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."
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.
She recieved no respect whatsoever. The school treated teachers like children. Forcing them to attend 30 minute weekly meetings where nothing was accomplished. Allowing them very little input into the shape of their curriculum.
The principals she had were the most horrible managers I have ever seen. They undercut teachers authority to students, to parents, and to other teachers. After the first year she switched schools, because the enviornment at the first was retched. The second was no better. There is no support staff for teachers. Want to go on a field trip? Plan it, organize it, lead it, figure out how to pay for it, all yourself. Teachers at her school had 1 xerox machine, they would spend 20-30 minutes a day photocopying. Hours a day grading.
You want to make schools better, give each teacher access to a support staff. One full time, to help guide the kids, grade, photocopy, prepare. A pool of secretaries who can prepare some of those things. Throw out the rule that principals have to have been teachers. Let any good leader come and run a school.
Drum it into our society that teachers have authority. Make the process of overturning a teacher decision difficult. Currently teachers are powerless to fail students. The principal has to approve it. And parents know this.
What people don't realize is that salaries are not the main problem. The problem is the working enviornment. Fix that and people will be drawn to teaching. But a shitty enviornment with not extremely good pay isn't going to produce quality. That there are any good teachers is a minor miracle.
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.
As a teacher, I can speak to this: By itself, pay is not really the deciding issue. But (most) teachers aren't dopes, and we understand this: in a society such as ours, importance is signified by money. It's the American way of keeping score. So when someone with two Masters is paid the lowest salary of nearly any profession, it sends a message about how highly the society values that person... or fails to.
Pay is a shorthand for many other issues, especially professionalism and respect. Those of us who teach understand that we'll never get rich doing it; but we'd like it to be a solid middle class career. None of my friends, all teachers under 35, expect to make teaching their full-life career or to live well doing it.
What is truly corrosive, though, is the lack of respect for the profession. You would never, ever think of telling your doctor, "Well, I could do your job if I wanted to take the time". Or, "I don't like your answer and I pay your salary, so tell me what I want." Yet teachers are often instructed to give kids the grades their parents want. I have met many blank stares -- and one or two outright laughs -- when I tell parents I can't recommend their kids for an advanced class because it would violate my professional ethics.
Pay might draw more people into teaching. Honest respect -- not "education president" lip service -- is what will keep them in the classroom. I continue because every year I manage to earn the respect of some intelligent, albeit young and inexperienced -- people.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
This is only a general rule and of course varies tremendously in individuals, but I have seen it borne out well during the fifteen years I've been thinking about it. Science and engineering types are well aware of literature, art, music. Many work consciously to improve their appreciation of same. But very few of my English Lit friends read Scientific American, much less Q.E.D.. Their eyes glaze over at even the most elementary science or technical discussion.
Look at it this way: When I was in college, as a physics major, I had to take
Note that the school differentiate among philosophy, social science, and humanities. But for non-tech majors, all of physics, chemistry, biology, mech engineering, chem engineering, civil engineering, computer engineering, computer science, continuous mathematics, and discrete mathematics were lumped together as the undifferentiated blob "math/sci". And fuzzies only had to take a total of two math/sci courses.
Techies are more well-rounded because the current system forces them to be. And I like it. 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.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach