Science and the general public

[AnTiFreeze3]

.. These are the two organizations that you can empower to help educate the public in a significant and meaningful way ...

This is, of course, entirely reliant upon the fact that these people are going, by choice, to the libraries to learn about science. Simply increasing the content of a library, or a wikipedia page, only results in the better education of the already scientifically literate, or at least those who got to that point by their own means.

I still feel like K-12 education is the point that we need to really focus on. All of these outside sources of improving scientific literacy have been, so far, reliant upon people choosing to learn about science on their own because of their own motivation. Improving science in school (which requires better teachers) would by far be the most effective way to get results.

People are required to go to elementary school. They're required to go to middle school, and are highly encouraged to go to high school. What people aren't required to do is go to the library in their free time and check out science books, or go online and read up a bunch of science articles on Wikipedia.

Now, there are various ways that we could try to improve science education:

1.) Change the way that science teachers are taught in college, in a way such that they are better informed, and more knowledgeable of their subject, which will more than likely transfer over to appreciation and passion; thus creating a better teacher for the future.

2.) Don't change the college curriculum for science teachers, but instead have K-12 educational programs for teachers (like something that Evo mentioned) that is almost a crash-course, trying to get them to inspire their students, or at least appreciate the subject for what it's worth.

3.) (Also branched off of Evo's recommendation) - Analyze the way that elementary, middle school, and high school science teachers are teaching. Determine whether or not it is effective (most of us know that answer), and if not, then work to create a better, more efficient, and inspiring curriculum.

We've already addressed the fact that there is a lack of science teachers who actually teach the subject (this is more of an issue with math, but is also an issue with science) that they learned in college. Now, in the future, if science education improved, essentially more students would be inspired, and we would see a surplus of science teachers due to more peaked interests in the subject.

As of now, we will have to deal with a lack of science teachers. That's why I propose this: if any teacher were to teach a subject that they weren't effectively taught in, then I think they should have to either take that class at a community college over the summer, or at least have them take a test showing that they are in fact proficient at this subject, despite not majoring in it.

Thoughts?

 

[chiro]

This is, of course, entirely reliant upon the fact that these people are going, by choice, to the libraries to learn about science. Simply increasing the content of a library, or a wikipedia page, only results in the better education of the already scientifically literate, or at least those who got to that point by their own means.

I still feel like K-12 education is the point that we need to really focus on. All of these outside sources of improving scientific literacy have been, so far, reliant upon people choosing to learn about science on their own because of their own motivation. Improving science in school (which requires better teachers) would by far be the most effective way to get results.

People are required to go to elementary school. They're required to go to middle school, and are highly encouraged to go to high school. What people aren't required to do is go to the library in their free time and check out science books, or go online and read up a bunch of science articles on Wikipedia.

Now, there are various ways that we could try to improve science education:

1.) Change the way that science teachers are taught in college, in a way such that they are better informed, and more knowledgeable of their subject, which will more than likely transfer over to appreciation and passion; thus creating a better teacher for the future.

2.) Don't change the college curriculum for science teachers, but instead have K-12 educational programs for teachers (like something that Evo mentioned) that is almost a crash-course, trying to get them to inspire their students, or at least appreciate the subject for what it's worth.

3.) (Also branched off of Evo's recommendation) - Analyze the way that elementary, middle school, and high school science teachers are teaching. Determine whether or not it is effective (most of us know that answer), and if not, then work to create a better, more efficient, and inspiring curriculum.

We've already addressed the fact that there is a lack of science teachers who actually teach the subject (this is more of an issue with math, but is also an issue with science) that they learned in college. Now, in the future, if science education improved, essentially more students would be inspired, and we would see a surplus of science teachers due to more peaked interests in the subject.

As of now, we will have to deal with a lack of science teachers. That's why I propose this: if any teacher were to teach a subject that they weren't effectively taught in, then I think they should have to either take that class at a community college over the summer, or at least have them take a test showing that they are in fact proficient at this subject, despite not majoring in it.

Thoughts?

A lot of people share your thoughts in particular teachers and scientific professionals including people with prior background who are not working in science and people who are active in science (like some of the people posting here).

But the thing is actually getting teachers that are not just qualified, but that actually give a ****: this might be offensive, but the truth needs to told.

There may be deficits with the curriculum and so on, but the thing is that a good enthusiastic teacher can rub off that enthusiasm to their students.

