit that we don't know what genius is, or where it comes from, and that we can't spot it, many of the Al Einsteins will be missed. (See any Einstein biography to see how most of his teachers missed the boat... and Einstein's assessment of education.) But I'm not concerned about the Einsteins... they can fend for themselves.
Everyone who can listen and talk is capable of learning, on their own, all of the grammatical and syntactical complexities of modern speech. Yet our institutions treat them like idiots, or at best sow's ears. They still babble about the value of IQ tests, Miller Analogies and SAT's. Find an experienced educator on the right day, and they'll admit that hese highly-touted measures are as myopic as they are worthless. But... everyone has learned to keep mum about it. It's the system.
Until we recognize that most people have a unique kind of genius deserving of nurture, and not just those we can "shape" into science students, or other "desireable professionals", we won't create the kind of schools we need. Schools that help every individual to realize their own potential
Ah, but who would finance such schools? that don't cater to business, government, or Big Science? There's the rub. Because it's not about people, really, is it? but about Utilitarian schemes and "Human Resources."
No one knows what education is. No one knows what really works. Teacher education courses, however well-intended, are a joke. (I have the experience to back up that statement.) A great deal of educational research is ignored by institutions that are, after all, doing exactly what they were designed and intended to do. Crank out spare parts.
Don't expect that to change.
Goodstein sartorially opines that "Our elementary school teachers are therefore not only ignorant of science; they are hostile to science."
Perhaps. But then, our college professors are not only ignorant about education, they are hostile to education. They pass this dreary duty on to underlings (who often haven't yet mastered English speech themselves) while they pursue grants and "important research". Since they are paid much more than elementary teachers, perhaps they should clean up the mire of their own act before complaining about the beknighted elementaries. Alas, they benefit quite nicely from things just the way they are. They don't have much motivation to do anything about the status quo.
The "ignorant" elementary school teachers (who spend most of their harried, overcrowded, crammed, underpaid days nurturing far more important human features than scientific literacy) are aware of how highly college educators are valued in comparison to what they do.
Goodstein! WHO WILL GIVE elementary and secondary educators THE TIME to become 'scientific literates'?? School boards? Hardly. It ain't in the cards.
Same old song and dance. Blame-passing for a while, then life goes on as usual.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
A better example would perhaps be Arizona. Arizona ranks near the bottom of per-pupil spending, and has equivalent results -- near the bottom. Arizona living expenses are average for the U.S. -- less expensive than NYC or the Bay Area, more expensive than places like Iowa.
Money isn't everything. But saying that Iowa spends less per-capita than New York City is ridiculous. You can buy a 4 bedroom house for $50,000 in Iowa. The equivalent monthly payments in NYC would rent a closet, maybe.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Most of the problems with our school system can be traced to the administration. These are the deadbeats who do nothing but push paper around, much like a PHB.
If the administration didn't siphon off so much money, the teachers could be better paid, the right supplies kept ordered and in stock, etc. But what the administrators want is to maximize the number of students. Money for schools is allocated based on the number of students. Why do schools get upset when a student cuts? Not because they didn't learn something, but because the school doesn't get to count that student hour towards the next budget. It is the same reason disruptive students can't be removed from class, suspended or expelled - the student hours are lost and there is less money.
The education system in the US is set up by the administrators to increase their own power base, not to provide a quality product. The fullest proof of this can be seen in private schools. They provide a first rate education at a lower cost per student. No overhead. One principal, maybe a vice principal and 1 or 2, MAYBE 3 office staff. And the principal and vp often teach as well.
Public schools don't have to answer to anyone. They are the perfect example of bloated goverment and corruption. Take the Oakland, California school system. Many of the schools were uninhabitable - they had been allowed to run down for lack of maintenance. Do you think the administrative buildings were in bad shape? They were in perfect condition and up to date.
While in jr high, the school didn't have the money necessary for the 3 jr highs to get football jerseys (would have totalled maybe $1500 or so ('81), but had well over 5 million to build the new administrative offices in a fancy part of town. There was nothing wrong with the old offices, except they were old.
The only solution to this part of the problem I can see is to forcibly break the teacher/admin union into 2 separate parts, and to keep them totally separate.
As for the scientific types in classrooms, it has been my experience that most technically inclined people are usually not the most socially capable people. The interest in math/science seems to be triggered as an escape from the herd. (Yes I know I'm going into broad generalizations here). It seems that the interest/skill in science comes from wanting to prove oneself better by doing well where most others fail. Another part is just the way the brain works - some do better at different types of problems that others. (I can't remember the names and such, but I do recall reading several articles on this particular topic - some time ago...)
Perhaps some of the thoughts of having scientific types in the grade school level has merit. My first experience with real math was 4th grade (by a teacher who was fired for going too far beyond the required material). The really interesting math/science stuff didn't start to show up until 7th grade.
That 4th grade teacher was one of 5 outstanding teachers I had in 12 years of basic education. I got 2 others in jr high and the last 2 in a private high school. Amazing that 3 good teachers managed to survive in such a bad system for as long as they did.
---
My brain has just switched off on me, so I'm going to end this rant here. Really wish I could complete the thought properly...
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
That's why - there's lots of smart people out there but most of them learn very quickly from a very early age that the mainstream is pure shit and so are the people in it. It's only in the geek fields, the hard sciences in particular that are beholden to funding that the really smart people give much of a shit at all and actively seek approval and mainstream recognition.
The problem is not science education which frankly most people, even bright young people care about. It's that young scientists, those in physics, math, chem and engineering in particular who get pissed off and disillusioned later in life because no matter how much they achieve the dumbbot who used to swirl his head in the toilet or burn off her hair with a Bunsen burner still hates them, is probably their boss and is more successful anyhow. Teachers are angry because of the lousy teachers that give the good ones a bad rep. Plain and simple.
Dude, that guy rocks. I just read Ishmael. What a mindfuck!
The purpose of formal, drill-and-kill education is to strip children of creativity, stunt their imaginations, damage their self-esteem and instill in them a knowledge that they must conform and shut up or face punishment. This is why both Democrats and Republicans are so fervently united in support of "education". They require your ignorance, and the continued ignorance of your children, to maintain power. School is designed to turn naturally creative, curious, questioning children into docile, subservient cogs in an industrial machine.
Want more info? Read this.
Don't be another sucker. School is a scam. Lowering the age that children are sent to school is a scam. Mandatory testing is a scam. All of this stuff is about taking control of the minds of your children as early and as thoroughly as possible with a frosting of pork for corporations and educational bureaucracies that make a buck selling books, construction, clothes, supplies, computers and on and on to the government.
Homeschool your children and break the cycle.
Proteus7
Am I the only one that is amused listening to a bunch of CS majors who had nothing more than 2 semesters of Freshman Physics and a little bit of calc talking about science as if they were experts?(even the high school kids commenting are more educated) How many of you have ever worked in a lab? How many of you "science experts" know a damn thing about what you are talking about?
Rant 1 Completed
Why do we find education majors teaching science? We don't find Physicists teaching bulletinboard maki--I mean education classes. An education degree proves that you are capable of doing tremendous amounts of mindless work(which is what they do when they go out into the marketplace).
Rant 2 Completed
Brief Points
1. How will throwing more money at the situation help? I think that we all agree that schools have squandered what they have been given, so why should we give them more?
2. I don't hate the wonderful people who are responsible for making computers and the internet work. I do hate anyone with a CS degree(unless CS is Counter-Strike). Note that there is virtually no overlap between the two groups mentioned.
3. To the editor: If it stinks then, it's Biology(the Bastard Child of the Sciences). If it looks like Physics but is useful, then it's Chemistry.
Special Thanks to anyone who reads this entire rant. I love you and apologize for wasting your time with my festering hatred. penguinshark
and this non-sentunce is ungramtikal and filled with bad spelled words, but I bet you understand what I am commmunicatin!
Yes, I understand you, and now I understand you to be a moron. That's undoubtedly an unfair assessment, but it's a view you cultivate in that last sentence.
Richard Feynman was scientist and a teacher of science. He used communication skills well - while his science would not have been different without them, his impact would.
Another side of the coin would be Wolfgang Goethe, most heralded and remembered as a poet, but whose work in the area of science was significant as well. To Goethe, literature and science were part of the same whole.
Most people, obviously, aren't Goethe or Feynman. And perhaps I shouldn't bite on trolling like this. But studying literature isn't any more useless than studying calculus - no subject is inherently valuable. What use you make of either one is what's important.
Bringing this back on-topic, my wife is an elementary school teacher. She has an engineering degree and a degree in education. Parents of the children she has taught over the past four years tell me she's great, and I'm not surprised.
The engineering degree doesn't make her a good teacher. The education degree doesn't make her a good teacher. She has math and science aptitude, as well as a passion for reading and history, and those things help. But what helps most of all is that she cares about the kids, and she does what she can to help them individually - to understand their interests, skills, and weaknesses enough to tailor the presentation of the material so they can absorb it.
Those soft skills are what have a "vast impact" on the society around us, because they're what connect those kids with the subjects they're supposed to be learning. Science is useful, and it's one of many things she wishes to teach, but IMO, her "liberal arts" skills are what ensure that the science gets learned.
However, it's still possible to directly compare public school and private school costs. Just don't include the religious (church-subsidized) schools. According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, non-religious private schools actually spent *MORE* per-pupil in 1996 (the last year I have statistics for) than public schools did. Given that Catholic schools and non-religious private schools have similar student bodies and facilities, it's reasonable to expect that Catholic schools, once you add in the subsidies, have similar costs -- i.e., more expensive than the public schools.
In other words, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat liar. But you already knew that, right?
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Ne!
Yes, we have our own set of problems, but overall things seem to work a lot better than in the US.
Bright creative people tend not to get that bent out of shape about salary. Ever heard of the starving artist? That's not why the public schools have such trouble attracting teachers. The reason is that bureaucracy and regulation tend to punish and prevent creativity. The smarter and more creative the teacher, the harder it is to put up with the administration's / school board's / government's rules.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Global warming "consensus" was deliberate misrepresentation; costing billions
Study: US Science booksrife with errors!
Popular textbooks used by 85% of US Middle-School kids, contain gross mistakes
Could be reason US students so dumb in science!
Officials Ban 8-Year-Old's Science Fair ExperimentProject
Suggested That Kids Prefer White Barbie Doll To Black Barbie Doll
Father Claims Her Freedom Of Expression Was Violated
BRITISH TO TEACH 4 YEAR OLDS HOMOSEXUALITY / ANAL SEX
teachers "not to try to promote any type of family or home life as the norm"
University of Florida: BLACK ENROLLMENT DROPS 50% WITHOUT RACE-PREFERENCES
They just can't cut-it without special treatment!
TEACHER ARRESTED FORASSAULTING and ENDANGERING STUDENTS
Tied children up; tied shoes around necks!
HARVARD UNIVERSITY EXPOSED IN GRADES FRAUD
Professor exposes intentional "Grade Inflation"
Harvard Grads not nearly as smart as once thought?
Cuba offers free Medical School toUS Students
. . . as long as they pledge allegiance to Communism
Vanguard News Network
I read the article.
I then laughed.
I then cried, as I realized that the misguided views show there are by far the majority opinion of the "elites" in the University system.
Goldstein has no clue as to what it means to be an Elementary teacher, nor even a clue as to what we should be trying to aim for in our Elementary system. He's looking at it from the Ivory Tower, where all 1st graders are simply younger versions of the grad students he sees; they don't know as much, but you should obviously be able to teach them the same way.
Bullshit.
And to all the people above who post that anyone with "field" experience in a discipline should be able to go right into a teaching position without finishing a teaching certificate: knowing the subject material has very little to do with knowning how to teach the subject material.
I don't know what schools Goldstein looks at, but the vast majority of schools providing teaching certificates require several basic-level science courses to get a degree. In PA where I grew up near one of the big "teacher's colleges", a typical Elementary Education teacher would take a Biology and Physics class (about at the same level as advanced AP Physics), which should impart a really good understanding of what science is about, if not a real breadth or depth of scientific knowledge.
In reality, the type of people who have long industry experience, or many advanced degrees you would NEVER want in an Elementary teaching position. The job requirements are completely different. Being smart isn't enough: you need the proper training.
Being a Elementary teacher is primarily socio-psychological: you're attempting to impart some basic knowledge of how things work, and how to function in a society. Without a foundation of solid skills and (rather rote) knowledge to build on, there isn't any hope of producing a free-thinking, creative, explorative mind. Middle-school and high-school is where we need to focus on taking the student on new paths and move away from rote-learning. Elementary school is for making you a basically-functional citizen.
Final lesson: never let the PhDs run primary or secondary education. They have their own agenda, and have no clue as to what they're really dealing with.
If you want my opinion, the vast majority of primary and secondary school teachers are doing a good job. Sure, there are a minority of bad teachers, but the major problems don't lie with the teachers: they lie with the school boards, the administrators, and ultimately, the parents. Fix the things wrong there first, then worry about the teachers.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
The Wall Street Journal had an article last week about a superb maths teacher in NYC (he was previously coach for the Romanian national math team) who is thinking about leaving (much to the chagrin of students at his schools) because with his skills he can easily make much more. Same article quoted figures for one school district. I don't remember the exact figures or where the district was (I think a big east coast city), but the ration of applicants/open positions for math/science teachers was tiny, for English teachers that ratio was huge. Again, I don't remember the numbers, but my impression was that it would be easier to get into an ivy league school than to get an English teaching job in that school district.
What this says to me is that science/math teachers are underpaid, and other teachers are possibly overpaid. Unfortunately the teacher unions will never agree to allow differential pay. They won't even contemplate merit pay. It's just how long you've been in the system. What kind of results do you expect?
I don't and won't have kids, but if I did I would strongly consider homeschooling.
I don't think so, having taken his classes.
He's trying to be generous, helpful, and altruistic here!
He teaches at a school that accepts 220 students a year undergrad, maybe 200 a year grad! He's not going to get more work, or more quality, or more anything by fostering more science (except perhaps fame and reknown as the person who pushed it out)...
Even granting that amount of gain onto Prof. Goodstein, the good for society and for each individual involved more than compensates for the gain he himself gains.
As an analogy:
The guy inventing and pushing PGP for privacy and security is being self serving in trying to push the technology (so that he can gain both privacy and security in his online transactions). Granted. Fine. But what about the gain everyone else gains as well?
