Why Are Unqualified Science Teachers Prevalent in US High Schools?

[General_Sax]

^
nice post.

 

[sportsstar469]

stupid question, but can i become a science teacher if my major right now is science, or do i need to have a teaching major? my main goal is med school aqnd i believe i have the potential to do med school (wel lat least get int LOL) but i haven't felt like doing the work needed to get in, and hearing how competitive it is is not so motivating.

anyway if i kept the science degree and got turned down fro mmed schoold would i be able to teach elementary, middle school, high school, or college science? lab work and research is not an option cause I am not good at that lull.

 

[arunma]

stupid question, but can i become a science teacher if my major right now is science, or do i need to have a teaching major? my main goal is med school aqnd i believe i have the potential to do med school (wel lat least get int LOL) but i haven't felt like doing the work needed to get in, and hearing how competitive it is is not so motivating.

anyway if i kept the science degree and got turned down fro mmed schoold would i be able to teach elementary, middle school, high school, or college science? lab work and research is not an option cause I am not good at that lull.

In the United States, most states require you to have a teaching licensure. So no, a BS/BA in science isn't enough to teach high school. Heck, a PhD isn't enough to teach high school if you don't have teaching licensure. However, at my old undergrad, the teaching certificate was only an extra year of classes. If you don't mind doing an extra year of college, this might be the best way to go.

 

[sportsstar469]

In the United States, most states require you to have a teaching licensure. So no, a BS/BA in science isn't enough to teach high school. Heck, a PhD isn't enough to teach high school if you don't have teaching licensure. However, at my old undergrad, the teaching certificate was only an extra year of classes. If you don't mind doing an extra year of college, this might be the best way to go.

well id most like to teach elementary, although I am guessing i need a teaching license for that also. do most pre meds have back ups?

 

[mgb_phys]

do most pre meds have back ups?

Drug dealer?

 

[arunma]

well id most like to teach elementary, although I am guessing i need a teaching license for that also. do most pre meds have back ups?

The smart ones do, since it's very difficult to get into medical school. Usually if you've got a biology degree, you can be a lab tech (that's what one of my friends is doing while he reapplies), or you can go to grad school. But some premeds get their degrees in art history or philosophy. I guess those guys are in trouble. Seriously though, it's important to have a backup, because if you don't get in, you need to find some kind of a job. And many med school admissions committees will actually ask you (either on the application or the interview) what your plans are if you don't get in anywhere. So definitely have a backup. It's not that hard, just choose a major that's reasonably employable. Avoid arcane fields like communications and pre-medieval history (unless you don't mind going to grad school in those fields), and you should be fine.

Actually I was premed for my first three years of college, then I decided I'd rather go to grad school. Good thing I was a physics major so that I had options. Of course now I've decided that I should have gone to med school after all, and that's what I'm going to do as soon as I finish my PhD. So don't follow my example.

 

[arunma]

Drug dealer?

These days you need a doctoral degree to do that too. It's called pharmacy school.

 

[Chi Meson]

If you have an undergrad major in Chemestry or Physics, you can be pretty much guaranteed of finding a teaching job in almost any place in the country.

The first hurdle is called the "Praxis" exam, which can be waived if you show a semi-decent SAT or ACT score (I think 1200 in the old SAT was required). The second hurdle is getting the necessary education credits. Most states allow people with math and science degrees to take an accelerated certification program which can be finished in one summer. For me, it was worthwhile to take a two year Master of Art in Teaching program, since that gave me a master's degree at the end of it. Most states require that you obtain a masters degree withing five years anyway. It was nice to get that out of the way.

The next hurdle is the "Praxis 2" subject exam, which is not hard either. Once you have that, then you get a "provisional" certification which allows you to be hired.

The certification is different state to state, but most states have reciprocity where they can hire someone with an out of state certification as long as they get recertified in-state within a reasonable amount of time.

 

[lah214]

My experience is very different from yours.

In fact I right now polled my AP/IB class and 11 out of 12 disagreed with you. So, sorry for your experience. I think you would have enjoyed my class a bit more.

I have actually had Chi as my high school physics teacher, and I would just like to say that his class was extremely interesting, taught very well, and made me want to study it further in college. Most of the people taking his class did genuinely care, and I'll have you know that it would have been very difficult to cheat in his class. This was one of the only classes in high school where I actually would get in trouble for using my phone! I got so much out of his class. (Thanks!)

 

[vaatc]

You want to know why there is a "lack of quality teachers" in the public education system? Why do you not go and spend a day in the typicall classroom and you will find out why there is a lack of quality education in the schools. To label teachers as the main culprit in this situation is laughable.