Now people have had ideas like paying teachers more, paying by performance (a highly touchy subject amongst many teachers), increasing general resources (like equipment, books, labs, etc).

But the thing a lot of people don't talk about are the attitudes for teaching things like mathematics and science as well as the overlooked fact that needs to be emphasized: primary and high school is mostly babysitting and behavioural management control for the majority of students. This has to be said and it is naive if it is overlooked.

A lot of teachers end up burning out because they have deal with kids that make it hard for anything to get done and now they have to face the situations of liability issues that interfere with student discipline. It is really a sticky situation.

The other thing about teaching is that they are protected by powerful unions.

So when you pile things like the fact that most of the teachers energy is put into babysitting students and trying to get them to shutup as well the fact that they don't necessarily have the ability to really get things going in terms of teaching due to the legal issues that they have to worry about, then you get a really bad situation for the otherwise aspiring teacher.

The other thing (and this is direct experience as a high school teacher on practicum) is that the curriculum and teaching in general does not encourage failure. They reward situations of knowing the answers before hand or if you have to figure something out, it's really a trivial thing.

This ends up getting kids to being familiar with A or A+ grades frequently and then they freak out if they get anything lower and drop the course.

This is psychologically the worst thing you can do in education. When you bring students up in this way to expect everything to be easy and always to have the expectation of top grades, you are distorting their reality so much that they snap like a twig the moment they struggle.

These self-esteem idiots don't realize that failure when balanced with reward in the right way is what develops people into balanced human beings.

The other thing is that people think of themselves in terms of their grades. If they get a bad grade they think they are bad as people in terms of being inferior in relation to their classmates, when they should be looking at the situation in terms of 'not knowing enough about the subject or the test'. This means that the students end up dropping hard subjects like science or maths just so they can do something else that makes them feel better about themselves, and it's no surprise this happens because school is the main activity for a child from kindergarden to the end of the high-school.

All of these things are properties of the systems themselves and unfortunately some of them have been intentionally designed this way, and this is what everyone needs to understand.

If I could only do one thing to help kids get more interested in science and math, it would be to tell the kids the reality of life that things are hard, you fail a lot to get to the good stuff, and that you are not your grades and your grades are not you (OK maybe that's a few things).

The minute you do this, it means that students will see mathematics and science as something that can be explored without the panic that happens now. You won't get everyone and that isn't the point: the point is to get the ones that would like to do it but don't because of those reasons and they are the ones that should be targeted.

 

[Pythagorean]

This is, of course, entirely reliant upon the fact that these people are going, by choice, to the libraries to learn about science. Simply increasing the content of a library, or a wikipedia page, only results in the better education of the already scientifically literate, or at least those who got to that point by their own means.

That's not true. People that are not scientifically literate engage in and use wikipedia (as is evidenced by the number of amateurs citing it and editing it). And librarians make contact with numerous anxious amateurs in a variety of subjects. There is an important demographic of people whose hobbies are integrated with science. Amateur astronomers are a typical local group. What's really important about these people is that they, themselves, are another layer of interface between the public and science; they promote it in conversation and they start astronomy clubs.

I still feel like K-12 education is the point that we need to really focus on. All of these outside sources of improving scientific literacy have been, so far, reliant upon people choosing to learn about science on their own because of their own motivation. Improving science in school (which requires better teachers) would by far be the most effective way to get results.

I agree about K-12, and I agree that a lot has to be done in schools. Have you seen "Waiting for Superman"?

I think one of the problems is that we can't afford to just hire quality teachers and buy quality equipment (well... we could certainly divert some defense funding, but that's a different thread...).

What we need is innovators to keep creating charter schools that will replace typical public schools, based on the old "good old boy" system. We need teachers and admin that care to replace teachers and admin that ride the system or just aren't any good.

I also previously mentioned Children's Museums. The association of Children Museums makes a good case for them:

http://www.childrensmuseums.org/index.php/case-for-childrens-museums.html

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... I think one of the problems is that we can't afford to just hire quality teachers and buy quality equipment (well... we could certainly divert some defense funding, but that's a different thread...) ...

The ways I suggested above don't require a lot of money, they just suggest that we need a more efficient curriculum. There's no sense in spending money on better teachers, when we can deal with it at the source and create more quality teachers. (I entirely agree with you in terms of the national defense budget, though...)