Don't dismiss Prof. Goodstein's motives just because he gets something out of it; it's the value of what everyone else gets out of it that makes the big difference.
GPL Deconstructed
I'm Goodstein, The Illogical Scientist. Based on my statistically valid sample of one, I have concluded that all elementary education curriculums exclude science. Based on this, I have also been able to succesfully extrapolate the motives of a large group of heterogenous personalities as hostile, specifically by ignoring the large deviations and focusing on Mrs. Strickland, that evil 5th grade teacher who made me finish that book report from the Brambly Hedge series.
I'm glad I'm a self-important school administrator now, so I can publish my personal baggage with a PhD. in front of my name so all readers will know to turn off their own brains and let me do their thinking for them. Thank you for your time.
If you are going to use per-pupil numbers, you must use the local cost of living to adjust them if you wish to compare them. I would gladly go to work teaching in Iowa for $40,000/year -- that would put me in the top 10% of the population there. Teaching in the Bay Area for $40,000/year, on the other hand... what, you want me to take vows of poverty?
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
If you ask the average high school science teacher what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, your odds are 50/50 that he/she won't know.
That's a pretty radical statement. I could accept that some wouldn't but 50% sounds extreme. Do you have a citation for that or was it just your opinion?
I attended private high school, with a good reputation for academics. I had a good knack for science going in, but got it squashed out of me. You know how people talk about being the big fish in a small pond while in high school, then move on to college to be a small fish in a big pond? In high school I was the small fish, and unless you were ready to go on to Harvard or MIT, they steered you away from science, and computers for that matter. I studied programming (Basic, Fortran, Pascal, and Cobol) in the early 80's in high school, but because my dad didn't work for IBM, there was no way I'd get a shot at the computer lab.
I think most people agree that the reason California schools have gone from some where high in the nation to one of the lowest in terms of per capita spending is the tax revolt of Prop. 13. For those of you unfamiliar, what happened (in grossly simplified terms) is that the people of California voted in a law that said their property would not be reassessed in value until it changed hands. By doing so, they condemned their educational system to the backwater of spending in the nation.
Teachers make a ridiculously small amount of pay for the importance of their job. We, as a society, need to get over the fact that we can't have our cake and eat it too and pay for what we want: more qualified people in the teaching profession. If teachers made what I can make writing software, I would teach in a minute. Hands down. But the sad fact is that someone in the teaching profession for thirty years will not make as much money as I made my second year working as a software developer. That's just plain wrong.
-- What is this Earth thing you call "slow"?
This sort of grade inflation is happening almost everywhere. One of the things high-quality teachers such as your friend can do is devise a grading system that allows students to know how they are truly doing, but still maps into the inflated grades parents and administrators insist on. Sure, unmotivated students won't care that they only need to make (say) 60 out of 100 for an "A". But the motivated ones will compete for the higher score, and thus will learn more than they would if the teacher simply dumbed down the classes and his/her own grading system.
And if they haven't learned the lesson already, those students will learn the difference between real learning and accomplishment, and grades. A pity that many of them will continue to focus on the latter.
Anata wa wakarimasu ka?
Please accept my apologies for mangling Japanese. I am less skilled in the language than I really should be.
GPL Deconstructed
I have to say I think he (David Goodstein) is dead-nuts on. Teachers are a helluva lot more important to our collective future than, say, lawyers. It would be nice if the profession had the same status. I don't think this guy is trying to say that if we pay teachers more they'll do a better job - instead, if the profession was well-paid and respected (think physician) then more talented people would become teachers.
One thing he missed, though, is the importance of parents. Parents have to let their kids know the importance of an education, parents have to make sure kids do their homework, parents have to help support the school, etc, etc. Statistically, one of the best indicators of how well a particular child will do in school is the educational level of the parents.
Similarly, there are clear cultural differences that have almost become stereotypes. These cultural differences come from the fact that some cultures emphasize education, others don't, again manifested by the parental attitude. You can see the end result of this by looking at how various groups of recent immigrants move up the social ladder in the U.S. - some quickly move to the suburbs, some don't. Some push their kids to be doctors and lawyers, some are content to have them be migrant farmworkers.
The problem in most of the U.S. is a deeply rooted cultural anti-intellectualism, and it is first manifested in school. Being smart, bookish, or even interested is the quickest route to social ostracism - any 4th grader knows that. Hell, we in the U.S. even invented the concept of the "nerd"! In Swedish at least, the equivalent word didn't exist until recently and is pronounced exactly the same way as in English. In many other countries being good in school is seen as a good thing among your classmates.
As for those who say: "Look at Russia and China! They had good schools and are now in the toilet." I can only reply that actually, many of their good people have come over here - the brain drain has been benefitting the U.S. for 50 years and is quite likely the reason we are scientifically preeminent today. If they had been able to keep their smart people they'd probably be better off today; we'd certainly be worse off.
If you think for a minute that it is ok to have "diversity" and let some people go through school without ever having been exposed to physics, chemistry, math or any science at all, then you simply don't understand how the world works, and you are suggesting that we condemn kids to the same fate. I for one want our decision-makers (supposedly the people, since we supposedly live in a democracy) to understand _something_ about science and technology, since it is the foundation of modern society.
And if you don't think technology and science are the foundataion of modern society, how the heck are you logging on to Slashdot from the 13th Century?
One simple example; in this city as part of the treatment process the tap water passes through six feet of sand. Many people won't drink this water until they've passed it through a filter of a couple of inches of small stones, then somehow it is safer. For some reason "they" (technical or qualifed medical people of any type) can't be trusted to provide safe water (or medicine or whatever) "for the children". A survey of bottled water in Australia a few years ago found surprising amounts of biological material, far more than you would find in any town with an adequate water supply.
A more divisive example; the debate over genetic modification of crops - it is assumed by many that they can be geneticly modified by eating these crops. Any technical argument for or against is ignored in favour of the emotive argument, fed by moralistic disater movies that tell us "Don't mess with mother nature." The ironic thing is that the people who will rush out to trample a crop that may be a secretly modified test crop eat "natural" vegetables, grown indoors to keep the insects off, and grown hydroponically in a cocktail of chemical fertilizers, because somehow that is trendier than growing them in the ground and using less fertilizer. This perception has scuttled projects like one to produce vaccines from geneticly engineered bananas. Somehow, growing your medicine is less desirable than the enormous number of pharmacuetical plants that would be required to match what you do with such a crop. Being able to breed food crops have a high yeild and require less nutrients is also a good thing. Many will argue that these crops will never get to the nations that need them, but that's a way to feel better about opposing something that could help millions.
A lot of the "folklore" that people believe is of very recent origin. My grandmother was in her thirties before the term "Ley Line" was thought of, and that was used to describe the sites of old road. The zinc=virility thing comes from the story of Cassanova (not the most reliable of info!) eating lots of oysters. Oysters are filter feeders and pick up a lot of heavy metals such as zinc in areas where mining and industry puts it in the water. Therfore, with a dab of fiction and a stroke of sympathetic magic, zinc=virility. Zinc is important for other reasons, but it comes in every green plant.
Herbs: Many are useful and have been known about for some time, but a lot of people believe (by the magical law of sympathy perhaps?) that all herbs are good, and many are superior to medical technology. I suppose that I'm lucky that I know that there is a lot of flora that will kill things that try to eat it, or sting and scratch things that get close to it. Natural != good. Strychnine is natural.
Yes, it sounds crazy but is true. The best way to weed out good teachers from the bad ones is money. Offer them a low pay, and usually the ones who do show up for the interview are the ones who are really interested in teaching show up, while if you offer lots and lots of money, you will get quite a few more applicants who very well may be in it for money alone.
The proper thing to do here is to increase the BUDGETS that the teachers have to work with. This, you will find, is their main griping point. How good of a job do you think will be done if you have a higher paid staff working with a low budget vs. a moderately paid staff doing their work on a more suitable budget?
All I can say is, teachers who are in the job to teach do a very good job while those who are in it for money are very often disappointed. If I were paid $100,000/year to do the job I do, but had no budget, I would rather take the $42,000/year and have a budget that suits the needs of my department.
-Aaron
You've all been given AMPLE WARNING. Now you're gonna get it.
Well, I think pay could make teaching more
attractive. To put my estimate on numbers,
I think that if teachers in schools earned
$100K per year there'd be a significant
increase of people striving to be teachers.
You make that number $70K and you get a small
extra trickle of teachers. At current levels
you get a drying supply.
Overall, social elites would have to do more than
pay teachers more. Politicians would have to
influence Hollywood to make science cool. Then
I think a certain code of professionalism and
pride in one's work would grow among teachers,
because they'd be paid well and duly admired.
Within a generation we could have good schools.
Nearly all students already have one, if not two personal teachers and tutors. They're called parents.
Sounds like you have never experienced anything other than public school teachers.
influence Hollywood to make science cool
So, Jack Valenti, how many sequels to "Weird Science" and "Real Genius" does this require?
Don't mind my friend Polyphemus here so much. He's only saying that because he's pursuing a Physics PhD himself, and wants to be paid more. :)
He's suggesting that people need to know enough about science and the scientific method to understand the world we live in. That doesn't have to be insane physics; "physics for poets" would be fine. And it's not just physics: It's also biology, chemistry, CS, etc. So people have enough background to understand basically what the dispute is when they pick up a newspaper and read about the debate over federal funding for stem-cell experimentation.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
wakaru yo.
Please accept my apologies for mangling Japanese. I am less skilled in the language than I really should be.
Yurushiteageru.
nihongo no benkyoo o ganbatte! sonna ni muzukashikunai...
There is one reason, and one reason only, for all the scientific illiteracy and economic injustice in the United States
Male genital mutilation.
If you can't afford to live in the Bay area, move out. Or take an apartment like everyone else in SF.
And that 10% crack is just flamebait.
While the argument that it is possible to get through college in elementary ed without science may be true, this has nothing to do with its lack of emphasis in elementary education. In fact, it is deemphasized in the curriculum. Even if that weren't the case, there is simply not enough time to teach it. My wife is an elementary school teacher and I can attest that even when I am up against the tightest deadline to deliver code, I don't work half as hard or as frantically as she does day in and day out. She has to work this hard because there is not enough time to do basic literacy and math. In fact, there is so little time for other studies that there is all of 15 minutes allocated to science and social studies combined. Yes that's right 15 minutes. Now subtract the time it takes to get 30 people (much less children) to take out supplies and get ready for a lesson and you will be lucky to teach for 5 minutes.
:)
The concept that they need to increase pay and deregulate control of schools (they are soooooooo underpayed) is good. However, it is not because they need pdd's teaching. It is beacuse they need to treat there employee's with respect. Hell, my wife cannot even take a bathroom break all day. If it were me, I'd be sending the proctology bill to the school district.
shiftless keyboard
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
I had arevelation the other day. I called up IBM to get warrant replacement on an old laptop (failed mobo/hddc) and I noticed something. The best phone support for technology comes from people who have no interest in technology.
:)
If you like tech, you can't help but be annoyed and bored dealing with checklists and scripts all day, and it (eventually) shows.
Now, for non-phone my server's down or designing it in the first place, it's a different story
I taught for a couple years in as a 7th grade English teacher in Carrizo Springs, Texas (a MISERABLE little dirtball of a town). I noticed that there was a VERY high attrition rate for teachers. I and another teacher discussed the problem, and even went back and looked at past yearbooks to see how many teachers were leaving every year. The attrition rate was about 30% every year.
After looking at which new teachers arrived each year, and evaluating them personally, we arrived at the conclusion that the more "intelligent" a new teacher was, the quicker they would leave the profession.
Out of about 9 new teachers (new to the profession) who arrived in a 2 year time span, only three remained after 3 years: a special ed teacher who had been special ed herself in school, a former salesman, and a very good teacher who was teaching on a waiver because she could not pass the (fairly easy) state teachers' test.
Our conclusion: teaching career halflife is inversely proportional to IQ.
And that makes sense to me: we high IQ types spent a lot of time reading, etc. So our social skills are less well developed than those social types. And believe me, in order to thrive as a teacher, social skills are paramount.
That is why I can only chuckle at the unending drivel from the media about how we need more-educated teachers--we actually need LESS-educated teachers. You see, for various reasons, teachers no longer have much institutional power. So the power that they now have is only gotten by way of their personal relationships with students, parents, principals, etc.
You want good teachers? Hire those who did not spend much time reading as kids. Hire those who are outgoing, with a lot of friends, and who are good talkers, and who are in tune with body language, that of their own and others.
So what happened to me?
I (and my high IQ) got a great high tech job (writing software patents) with a great office and a secretary high in a power tower downtown.
Do I miss teaching? What do you think?
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
Mod UP!
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
One of the nice side effects of the .com boom was the respect that geeky math/science oriented people got from the rest of the population (OK, it was mixed with envy, and OK it was mostly due to the money not the cool stuff they did). This made people think about sending their kids to engineering schools (like MIT or my alma mater the Technion in Israel) instead of dreaming of MDs and lawyers. This means that the kids have to really concentrate on math and science in school (just to be admitted).
Too bad it didn't last...
Now that's SURE to be a demanding class, with pre-requisites like "arithmetic" and possibly even "multiplcation" for the honors class :p
I'm a chemistry professor at a state school in Pennsylvania. And for anyone unfamiliar with state schools in the US, they generate most of the school teachers, both HS and elementary. In my 7 plus years of teaching, I have probably had less than 5 education majors in any course. A lot of this can be attributed to them not being interested, but realistically the education programs are so heavy with teaching methodology and pedagogical courses that potential science teachers only take the science courses as an afterthought. Compounding the problem is that most research advisors at research institutions look down upon science education so they will not advise grad students to pursue HS science. And I know I'm much more interested in the potential chemist heading towards grad school than someone interested in education. And just as importantly, I'll never advise the education student, rather they'll be advised by education faculty. I'm teaching where I am at because I thoroughly enjoy what I do (and most of my collegues feel the same way) and I would like to transmit some of my enjoyment on to others. But sadly it is way too late as the fear of science is already indoctrinated. Additionally, after working (slaving actually) for 5 or more years in grad school, its real easy to justify a $60000+ job. Contrast this with HS science teacher starting only about $5-10 more than typical TA pay, its small wonder that virtually no PhDs take that path. I was applauded by several of my fellow grad students for having the courage to take a position that probably pays half of what they make. Applause only goes so far...
