Slashdot Mirror
Teachers Back Away From Evolution In Class
RedEaredSlider writes "A study (abstract) from Penn State shows that a lot of teachers — some 60 percent — are reluctant to teach evolutionary theory in the classroom either because they fear controversy or they just aren't comfortable with the material (as not every biology teacher was a science major). It shows the importance, the authors say, of training teachers well before they step into the class."
If even the teachers aren't educated enough to understand this - what hope is there for the rest.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I think it's probably because most science majors don't go into teaching. From what limited information I gleaned from some of my friends who are teachers, a lot of them have some sort of general education degree rather than a specialized background. Unlike other developed countries (especially the ones who kick our butts in education), we don't recruit teachers from the top of the graduating classes in their fields, which is why we have such terrible science education.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
How can one be a Biology teacher without having a major in at least one of the sciences? Sad. Schools ought to demote these persons to HomeEc or English, and hire some actual degreed science majors to do the teaching.
Maybe they can't do that because of Union rules.
Wow. It's pretty evident you don't understand what's happening in schools in America.
Having dated a couple teachers, let me explain to you how it works. If you're a teacher (and I'm talking grade school or high school) you get shit on. You don't get paid shit and your 'customer' treats you like shit. What's worse is that you cannot refuse your customer and it's your duty to make sure no child is left behind.
So let's say you get a degree in biology. Any lab job or anything else will pay much better right off the bat than a teaching position in grade or high school. Why anybody would get a degree in education is beyond me. Most teachers I think are psychology or sociology majors that, if they teach something like biology, have taken some specialized courses in teaching that material. Not actual high level biology coursework -- because they're not teaching that to students.
Your attempt to blame this on the unions amuses me. Public schools don't make money. That's not what they're there for. They're not some corporation or car manufacturer, they're a public utility that provides a human right to education. As such when a school is operating in the red, it would normally be really tempting to just cut teacher's wages. The unions are there to prevent crap like that from happening. Furthermore, they can't walk away from a customer so really bad interactions occur. And the unions are there to make sure that the teachers have the appropriate representation and responses. Schools don't compete with each other for the best students like a manufacturer competes for customers. The same can be said of hospitals and nursing unions. I don't know how a union would make sure that you can't teach Biology without being a Biology major.
The fact is that teachers have a really crappy job, they don't get paid much and that's why you don't see someone graduating with a Masters of Science in physics to go teach fourth graders science. Maybe you pay extra to send your kid to a magnate school or some private school where they guarantee that the teachers are such distinguished individuals but certainly not a public schools and until you're willing to pay a lot more in taxes to make those jobs desirable to such a graduate, I'd shut up.
My work here is dung.
It's ridiculous, but science is being bullied in our Western democracies...
There are fights about the greenhouse gas, about evolution, and several other topics... and if teachers say something about that, they are said to choose a side and teachers should be politically neutral.
That, of course, is ridiculous. If teachers can no longer teach science, because some theories (which have a lot of evidence) might undermine the political course set by our Great Leaders or because they might upset certain religious people (science always does that), then we might as well close our schools.
Now the evolutionary theory, which follows a degree of scientific rigor (compare it to other theories to explain the same phenomenon) is controversial. What's next? Advanced physics teaching that the sun goes around the earth? Carbon dating deemed heresy because we all know the earth was created in 7 days?
God Bless America.
Believing in God doesn't mandate a belief in Creationism (though believing in Creationism requires the belief in God). Anyone whose faith is so fragile that it could be damaged by a rigorous class in evolutionary biology should go back to CCD or Sunday School or whatever their faith's equivalent is.
No, they can't teach Creationism since we've already had that trial and it has been determined in court that ``science is what scientists do''.