I'm also not trying to say that either Wikipedia or libraries are obsolete, only that students still have to motivate themselves and go their on their own time, where an improvement in science education in schools is a more direct approach. Both are effective at improving scientific literacy, it's just that one of those options will get to more children who previously would have been entirely negligent to the wonders of science.

 

[Pythagorean]

The ways I suggested above don't require a lot of money, they just suggest that we need a more efficient curriculum. There's no sense in spending money on better teachers, when we can deal with it at the source and create more quality teachers. (I entirely agree with you in terms of the national defense budget, though...)

I'm also not trying to say that either Wikipedia or libraries are obsolete, only that students still have to motivate themselves and go their on their own time, where an improvement in science education in schools is a more direct approach. Both are effective at improving scientific literacy, it's just that one of those options will get to more children who previously would have been entirely negligent to the wonders of science.

I understand, your sentiments. There are competent education groups already working on the problem:

http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/action/

More to the point, there are also STEM-focused schools:

http://opportunityequation.org/school-and-system-design/stem-focused-schools-designed-support

The programs are out there, they just need support (both financial and grassroots).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Now, there are various ways that we could try to improve science education:

1.) Change the way that science teachers are taught in college, in a way such that they are better informed, and more knowledgeable of their subject, which will more than likely transfer over to appreciation and passion; thus creating a better teacher for the future.

2.) Don't change the college curriculum for science teachers, but instead have K-12 educational programs for teachers (like something that Evo mentioned) that is almost a crash-course, trying to get them to inspire their students, or at least appreciate the subject for what it's worth.

3.) (Also branched off of Evo's recommendation) - Analyze the way that elementary, middle school, and high school science teachers are teaching. Determine whether or not it is effective (most of us know that answer), and if not, then work to create a better, more efficient, and inspiring curriculum.

We've already addressed the fact that there is a lack of science teachers who actually teach the subject (this is more of an issue with math, but is also an issue with science) that they learned in college. Now, in the future, if science education improved, essentially more students would be inspired, and we would see a surplus of science teachers due to more peaked interests in the subject.

As of now, we will have to deal with a lack of science teachers. That's why I propose this: if any teacher were to teach a subject that they weren't effectively taught in, then I think they should have to either take that class at a community college over the summer, or at least have them take a test showing that they are in fact proficient at this subject, despite not majoring in it.

Thoughts?

There was a very lovely lady who used to be a member here. She was a high school level teacher and wanted more than anything to bring education to people. I bring her up because she found herself in the situation of trying to teach students who did not seem at all receptive to learning. It made her profoundly depressed to realize that she may simply not be able to reach these students. Considering that she was in South Africa at the time she perhaps just had her work cut out for her. Either way she did not feel that she could continue there, considering her emotional state over the matter, and she left.

I think that this may be a common problem. Teachers feel that they can not teach their students and either leave those places that they are perhaps needed most, or they become bitter and jaded and begin to fail their students where they believed that their students were failing them. I think that such a person that becomes life alteringly depressed at the thought of not being able to reach their students is the very sort of person who really ought to be teaching. Someone who really cares about what they do.

The question is: How do we keep them interested? How do we keep these wonderful people from feeling that their efforts are in vain? Can we crack the shell of that cynical teacher and make them enjoy teaching again? Perhaps focusing on what teachers need to do to be good teachers fails to recognize what a good teacher needs in return to continue being a good teacher.

I certainly agree with your opinions, I don't think post cards to teachers from college students will fix everything, but perhaps the sort of investment necessary for a good teacher isn't exactly what we think it is.

 

[nitsuj]

A lot of people share your thoughts in particular teachers and scientific professionals including people with prior background who are not working in science and people who are active in science (like some of the people posting here).

But the thing is actually getting teachers that are not just qualified, but that actually give a ****: this might be offensive, but the truth needs to told.

There may be deficits with the curriculum and so on, but the thing is that a good enthusiastic teacher can rub off that enthusiasm to their students.

Now people have had ideas like paying teachers more, paying by performance (a highly touchy subject amongst many teachers), increasing general resources (like equipment, books, labs, etc).

But the thing a lot of people don't talk about are the attitudes for teaching things like mathematics and science as well as the overlooked fact that needs to be emphasized: primary and high school is mostly babysitting and behavioural management control for the majority of students. This has to be said and it is naive if it is overlooked.