Two years later, I switched to a mathematics major. I had been THE ONLY physics major in the graduating class. The others had switched schools or majors. The professors didn't care, especially the full professors (as opposed to the empty, lol). It was always assumed that I would continue onto graduate school, but I didn't have the patience to waste away in a lab for 4-5 additional years, especially for the shit pay junior professors get.
Wise man say, choose your enemies carefully, for you will become like them...
I was lucky enough that my high school chemistry teacher was an immigrant from Cypress where he taught chemistry at a college. He knew about chemistry and it was one of the only science classes that I acutally learned stuff in.
So climate's changing. So what? It has always changed. The big news would be if it wasn't changing. - Dr. Philip Stone
Way to go out on a limb. Defending teachers like that. I would have to say that the very real problem with all of this is that teachers are TENURED. That's right, after they pass a test once, then the rest of the world can march on and for the next 50 years, its all fine. Elementary school changes will not erase that problem. The reason is that in our system, we accept all types, there is no deliniation of types, we accept all, even if they can't speak basic English. Teaching is tough. Our educational system has to FEED SOME OF THEIR CHILDREN BREAKFAST BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS WILL NOT, that these kind of differences exsist? This is the truth of what America is looking at. The kids that get school lunches have precious little chance of an education if their parents DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT NUTRITION. It is fair, it is equitable, we do what we can. There are no real specialized, technical, PUBLIC schools in America. This is an important distinction. WE ARE FREE TO LET SOME FAIL AS WELL.
Comparison:
English: be, are, is, was
Spanish: ser, estar, and about 60 conjugations, all very different.
French: Like spanish, but unpronouncable.
Japanese: desu
Sure, the kanji (pictograms) are harder to memorize, but otherwise the grammar and the rest are really simple by comparison.
It's as simple as that.
For all the talk that is done, when you get right down to it all people care about is who is going to win the football game on sunday.
I guess I could gripe about this for a long time, but still it just boils down to a true lack of value given to intelligence and willingness to learn.
We only need to look at our current President as a shining example of this character flaw in our nation.
What make you think that those finest scientists were educated in the USA? /. so far. "Jee, how come we have so many well educated people if our education system is so bad?" Duh.
A huge chunk of them are immigrants and got their education far from US school system. The reason they came to US is money. Plane and simple.
Helicopters, elecrical generation utilities, nuclear power, military jets, you name it. This is the most stupid discusson I have seen on
that was the one science class i learned from the most when i was in highschool
Blah.
As a high school math teacher and a mom, I know this subject all too well. I teach in the second fastest growing district in the state of Texas, and I am very proud of the education I am able to give and that my kids are receiving.
Our administration is looking towards the future, and our faculty has been watching some videos by the foremost authority on the future of education, Dr. Willard Daggett. He is consulted by big names in both the business sector and in Washington for his research and findings in the future of education and its relationship to society, and he has a lot of fascinating things to say. (BTW - he has been doing this for several years and has an almost perfect record in his predictions of trends.)
A few things I have gleaned from this man:
1. Science IS the future of education. The fastest growing arena for jobs in the next 10 years will be biotechnology. We have seen a taste of this in the areas of gene mapping, cloning, and the like. Anyone who majors in this field in the next few years can write their ticket to any job they wish.
2. A college degree used to guarantee a good job after graduation. But more and more college graduates are having to move home after graduation because they can't find a job. Why? Because the universities are not changing to meet the needs of the business sector. Big businesses are now even beginning to create their own schools because they are not getting properly trained employees.
3. If public schools are not careful, they are next. We in the public schools must listen to the needs of the business sector and make changes accordingly. That means more emphasis on science and math at all levels.
The problem? If the colleges don't change, they won't be producing the educators with the proper skills needed to teach the subject. Contrary to many opinions on this board, teachers are not supposed to only teach the content, they are supposed to teach the students to be lifelong learners. We need to convince our kids that learning doesn't end when school ends. No matter what field you enter, you will always be learning. Yes, higher pay would help attract more qualified people, but unless those people know how to spark interest and teach learning skills, it will be all for naught. The US Education system needs to stop training our kids the same way we always have been and realize that the world is changing, and education MUST change along with it.
I would like to point out that teachers in private ( especially Catholic ) schools often earn much less then their equiv. public schools. They also tend to have class sizes that are much greater.
When I was a kid in an elementry (Catholic) school, classes averaged 40 students per teacher. Later on, I went to a boarding school (high-school) that cost about $2500/student, at the same time the state of California was spending about $3000 per student for you to send your kids to gettho high.
Both of these schools were WAY above the state average when it came to student rankings. And way below it when it came to cost/student
Public schools are not accountable to education, but politics - we should shut them down, people would better spend their own money.
Dear Professor Goodstein,
w s. asp) and I would like to
/her/ chemistry in the end, however that
I just read your article in Technology Review
(http://www.techreview.com/magazine/sep01/revie
thank you for writing it. I am sure the point has been made before by
others; however, the call has yet to be heeded. I am (hopefully) one of
those diamonds who is pursuing a career in science/technology and has
experienced the problems of the school system. From a very young age I was
interested in science and continually hoped that the next year I would have
a teacher that would incorporate more science into their lessons. It was
always limited to a few weeks learning about the solar system or the
rainforest. I did what I could to teach myself, reading all the science
books I could comprehend at the public library. Unfortunately a seven
year-old has a hard time reading college/high school text books without some
explanation. I have always excelled at science, scoring the highest ever for
my elementary school on a national science test given in fifth grade.
When going on to high school I was excited to actually have classes
devoted strictly to science. Where others despised the subject and the
teachers that taught science, I found intrigue and excitement. I chose a
high school which I knew employed superior science teachers: the physics
teacher graduated from UC Berkeley and the biology teacher has an MS in
Mycology and worked for the state as a Mycologist. Unfortunately the
chemistry teacher had yet to actually receive an undergraduate degree and
our AP Chemistry class was teaching
high school was still the best around.
I have seen many bright students fail to make an effort in science
and math not only because of bad teachers but because they have learned from
parents and friends that 'science and math are difficult subjects and it is
normal to fail to comprehend them'. This creates an unending cycle of people
who won't even try in the areas of science and math. I feel that not only do
many people not care about science because it is not taught in elementary
school often but the problem also holds back those interested in science
from attaining their full potential until they reach college, and for some
that may be too late. We not only need to give teachers more respect and
higher pay but we need to change the primary and secondary schooling
requirement. We need to require that science be taught at a young age not
just to help those interested in science but also to raise the over-all
public scientific education. Our national tests also reflect an opinion that
science is not important. They focus mainly on reading and math. Only the
SAT II has one section for science (which really doesn't test on the basis
of actual scientific knowledge but rather on one's ability to read a graph).
We need to include a science portion in all our standardized testing thereby
forcing teachers to educate their students, with science as one of the major
areas of emphasis, and in turn encouraging students to learn science.
Thank you for you time,
This article from Gallup is my favorite gauge of American scientific understanding. It is claimed (among other findings) that 79% of Americans say the earth goes around the sun, versus the 18% who say the sun goes around the earth.
This may make it sound like there are a lot of ignorant Americans, but it turns out that Germans and British give these answers in about the same proportions. (Maybe the French do better; they are curiously silent on that point.)
I once met a teacher who described herself as a "specialist grade 3 teacher", because you need to understand fractions until grade 4! Somehow she made it through the education system on sheer apathy. Many other teachers of course are hard working and capable, I know that I learnt nothing new in mathematics in my first three years at high school only because I had good teachers in primary (==elementary) school.
Homeschooling parents qualified as teachers produce students who average only 10-20 percentile points above State school. Untrained home schoolers average around 30 percentile points. That should tell you something important about teacher training...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Well, goody for it. Home schooling moves the bell curve up 30 percentile points, and I'm sure even that can be readily improved upon.
What's wrong with making the next generation's ``dummies'' better than today's ``average'' student, and the average drudge better then most of today's ``advanced'' students?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The same trained teacher can produce students 10-20 percentile points up the ladder if they turn to home schooling.
This tells you that the system as implemented is broken
The average untrained home-schooling parent produces students 30 or more percentile points better than the State average (ie 20+-10 percentile points better than the homeschooling trained teacher).
This tells you that the training to suit you for the system is also broken.
Full disclosure: I install systems for schools, TAFEs (vocational colleges) and universities. My wife has teacher training. My mother was a teacher. I home school.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
There is a direct positive correlation in every measured case between the onset of compulsory schooling and prison populations. In short words, when you force people to go to school, you make more prisoners.
Why?
Two reasons. First, in school you get to practice for prison - you know, rank-and-file stuff, everything run by the bell, authority vested in officialdom and grudgingly delegated to the goody-two-shoes and special favourites. Students exchange bad habits, bad information and bad diseases just like inmates.
Second, consider the tactics used by many icecream and candy sellers when hiring staff. They require the new employee to eat themselves sick on the product, after which there is little temptation to snack on the job. So with school, you are required to immerse yourself in schoolwork, and unless you're lucky enough to have a personal interest in it (and sometimes even then) you pretty soon choke on the style-monotonous diet.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
True, elevating the status of the teaching profession will attract better and more qualified teachers. But have you heard the cliche, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!"? Providing great teachers will help the kids who want to learn. Of course, the kids who want to learn have many places to get information today, namely the library, internet and cable channels like TLC and Discovery.
But the root problem is that most kids don't want to learn. They're more concerned about their clothes, hair and coolness factor than acids, bases and ph levels. "What do I need to know that for?", is the battle cry I've heard so many times from young and old who choose to live a life of ignorance. They then proceed to tell you how they don't care to know this or that detail because it is a waste of time and they'll never need to use the information. To these people, scientific knowledge is an affliction which fills their precious memory cells with
"useless" information. These cells might otherwise be more valuable by containing information on which hollywood actor is doing which actress this week.
You won't make science interesting to these kids until you can relate it to their base drives: food, fashion, sex and the quest for being cool. Relate Newton's laws of motion to how women's breasts move, both with and without a bra, and you'll have a standing room audience for your class. Speak about the aphrodisiac qualities of chocolate, while relating it to dopamine and pleasure centers in the brain and you'll have students begging to take your class. Show them a probability distribution that shows their chance of having a nice salary and pretty wife based on their years of education completed and you'll keep them in school far better than any other method.
If none of that works, skip the Phd's -- hire strippers.
Sex, Cars or Computers? or Should We Be Together? - you choose
Or people of his caliber would be of no benefit to the Educational System in the US. He would be forced to use poorly written books. Teaching will be focused on just what will be on the skills assessment test. He will work for a system that is a complete bureaucracy and would have no say. The problem is the system. We need open competition in schools competing for your child. Why do we allow this huge monopoly? Why do they not teach things such as money management? Stock market? Business finance? How to write and carry out a business plan?
Get a free ipod.
Try suggesting to the NEA that particular teaching specialities like science or math should receive higher pay than others. Their position is that these teachers should be paid more and so should every other teacher as well. Any pay disparity due to specialization is 'unfair,' and the only legitimate factor in pay disparity is longevity on the job, according to them. The only hope for problems like this is true competition. School vouchers.
I am a CS major, and I have similar experience. Mine is slightly better -- only 8 courses, and one of them includes basic english, in which I very gracefully got a B in. -- Glad to be out of there. But anyway, you would say 8 aint so bad, but then I read the restrictions on the courses. basically anything that includes any possible use of math may not be counted as a humanities course. That right there after checking the list eliminated 80 percent of philosophy, and 75 of psych (which is of heavy cog sci concentration).
Those were the most interesting humanities, I was hoping to take and fill in the requirements, and instead I will be taking the history of civil war or something close to that. Not that it bothers me much, I will get my B, but what bothers me is that I hear Hum. majors setting foot into the sciences hall, saying "Ughhh, never thout I would end up here", and then go into the lecure hall where calculus for humanities is taught.
Why is int there justice, and say a course called English for CS majors.
badness 10000
When my parents were in Catholic school, all their teachers were nuns and priests, but today, Catholic schools I know of have normal lay-people as teachers.
They tend to have abysmally low pay rates, much lower than public schools. (I have a friend that started teaching at a Catholic elementary school last week; her first job out of college.)
I think that we are missing something important here. I belive that education should be an esentially privte sector activity, albeit one subsidized by government. Education is a perfect economic justifaction for subsidy; it is an investment. Nevertheless, public education is essentially an overreaching beurocracy. I know that "school choice" is a buzzword for conservitives to get the bible into schools, but there is something to be said for competition in education.
For example, the issue of teachers. Quite simply, a school which can not retain its teachers will fail, and only those which have practices which attract (good) teachers succsed. However, in public education this competition simply doesn't exist.
Why not provide each student with so many dollars a year as an education transfer? I have heard the first ammendment argument, but I don't belive that it applies....
What you're describing is home education, or at least very small classes, something that State teachers often dream passionately of having.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
While I agree that it would be great to "pay our teachers what they deserve", beware that any job you offer lots of money for will suddenly attract the worst greedy clueless bad example bozos as well as the bright ones.
Afterall, look at how many silly MSCEs there are out there thinking they are worthy of operating someone elses computers.
1. Teachers get little money.
2. Teachers get little respect.
3. Management is overbearing.
4. Too few good teachers. (See #1, #2, and #3)
5. Tasks such as photocopying, grading, seting up outings, etc. take far too much time from teachers.
6. Students are grouped by age; not grades, intelligence(s), or interests.
7. Teaching to the middle, or teaching to the bottom. (See #5)
8. Skipping or failing a grade is nearly impossible. (Solved by #5)
9. Curriculum relies on massive amounts of memorization, repetition, and redundancy between successive classes.
10. Limited classic curriculum; informal logic and foreign languages are supposed to be very good in k-4, or so. (High School Philosophy or Economics wouldn't be so bad...)
11. A hostile student environment; the reverse-social-Darwinism of "jocks" and "nerds."
No but it's the only domain that's strategically important for a modern society. Art, Literature, etc. aren't necessary, Hell, we have trained elephants producing what some people call art.
Maybe I'm weird, but I actually liked the breadth of my studies in K-12. I'm glad that I had read a couple of classic novels, read a bunch of classic poems, and learned to differentiate before I graduated from high school. I've enjoyed at least some of the readings in every English class I've ever taken, and I also enjoyed being able to prove stuff in Geometry and calc and whatnot. Heck, I can still remember a lot of what I did in highschool.