I will finish with the comment, that a majority of parents are too busy to control their kids now adays. What makes people think that low payed educators, with their hands tied behind their backs, would fair any better?

 

[Chi Meson]

I have actually had Chi as my high school physics teacher, and I would just like to say that his class was extremely interesting, taught very well, and made me want to study it further in college. Most of the people taking his class did genuinely care, and I'll have you know that it would have been very difficult to cheat in his class. This was one of the only classes in high school where I actually would get in trouble for using my phone! I got so much out of his class. (Thanks!)

:blush:

Now we can wait for those who had the "other opinion"!

 

[noblegas]

You want to know why there is a "lack of quality teachers" in the public education system? Why do you not go and spend a day in the typicall classroom and you will find out why there is a lack of quality education in the schools. To label teachers as the main culprit in this situation is laughable.

I will finish with the comment, that a majority of parents are too busy to control their kids now adays. What makes people think that low payed educators, with their hands tied behind their backs, would fair any better?

No one is blaming only the teachers, but to put the blame on the students is equally if not more ridiculous. What makes you expect that a student will give his optimal performance in a school subject when he is FORCED to learn subjects he might not want to learn? Explain to me why children are so eager to learn the subjects that they would later find undesirable and repulsive at later times when they first enter school ? Besides , we ARE paying the teachers, so there should be a high standard of teaching that teachers should abide by. Most teachers at all grade levels make around 40,000 and 50,000 dollars per year, I hardly call not call that lowly.(http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary, http://www.employmentspot.com/employment-articles/teacher-salaries-by-state/); and that's only the national average. In some states, the teachers in california make around $60,000 per year , even though many of these sates with the highest paid teacher salaries don't have the best performing schools.

 

[SticksandStones]

They make $60,000/yr in California, which isn't saying much. Did you remember to factor in the cost of living?

 

[noblegas]

They make $60,000/yr in California, which isn't saying much. Did you remember to factor in the cost of living?

Well , the average income salary in california is $32,000 per person(http://www.city-data.com/states/California-Income.html). A teacher in california generates an income well above the average salary in california.

 

[Integral]

No one is blaming only the teachers, but to put the blame on the students is equally if not more ridiculous. What makes you expect that a student will give his optimal performance in a school subject when he is FORCED to learn subjects he might not want to learn?

Can you explain how a high school student can possibly know what they need to learn?
I thought the reason they were there is to learn. The largest problem I see (and yes I have been spending volunteer time in a hi school classroom) is a lack of discipline into many students. It takes a very strong teacher to get the attention of maybe 20% of the students in our school. That fraction makes it very difficult for the rest of the class due to disruptions.

Explain to me why children are so eager to learn the subjects that they would later find undesirable and repulsive at later times when they first enter school ? Besides , we ARE paying the teachers, so there should be a high standard of teaching that teachers should abide by. Most teachers at all grade levels make around 40,000 and 50,000 dollars per year, I hardly call not call that lowly.(http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary, http://www.employmentspot.com/employment-articles/teacher-salaries-by-state/); and that's only the national average. In some states, the teachers in california make around $60,000 per year , even though many of these sates with the highest paid teacher salaries don't have the best performing schools.

I guess to a high school grad working at McDs 40-50K seems like a lot of money. But if you have a family not so much. Considering that teachers have one of the most important jobs in the nation why can't the be paid as much as say a plumber. Our founding fathers recognized that our government could only operate correctly if we had a well educated population. This has not changed, indeed a good education is even more important today then it was 200yrs ago. Unfortunately I do not see any easy solutions.

 

[noblegas]

Can you explain how a high school student can possibly know what they need to learn?
I thought the reason they were there is to learn. The largest problem I see (and yes I have been spending volunteer time in a hi school classroom) is a lack of discipline into many students. It takes a very strong teacher to get the attention of maybe 20% of the students in our school. That fraction makes it very difficult for the rest of the class due to disruptions.

Can you explain to me why high school teachers or anyone , essentially strangers have the right to determined what subjects students should be taught and what they should not be taught? Thats something students need to find out for themselves, not some arbitrary authority figure. Students should decide for themselves what subjects should they devote most of their time too , whether they be the conventional subjects taught in school , like algebra, US history, calculus , English literature or not so conventional subjects like devoting all 12 years to learning to play the guitar or devoting all 12 years to studying art or film directing.

It takes a very strong teacher to get the attention of maybe 20% of the students in our school. That fraction makes it very difficult for the rest of the class due to disruptions.