A lot of teachers end up burning out because they have deal with kids that make it hard for anything to get done and now they have to face the situations of liability issues that interfere with student discipline. It is really a sticky situation.

The other thing about teaching is that they are protected by powerful unions.

So when you pile things like the fact that most of the teachers energy is put into babysitting students and trying to get them to shutup as well the fact that they don't necessarily have the ability to really get things going in terms of teaching due to the legal issues that they have to worry about, then you get a really bad situation for the otherwise aspiring teacher.

The other thing (and this is direct experience as a high school teacher on practicum) is that the curriculum and teaching in general does not encourage failure. They reward situations of knowing the answers before hand or if you have to figure something out, it's really a trivial thing.

This ends up getting kids to being familiar with A or A+ grades frequently and then they freak out if they get anything lower and drop the course.

This is psychologically the worst thing you can do in education. When you bring students up in this way to expect everything to be easy and always to have the expectation of top grades, you are distorting their reality so much that they snap like a twig the moment they struggle.

I couldn't read the whole post, but the start sounds like you are saying science education needs more charismatic teachers.

I have had about two teachers (grade 6 & post secondary) grade six teacher was teaching for non financial reasons, didn't need the money and I guess teaching was a good work life balance or whatever.

Other teacher, also teaching "boring" math / science was really funny & charismatic.

I found both teachers delivered the material in an engaging way. Both could have found far more financially rewarding careers specifically because of their analytical + charismatic personality. Teaching is for... I'm not sure but not for someone with a rare & desired skill set who wants to become wealthy through their career.

With that said why is the responsibility on teachers to engage a student in science / math. I appreciate the "management" side of public education. But how spoon fed does it have to get? Take it or leave it, no?

Jimmy Snyder addressed this whole issue in post #32 with a practical story.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think that this may be a common problem. Teachers feel that they can not teach their students and either leave those places that they are perhaps needed most, or they become bitter and jaded and begin to fail their students where they believed that their students were failing them. I think that such a person that becomes life alteringly depressed at the thought of not being able to reach their students is the very sort of person who really ought to be teaching. Someone who really cares about what they do.

There is a huge iceberg beneath this that no one has the stamina to chart. 1st off, though: school is a requirement and the primary element of force escapes no one, especially the kids.

There was a special on TV last week about Angola prison in Louisiana. The warden related that he got his job after years of being a high school teacher. It was all the training he needed, he said, and he hasn't done anything substantially different as a prison warden.

Enthusiastic teachers like the one you mention haven't come to grips with this and probably don't want to. The system we have being what it is, their first job is to be a kind of drill instructor/prison guard/policeman. The meta-lesson always going on in the background of all other lessons is indoctrination into society. Enthusiasm is not required, just compliance.

 

[Bacle2]

I am just mentioning the way my logic goes:

Teachers that have specific degrees/qualifications in science and mathematics are far more likely to enjoy teaching those subjects (as they studied them for a reason) than someone who is not qualified. Not only that, they would have a better understanding and could probably teach the subject better too.

If we could somehow get more qualified teachers, it may in the long run help get more interested in the subject and hopefully increase the qualified teachers pool.

But, this is just wishful thinking on my behalf. I am sure there are other factors to take into account.

Maybe we could start by paying (public school ) teachers a decent salary? It seems too much to ask of someone to suffer thru 10+ years to get a PHD only to be paid a misery as a high school teacher, not to mention that there is little prestige associated with the position. But then why do we pay athletes, entertainers millions , but skimp on teachers' pay?

 

[Bacle2]

Just wondering what others think about these ideas I've had:

i) Contrast the look/appeal of a nice-looking bookstores like B&N and Borders (RIP) and their respective coffee shops, with your standard dark, dingy public library. If your public library was attractive looking like these bookstores, wouldn't that make it more likely for people to drop- by the libraries, browse while having a drink and pick something up , read it casually? It seems to have that effect here in NYC. Not a silver bullet, but it may help.

 

[mege]

Maybe we could start by paying (public school ) teachers a decent salary? It seems too much to ask of someone to suffer thru 10+ years to get a PHD only to be paid a misery as a high school teacher, not to mention that there is little prestige associated with the position. But then why do we pay athletes, entertainers millions , but skimp on teachers' pay?