In some ways, I'd compare the breadth approach to my high school's sports requirement--all freshmen are required to have two seasons of competitive sports, and all other students are required to have one per year. Further, those who are not involved in competitive sports must participate in non-competitive activities (such as drama, woodworking, et al). Due to that sports requirement, I went out and tried playing lacrosse my freshman year. I'd never picked up a lacrosse stick before, and I've never considered myself much of an athlete. However, I am now a passionate lacrosse fan and wish I still were playing. A lot of people do end up trying a sport and deciding they don't like it, but a lot of people also end up trying a sport and deciding they do like it. It's an inconvenience for the former and a great addition to the fulfillment of the latter.
(Now, if he could solve the "accomplishment vs grades" issue, I'd be much indebted.)
I'm speaking as a new teacher now.
It's too bad this wife had not one, but two poor experiences. While many school environments are indeed like those described in the parent post, not all schools are alike, nor are all principals alike.
In the four years I've been involved with elementary/middle/secondary education, I've worked under three different principals, two of which were amazing. Unfortuneately the third was as terrible as the first two were great.
So what's my point? Working environment is important, and that stems directly from the leadership the administration provides. The idea that any good leader can run a school sounds nice in theory, and may work, but in practice good schools require good leaders that have "served in the trenches" themselves.
Realistically, any educated person would *NEVER* admit to being unable to read and write, or admit to being unfamiliar with the works of Shakespeare, and yet, when asked to solve anything more complicated than the most elementary mathematics problem, they often reply with "I don't like math" or "I never learned" or quite simply, an indifferent shrug. If this isn't an indication of the state of affairs of mathematics (and science!) in the United States, then I don't know what is.
(Although this discussion follows the debate between Science and the Arts, mathematics is one of the foundations of science.)
An excellent book on mathematical illiteracy is John Allen Paulos' "Innumeracy".
My karma is -1 because I don't use AC posting. LOL.
few of my experiences:
In 5th grade, east suddenly becomes "north": The book the teacher was using had a compass pictured in it. Well the book was lying on her desk with the top edge of the book facing east. The compass in the book had an arrow facing the same way labled "North". Bingo! Now north suddenly depends on which way the book faces. It took us about five minutes to explain why this was a problem. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP.
In 6th grade we learn about dangerous chemicals: We are all asked to bring in product lables from various foods so we can see what evil corporations have added to our foods. To the teacher's horror, they've added obviously dangerous chemicals -- like niacin and riboflavin and pantothenic acid!
Also in 6th grade, I point out to the math teacher that we can save some time measuring angles by taking advantage of some simple rules. Like for example, when lines intersect, opposite angles are equal. Big mistake! I'm forced to "prove" this isn't so by using a giant wooden protractor to measure angles between two arcs - -not LINES. When I point that this is a problem, I find out that "lines ain't got to be straight!"
During the evolution portion of biology in high school the teacher comments "well, I have to teach about evolution, but we all know what REALLY happened."
There's plenty more, but recalling all this is starting to make me angry.
The most important lesson it taught me is that I need to judge for myself what is or isn't scientifically suggested by the evidence. Many people overestimate their own understanding (myself included) and there are plenty followers out there willing to accept every word. Even professional scientists aren't immune. They can jump to conclusions too.
It is easy to be intellectually careless, even reckless. I try to figure out why I believe what I believe all the time. It takes alot of work. Many accuse me of "over-analysing." Many think its a waste of time. Its not.
After about 10 years of programming, I burned out and went into teaching. I worked for a local public school system teaching adult literacy and GED for high school dropouts.
My pay cut was about 70%. I loved the work for the first couple of years, but I found I had to keep consulting on the side to keep the mortgage paid. This affected my teaching badly, and the circumstances became a downward spiral - less energy for teaching and time for preparation made me a worse teacher, and that made me enjoy it less (and I'm sure my students weren't thrilled either) - by the time I burned out again I was working three jobs to compensate for the low pay. I taught for about four years, right in the range of the typical 3-5 year burnout rate for teachers.
It didn't take long for me to get back into software after that. If I could have made half to two-thirds of what I was earning as a programmer, I might very well have stuck with teaching, but the economics just weren't there to support it. I have no doubt that my teaching was more important work than my programming, but in the end it was too hard for me to live on the very low pay and the utter absence of benefits (35 hours a week, no contract, considered part-time by the school department and barred from joining the union).
I suppose a real revolutionary would have sold the house and trimmed it all down enough to fit the teacher pay, but I'm not that spiritually evolved yet. Teachers shouldn't have to be revolutionaries, anyway.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
An outline of the causes of the problem:
The government education system was established specifically to destroy the ability of students to think. It is designed to instill the habit of receiving "wisdom" uncritically and regurgitating it on demand.
The roots of the US government school system go back to a heirarchical system devised by the Prussians after their defeat at the Battle of Jena. This system divided students into an elite, to be trained to set policy (about 0.5% of the population) a class destined to implement policy (about 3%) and the remainder, destined to obey their betters.
Currently, the students which pursue an undergraduate degree in education, as a _group_, are the academically weakest on campus.
The faculty teaching these programs are the least qualified.
The credentials required to teach in government school are earned through the study of various superstitions and fads, and the credential has no value at all outside of the government school system.
Intelligent, passionate teachers who take on the challenge of teaching in the government school system are thrust into a hierarchy which fights the concept of rewarding competence, and which is seniority based. Therefore the more intelligent and capable tend to leave for greener pastures at a higher rate than the incompetent and lazy. Therefore the percentage of intelligent and energetic teachers falls as seniority increases. The incompetent are running the hierarchy, and do so to protect their perks, against demands for accountability, or the threat of differentiation by merit.
The NEA is the largest contributor to the Democratic party, and uses its power, in part, to fight the rise of such threats to their interests as charter schools, private schools, and home schooling, each of which glaringly outperforms the government school system.
The victims are the "students" languishing in the government's clutches unlucky enough to lack support, outside of the "schools", for intelligent thought.
It would help if we had a rigorous college ed major. The article is right, an elementary ed major is the only one you don't need a science class for. I think its ludicrous that college education majors are concentrated on teaching only *teaching* and have no emphasis on actual, gasp, proficiency in the field the prospective teacher wishes to teach. Elementary ed is the joke major. I'm not trolling here, Im serious. Take a survey of the college athletes and the Greek system, and find your elementary ed majors. It's the major for those who do not wish to put in any effort but recieve a college degree and a guaranteed job (with 3 months paid vacation) and you have plenty of free time for partying.
Derek
In addition to my English course load, among the classes I took were calculus and chemistry (full year of each, mind you). I can't forget the physics, astronomy, and animal science courses, but the most enjoyable non-lit courses I took happened to belong to the Department of Engineering and Computer Science (as it was called then). Had I not needed to graduate and get a job quickly, I probably would've tried to squeeze in two last upper division ECS classes and take a minor in computer science as well.
Was I required to take all of those courses? No, of course not. Why did I take them? Genuine curiosity and interest. I felt that taking these particular courses would go a long way in making me a more well-rounded individual, both academically, personally, and professionally.
Where did all of that work get me? After working a few years in systems and network administration (of the *nix variety), I'm entering my second year teaching English at a high school here in Silicon Valley (and I'm the only English teacher at my school that incorpates math and science lessons into my literature curriculum).
Techies are more well-rounded because the current system forces them to be . . . Don't compromise the techies; force the fuzzies to the same depth and breadth in the sciences as we were expected to have in the humanities.
I don't consider myself foremost a techie, and yet (sorry to toot my own horn) I'm more well-rounded than all of my techie/engineering friends working in industry.
The point of my babbling is this: be careful when saying techies are more well-rounded than non-techies. That's not always the case, and in my observations, is rarely the case.
Why not throw out the rule that kids can't teach other kids? Then the teachers would have all the support staff they need. In a good Karate school the teacher teaches ten students who themselves teach ten students and so on down the line; you can have a student-teacher ratio of a thousand-to-one with more individualized attention than in a typical school setting. We shouldn't consider a kid competent in a subject until he has taught it to a younger kid.
The trouble is, the teachers unions wouldn't go for any of these radical changes.
I play Nerd-Folk!
Sorry, if you post on /. you're White. Even if you're not actually white.
I'm not sure how you can say "not all high school teaching jobs are equal," and I must assume you've not taught in a high school before. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this count.
If the goal, as seems to be outlined in this thread, is for high schools to produce well-rounded kids that successfully continue their educations in colleges and universities, then all teachers are equal with all other teachers, English or otherwise, including even--gasp--P.E. teachers.
All teachers are underpaid, whether they teach calculus, pre-algebra, AP Chemistry, American Lit, or Spanish 1.
I teach at a small high school in Silicon Valley. In this, the seeming home of all that is tech, our science and math teachers are equals, and treat each other as such. Teaching, as it has evolved, consists of more than just knowing subject matter.
Google for "scientific elites and scientific illiterates" and quit trying to act all intelligent discussing some dumb journalist's attempt to be original by getting goodstein to write a dumbed down y2k version of his older essay.
Why are you comparing public schools to private schools?
How much does it cost to attend the average public university? That tells you something useful.
The 1999-2000 average total annual cost to attend a public university was $10,458.
So what was your point again?
I agree with you...but let me add just one thing.
There is this issue that I have with particular departments at my university being notoriously hard for as far as I can tell no good reason. Math, Chemistry and Physics fall there. The technical departments had some sorta weird egotism that simply did not pervade in other departments. Why is it in Chemistry that they need to make tests that 75% of the students will do no better than 60% correct, and curve accordingly. Why is it that Math insists on having en masse finals whereas no other department does that (and thank god for that too...otherwise it would be chaos.)
The professors from these departments often have an awful unfriendlyness with regards to teaching their students. Too many researches, not enough people who are truly designed for teaching imho.
For prospective elementary schoolteachers, the last math course required of them at one university in California that I taught at is a course titled "Elementary Problem Solving." The topics of that course were carefully chosen to have essentially no prerequisite knowledge of algebra or geometry (mostly basic divisibilty/primality topics, counting combinations, and pretty straightforward topics that a strong 7th grader would get the hang of in about a month.) The students there struggled spectacularly with the topics and were generally unable to manage even a first level of abstraction. We are not talking difficult problems- questions like "How many different ways can you make a sandwich if there are three different kinds of bread, four different kinds of meat and a customer can have up to two different kinds of four varieties of cheese?" More depressingly, they were in general not at all fazed by their failures, and spent more energy complaining about my unreasonable expectations that they did trying to solve problems. The general litanies I heard were "I only want to teach 2nd grade- why should I need to know any of this?" and "I need to pass this course to become a teacher, and everyone tells me I'll be a great teacher because I like kids so much!" I found teaching that course to be not particularly rewarding, and in fact, the people in my department who most often taught that course were the ones with the absolute lowest expectations of their students. The students tend to think that to teach 3rd grade math, they need only know the math that a 3rd grader learns. The idea that a teacher should understand a subject thoroughly enough to have actual insight is totally alien.
Another comment related the expanded opportunities available to women as contributing to the problem. This is very clear. In the bad old days, the acceptable careers for women were schoolteachers and nurses. Neither one of these paid well, but since the overall opportunities for women were limited, there were many bright, capable women who entered those careers, thus artificially enriching the level of teachers available for a fixed salary and prestige. Now, thankfully, there are many more opportunities for women so the bright capable ones are no longer limited to teachers and nurses- they can become engineers and lawyers and whatever else. Unfortunately, that means that who is left to go into the field but less capable people of both genders. (I figure that both the health care and education crises are complicated by this effect.) Essentially, the societal pressures limiting women to "traditionally nurturing careers" artificially reduced the cost of getting good teachers. Now, that pressure has lessened with no increase in salary or respect to compensate, so there has been an overall decline in the competence of schoolteachers.
Even with stronger requirements for math and science teachers, there is little effect. In California and New York, a reasonably competent school adminstrator can staff all math and science teachers with uncredentialled teachers-- and many are. In some parts of California, fewer than 10% of math teachers are credentialled (with a very weak credential, BTW) and the remainder have "emergency" credentials that can be extended indefinitely, with only a slight amount of administrative imagination. The great need for people thwarts any effort to raise the credential requirements, which are pretty much moot anyway.
I don't know what a good solution is but it is clear that greater resources need to be spent to improve the situation, if indeed this is something that is important to people. Everyone seems to be "for education" but given the costs of the changes that need to be made, support for significant change vanishes.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
Indisputably the problem is that the minimum level of scientific and logical comprehension is so low. Hans Bethe (Nobel Laureate, Physics) has a story about testifying before the House Committe on "Star Wars". What output was needed to produce an effective laser weapon, Bethe was asked. Bethe replied 10 to exp12 watts (or similar), when asked what had been achieved in a laboratory he said 10 to exp6. An excitable Republican jumped up and proclaimed "we're half way there !". Doesn't that say it all ?
History is written by anyone left living. That's not necessarily the same thing as being "written by the winners."
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
the guy is a troll. He questions the education system and the need for an education system but his idea that we should all piss off back to the Stone Age is moronic
Did you read the whole essay? The Stone Age idea was a brief tangential thought-experiment, not a serious proposal. His proposal is "unschooling": that you let kids learn what they want to learn when they want to learn it rather than forcing them to sit at a small desk in a large room and be talked at for 6 hours a day according to a fixed curriculum. Unschooling is a valid method; it works.
If you're interested in these ideas you might also want to look at the Sudbury Method, which is basically Unschooling in a school setting .
I play Nerd-Folk!
My dad is a secondary school teacher (teaches kids from abt 13 to abt 17 years old). And he has been teaching for more then 20 years.
I used to do relief teaching for a Promary school (kids aged 7 to about 13).
My sis was also doing relief teaching at one point of time for a secondary school.
I also have alot of friends who are current / ex-teachers.
From what I have seen / understoond / heard, teachers are not that respected. Alot of people think they have a easy life, but it is the other way round. I have seen my dad sitting up until 11, 12 at night, marking his books (and this happens fairly often).
There are alot of political back stabbing going on.
If you happen to be in some sort of financial problem, and borrow from the Ministry of Education, you will end up being paid about 600 bucks amonth, until you settle the outstanding amount (meaning you are basically broke and have to depend on someone else for most of your necessities) -- it happened to a friend of mine.
Most of the teachers I know are waiting to just finish whatever contract they have and leave / retire.
Students are getting more aggressive. Parents are getting more aggressive. Principlas do not always support what the teachers want to do (especially improvements).