People who believe in the literal Word of God as the Bible remind me of the grand-daughter of a family friend --- he was a woodworker, old school, wanted me to be his apprentice so he could put me to work re-sawing wood rather than purchase a band saw. He made a cradle as a gift for the grand-daughter in question, for her to keep her dolls in --- she was very impressed when her mother told her, ``Your grandfather made this by hand.'' and immediately evinced a desire to see his and to see his shop and to watch him make something. The visit was arranged and upon arrival, the young lady was taken out to the shop and the large door rolled open, revealing rack upon rack of chisels, saws, hand planes, a simply unbelievable quantity of clamps and other hand tools --- the girl let out a shriek such as only a 5 year old girl can and yelled, ``Mommy! You lied! Grandpa doesn't make things by hand! He uses tools!''.
God is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics and other theories which we have yet to learn about to make people and the world.
Moreover, those who believe that humanity is incapable of learning how God works are being blasphemous and not remembering the lesson of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:6) which indicates that humanity's learning capacity is without limit.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
This is why everyone attending university gets ends up a shining star: professors, having accumulated years of knowledge and wisdom in their field, all make excellent teachers.
[my wife is a teacher (15 years teaching), she's just glad she's got an engineer husband to support her teaching habit... I'm just an enabler, I guess]
Unsurprisingly, the summary is wrong. 28% actively teach evolution as if it is a correct theory, 60% teach both evolution and ID and do not make claims as to their validity. The last 12% actually only teach creationism. All of this survey was done with biology highschool teachers.
Oh dear. Anti-union BS alert! So the unions have been calling for larger classes and lower pay for teachers, yes? After all, that's one reason for poor recruitment (just ask any HR department on their hiring technique for the upper management).
And I guess that it was the unions insisting on paedo suspicions on all teachers, annual checks on the background and the continuous persecution of teachers, yes?
Unions also made parents toss lawsuits and complaints at teachers who didn't give their little dahling an A in class?
I guess it must also be the unions that insist that unruly kids cannot be punished or dealt with by expulsion too?
If the union is "partly to blame", then it's MOSTLY government and busybody parents who are to blame, since THEY are the ones who generate the most absurd environment possible for teachers.
If you want your kids to be taught about evolution so desperately, run your own little class on saturdays (or even sundays). Take the debate on yourself.
The problem with your line of "reasoning" (and I use the term most charitably), is that you seem to equate the theory of evolution with any number of mythological stories that purport to account for how creation came to be. The first one is not like the others, at all, despite what Glenn Beck and The Creation Museum have managed to make you believe.
So, if you want your kids to be taught about your mythological version of creation so desperately, run your own little class, and stop expecting science teaches to seriously consider your religious beliefs as anything even remotely approaching valid science.
It's almost like shuttling weak students who are afraid of math and science into teacher training programs was a BAD idea.
(Disclaimer: I'm employed by a college with a tremendous population of education majors.)
An English major with an accurate understanding of the sciences should certainly be allowed to teach to the level of his comprehension, though a science graduate should obviously be preferred. The real reason teachers fail their students is because most of them, 90% or more in my own district, would sooner cheat them out of a proper education than risk their careers to even a minimum extent. They concern themselves only with how they look to their overpaid administrators so that they, themselves, will one day be overpaid administrators. And so on, and on, and on...
Unless you're a teacher yourself, you have no idea just how much balls it takes to fight this battle.
Not to mention anyone going to the trouble of getting an advanced degree in a hard science is probably expecting to have more financial rewards than a teachers salary.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
You aren't helping.
The reason that teaching evolution have become controversial is because of the New Atheists. People like you who want to "tell the religious freaks that would have us living in the dark ages to fuck off and die". See that sort of rhetoric makes religious people rightfully feel nervous. They feel like they are under attack by atheists.
And evolution being a core part of New Atheism, is also seen as part of your attack on religion. So the religious see the theory of evolution as an attempt by atheist to turn their children against God.
If you really want evolution taught in schools (I think it should be) then stop throwing insults at the religious. Stop making this issue about "ignorant christians" vs. "intelligent atheists". Because when you try to frame it that way the christians are never going to see your side of things. Calling people ignorant isn't the best way to make them see your point of view.
So you want to know the reason isn't being taught in schools now? Look in the mirror. Maybe putting down other religions makes you feel good about yourself but it sure as hell doesn't help anyone else.