Because we're paying glorified babysitters and calling them teachers (exceptions exist obviously). They've gone to school to 'teach' but aren't always subject matter experts. (speaking about the US, nearly every other country has subject matter experts teaching secondary school) There is too much focus on soft-subjects in the Education Schools in the US. IMO this is one stark difference between the US and other countries and something that needs to change if we want to become competitive in the pre-college realm again for education.

Out of the many friends that I have whom are now primary school teachers - not a single one of them was 'good' at science/math when they were in school. They begrudged every little science or math class they had to take in college, and I'm sure that attitude isn't helping them or their young impressionable students at all. Also, I have a pair of friends whom went to school for math (getting a BS Math) and then became high school teachers in a certification program - they have both quit for significantly better paying jobs. Imagine if we could actually pay subject matter experts what they're worth?

Unfortunately with teacher pay currently, they're probably getting paid what they're worth - there is no outside competition for someone with a 'teaching degree' but there is other competition for someone with a degree in a subject (esspecially a science/math degree). So, how do you draw subject matter experts from other competitive jobs to teaching without overpaying the not-qualified-for-anything-else teachers? Some states do have a bounty for certain subjects (math generally), and even some states have a 'quick-track' for STEM secondary teaching certificates (2 states I know of have 2 semester M.Ed. programs - 1 semester of classwork and 1 semester of student teaching, prerequisite is an appropriate science degree). This isn't enough though, since the guarantee of better pay still isn't there. Why would someone spend an extra year in school (to get the M.Ed.) when they could get paid more from going into industry (And less debt)?

I don't think there's an issue of religious indoctrination occurring except for that it's filling a void caused by a lack of properly qualified teachers. Everyone can probably remember teachers from their childhood whom were good (and there are some very good teachers out there), but then there's also the teachers that even as students you knew they were there because they had no other skills.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... Because we're paying glorified babysitters and calling them teachers (exceptions exist obviously) ...

More money = more attraction to better qualified people. Then they wouldn't be "glorified babysitters"... they would be experts in their respective field.

You rant on about how we need experts teaching, well then how will we attract them? Obviously increasing the salary of teachers is a great way to do that. We're not talking about increasing the salary just for the current teachers, but increasing the salary to attract better teachers.

 

[chiro]

More money = more attraction to better qualified people. Then they wouldn't be "glorified babysitters"... they would be experts in their respective field.

You rant on about how we need experts teaching, well then how will we attract them? Obviously increasing the salary of teachers is a great way to do that. We're not talking about increasing the salary just for the current teachers, but increasing the salary to attract better teachers.

But it's the truth for most teachers. I've spoken to many experienced senior teachers when I have been on practicum (I previously wanted to be a high school math teacher) and they all said the same thing, and I have observed the reasoning and evidence for this myself.

Contrary to what lots of people think, most students are not motivated and don't care about learning, furthering their education, and developing themselves in this aspect.

If you want the reality of teaching go to any typical public school and try it for two weeks. Teaching in many schools prior to tertiary level is really a job where not even the parents really respect you let alone the kids or the rest of society.

Even with the salary increases, the star candidates will probably go to other jobs where they don't have to put up with that crap, or just go into the regular tertiary academia environment. Why would anyone want to put up with students that don't want to be there and will at times make it as difficult as possible to get anything done?

A lot of the people in this forum are the type of people that want to learn and are the kind of high achievers with regard to academic and intellectual pursuits: this is far removed from the real representation of the typical student at a school, and I have a feeling that som people need to be reminded of this.

 

[chiro]

I couldn't read the whole post, but the start sounds like you are saying science education needs more charismatic teachers.

I have had about two teachers (grade 6 & post secondary) grade six teacher was teaching for non financial reasons, didn't need the money and I guess teaching was a good work life balance or whatever.

Other teacher, also teaching "boring" math / science was really funny & charismatic.

I found both teachers delivered the material in an engaging way. Both could have found far more financially rewarding careers specifically because of their analytical + charismatic personality. Teaching is for... I'm not sure but not for someone with a rare & desired skill set who wants to become wealthy through their career.

With that said why is the responsibility on teachers to engage a student in science / math. I appreciate the "management" side of public education. But how spoon fed does it have to get? Take it or leave it, no?

Jimmy Snyder addressed this whole issue in post #32 with a practical story.