There is hardly any support stuff around.
Sure they got modern computer labs, etc, but hardly anyone with the knowledge to make use of them.
Basically, I am not surprised with the shortage of teachers in Singapore. (If I am not wrong, the governement just started another recruitment drive to get more teachers recently).
just my 2 cents.... from another part of the world.
In addition, the two play off of each other pretty often.
For instance, the artistic work of somebody like M.C. Escher is used as a model for the analysis of a complex graded lattice. Somebody says, "my God that's beautiful," and then they write a computer program to do it. There are plenty of other examples too. In fact, much of the early work in projective geometry was done by "artists."
I personally think that it's wrong to place Art and Science on the same scale. In fact, I think that things only really start making sense when you throw in more specific labels. That way you keep the wheat ("artists" who design tesselated computer models of interesting characters for video games) and throw out the chaff (the elephants you mentioned.)
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
The whole point of the article was about eliminating or reducing elitism by trying to bring "the rest of us" up closer to the level of scientists. It's not about being elite. It's about making the playing field even. Trying thinking and you won't mistake people who do so for being elitists.
Why bother.
Doctoral-level education is overkill. Requring that teachers be able to pass the College Board's Advanced Placement Exam in physics is probably good enough. That exam, after all, is intended for bright high school students. Teachers at the middle school level and above should be able to pass it.
High school physics should be Newtonian and experimental. The classic PSSC Physics still gets good reviews.
i think that was the point of the entire editorial
Even though it's an anonymous coward, please mod this up!
You surely wouldn't toss Picasso or Monet or Beethoven into the chaff pile, would you?
Dancin Santa
Speaking as someone with a Scientific college education (but a tech career) there are some valid reasons for mistrusting information supposedly produced by the scientific method. Scientific studies are only as accurate as researchers are unbiased, and companies can and do manipulate this, both directly and indirectly.
For example; hybrid crops are often credited with producing huge agricultural benefits but there isn't a single scientific paper which can be used to verify this. Any gain produced through hybridization could also be gained through crossbreeding with the added value that the latter would be more genetically diverse and thus pest resistant. Yet our government devotes considerable funds to improving hybrid rather than open polinated plants.
Why? Because the hybridization process allowed seed companies to produce a product (hybrid plant) and sell it without giving farmers the two original strains necessecary to produce this product.
Some methods are more direct. Pfizer, maker of viagra, published a study on the prevalence of sexual disfunction in men and women in the Journal of American Medicine. It was published as if it were by an independant group, despite the fact that The Journal of American Medicine requires disclosure of all conflicts of interest.
As more scientific fields become applied rather than pure, more money is being devoted to PR disguised as science, medicince etc.
Misguided or not, I think you misunderstand or misrepresent the views of the average lay person.
For example, many of the people who are seriously worried about genetically engineered foods are also worried about pesticide usage.
And remember; in life, as in slashdot, just because people within a group have differing opinions dosen't make the group as a whole hypocritical.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
We spend $5000 a year per student.
30 kids per class equals $150,000 per classroom.
The teacher makes $40K
Where's the rest of the money?
Enough said.
I can't say I agree with your view =)
I have actually taken classes by Prof Goodstein, and my take on the article isn't the same as yours. First I've got to be precise about this: Prof Goodstein wants to redefine the entire notion of scientists. We'll call the current system products Leets and Goodstein's scientists Commons.
He wants everyone to have a grounding in science, because everyone has an interest whether they believe, understand, or like it, or not. To give examples of scientific thinking (without adequate scientific understanding):
Research, analysis, and prediction of the stock market, and the related activity of day trading. If that's not 'scientific'... It's not science, but it's definitely some of the very same procedures, methods, and goals.
Understanding and taking advantage of traffic patterns in your daily commute. Noting congestion spots and times, as well as avoiding them, predicting them, and minimizing them. The quest for minimized travel time is also scientific, even if it isn't science in the traditional sense.
Cooking. Not just following a textbook, but creating new flavors, textures, experiences, and meals from ideas, thoughts, and inspiration. Experimentation with new foodstuffs, new procedures, new equipment, again, not science, but can be very scientific.
Gardening. Not plant, water, feed, but the art of timing, seasons, and weather, as well as location, soil types, mineral supplements, shade requirements, insects, animals, etc. This can be very much science, as well as scientific...
My point is that scientific thinking is applicable in everyday life situations, and science is just the classroom method by which this thought is taught and understood. If you can figure out and understand how to measure and prove gravity, you should also be able to figure out how to maximize the growth potential of you favorite tomato plants, and if you can minimize your drivetime on your daily commute, then you should also be able to figure out and understand the whys and hows of meterology.
Your argument of 'roles' and 'inate interest and ability' applies to the old school Leet scientists that Prof Goodstein wants to make the exception, not the rule; the article specifically mentions that schools should not act as filters for the chosen few, the Leet, but as hotbeds to raise the scientific average! The few, the Leet, will *still* manage to find their way into the Caltechs and MITs and Stanfords, but everyone else can benefit from faster commutes, more profitable day trade speculation, etc.
GPL Deconstructed
they did have to get "retrained." The purpose of summer vacation isn't to sleep, it's for professional development, often at the personal expense of the teacher.
As most teacher salaries are based on level of education, the only way to move up salary-wise is to take class after class after class.
Professional development and all forms of continuing education apply to most professionals, including teachers.
In the 4th grade I remember the teacher posing a question; Where did the Universe come from? I raised my hand and said 'The Big Bang' and then I described it the best I could in the words of a 10 year old child's mind. Then the teacher asked me 'Well, what about something that isnt scientific' , I couldnt think of anything and no one in the class could either. She of course said 'What about God?.' Then she went on to tell us about how God created the universe and etc. I dont remember the details that much but I remember I felt like I had said the wrong answer and became discouraged.
The thing is teachers have their own opinions as well and they are going to throw them into their lesson plans. It doesnt seem right to me for teachers to dictate what we as students should learn, especially at an early stage in life. Of course their should be some sort of core curriculum but students should be encouraged to think for themselves.
Today's Public Edcuations system treats kids like cars. They put them on the assembly line stuff them with general 'packaged' knowledge (which they forget down the line) and send them down the line for more. Until they come to the end with only parts of what they remember and the feeling that 'school sucks'.
Well, school shouldnt suck, it should be exciting and fun. Kids should be encouraged to use their imagination and be creative. But they are not. They are given strict guidelines and if they can follow them they get an A. Basically you are rewarded for just obeying the rules and basically just remembering facts. Remembering something is not the key part of 'knowing' something. Look at your computer it can remember every major league baseball stat in a matter of seconds. Yet it doesnt 'know' what baseball is. It doesnt know what a homerun is, it doesnt know anything. Kids need to be taught how to use their mind to create and not just process information.
No ... but the point of my post wasn't to enumerate every great artist. I only wanted to describe some fuzzy principles and let other people extrapolate from there.
Actually it's funny that you bring up Beethoven (I think that the importance of the methods implied by Picasso or Monet is pretty self-evident.) Just the other day I was using Beethoven's Fur Elise to explain state-machines to a friend who wanted to write a script interpreter.
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
Saikin takusan nihongo no kakukoto o miteiru. nande?
There's certainly merit to the suggestion that science could be better taught at the university level. Much of what I've seen in physics education is simple sink-or-swim: there are lectures, and there are homework problems, and it's up to the students to learn to think like a physicist. Some do. The vast majority get fed up, frustrated, and quit.
Which is not to say there aren't those who've dedicated themselves to science education and who do a good job. But many faculty in the older generation seem to honestly believe that calculating the answers to physics problems (while a conveniently measurable skill) has anything to do with passing on the mental tools that physicists use to understand the world. I've often thought the sciences could learn a lot from the arts (and literature) where an essentially intuitive skill is passed on even when we don't have language to talk about it directly.
Instead I tried to learn everything about everything... I have a paper on real android like AI I'm emailing robotics people about now, so its likely I'm just a psychopath. I'm also writing a psychopathic book about science vs. religion for modern times... Focusing probably keeps a person more sane... A low GPA doesn't make for a very happy person... Even if you know alot... You're not getting the grades because you're trying to learn... Especially if you don't do work thats below you... one bad example is, "Professor, I've done this before, why should I spend 40 hours doing it again?"
all courses are different...
God spoke to me
Goodstein opens his text "States of Matter" with:
"Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics."
I've quoted him with a smile, but this is not a good pitch to make to education major.
All Germany has ever produced is hatred, oppression, war and genocide. Name me one positive thing a German ever has done.
And the '30s and '40s were the lowpoint of the terrible destructive nature of the Germans.
They should have sterilized all Germans after the war then we would not have to fear a 4th Reich rising from the former East Germany (living proof that even a benevolent communist society can't root out the worst traits of this warlike hateful people).
The world needs simple people. There are those on earth who ENJOY being loggers. They are very good at it, and have no desire to learn physics, history, or computer science. And although their occupation does not require book smarts, it does involve a very different but equally high level of skill. Everyone has their own place, and thank God for it! (I certainly wouldn't want their job!) We all pursue those things that fascinate us, just understand that those things can and will be vastly different from person to person . . . and that is a Good Thing!
"I agree - In my opinion, by the time someone reaches high school, they either are interested in science & maths, or they aren't."
I couldn't disagree more. It certianly wasn't my experience. I mean how could it have been, I didn't have any real science education until I got to Biology, Chemistry and Physics in my last 3 years of high school. All the science crap I had before that, was a waste. It was all worthless, I can't rememeber a single usefull science concept from before those 3 classes.
The claim of the unschooling advocates is that all kids are naturally motivated to learn, they simply aren't motivated to learn exactly the topics you want them to on the exact timescale you want them to. But let them learn at their own pace, and they will learn what they need.
Traditional schools try to cram knowledge into kids' heads whether they like it or not. This is not terribly efficient or pleasant. It's like force-feeding a kid food rather than letting him eat at his own pace. Kids start out curious, and we train them to shut up and sit still and believe that learning is supposed to be hard work that is good for them rather than a form of play and source of useful information.
Others have said this better than I'm likely to. Here's Cedarwood Sudbury's Why Families Choose Us page:
Why Families Choose Us
In this section two parents tell why their children attend the school the school.
David Friedman, parent: I went to a good private school run by a university, my wife to a good suburban public school. What we most remember is sitting in class being bored. My most exciting in-school intellectual experience was arguing political philosophy with my best friend --when we were supposed to be studying. My wife remembers spending her time drawing the world's most elaborate mazes for the girl next to her to solve. One fundamental mistake embedded in the schools we went to--and the schools most children still go to--was the idea that the way to teach children is to sit them down and talk at them. The result is a classroom where a third of the students are behind and lost, a third are ahead and bored, and at most a third are actually listening. I learned more about using the English language going through Christie, Kipling, and whatever else the library offered at a rate of a book a day during summer vacation than in four years of English class. Six years ago I returned to my school for a class reunion and was brought up to date. What they seemed proudest of was how busy the students were. The people running that school, like those running many elite schools today, seemed to subscribe to the "devil finds work for idle hands" theory of education. Give the children enough homework, get them involved in enough activities, and they won1t have time to do drugs or get pregnant. I doubt it works. The real consequence is to absorb the free time in which the children might actually have learned something. A second mistake is the idea of segregating children by age. When I was fourteen, intellectually precocious and socially retarded, I should have been talking to eighteen-year-olds and playing with twelve-year-olds. The school provided few opportunities to do either. Our children will not have to waste large parts of their childhood sitting down pretending to listen. Our daughter is, and our son soon will be, going to a different kind of school. Cedarwood Sudbury School differs from conventional schools in three important ways: The school consists of rooms, books, computers, students, and staff. The books, computers, and staff are resources, available to help the students learn what they want when they want. There are few classes, and those are voluntary. No student is required to sit and listen, no student is told what he must learn. Students currently range in age from five to fifteen. There is no attempt to segregate them by age. My seven-year-old daughter talks and plays with other children of widely varying ages. The school is run and its rules made by a School Meeting in which students and staff have one vote each. If one member of the school community is accused by another of violating the rules, the case is tried before a disciplinary committee consisting of one staff member and three students. Much of what happens in the school is done by groups, such as the Pet Corporation and the Art Corporation, created by students who want something done--and do it. How well does it work? Coming into the school, it feels more than anything else like a very large family. Big kids play with small kids carefully. At one point my daughter told me about an outside game that one of the big kids had invented; with rules that allowed small kids to chase and catch big kids, but not the other way around. People run around inside and out, argue with each other, play computer games and watch computer games, lie around reading books. Our school is too new to know how its students will turn out in the long term. But it is modeled on a successful experiment--the Sudbury Valley School, which has been running in Framingham, Massachusetts for thirty years. Judging by the performance of Sudbury graduates, our children and their classmates are at least as likely to go to college as if they went to a more conventional school--and a good deal more likely to start their own businesses.If you think that might be how you want your child to grow up, call and come visit.
-David Friedman Jean Williams-Ley, parent: My son, seven-year-old Scott, has attended Cedarwood for three years. One day last year at home, I handed him a page of first-grade math schoolwork. (I got it from volunteering at a local public school.) Scott was interested in doing the equations with me, so we did. Scott laughed out loud when he said the equation of a number plus zero. He knew the answer and thought it was pretty silly to add nothing. I loved seeing his enthusiasm! The structure of a conventional classroom suppresses this joy about ideas. Instead it pressures children to learn, and to show they are learning by writing the correct answers. We at Sudbury schools believe that this pressure interferes with students' ability to learn. Instead, learning at Sudbury schools is self-motivated, which is quicker, longer-lasting and more rewarding. Think of your own best learning experiences. Cedarwood allows Scott to grow in all aspects of his life. He does not fit into the "age-appropriate" level in reading, writing, the ability to express ideas, or social skills. Cedarwood lets him progress in each area at his own rate. He happens to be "ahead of grade level" in some areas and ''behind" in others. But Cedarwood doesn't evaluate its students. It doesn't need to. Scott is completely capable of self-evaluation and, like all normal children, knows his strengths, abilities, and where he needs work. Does Cedarwood's freedom mean that the school allows the students to "run wild?" Well, Scott is held accountable for anti-social behavior (if it happens) on a daily basis through the school's judicial system. Such behavior might include violating cleanliness standards or violating another student's or staff member's rights. The school teaches responsibility in a way that conventional schools do not. The idea of giving one adult complete power over my child for nine months is one I question. Children have the experience of adults making plenty of decisions for them, as oftentimes we must. But adult taskmasters interfere with the process of learning. Only in the familiar hierarchical and herding structure we all know as school, is the learning process so very restrictive of children. Much learning doesn't require this kind of structure My child reads at school without being told to, for example, and he is not unique. In addition, Scott learns to deal with real-life situations such as interpersonal negotiations and conflict. Many such situations arise during play, which is one reason experts consider child-directed play such a valuable learning experience. Sudbury schools are really schools of natural curiosity. In conventional schools, teachers sometimes do not have time to answer a student's questions. All day long, Cedarwood students are free to find answers to their questions. I can't think of a better educational setting than one where students interact with people of all ages who treat them as equals, where students can concentrate on things that interest them, and where there are people available to help them and to discuss things with them. -Jean Williams-LeyI play Nerd-Folk!