Thats why I am a firm opponent of the 30 students-one teacher class room model that most schools follow. Students will not learn in the same fashion so why apply one model of learning to thirty different students? The based way for students to master a subject is only if their is one teacher and one student. Richard feynman even said that the based way for students to learn physics is their to be a one-to-one ratio between student and the teacher in the preface of his famous introductory physics textbooks

I guess to a high school grad working at McDs 40-50K seems like a lot of money. But if you have a family not so much. Considering that teachers have one of the most important jobs in the nation why can't the be paid as much as say a plumber. Our founding fathers recognized that our government could only operate correctly if we had a well educated population. This has not changed, indeed a good education is even more important today then it was 200yrs ago. Unfortunately I do not see any easy solutions.

;Oh , Come on ! I know a $50,000 dollars will not buy you a 20 bedroom mansion in a gated community , but it is enough money to provide for your basic necessities needed to sustain a decent standard of living as well as extra amenities. Not to mentioned that being part of the teacher's union makes their job more secure and therefore , it is very difficult for a teacher to be fired from their job.

 

[vaatc]

Well , the average income salary in california is $32,000 per person(http://www.city-data.com/states/California-Income.html). A teacher in california generates an income well above the average salary in california.

Your numbers are a little out of date.

http://www.top50states.com/federal-cost-of-living-index.html" is more recent and has rankings for cost of living and average income per capita. California is in the top 5 most expensive States to live in and they are not in the top 5 highest for income per capita. I hope I do not need to explain what that means. They are also ranked there as having the 16th highest popultion living under the poverty line which also hinders the quality of education.

As for putting all the blame on the students, I do not do that. But the OP's question was, "Why are their so many unqualified teachers in the US school system?" Which, in my interpretation is saying that the students in the US are not getting a solid science education because the teachers are the ones to blame.

Many teachers have their hands tied behind their backs because they do not have any ability to control their class rooms. Add in the fact that society has decided that kids, as a whole, can not handle responsibility and consequences for their actions, and also think that they are all little angles that do no wrong. In then end, all that many teachers can do is to placate the students.

If what I hold as the more likely standard, as opposed to teachers just not wanting to teach or being unqualified to teach, how can one expect a majority of teachers to do more then an average job?

Grade school is not for deciding what you want to do in life. Grade shcool is supposed to give a you a good base in the widest range of academia as possible. I personally think that too many young adults go to college. I also believe it is the indivduals responsibilty to take the initiative to increase the quality of ones own education. If ones education system is lacking then it is their parents and their own responsibilities to overcome the inequities. If you are unable to do that then higher education is not for you anyway.

 

[noblegas]

This page is more recent and has rankings for cost of living and average income per capita. California is in the top 5 most expensive States to live in and they are not in the top 5 highest for income per capita. I hope I do not need to explain what that means. They are also ranked there as having the 16th highest popultion living under the poverty line which also hinders the quality of education.

California has the highest spending expenditures on education ( http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_ele_sec_nin_gra_stu-elementary-secondary-ninth-grade-students, http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ed...entary-secondary-finance-current-expenditures), yet they don't rank highly in proficieny in reading and math scores. (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_***_of_stu_abo_bas_gra_8_mat-above-basic-grade-8-math,http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_***_of_stu_abo_adv_gra_8_wri-above-advanced-grade-8-writing,http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_***_of_stu_abo_adv_gra_8_sci-above-advanced-grade-8-science ). Throwing money at a problem will in most cases, especially when it comes to education , will not gurantee a quick fix to the problem or any a fix at all . The only way to receive a decent education if it is presented in a fashion that peaks your interest in the subject or you are extremely passionate about the subject that you spend an exobitant amount of time learning about the subject on your own time.

As for putting all the blame on the students, I do not do that. But the OP's question was, "Why are their so many unqualified teachers in the US school system?" Which, in my interpretation is saying that the students in the US are not getting a solid science education because the teachers are the ones to blame.

A bulk of the blame should go to the teachers, if they cannot present the subjects adequately to their audience, then they have failed at their job, its that simple. Demonizing the students as rowdy and unruly is a ridiculous assessment of a population.

Grade school is not for deciding what you want to do in life. Grade shcool is supposed to give a you a good base in the widest range of academia as possible. I personally think that too many young adults go to college. I also believe it is the indivduals responsibilty to take the initiative to increase the quality of ones own education. If ones education system is lacking then it is their parents and their own responsibilities to overcome the inequities. If you are unable to do that then higher education is not for you anyway.