You actually didn't read most of the post: I implore you to read the whole thing again (and consider to read whole posts before responding to them from anyone next time).

The engaging/charismatic property is one small thing.

The other things are what teachers have to put up. Teachers are mostly babysitting kids. They also have to put with all the new legal problems which in turn make it harder to do their job.

The other thing is the nature of education: the system is basically setup so that students get in an environment where the stuff is very easy, and that students think of their own worth relative to the marks they get (remember most of the childs lives from kindergarten to year 12 is school).

This means that you scare off the people who get a bad mark or exam who would otherwise go into science but don't. The reason is that they've been getting high marks all the time and suddenly when they finally do something challenging, they crumble under the pressure and the bad marks, so they leave for easier subjects or subjects that will give them a high mark/GPA/whatever.

These are the people you want to target: you don't want to waste your time on people who clearly don't care and would rather do something else. Those people have every right not to give a stuff and they should be focusing their energies on other things that they would excel and be productive in.

In order to get to the ones that choose other things but really want to do the math and science courses, you need to change the education system to one that encourages failure, mistakes, and growth in that fashion and one that emphasizes that failure is a natural part of life. Our education systems is the complete opposite of this (at least in the west, asia is different).

The whole system psychologically sets up a lot of students for complete mental breakdowns, especially if they are used to being the top achievers and especially if they cruise along in high school. It gives students the false impression that life is easy and has no challenging aspects, where things should always come easy and the answers are always in a textbook, and then people wonder why students end up having complete mental breakdowns and everything that comes with this so called 'education'.

 

[mege]

More money = more attraction to better qualified people. Then they wouldn't be "glorified babysitters"... they would be experts in their respective field.

You rant on about how we need experts teaching, well then how will we attract them? Obviously increasing the salary of teachers is a great way to do that. We're not talking about increasing the salary just for the current teachers, but increasing the salary to attract better teachers.

edit - I should be clearer from the start: part of the problem is still with having better qualified teachers it that a teacher's qualification in the US is that they are a TEACHER (with some side classes in their subject). Instead, I would rather see it the other way around: they should be an SME (with some side training to help be a teacher). Raising the salary doesn't eliminate this very specific barrier that requires grade-school teachers at public schools to have a teaching degree of some sort. That alone is a large barrier to having true SMEs become teachers in numbers that we would need. Raising the salary still draws from the pool of people with 'teaching degrees', you might find a few stragglers that do have a science/english/history degree then go back for their teaching degree - but they're already outside of the realm of economic rationality. If teacher salaries went up, why would I spend 5-6 years in school (4 year degree + 1-2 year teaching cert) when I could just spend 4 (for a teaching degree)? The rational people that would react to the increase in salary would still just take the easy path, which is not actually solving the problem of generally underqualified/underchallenged teachers. My 'glorified babysitter' comment isn't directed at the teaching profession as a whole, but that is more my perception of what a 'teaching degree' entails. As an example: my wife (with a teaching degree, though she no longer teachers) very specifically reminds me that her subject (social studies) doesn't actually mean she took relevant subject-oriented classes. My Physics BS requires more humanities and history than her social studies endorsement (And I will graduate with more history/humanities classes than she took since Physics is a liberal arts degree). That is the type of deficiency that I am talking about with teaching degrees, which is something that needs to be addressed in a larger scale. (and each state and subject does have slightly different requirements, so different folks may have different experiences - however, her teaching cert is from a relatively 'good' education state and program)

There is a large inertia to having such change. The documentary 'Waiting for Superman' has been mentioned at least once already in this thread and I think that it hits the nail on the head. Once the incentives are in place for teachers to perform better, I think there will naturally be a shift towards more skilled teachers in their respective subjects. However, being a fairly non-competitive field currently (due to a variety of factors) that type of change is hard to get going. In order to maintain the betterment of our schools - there needs to be some other fundamental changes with how teachers are selected, certified, compensated, and retained.