The whole idea of education is that different teachers are better at and more interested in different things. In the elementary years, this means that, yes, sometimes a kid gets shortchanged by a teacher who's not that interested in spelling...or science, or what-have-you.
The idea is that on the whole, receiving a liberal education rounds a person out, challenges them in many different subjects -- some of which may not be interesting / easy for students.
Myself--liberal arts degree, total computer geek / professional developer. My dad was a teacher -- and morphed into different teaching roles throughout his career: elementary, spanish, junior high, high school coaching, and eventually ended up becoming a major computer geek -- and his school's librarian! He brought them up to speed from gopher and early email up until last year, when he retired.
My brother is currently making a similar transition--from high-school spanish teacher to school district information technology / information learning dude. Funny, in college, he majored in Spanish, minored in comp sci...
Sorry to ramble, but the point is that __good__ teachers are passionate people who have many interests. Some may not be "into" one thing or another -- but it is in all our interests to have teachers who are well-rounded, interesting people.
"I think there is a world market for, maybe, five computers." __ IBM Chairman, 1943 __
Smartest person i ever met: my dad. A teacher.
Didn't do it for the money -- did it to teach. Kids. Corny as it sounds -- teachers are there to teach. Yes, there are some, as one particularly articulate poster put it, "dumb" people entering teaching. I must say that certification is much more difficult these days, and there are many very gifted people in education. Poo on you and your narrow attitude.
As gilroy said, the top issue is not money anyway. It's that many teachers have masters' degrees and 5/10/20 years experience etc...and take shit from bureaucratic administration, parents who refuse to take responsibility for their children, and a society of taxpayers who couldn't last one minute in a classroom full of kids. And many of them still love it.
AND to top it all off! -- they make nothing on the $$ scale.
int patience = finite;
while (patience > 0) {
teach( );
takeCrap( );
makeNada( );
patience--;
}
"I think there is a world market for, maybe, five computers." __ IBM Chairman, 1943 __
What college is he going to?
whom the author says are hostile towards the scientific studies because becoming an Elementary teacher is the only way to graduate from college without needing to take a single science course),
in my experience most elementary education majors that I have met have been required to take AT LEAST one lab based, but usually TWO lab-based sciences. Now, they don't necessarily have to take the advanced chemistries or physics, but still. I don't think that that comment was necessarily fair. I had many teachers in elementary school who had a passion for the arts and the sciences, all the way up into middle and high school. It was actually in HIGH SCHOOL where the science teachers started to seem to care less. I think that perhaps this guy should go back and re-check some of his data, and do some more in-depth studies.
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
Hey,
the science major today should be what classical Greek and Latin were in the 19th century, and the liberal-arts major was in the 20th: the union card required to enter the professional world.
Oh, I disagree. I find that engineers and scientists can never earn as much as business executives and sales people.
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
My son's school in Maryland (USA) stopped assigning math homework in the 1st grade because parents complained. The teachers did not like this, but stopped teaching it because of the parental pressure.
This is stupid and crazy and an example where teachers are not the problem, but rather, the fact that public education is taught to the least common denominator.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
I think ass-dot is the new trailer park of our times. All the white trash had to go somewhere.
Take this personaility test.
You again obviously have no involvement in education, and don't know anyone who is. To make the ridiculous claim that teachers are overpaid is actually so sad its almost, but not quite amusing. Please give me salary levels of teachers in your state and let me know how they are overpaid. I know that in my state a first year teacher without a masters starts out at 21,000/year. A teacher with a Masters Degree starts out at 31,000/year. Wow, they're rich, eh? You also assume that the NEA is the cause of all that's wrong in education. Whether or not you agree with the NEA (and a very good chunk of teachers do not), the NEA does not put a gun to the govt.'s head and say "don't fund us." And god forbid someone fight for higher wages for people who essentially work 12 hour days/weekends. Oh sure the school day is only 8 hours, but then papers have to be graded, team meetings attended to, parents counselled with, and plans made out. Additionally, please tell me how the NEA is responsible for administrators who only care about meeting standardized test scores, and don't give a rat's ass if they run off their best teachers by running them into the ground with their scheduling. Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh, and get involved with education and people who are in it before you post things as silly and stupid as what you have posted. At least we know why you're not a registered /. user.
When my parents (one a mathematician, the other a historian) attended Keele University in the UK, it had a unique approach to teaching its undergraduates. Everyone did the same first year, and it contained a brief course from pretty much every department in the university. As a result, everyone had some exposure to degree-level mathematics, English, history, and so on. For the remaining three years (unusually for the time, Keele ran a four year course) people studied two principal subjects and a third subsidiary. For example, my father studied maths and physics, with subsidiary French.
Something that has always impressed me is how well-informed my parents and their friends from university always seem to be. They are all both literate and numerate, aware of issues from many fields, and generally interesting people. When friends visit for dinner, the conversation might go from a scientific development in the news last week to a philosophical book someone read recently to the state of the environment and contemporary politics, to... The unusual thing is that no one "expert" on each field is explaining all the time; everyone understands the ideas in question.
It's really too bad that we specialise so early in the UK these days. Most people take a broad range of GCSEs at 16, but then drop to specialising in perhaps 3 or 4 subjects (usually related) if they continue to A levels at 18, and a single subject at degree level and beyond. Fortunately, the powers-that-be seem to be wise to this, and the system is evolving, slowly but surely, toward keeping a broader approach later (but still specialising enough to be useful in the end). There's hope for us yet. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
My first degree was a BS Ed in Chemsitry. Assessing its value I decided to level out and earn a BS in Chem, then I went on to an MS in Biochemistry. There difference between a BS and a BS ED is the same as between a BS Ed and a high school diploma.
An MS should be the minimum requirement for a secondary science teacher. A year or two of experience will reveal if an individual can teach or not.
There are issues far deeper than this, here is a start:
sierratimes article
Do a little research into Dewey and the NEA and you will find communist/Marxist ideals spread throughout.
Point 10 of the communist manefesto:
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
I don't have the full details, but there are issues far more disconcerting than educating students for dead-end jobs.
The real reason our elite are not going into teaching and the reason teachers aren't paid more is because of time. Given an equal number of students and an average school year, the intelletual elitist and the teacher who passed the state test by one point are probably going to turn out the same number of flunkies, the same number of mall rats, and the same number of future brain surgeons. In an alternate school setting the more educated and insightful teacher might make a difference, but as it is they simply don't have the time to make a difference. Since they can't do anything more than the average they don't bother. Since they're not competing against someone more capable, current teachers' pay doesn't have a broad spectrum. Because it's not competetive the NEA and other organizations have stepped. Everyone's made equal and pay raises are scheduled.
My wife was a middle-school teacher, so I know the routine. Personally, if I could make $100k a year I'd teach English. Since I can't I write software.
- Sig this!
Actually, science is quite irrelevant.
...reinforce the elite/idiot problem. The fact is, that until people all have the same brains and the same learning ability we will always have elites/ignorant. Just like there will always be rich and poor.
In most of the United States the only way you can graduate from college without taking a single science course is to major in elementary education.
Well, here in Florida the requirements for an elementary school teacher (K-3) are listed
here. In summary...
STA 1060C Basic Statistics using MS Excel or
STA 2014C Principles of Statistics
AST 2002 Astronomy or
GEO 1200 Physical Geography or
GLY 1030 Geology and its Applications
BSC 1005L Biological Principles Laboratory or
GEO 1200L Physical Geography Laboratory or
PSC 1121L Physical Science Laboratory
Granted, this cirriculum will not produce someone who is going to develop a cure for cancer, but it does introduce them to the scientific principles. Remember, the goal for teaching teachers is teaching them HOW to teach, not necessarily what to teach.
By the way, my wife is currently taking this program and is being told by the advisor that she needs to complete up to Calc 3, Physics (with calculus), and Chemistry 2 if she is going to meet the department's requirements. I've seen business majors get away with less.
And do we really want to train all of our kids to be engineers and scientists? That would be a hellish world, indeed.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
I'll swim against the current on this one. WhY?
1. Education degrees are jokes. Education majors pend less time in class, reading or doing work for their classes than any other major. My cat could get an education degree.
2. They work 9 months outta the year. So don't sing me the song about taking classes over the summer since folks in real job will do training and take classes but don't get 3 months of free time to do it. Pro rate their salaries into 12 month salaries and they get paid pretty well.
3. While they are busy working 9 months they get more vaction time in those months than do most 12 month workers. Teachers average 4 weeks of vaction in those 9 months. Again, pro rate their salary out some more for the bonus 2 weeks they get.
4. They work fewer hours. I work 8-5 in my job, teachers are, by contract, required to put in 8:30-3:30- or similar hours. They put in 2 hours less per day than I do. Again keep pro rating their salary. Worse they get that teacher in-service hour whihc they don't teach and they allegdly use for lesson planning and grading. I've been there- it isn't used that way. Most teachers use the same lessons over and over and they certainly don't grade everday and the prevalance of multiple choice scan tron type means that when do do grade al ot of it is just feeding a machine. Assume that during big rushes or finals they burned those in service hours so it might even out- although elemtary teachers don't have these kinds of pushes.
5. In most states, teachers refuse any kind of review that will evaluate either their competence to teach OR their mastery of the material they teach. I might be inclined to offer their more cash if they could show excellenece or even competence but they claim that their "knoweldge skill" is education and not Englihs, Math, History etc.
Im sum, using 40 hours at 52 weeks- 2 weeks of vaction, I work 2000 hours a year. Teachers, by contrast, work 30-35 hours per week for a total of 36 weeks (4 weeks vactions, plus 12 weeks for 3 months during the summer) 1080- 1260 hours. They work 54% to 63% of what I do.
I know some really dedicated types work after hours and run clubs and all that but that is a small fraction of the total and the majority won't let those exceptional types be compensated for their activities.
I graduated from Clemson University with a Computer Engineering degree and it always amazed me that I never heard an elementary education student complaining about course work...
I beleive that Math is a cornerstone of education, it teaches logic, reasoning, and problem solving, and those things are the basis to intelligence. Given that belief, I think the problem with education is that the teachers are DUMB when it comes to math. At Clemson, I had to take so many math courses in Comp E that I took one extra (statistics for Business majors, easy A) and I got a math minor. On the other hand, the elementary education majors had to take two courses, laughable courses at that. I don't remember the specifics, but from talking to people in that major the courses were something like remedial algebra and "teaching math." The teaching math course was really scary because it basically taught simple addition and things like that to people who were supposed to teach kids... I hate to sound so much like a stickler, but education is important and having good educators is imperative to our country. We will continue to fall back in education until we raise salaries for teachers so that they will come out of school with strong majors that have a background in math and science so that they can convey the logic, reasoning, and problem solving skills to young Americans.
~ now you know
Just as an add-on to the discussion: I live in south Brazil, in a city called Porto Alegre. Our city has been administrated in the last 15 years by a leftist party.
The salaries the city hall pays to teachers that work in schools under the city administration are among the highest in the public function. Believe me, they pay more money to elementary school teachers than public university teachers (which is under federal administration). The result is as in the article assumption: we have teachers with doctorate in elementary school here. It pays better.
Who do you know that works for the government and makes lots of money? They do exist, but for 99% of these jobs, people could be making far more in the private sector.
And, teachers work for the very worst (in terms of wages) type of government ... local government.
That wouldn't explain the often lower salaries at private schools ... except that parents then have to pay for school twice (since vouchers are unconstitutional and all).
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Regarding homework, it does seem odd that:
* Schools, teachers, etc. talk about the important of the assignment and completion of homework - in some case, *massive* amounts thereof.
* Adults may be labelled mal-adjusted over-acheiving poor family members probably destined for divorce and deep unhappiness, if they take work home with them.
Of course both of these are overstatements, but:
If we want adults to put in a solid day's work, get the job done, then go home and do other things, perhaps it would make sense to teach this same thing to people on the way to becoming adults (students).
[Right or wrong, teachers get paid on a set scale, with their salaires dependent solely upon years of experience and level of education. The subject they teach does not factor into salary placement at all.]
This is the arrangement that teachers, in the form of their unions, have negotiated. Right or wrong, this is not *imposed* externally on teachers, it's what they (as a large group) have chosen over time.
The "smart kids" are able to teach
themselves, while the "average kids" get most
of the teacher's attention. The "dumb kids"
are usually just average kids who have emotional problems.
The way to solve the problem is to enable
students to select the school that best suits
them via a mechanism such as school vouchers
and schools of choice.
It is important to
acknowledge that the Public School System
started out as a vocational education and
daycare system in order to benefit industrialization.
Those with the drive to succeed
needed (and still need) to succeed in spite of
the system.
Amazing magic tricks
let's stop making professional teachers! insteadf, why don't we reward people from the private sector who get exeprience at their respective positions (scientists, writers, IT guys, local politicians, skilled labor, etc.) and then want to teach.
It was sad that in high school i knew more than my teachers. They had nothing to teach me. However, if they had actually been IN THE FIELD (i.e. doing something outside of the teaching arena) for 10 years, and then decided to teach, they would have had practical knowledge that they could have gently taught me.
I am COMPLETELY in favour of teachers getting 2-3 times what they earn now in pay, I mean it. However, pay alone will not make up for the fact that most teachers simply do not and cannot have the experience needed to actually teach something relevant.
It is like having professional politicians: all you do is make a better huckster, you don't actually get people that care about what they are representing. Same thing goes for college professors....
What 0 and Funny??? I was mearly pointing out the ludicrisy in unqualified statements that include the work never and I get a 0??? What's up with that? I guess at least I'm funny....