I stopped being a Christian because I saw the whole thing as being a few people at the top telling everyone else what to think for their own personal gain. I stopped being an atheist for the same reason.
You aren't any better than the fundamentalist Christians. You're playing the same game, pissing all over the education system just to mark your turf. The only difference between you and them is that you're on different sides. Some of you believe in God and some of you don't. I wish you'd all just shut the fuck up and let teachers teach science without politicising it.
The reason we have few competent teachers is simple: Education is one of the most poorly compensated professions in the USA and has generally atrocious working conditions. Education attracts many teachers, but most last less than 2 years on the job before switching professions. Very few competent people are willing to grind away their soul day-in, day-out for pennies. At the same time, the cost for a college degree and certification is skyrocketing. It just doesn't make economic sense to be a teacher.
The public has an incredibly patronizing attitude that teachers should accept miserable accept out of the goodness of their heart. That attitude worked back when women faced systematic artificial barriers in most other professions. In our grandparents generation, we were effectively subsidizing our education system by restricting opportunities for women. That was true in the 60s. It's not true now. Women are competing in every profession, and now education salaries must also compete.
Blaming the Unions is a popular game, but they are not the central problem. If schools seriously want the top college grads to go into education, then obviously they need to compete with other opportunities that top college grads are offered. But you can't offer people a starting salary of $33,227 and then bitch and moan when your top applicants are C students from state universities. The Unions are basically the only force keeping teacher salaries competitive. States with a heavily unionized teacher work-force are better compensated and, unsurprisingly, produce better results
I've spent many years learing about evolutionary theory. It seems quite intuitive to me. But it isn't intuitive to many people because it's unlike anything they observe normally. Among scientists, evolution isn't controvercial, but among others, it is. Therefore, others need more convincing. But telling them to "just believe because you're an idiot if you don't" is just religion. To most people, evolution vs. something else is just a war between factions. There's no science in it. And while religion remains relatively stable, evolutionary theory keeps changing; what's "true" one day is "false" the next. The way that evolution is taught is partly responsible for this controversy.
I'm sure it exists, but I've never been able to find it; there's something that would really help: An up-to-date complete treatise of all the basic evidence that demonstrates the foundations of evolutionary theory. Observations of microevolution in the lab, sequences of fossils and how they were dated and how we're certain that they're from the same lineage, numerous clear examples, multiple convergent lines of evidence (fossils vs. dna), etc. In science class, they don't teach this. They teach the end results of the science as though it were FACT, but it's NOT. It is a fact that it's a good theory, but the theory itself cannot be deemed fact.
I have a little girl, and I don't want to just tell her "evolution is true, and those creationists are idiots." I want to show her the science. Besides, its misleading to say that "evolution is true". Evolutionary fact observed in the lab is true. Evolutionary theory is a MODEL that we STRIVE to MAKE true and is the best model we currently have. If it were TRUE, we'd be done. No more to discover. Rather, it is a gradually improving approximation.
My highschool opened the first internet lab in a school in our state thanks to a grant one of our history teachers got. He started up a class that ran an online magazine and it was listed as an english class. He has a doctorate in english, a masters in history, and a couple of bachelors in other areas, but because he was "registered" at the school as a history teacher, they took the class away from him a few years later and gave it to an english teacher because he wasn't "qualified". The same school allowed an ex-hospital lab technician teaching on-level and honors biology because of her degree in nursing. Schools generally don't follow any logical thought processes when doing anything.
Orwell was an optimist.
I'm trying hard to read this as more than a complaint that "Oh noes, my pet-theory/favourite-subject isn't being taught as much as I think it should"
The general form of the story is well known.
In this case it is a scientific theory so scientists see it as bad for future science.
It could just as easily be engineers claiming about the poor quality of mathematics teaching, or CS professors complaining about the lack of independent thinking.
However, my view is that it is down to the parents to do the teaching, and to delegate to schools as they see fit, and also to make up the difference.
No-group has a right to have their pet subjects taught to children. Except the gubbernment, of course.
But- they are allowed to whine and make a noise about it.