If we start increasing salaries now - what happens with the underperforming teachers currently? There needs to be some long-term planning involved and I think step 1 is to add competition at various level with in schools. Teachers need to be able to compete for their salary, hiring/firing practices need to be performance based not tenure-based and schools need to be able to compete against each other. Hopefully this naturally draws up some encouragement for rationally motivated, skilled teachers to enter the field (and do well). Second, we need to start opening up requirements for teachers to teach with only an approved 4-year degree in their subject (and maybe a state certification that goes over school-type procedures and some basic classroom protocol, etc - similar to other state-ran professional certifications - get it out of universities!). The second step is worthless without the natural increase of salaries that would result from the first step (I think we can agree that there's two barriers to SMEs actually teaching: certification and salary, any successful solution would reduce both barriers). Longentivity of success that results from the first step is dependent on the second (else then the normal schools would just start teaching how to be competitive, defeating the purpose and we're back where we started).

The barriers to the ideas above are two fold: 1) entrenchment of teacher unions ("once students start paying dues, then I'll represent their interests") and 2) lack of a generally accepted way to evaluate teachers. I think the actual negative impact of 2 gets overblown because of 1, but I do think that it will take more innovation in evaluation to get a majority of teachers on board with performance bonuses. A consistent (fair) teacher evaluation system may already be out there, but it has probably been swept under the rug under a guise of wanting sameness/conformity for all union members. If a system is deemed unfair, skewed, and easy to game - no one will buy into it anyhow. Again, it's inertia and resistance to change (and insecurity by some).

 

[pinkfishegg]

I'm an undergraduate physics major going into my junior years of college and still clearly remember my high school science education enough to draw parallels between the two. I often felt that high school was more of a competition to get into college than an actual learning experience. As someone who was considered an "average student" (about a 90-93 gpa, no honors course) in my school I was never encouraged to take physics since it was always viewed as something that only the honors students or mathematically gifted students take. I ended up taking a bunch of electives my senior year and stopped taking math after algebra II. I ended up switching into my physics degree after taking a gen ed astronomy course and being fascinated by the ideas.

I find math and physics teachers in college to be much more useful and resourceful and wish that high school teachers could teach the same way. In high school you are usually put in a classroom, lectured, and told to go home and do your homework. If you can't do your algebra homework for example, you are often viewed as lazy or mathematically incompetent. When I took Algebra I in high school, for example, I couldn't grasp most of the concepts and ended up with a C+ in the class. I took Calc I in college, and got an A minus, because it was explained at a more conceptual level and I was able to go to office hours and talk to my professor, email him at any time, or go to our math help room if I had trouble.

Most people don't even decide to switch to physics though, and just decide that they aren't math people. I feel our math/science education system in high school only allows people of a certain learning style to get ahead, and they label these kids as smarter. I know that there are some exceptions. I have a lot of college professor I don't like and had some high school teachers that I did like but I feel the college system allows more people to actually learn. There were math teachers who had confidence in my mathematically ability in high school who encouraged me (I did well in geometry) but i had so many teachers tell me I was stupid or average, that I actually believed it for much of high school. For example, because I received a C+ in algebra I, I was put into applied chemistry, where my teacher told us "This is the class that isn't going to college."

I know there are some students that are just plain lazy, but there are many students who would do better at math and science if they were given a chance. I talk to a lot of people inside and outside of college who are interested in science or physics but think they aren't smart enough to handle it.

I know that it is difficult being a teacher and controlling the class. My mother, who has a degree in history education but never become a teacher, tells me that the principal walks around and makes sure that you have the class under control. They don't care what you're teaching as long as it's not too noisy in there. This situation is difficult and I don't completely blame teachers if they can't reach all of their students. However, I feel a more active learning environment during the after hours of school , where students can talk to, email, and work out problems with their teacher, would benefit a lot of people. Instead of just learning how to ******** the system and get good grades when they are having trouble, they would actually learn the material.

 

[OmCheeto]

Whoa, what bar do you go to where people talk about science?

Funny you should ask. I've just been "approached" by a younger woman claiming to have a degree in Astrophysics. (She saw I had a Mac, and aksed* what I was doing. I of course showed her title of the page: PhysicsForums) Claimed she got her degree in Germany. Claimed she was as drunk as a skunk because she'd just broken up with her girlfriend last night. Then she went on and on about her ex-boyfriend, Steve Lobdell.

I tried to convey the message of this thread, and tried to extricate some knowledge out of her, but she was obviously distraught, and quite drunk, and nonsense and...

My bartender just told me, "You just needed to ask her a nice simple question about Astroph...hardy weinberg inequality...debrouglie got a phd because einstein read his paper, and said, do it.

* :)