*mumbles something about moderators and firebombs*
There is no shortage of teachers.
There are too many elementary school teachers
and not enough junior and high school teachers.
Likewise, not enough math/science teachers.
The reason why, as Barbie would say 'math is hard'.
Solution: Require teachers to be certified in a one liberal art and one hard science.
Not the psychology and history easy way.
A long standing question I've had is, would high school teachers pass the GED?
What 0 and Funny??? I was mearly pointing out the ludicrisy in unqualified statements that include the work never and I get a 0??? What's up with that? I guess at least I'm funny....
*mumbles something about moderators and firebombs*
*mumbles something about passwords and shotguns...*
damn mistyped passwords....
"Madness and Genius are separated solely by Degrees of Success." -Unknown
Math is to your brain like spinach is for Popeye's muscles... Good reasoning skills are sorely lacking in many discussions in Humanities classrooms.
Amazing magic tricks
What proportion of students in 1900 dropped out before 8th grade?
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Is Donna still on there?
I realized after posting this that all the points I intended to make didn't actually get made :).
First of all, expanding funding for education is something I think should go well beyond grade school and high school, but that college educations should also be taken care of. Also, any sort of continuing education, job re-training, etc, should be funded.
As for determining the commitment of students, what I would propose is having schools that provide different tiers of education to different skill levels and require minimal GPA's to remain in particular level. Thus, a very gifted child could excel to their potential and a non-gifted child could fall back to a level where they can get the support they need. And let's be clear on this, I mean actual support to try to move all kids ahead, not just maintain status quo.
Furthermore, if we had a decent publicly funded medical system, we wouldn't have to use schools as treatment facilities for troubled children. They could seek real counseling from qualified mental health professionals. But that's an entirely different tirade.
Also, I agree with people's statements that big money isn't the answer, but how about we start with just reasonable distribution of the money that is available? You've got schools that can barely afford building upkeep let alone skilled instructors, and you've got school districts who can afford sprawling campuses in the best parts of town. When I think of more money, admittedly I'm thinking of those schools falling apart at the seams from lack of funding.
Also, I agree that one of the biggest problems that funding isn't going to solve is this country's general lack of respect for education. Smart==elite and elite is above other people which is frowned on by our society of equality. At least that's my best guess as to why that mentality exists.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The United States by any conceivable measure has the finest scientists in the world.
Sorry, after reading an idiotic opening statement like this, I couldn't continue with the rest of the article.
While there have been great scientists in the US, I can't think of anyone who's at all objective that wouldn't consider this completely ridiculous.
There are also equally great scientists all over the world, European countries, Japan, Canada (and others) have produced an equal number of equally talented scientists. Just because you don't receive our media in your country does not mean these people do not exist.
Perhaps the author should read some published work by real working scientists, to see what I mean.
And yes, I'll likely be squashed like a bug, but if you read and understand this, I'm not saying anything Anti-American here. I'm trying to point out that while you're great, don't assume that there your equals do not exist in a quieter fashion (unless you're actually a scientist, then you read about everyone's stuff on an equal footing, but the popular media would have you think otherwise).
-- If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment. -- Harry F. Banks
There actually is a reason for this difficulty - it provides the proper setting for people to learn whether they really do or don't want to do this.
The curve handles the grade thing, and provides room for the really bright people to spread their wings. That's what university science is about - finding the one or two percent who have what it takes to really be good scientists. It's not foolproof, but it's the best we've got.
Science is very very hard. There is no way around that. I have never had much difficulty with English classes, but have always struggled in science and math. I am a Physics major. Maybe I should have gone into English, but since there was some chance I might be able to do science I tried it. This is some tough stuff.
So don't come down on science departments too hard - most of them think they don't teach nearly enough. They are fighting poor high school training, student fear of the subject, apathy, and many who are there only as a requirement as will the minimum needed to pass. That's a frustrating combination. They are teaching for majors, and usually in intro classes one student in 20 is a possible major. It is those people they are targeting.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Building giant stadia for the purpose of puffing your socialist or communist People's chest has long been a staple, but politicians here doing it because the team will move away if they don't, and the politician will lose the next election really takes the cake.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Education is a soft science, but the softest among them is certainly software "engineering".
I have a Masters in Computer Science and have been in the industry for over 5 years. Every year, a new tool or language or API comes along, promising global salvation. And everytime, I go back to what Alan Perlis said in the 60s - "its all about indirection"
Same old, same old. Nothing fundamentally scientific about it. One of these days I plan to bail out & get a Math degree. Not that's scientific!
While I think that some elementary school teachers could be hostile towards science, I think most of them ranged from not-so-enthusiastic to very enthusiastic, in my experience. It seems to me that much of the fear and hostility comes from parents who have this fear, likewise from movies and the media.
If a parent is downright scared to even think about the science you are studying, you start to think there must be something overwhelming about it.
There aren't enough fun shows that talk about science either-- like Bill Nye, Mr. Wizard, Square One (that was more math, but often science has math, and math fear therefore carries over heavily). Kids find themselves liking those shows, and often they don't yet have their math/science alert sirens implanted in their brains.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Anyone who volunteers to work for a government in any capacity other than defense (guard the borders), justice (guard the law), or foreign service (watch other governments) deserves crappy pay and working conditions.
I mean, why make a parasite happy?
668: Neighbour of the Beast
> The government education system was established
> specifically to destroy the ability of students to
> think.
Yes, those first public schools in Little House on the Prarie were established to STOP the farmboys from getting too smart by sloppin' dose hoggies all day.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Why? Because if we paid teachers that much then a lot of people who decided to study harder subject (to get the higher pay) would study teaching instead. With the result that there would be a lot of competition for teaching jobs and the smarter people would get them.
Personally, it would be worth the higher taxes to see the current crop of teachers kicked out.
Stonewolf
eliminate school taxes, allow parents to school children as they see fit.
IHBT, but...
> All Germany has ever produced is hatred, oppression, war and genocide.
> Name me one positive thing a German ever has done.
Well, geez, what nationality was Albert Einstein? Oh, never mind.
Try this on for size:
"All (insert country here) has ever produced is hatred, oppression, war and genocide.
Name me one positive thing a (insert country personal identifier here) ever has done." Now, just about the only country that doesn't fit this formula is Canada, because they're frankly not very good at war. The U.S., Russia, China, The U.K., Japan and a myriad of others all certainly do fit well.
So, shoo, troll, don't bother us.
Virg
Actually, I am the spouse of a teacher. Shows what you know.
To make the ridiculous claim that teachers are overpaid is actually so sad its almost.
I said that most are overpaid. Not all. Since I did not make the argument you wanted to attack, you made up a new one and attacked that?
Please give me salary levels of teachers in your state and let me know how they are overpaid.
Salary levels are irrelevant. What indicates overpay is a situation where the teachers will work for less, but the NEA has inflated the wages.
I know that in my state a first year teacher without a masters starts out at 21,000/year. A teacher with a Masters Degree starts out at 31,000/year. Wow, they're rich, eh?
No, they are not rich. Again, that is an argument I never made. Overpaid? Perhaps. If the teachers would still work for $17,000, it is overpay, and a tragedy, since this money can be used for other aspects of education where money is needed.
You also assume that the NEA is the cause of all that's wrong in education.
Again, an argument I did not make. They are not a cause of "all that is wrong". However, they consistently fight to degrade education and oppose real reforms that would improve it. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Whether or not you agree with the NEA (and a very good chunk of teachers do not).
About 1/3 of the NEA members are teachers who disagree with it, and are forced to join or be fired. This is my first complaint with the organization: it is illegitimate, since its membership is based on force.
the NEA does not put a gun to the govt.'s head and say "don't fund us."
They do something about as bad: they force teachers to give to campaigns of regressive anti-education lawmakers who then vote to shut down education reform.
And god forbid someone fight for higher wages for people who essentially work 12 hour day/weekends.
Yes. God forbid! If they want to get filthy rich, they should go into another job. 12 hour days? Again an NEA problem. The NEA opposes merit pay for such dedicated educators: they want to waste pay raises on the teachers who only work from 8:30 to 3:00 and make all the kids grade the papers during class time.
Additionally, please tell me how the NEA is responsible for administrators....
I never made this claim. The NEA is a big part of the problem, but not all of it.
Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh
Why? He is a valid source of information. That is sort of an anti-education attitude, too: I think people should listen to as many sources as possible, even if they are opposed by left-wing extremists.
At least we know why you're not a registered
Ad hominem attack. Pointless too.
The flaw with this piece is the assumption that a solid understanding of basic science is necessary to succeed in a technological society. For example, I know plenty of Electrical Engineers, and probably 80% of them could not write down Maxwell's equations to save their lives, even though these are the scientific basis for their entire discipline. Look at all the movers and shakers in Silicone Valley, you will actually find very few who have any hard core scientific background. If you want to succeed in this technological society, you don't want to study physics, you want to study marketing, law, finance, with maybe a minor in EE so you will know the buzzwords.
I may be going out on a limb here, but as a grad student in a school of education, I thought I'd put out some other stuff to look at if you're interested in learning more about just why we have trouble educating our public.
Check out Liping Ma's book: Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics. It is a great set of case studies of elementary teachers in the US and China. Short story is that Chinese teachers, despite considerably less actual training, end up with a much deeper understanding of math, because they actually spend time thinking about it and a lot of time discussing math and teaching with their colleagues.
Also, for the more pop-educationally inclined, Stigler and Hiebert's "The Teaching Gap" is a quickie and a decent discussion of how the US educational system is flawed.
As you talk about the educational system in the US, remember that reforms and the like are almost always political in origin, and stem from people who don't really know about education. Just because you went to High School and got a 4.0 or whatever doesn't mean you know all there is to know about education, but many politicians would have you believe otherwise (and don't even get me started in on standardized testing).
Long live David Goodstein! Professor, if you're reading this, thanks for a great series on elementary physics!
Look, I'm not going to argue with anecdotal evidence. Most all of us at slashdot have had knowledgeable science/math teachers that couldn't communicate their way out of a paper bag, but the fact of the matter is, a lot of teachers out there aren't all that competent in science. And if the teacher wasn't even enthused enough about the subject to major in it him/herself, what's to say that they'll be able to pass on any enthusiasm at all? We should be hiring the most enthused, best communicating science majors to teach our science classes. Anything less is failing our children.
I'm curious as to where this information came from.
No citation, just opinion, sorry, I was surely exaggerating and I apologize if I sounded like I meant it. Still, I have asked some math/science teachers some pretty basic questions and gotten blank stares. I remember when I asked my math teacher what polar coordinates were and she said she'd never seen them, or when I asked a physics teacher why vectors were being represented by matrices, and HE said he'd never seen such a thing before.
I'm not going in to secondary school teaching regardless, so I'm not sweating it. I am, however, hoping that my grandkids will get a decent education 50 years down the line when they are going to school.
what makes you think those wore governmnt sponsored? A lot of the teachers were hired and paid for by the towns and parents.
The point that was made is not that religion is truthful in its content. The point is that it is a very powerful tool for socialization and ensuring the future of our civilization by preserving the quality of our citizens.
Religion is a con, plain and simple. Anyone who says that they know and understand the mind and will of God is a fool at best. Especially since the supposed source of this insight, the bible, is hardly what I would call an authoritative source. The mythology of the Jews is no more convincing to me than that of the Greeks and Romans. Even so, that does not mean that the con is without merit. Religion has always been a form of mind control whereby those who are unable to think for themselves and understand right from wrong are kept from causing too much trouble. At least in peace time. In war time religion is used to direct and focus the wrath of a nation towards the destruction of its enemies. In the case of child rearing, religion is used to instill the kind of virtues and qualities that make for a more peaceful and productive society.
This is all very dishonest of course, but just how else do you keep the rabble from making rubble of your nation or society? Lock them up? How do you justify the incarceration of someone based on the trouble they are expected to cause, rather than the trouble they have caused?
So the question of religion in schools has nothing to do with whether one religion is more valid than another, they're all BS. Or with the separation of church and state since that policy simply means that the church and state don't control one another. It has to do with whether or not our society benefits from having its less intelligent members be brainwashed so as to keep them in line.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
> ...while teacher's (my father teaches at a local high school)
> are almost always required...
I hope he doesn't teach English. "Teachers" shouldn't have an apostrophe.
Virg
The key is communication skills and knowlegde in depth of the course material. One should take education courses to be able to teach, however- a core knowledge of subject matter is just as(if not more) important. I would rather have a person who *knew* principles behind the math than someone who wrote something on the board and said 'copy it and memorize it.' And that is precisely the attitude of most non-scientific people- memorize it. Memorization is bullshit. You can always look something up at a library or the internet if you need to know specific values. Core concepts are much more needed in the minds of the human race.
> When Thales was asked what was difficult, he said, "To know one's self."
> And what was easy, "To advise another."
Who gives a thit what Thales thaid? Tell uth what Thupport thaid!
Virg
It's "Siege", not "Seige"; conversely, it's "Deity", not "Diety".*
*Civ2 comment
why is this?   is this completely undeserved?   in my experience, the minority of teachers are dedicated and do the job because they love it.   the majority do it because they are not capable of doing anything else (or getting a degree that requires hard science classes).
You would never, ever think of telling your doctor, "Well, I could do your job if I wanted to take the time".
that's right, because YOU COULDN'T!!   anyone with a basic college education could teach grade or high school with a little preparation.
summer vacation, minimal responsibility (compared to an engineer working on a multi-million dollar project) and an easy degree is why teachers make small salaries.   period.
personally, i think all teachers should be paid $100,000+/year. the competition would weed out the shitty teachers and our children would be better educated.
we could take the $40 billion/year spent on the war on drugs and use the cash to pay teachers high salaries   WoD clock
prohabition should be lifted, addicts should be given free drugs & warehoused and the $40 billion/year should go towards paying all teachers six figure salaries.   the competition would weed out the shitty teachers and crime would drop.   as a side benefit, the gangs would go bankrupt.
lots of teachers completely suck, that's why they are all treated like children.
lift prohabition, end the war on drugs, take that $40 billion/year and use it to pay teachers six digit salaries.
the compeition would weed out the shitty teachers and our country would be a much better place.
Parents of public school kids run the gamut from "cares a lot about the child's education" to "doesn't care about the child's education." The set of all parents who homeschool their kids filters out the "doesn't care" end of that scale.
A parent's care for their child's education is no simple factor in this system. Having a care doesn't necessarily mean they are capable of helping, and I've personally seen more than a typical number of situations where it was this very care that caused the learning deficit.
You are comparing [apples, oranges] to beef.
The source of the implications raised by the article can be traced by simply asking: "are these people indeed receiving education from the same place, or simply going to the same buildings?"
I can speak from personal experience and say I educated myself, regardless of what government-owned structure I was legally required to walk into every weekday. I don't imply that I'm the quintessential case here, but consider: Is it logical to reason that those that are more apt to learn also have the extra initiative to learn on their own, while those future illiterates do not?
I think if parents play a role in this, the time period to consider is the infancy of the child in question, not his/her school-faring years.
(SLAP!) That's "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious", dammit! And is "doctorite" the stuff that makes doctors weak?
Virg
Peer review as part of the grading process. Teachers are best able to understand their students and their strengths. High stakes tests and national guidelines really serve as a minimum acceptable standard. These sort of things do not promote creative-free thinkers. Teachers can and do when they have the chance and are empowered to do so.
For the basic subjects, the current methods are ok for most.
What will do society some good is enlightened students. Exposure to things at an early age forms a foundation for learning later in life that can't be beat.
I am sure that there are many people today that have some knowledge that applies to a specific field. Let them teach! Make it worth it, and let other more general purpose teachers mentor them and learn also.
Not every kid will benefit from these sort of things and for them there are the regular classes and activities, but getting early exposure to technology of any kind will help those that need it more than we know.
-------- End of point... -------------
Just as an example from my youth to belabour this point a little more.
A computer club was announced in my area long ago. For someone interested in technology living in a somewhat backwards small town, this was great. Not attending was not an option.
Turns out the person running this club was a HAM, into computers, and had a lot of experience in other things. Getting older in life and comfortable with his lifestyle left him with free time so he gave it to us with no almost no strings attached. He did want us to work, and would help in any way possible. When we got some technical thing accomplished he was there to say good job when parents and teachers could only say "thats nice, what is it again??"
What a gift!
In about 2.5 years with help from this 'teacher' that did not teach for my school I learned a lot.
- Assembly language programming on 6502 & 6809 re-entrant, relocatable code, graphics, sound, and other things. (6809 rocks BTW!)
- Got a HAM radio license, was on the air for 5 years on old gear that I fixed and maintained with the help and knowledge given to me about AC and DC electrical theory and antennas.
- Wrote an assembler / disassembler for my Atari machine in basic that was used for the coding mentioned above.
- Morse Code.
- Tore into older Vacuum Tube type radios and televisions, fixed them used them sold them played with them. --Just for fun!
Contrast that stuff with technology classes at school. We were typing in programs and then describing what they did. (In Logo no less!) Some of the more creative ones were modifying them (you could tell that they wanted more), but most kids were not learning anything that would matter later on. Lots of busy work only to see their name drawn on the screen and wonder why that was so hard... (They later thought why do that, so they didn't.)
To this day, the discussions, challenges, and arguments we had in that small group still matter.
Not only did we get to the bare metal and make the machines do cool things, we talked about tech and learned to understand it for what it is --a tool of the best kind, one that will do whatever you can think of with a catch... You must learn to speak its language.
I am no genius, but I am doing what I love and making a living at it. One person willing to just tell it like it is and open my eyes changed everything. Contrast that to the career classes that just add to a growing depression and insecurity and you see that things are seriously broken. People wonder why violence, drugs and other issues are growing probems with todays youth...
Take a look around. Wonder how many of those kids have nothing that feeds their soul. Nobody that drives them to grow and learn.
Going to school is a lot like prison today. With the cameras and stiff regulations (my daughter can't even keep her allergy medication with her because it might be a drug!) on conduct and the higher penalties they offer it is no wonder that kids just tune out and wait for it to be over...
As for the teachers, god forbid that they actually say something and wake up the kids! Those kids might actually start thinking up their own stuff and then where are we? It's sick. (not the teachers, the system as it currently stands!)
The best analogy I can think of is this: You are a dog. All of your life you have eaten various kinds of dog food and lived with your mature and stable masters. You know all your tricks. All of your choices are simple and safe, perfect bliss until...
One day you bump into a young kid who gives you a bite of his hamburger and wants to play outside somewhere new. The taste of the food and the thought of the game makes you wonder why this did not happen sooner.
For me it was technology, computing in particular, others it might be music, art, speaking, anything. For many students there is something that they are going to crave the first time they get a taste of it. Making sure people are there to offer the 'food' is what school should be about.
Blogging because I can...
I agree that there are bad teachers. I've known many of them. There are also bad Physicists and bad anything else. That doesn't mean that most teachers are bad teachers. My point was that the solution to better teachers is not to require all of them to be Ph.D.'s in Physics. Many of the teachers start out pretty good and just get so sick of all the crap that they turn into grumpy old farts. Leave them alone and let them teach, and maybe that won't happen as much. Of course it would also help if the parents taught the kids some manners, but I digress.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
> It is a sad commentary on our society that we place such a high value on athletes, actors, and others, who collectively contribute very little to the moral fabric of our society (and many who significantly detract from it), and yet place such a low value on our teachers.
...our society would be full of uneducated menaces (ahem, like it is today...)
...and would be coming apart at the seams (like it is today...)
...and we would lose our culture and identity (ahem, surprise, surpise, which we are...)
You sound like you're from the older generation, with the usual "These kids today!" rhetoric. Societies from the dawn of time have placed high value on celebrities and entertainers, and (historically speaking) a low value on teachers. Even the vaunted Greeks, who are generally considered to have placed high value on learning, celebrated their actors, and relegated teaching duties to slaves. And for every Socrates, we have an Albert Einstein who brought science to the masses.
>
"Uneducated menaces"? Your elitism astounds me. Firstly, your assumption that everyone who isn't as well educated as you is a "menace" merely shows your lack of contact with the general public, and not only are crime rates lower per capita today than ever before in history, the average high school dropout today has a better educational background than the average person in the U.S. one hundred years ago. Did you forget that more than half of the population back then was functionally illiterate? That number is somewhat lower these days.
>
My guess is that you feel this way because fewer people today subscribe to your moral code than did when you were younger, but then fifty years ago it was acceptable to prevent someone from sitting on a particular park bench because of the color of their skin, which I find appalling. Or did you gloss over that part of your rosy past as well?
>
I think you mean "losing your culture and identity". We're not losing our collective identity, we're changing it because attitudes about what society is are changing. You can weep about how great community and patriotism was "back when", but these days the whole idea of community is different and culture needs to change to allow for this.
> For the most part, teachers are under-paid, under-trained, and have their hands tied with outdated technology and miniscule budgets...(snip)..., and waste money as if it were free.
Hate to point it out, but a lot of the waste is in the schools' own bureaucracies.
> Yeah, we can blame it on the government, but we just watch it happen and get on with our lives, too busy coding to care.
Perhaps you do, but I have been actively working for changes in the governments of every place I've lived to change what's wrong with the educational system.
> Shame on us. Shame on all of us.
Shame on you, sir or madam, for thinking you can speak for me. You sound like a rather jaded and bitter old man/woman, longing for a past that never really existed. I for one am happy with how far we've come.
Virg
Yes, but you inherit a bunch of medical problems that will cause more to be put into medi-cal programs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Incidentally, teachers I've had have had a lot of luck with actually including pop topics as part of their workload.
... our curriculuum are being written too often by either neophytes or PhDs and not people who understand pop culture -- the kids sure do though ...
Telling students that they have to watch the MTV music awards and report who certain awards were given to as well as why they think those awards weren't given to the other nominees may not sound like schoolwork, but it encourages basic-level research, scheduling and critical thinking.
Why don't we use baseball stats as an elementary part of teaching math? Why don't we use dieting (popular among teenagers, especially girls) as a reason for studying biology and anatomy? etc.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
..and should never be classified as one of those hateful people who's major misdeed in history was creating the Holocaust, the gross wanton destruction of 6 million innocent Jewish persons.
PS: He became an American citizen later and only after that happened did he become the great scientists who we have come to revere today.
I am saddened tho that his great invention, the atomic bomb was only used in a racist attack on the Japanese people. It should have been used to level the German cities forever and to end the German scourge forever.
You nitwit, AE didn't invent the atom bomb. His great contribution to science was his ideas, which others then (and still do) convert into stuff. Also, last I checked, "Jewish" was a religious designation. Your statement implies that there can be no such thing as a German Jew, which point many German Jews will find offensive. And last, but not least, the atomic bomb wasn't used in a racist attack on the Japanese, it was used in a nationalist attack on the Japanese, as a scare tactic for the Soviet Union. The reason it wasn't used on the Germans was that by the time they were ready for prime time, the war in Europe was done.
Virg
P.S. A. Einstein did most of his writings while working in a Viennese patent office, not in the U.S., and was already a revered scientist by the time he came to America. You should check your facts before you use them.
P.P.S. Your advocacy of the extermination of the German people is different from Hitler's advocacy of the extermination of the Jews in what way, exactly?
Higher pay alone isn't going to attract the best and the brightest scientists to become teachers. There are two other impediments that keep people away from becoming teachers at public schools:
1. Teacher's Union. I think most people working in technical/scientific jobs are used to working in some semblance of a mertiocracy -- if you work harder than the next guy, and are better at your job than the next guy, you'll get raises/promotions/bonuses etc. (and by "next guy", I mean it in the gender-neutral sense, of course...). In the union, you get paid for time served. You could be voted teacher of the year ten straight years in a row, but some idiot with 11 years on the job is going to make more than you by virtue of seniority. Now, granted, many in the tech field are motivated by things other than money -- as are most teachers, I like to think -- but working in a situation where there is no reward other than personal satisfaction is certainly not the place for everyone. Peoople -- whether in business, law, tech, etc. -- that end up at the top of their field are usually pretty competetive as well, and a Union environment is not the right place for these people.
2. The teaching credential. In California, at least, all teachers high school and below are required to have a valid California teaching credential to teach. Now, at first glance, this seems like a good idea -- lets make sure that our teachers have some teachings skills. However, if the quality of teachers is so bad, then obviously the credential isn't doing it's job -- so let's get rid of it. The teaching credential takes time and money to get -- I know of a few people in my MS program who wanted to be teachers, but didn't want to spend the extra year in school to get a credential, so they went off to teach at Community College -- they would have made fine high-school science teachers, if not for that credential requirement.
Maybe this is a simplistic and incorrect view -- maybe, even if teachers made good money, didn't have a union to contend with and didn't need a credential, maybe we would still have a teacher shortage. I just think that the current system obviously isn't ideal, so maybe some changes are in order.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
It's either the Germans who live or the non-whites and Jewish persons. Because the Germans are bound to create another Holocaust if left unchecked. History has taught us that.
Personally I would rather see the richness of non-white and Jewish culture in my life than the stale ugliness of Teutonic arrogance.
Which do you prefer? Are you blind to history?
Never again!
...and genocide is genocide, even if the ones you would kill are repugnant to you. You sound like a racist of the lowest stripe, to lump all Germans (and indeed all Teutonic people) in with white supremacists. Secondly, you've got a lot of nerve talking about how the Germans will sink to mass murder again if unchecked, while at the same time you push for exactly the act for which you damn them. Apparently it is you who is blind to history, because you don't realize that your argument is disturbingly close to the very argument Hitler himself used to justify the Holocaust in the first place. His argument was, to wit, "we need to eliminate the Jewish threat to our well being, because if we don't they'll run us all into servitude and death, just like they've done all through history." Your argument requires only that I replace "Jewish" with "German", and if that doesn't disturb you then I must assume that you are not to be reasoned with.
Virg
What you write here cheapens the memory of the 6 million victims of the Holocaust.
How dare you compare the justified eradication of a group of evil people who have a long history of domination, aggression and genocidal traits to the one true genocide which has happened and which is unique in history?
Have you no shame?
I said that most are overpaid. Not all
Still a retarded statement. But to help out, ask your wife to take a pay cut. . If the teachers would still work for $17,000, it is overpay, and a tragedy, since this money can be used for other aspects of education where money is needed.
What??? Yeah, at 17k/year you sure would be overpaying them. If money is needed elsewhere, and it surely is, then fund it dammit. Oh, and please let your wife know how you feel about the overpayment. I'm married to a teacher as well, but somehow I doubt your wife is getting teacher of the year awards. Either that, or she's about to divorce you if you've let her know how you feel.
This is my first complaint with the organization: it is illegitimate, since its membership is based on force.
You really have no argument, and its become clear for your posts. You simply want to spew out anti-union rhetoric, which whether I agree with it or not has nothing to do with your main post that teachers are overpaid. You think a Masters is worth 31/k a year? You are beyond hope.
. 12 hour days? Again an NEA problem
You really are dense. The NEA has nothing to do with the fact that teachers are done over repeatedly by administrations who are repeatedly trying to please govt. officials and parents at the same time. The NEA did not make my wife's schedule, the NEA did not tell the State not to buy books for the kids, the NEA did not institute standardized tests as a measure of education, the NEA did not put more kids in the class, and less teachers in the classroom, the NEA did not say please put the most out of touch in places of power.
You really again have no clue at all.
The NEA is a big part of the problem, but not all of it.
(learn to close your html tags by the way). Oh really? All I get from your post is the stupid claim that teachers are overpaid, and that its all b/c of the NEA. Again, really not worth arguing. I might as well claim the sky is pink, and its b/c of Barney. There argue that, b/c that's how stupid you look.
Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh Why? He is a valid source of information. That is sort of an anti-education attitude, too: I think people should listen to as many sources as possible, even if they are opposed by left-wing extremists.
This is pretty key--did you notice how quickly and correctly that I deduced that was where you wre getting your information from? You are blind. Also, I voted Republican, so don't call me a left wing extremist. But I forget, anyone who disagres with Rush, is left wing extremist, right ditto head? First of all, to simply spit out other's opinions reflects your inability to think critically on your own. Secondly, he's an entertainer who knows nothing about education.
Pointless too
Yes, arguing with someone as obviously stupid as you is pointless, and I shall quit after this post. You have much learning to do in life, but with your hardwired ignorance you will obviously keep spouting what the RushMaster tells you instead of trying to learn about a subject on your own from informed sources. A sad and pathetic state of being on a board that is supposedly filled with educated people. Good bye.