The idea behind the public school system is, at least in theory, to give everyone the basic knowledge necessary to function in the world.
People need to be able to read, they need to be able to write, they need to be able to do math. Folks need to have at least some basic understanding of classic literature because so much of the modern world is built upon it. Folks need to have at least some basic understanding of history, they need to have some understanding of how our government works, they need to have a basic understanding of science.
We consider it fairly normal to know that the heart pumps blood around your body, for example. It may not be necessary to know exactly how many bones are in the human body, or be able to name them... But it's a good idea to know that humans have bones, and worms do not.
Obviously, individual families and parents are going to impart their own wisdom along the way... Or, at least we hope they will. But the whole point of a public school system with expectations and requirements is to establish a baseline of sorts. A foundation to build upon.
Now, you can certainly argue that any particular bit of education is or isn't necessary... Do folks really need to learn geometry? Is it essential to read Romeo and Juliet? Do we have to teach evolution?
I would argue that the scientific method - the process of testing and refining a hypothesis until you've got something useful - is absolutely essential. It's the foundation of the entire modern world. And without a grasp of the scientific method you're going to have a hard time establishing critical thinking skills.
And I would also argue that evolution is essential. The theory of evolution was developed by scientific observation and testing, it isn't something some random person just thought-up out of the blue. It has some basis in reality. And it goes a long way towards explaining how the world around us works. Why diseases change and adapt to new hosts or drugs. Why certain creatures live in one place and not another. Why we have the tremendous diversity of life on our planet. That one theory provides an awful lot of answers.
Now, I suppose, if the problem was just a lack of funding or time or something... If they just couldn't squeeze everything into the curriculum... I wouldn't be so bent out of shape. I'd be very curious what was being taught instead of evolution. And I might very well suggest that it was more important to teach the basics of evolution than to dissect a frog. But I'd at least understand what the pressures and limitations were.
As it is, however, the pressure is not one of funding or time. The reason evolution is not being taught is because it conflicts with an alternate "theory". One that was, in fact, simply thought-up out of the blue by some guy. One that is not based on the scientific method. One that does not have any basis in reality. One that cannot be objectively tested, or used to make any predictions. One that may, possibly, offer some emotional solace... But is absolutely useless in understanding the actual world around us.
I would be just as offended if they stopped teaching Shakespeare in classes for no other reason than because Twilight fans were feeling threatened.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
As someone who was born in the U.S. but grew up in a Chinese family, let me tell you that the differences are stark. The U.S. is already a third world country by ideological and cultural standards. The population is lazy, self-entitled, undereducated, science-illiterate, unversed in either informal or formal logic, and completely averse to quality standards, quality control, or doing quality work.
All that's left is the resultant 1-or-2 generation slide into broken economy, broken infrastructure, broken governmental systems, etc. America is getting by on inertia and its population isn't doing the work to maintain its current standard of living and production, much less return it to some past glory or other.
China, on the other hand, is ruthlessly pragmatic, wholly rational-instrumental in its current approach to the world, science and math obsessed, achievement-oriented, and completely cold-blooded about it. The achievements are stunning to anyone that looks at what has been done in a few short years, and the expectations and determination are much higher. People that are busy worrying about "human rights" in China really don't get it; most of the Chinese couldn't care less about human rights right now. They want Progress, capital "P", they believe it comes from science, work, and sacrifice, and they're willing to give up almost anything to get it. They want to dominate the world economy and they're well on their way.
The recent furor over Chua's "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" demonstrates at the micro-level, in very clear terms, why China will shortly surpass the U.S. Incidentally, I grew up in a family much like that. Grades were all-important, people were called "trash" and "garbage" when they didn't achieve or perform, and standards were witheringly high. I resented it very much when I was a teenager. By the time I was in my 20s, I recalled it all with fondness and in my 30s I wish I had worked even harder than I did to meet those expectations. And at the end of the day, I don't feel "abused" at all and plan to work hard to raise my own daughter with very high academic and intellectual standards.
My wife and I are currently trying to decide whether this process will require us to leave the U.S. for either China or Eastern Europe (where she's from, and was a child prodigy at top schools under the old Soviet satellite system) in order to get a good education and avoid the dead weight of American anti-intellectual culture holding our daughter back.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The GP's tone might have been a little shrill, but you are reading way too much into this issue. Evolution is NOT a central tenet of atheism, it's just a true scientific theory that happens to be frequently rejected by religious people. Atheists, when pointing out the ways that religious people believe stupid things, find evolution a handy example of established science being rejected for theological reasons.
The difference between the two groups is that atheists accept evolution, like all other current scientific theories, because it's our best current scientific theory in its field, rather than for some sort of political/cultural reason. Certain brands of Christianity deny evolution because their belief system is more important to them than a reasoned understanding of reality.
They aren't playing the same game. Atheists, and many religious people the world over, accept reality and the results of our investigations into it. Certain religious folks, quite loudly at home, reject our best understanding of reality in favor of a belief system that is unprovable, usually by definition.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
Genetics Proves Evolution: The Creationist's Galileo Moment
When chicken embryos start to develop they have teeth buds and the beginnings of multi segmented tails. As they develop their DNA tells the developing embryo to absorb them. Much like human embryo's absorb embryonic gill slits. Now if you turn off the genes that control this absorption instruction you get chicken embryos that develop long multi segmented dinosaur tails and meat eating dinosaur teeth complete with the serrated inside edge. Other studies have also been successful in regressing feathers into scales.
This is not hypothesis. This is not supposition. This is not interpretation. This cold hard, hold in your hands see with your own eyes type reproducible proof. It has already been done, in Canadian universities no less, and is documented and reproducible. One more thing. No DNA was ever added to the bird DNA. This was done using 100% pure chicken DNA.
They have proved that bird DNA contains genes that create dinosaur characteristics. The only way this can happen is through the evolutionary process.
So like when Galileo first pointed his telescope at the heavens and learned that Aristotle was wrong modern scientists have pointed their microscopes at developing bird embryos and learned that they are correct. Evolution is real.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1026340/Jurassic-Park-comes-true-How-scientists-bringing-dinosaurs-life-help-humble-chicken.html
Note:The 'Daily Mail' isn't the gold standard for scientific reporting but here it does a good job of describing the research so the public can understand it (creationists excepted). Names of people and institutions where the work was done are given allowing Internet searches to the relevant papers and science reporting.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I am from India. I have to differ from your world view. I travel between India, US and a bit of China. The idea of Americans as lazy, self-entitled, undereducated, science-illiterate is lazy generalization. The same can be said of any community.
The idea of America still remains. This country still attracts the best of the talent across the world (even if getting a visa is a pain in the back for anyone out of G7.) This is the only country where you become an 'American' the moment you are in the political borders. And the political system more or less works (compared to the rest of the world.)
What can cause a decline to US is the assault on the American middle class...I hope the plutocrats are not so stupid as to kill the golden goose.
You can bring up your child in China or India or anywhere else. Nothing wrong with that. Your child should be fine if you give him/her the right values. But I can see you made sure your child is an American citizen.
Tat Tvam Asi
I'm not calling teachers wimpy, but they have very little to fight for anymore. They *are* going to fold on their curriculum if there's enough public pressure (read: further threat of job security). Often they quit teaching altogether.
Here are some example of topics that teachers just won't teach in California:
1) All 4-6 grade students in California have to learn about the Spanish Catholic missions built throughout the state and how much the natives welcomed the religion and the establishment of permanent cities. Except that's not how it happened, teachers know it, and they teach it because it's part of the California standards. If they say, "The Catholics came to the west coast, enslaved natives, forced their religion on them, and killed those that tried to keep their own religions.," they'd be tossed out on their asses.
2) No president chopped down a cherry tree and then ratted himself out to his father.
3) Many of the founding fathers owned slaves.
4) Slavery was popular and the entirety of the initial financial success of the states was built on the backs of kidnapped, raped, beaten, and worked black people.
5) The Civil War still produces some animosity throughout the South.
6) The "first Thanksgiving" may have happened, but it was cautious and tenuous at best. The pilgrims soon saw the natives not as temporary saviors, but as savages who needed to go away or be purged. Even if they changed to Puritan Christianity, they would have still been seen and treated as beings just above animals and far below humans.
7) The US is *not* a meritocracy. That was the plan, but classes carried over from Europe and further developed here. That's a myth perpetuated by people who want *you* to work hard for *their* benefits.
8) No, not everyone can be president. Not anymore. You need to have a saintly background and/or a TON of money. ... the list goes on and on. Essentially, anything that forces children to confront tradition is sharply argued against and often the source of bad reviews. Call it the "snowflake" or "hover-parent" phenomenon if you wish, I call it the "litigation scare".
As far as I know, Christians wanted to stop evolution being taught in schools in the 1920s. But after the Scopes Monkey Trial public opinion changed and people turned against laws preventing the teaching of evolution. And evolution was being taught in more and more schools.
So what changed the trend of evolution being taught in more schools? What shifted public opinion against evolution being taught in schools? It was backlash against Atheists.
No, there is no backlash. These so-called New Atheists really don't exist. If they did, where would you find them? Do they picket out the front of churches like the Christians picket abortion clinics and movies that they don't like? Do they stack the church boards so they can change the church policy like the Christians stack school boards?
No, it was the establishment of the Intelligent Design movement that changed everything. Once the states were told by the supreme court that they could not ban evolution from being taught in schools for religious reasons because that was against the constitution, the anti-evolution crowd began to re-invent their movement as a secular one. After trying out some terms like Scientific Creationism (which didn't work in court because it still had the name creationism), they eventually went with Intelligent Design.
This is purely a religious movement hiding their real beliefs for legal reasons. These people who had successfully made laws to ban evolution in the past never stopped working towards their goals. It was not some mythical anti-atheist backlash that brought this controversy back. It was the tireless efforts of a group of people who were not going to let the US constitution stop them from forcing their beliefs on others.
A recent program on PBS (I think) that discussed the The State of Tennessee v. Scopes in 1925 where a teacher was prosecuted for teaching evolution. It was said after the trial (teacher was found guilty and fined $100), schools across the country continued to teach biblical creation. After the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, evolution was brought into school curriculum because, "we are behind the Soviets in teaching science."
As science is taking a backseat to sales, marketing, and religious dogma, I can see how evolution will be removed from school curriculum. But then those godless commie's in other countries will churn out more engineers and scientists while we bitch and moan.
mfwright@batnet.com
In Europe, this ain't even an issue. Evolution isn't taught in school, it is fact. School explains the fact same as school explains gravity. You have to be educated that gravity exists, just how it actually works.
That evolution is even up for debate shows a LOT about the USA. There shouldn't even be a debate. You don't debate facts. And if you claim evolution is not a fact... happy beard in the sky day.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The way to deal with it is to tell the student that whether or not they accept evolution...
There is an even better way which points out that really they probably believe in evolution too. Just ask them whether they were worried about the swine flu outbreak last year or the bird flu a few years before. Assuming that they respond that these were valid causes for some concern ask them why because, if there is no evolution, then there will be no change in infectious diseases either so there is nothing to be concerned about. Then let them think about that for a while.
While many people may profess otherwise when push comes to shove they do believe in science. This latest science-religion controvesy is utter nonsense. Science and religion have coexisted well for hundreds of years. Yes, with occasional conflicts - but lets not forget that a lot of science was actually conducted by religion early on. It only seems to be recently that a few idiots on the fringe of religions seem to have garnered undue support...which is probably not unrelated to the declining educational standards in schools.
" it's what scientists accept that will be taught."
This is total antithetical to science. The fact that scientists accept it is not the reason it should be taught, rather the reason is that all evidence scientists accept it is because ALL evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that evolution is a fact. We are the way we are because our ancestors evolved in ways that left us with the genetics that we have. There is no other rational explanation.
The teacher should have pointed out the fallacy in the student's reasoning. The student nor the teacher evolved from "monkeys", but it is virtually certain that both evolved from an ancestor that shared an ancestor with ancestor of monkeys. In this context the teacher would then be in a position to begin to enumerate the great many reasons scientists know this to be true. Namely, the many features their ancestors share in common. More importantly, not only do they share such features in common but what we know about the genetics of each of these features indicates that these features share their "similarity" all the way down to the molecular level of organization. Consequently, if they did not descend from a common ancestor one is forced to confront the necessity of developing an alternative explanation that doesn't involve anything about these organisms that science has been able to learn in the past 200 years, whether it be their anatomy, their physiology, their genetics, their ecology, their behavior, or any other known aspect of their biology. There is no testable, scientific alternative explanation that has yet been proposed. Scientists accept the theory of evolution 1) because there is no credible alternative explanation, 2) all efforts to scientifically reject Darwin's theory have been rejected as inconsistent with observable facts, and 3) because of its explanatory power. We can learn even more about the biology of these animals by examining the consequences of evolution by means of natural selection.
America hasn't jumped the shark. Sharks will probably outlast America, as it lets its education system fall behind in science and technology to other nations, such as the Chinese. In the end, survival of the fittest has some very real consequences.
The best teachers are quite often the ones nobody likes. In fact, I didn't even like the best teacher I ever had. She was a stodgy old German lady with a thick accent that taught me in fourth grade, but she did three things for me that no teacher before or since came close to:
1. She recognized that I was having genuine difficulties learning and paying attention and she suggested my parents see a doctor. Out of that I got ADD and Tourette's diagnoses. I'm not medicated for them now but they're much easier to cope with, knowing what they are.
2. The school got a grant for 20 TRS-80 computers and none of the other teachers wanted them, so she took the whole batch and taught us all how to type.
3. She noticed my interest in programming and had me teach the other students a bit about it. Did a lot for my confidence and pride, of which I had just about zero at the time.
That said, she was very cold and strict and a lot of the parents didn't like her because she was so standoffish. She was a great teacher, though, even if it wasn't appreciated.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
I don't believe anyone was claiming destitution. The point of the original posts above was to state that, apart from the political/cultural issues, there is a financial disincentive for science teachers to keep teaching. My mistake was not being clear about this--that I voiced support for the previous posts would seem to indicate I agreed with their arguments for financial motivations, however.
On a personal note: My wife earned 22K as a new teacher in her first job. Average starting salary for a new professor like me--33K. Needless to say, we both bailed on teaching. I realize one data point does not make a statistic. Nationwide, teachers tend to burn out or make the same decision at around 5 years in. This actually is another disturbing trend in education. We can't seem to keep teachers. Why would that be, if their benefits and vacation time are irrationally good or high, per your argument?
Part of this may be in part due to most teachers working under a 9 month contract with little economic opportunity for the other 3 months. Yes--you can score papers for testing companies thanks to NCLB/RTTT or get a minimum wage job, but does that really make up for the lost potential? Teacher attrition rates would seem to indicate that it is not so.
On your other point that teacher benefits are much greater than those of professionals in other occupations, I would have to agree if this were 20-30 years ago. When I was growing up, we never had to worry about going to the doctor and my parents seem to have done fine for retirement. That said, the current state of affairs is not as nice. In one of my wife's teaching positions, her school had to bargain for healthcare and benefits individually rather than as a state collective (as in other states). In a small school with some aging teachers this didn't work out so well. We had minimal coverage and just hoped not to get sick or need a doctor. As far as retirement goes, I think you'll see that there are two outcomes that seem to have demonstrated themselves over the last 10-15 years. They are: 1) the privatization of teacher pensions/retirement options--subject to the same crash as any other occupation so no real incentive there, and 2) the reduction in or state de-funding of pension/retirement plans due to other budgetary needs/issues.
Claiming that teachers receive disproportionate benefits and vacation time is does not seem to hold true. Otherwise, I should think you would see a trend toward a much higher teacher retention rate as well as a boom in the number of students of teacher preparation programs. Having worked in a university in a state which produced a surplus of teachers, as well as working closely with departments of education, I can tell you from experience that neither one of these are occurring.