You should devote all of your time , from cradle to grave, find out what you are passionate about , not spent 8 hours a day in a classroom full of strangers obtaining your education from a curriculum that you had no involvement in creating and that you are not absolutely interested in. Now I am not for the destruction of schools, on the contrary, I support schools that created a curriculum desired by the student body and I support the notion that students should not be forced to learn subjects that they are not interested in and that they will probably forget when they graduate. In the adult world, we are not forced to take certain jobs or shop at certain places or eat at designated restaurants, why should children be forced to attend schools? It does not make any sense to me. One might say that we send children to school so they won't become illiterate , but you really don't need a teacher to teach kinds things like learning how to read and teaching a child how to write. Many students come to school already knowing how to read.

 

[Chi Meson]

its that simple.

Nothing is ever "that simple." Anytime anyone believes anything is "that simple," it indicates that they have not learned enough of what has contributed to the problem.

You should devote all of your time , from cradle to grave, find out what you are passionate about , not spent 8 hours a day in a classroom full of strangers obtaining your education from a curriculum that you had no involvement in creating and that you are not absolutely interested in.

You go from an exaggerated ideal of perfection to an exaggerated negative assessment of the current situation. One is unrealistic, the other is inaccurate.

Now I am not for the destruction of schools, on the contrary, I support schools that created a curriculum desired by the student body and I support the notion that students should not be forced to learn subjects that they are not interested in and that they will probably forget when they graduate. In the adult world, we are not forced to take certain jobs or shop at certain places or eat at designated restaurants, why should children be forced to attend schools? It does not make any sense to me. One might say that we send children to school so they won't become illiterate , but you really don't need a teacher to teach kinds things like learning how to read and teaching a child how to write. Many students come to school already knowing how to read.

You are in favor of what is known as "unschooling" in the homeschooling community. We (my wife rather) is a homeschool teacher for our three kids who follows an unschooling plan. It works fantastically well for us. We know of several other unschooling families where the kids are not benefiting so well. They are still waiting to find out what interests them. A key component of any teacher, perhaps THE key, is passion and excitement for what is being learned.

She happens to have mater's degrees in English and Chemistry, which makes her very well knowledgeable in many areas. She is also one of the most cheerful and enthusiastic people I have ever met. Check her out: http://runhomepam.blogspot.com/

To extend this plan into all public schools is essentially impossible. You cannot manufacture a unique curriculum for each student. The best we can hope for is an increase in "magnet" schools where there are specialized focus areas that can be selected by students.

While you are partially correct that unions make it difficult to get rid of bad teachers, there is still a large enough turnover rate that IF we had a large enough selection pool of talented people who would be great teachers, then within 10 years we would have a vastly improved cast of teachers.

The truth remains through the ten years I have been teaching, when a opening occurs for a Physics Teacher, we do NOT get the finest possible candidates. THe last opening that occurred in my school, five years ago, the best candidate that applied was a former middle school teacher, with less than a minor in physics (18 semester hours allows a co-certification in Physics along with another science). This guy commutes from one hour away. Draw a "one-hour circle" around us, and you will encompass nearly a million people, and this was our best prospect (now he's not BAD, don't get me wrong).

The compensation is NOT sufficient to attract charismatic people with a degree in science, especially Physics. There are too many alternatives with better compensation plans.

 

[Integral]

So Noblegas's student designed class schedule

Period 1. Video game walk through
Period 2. Advanced Ipod.
Period 3. Hacky sack.
Period 4. Let's play another video game.
Period 5. Politically incorrect jokes.


Sounds like fun, I bet you would get good student participation and happy students.

Trouble is after a few years of this there would be no new games, So the first period might have to be changed to nap time.

The concept of letting the students have say in what is taught is ludicrous.

Unfortunately your illiterate views are all too common in this country. Meanwhile in Asia for example the students take education very seriously. Perhaps we need to add Japanese to the schedule so you can understand what your boss is saying after you get out of school.

 

[vaatc]

Well I think it is safe to say that nobel has little to no experience working with moderatly sized groups of average grade school students. Also, he is clueless as it has to do with knowing what teachers really have to deal with.

So $ 50,000.00 is what you consider appropriate to pay someone to figure out how to teach 100 plus students per semester, tutor each of them seperately, grade papers, make sure each class is interesting enough to engage each and every student in their own favortie fashion, and then also to have a life?

You make me laugh!

Your concept of making every class interesting enough for each and every student to learn effectively and at the same rate, is laughable, and harkens back to the days of small classrooms, where the teachers had close to martial law inside the school room. Not even possible by a long stretch for the general population.

You say that Fenyman suggested that ideal physics education would occur in a 1-1 fashion yet fail to explain how this even possible.

Are you serious in even considering that is an option in the world of advanced acedemia much less public school systems?

So, please do explain how you would fix the current public school system.

 

[Chi Meson]

Folks, let's not go flaming here. A lot of Nobelgas' beef is legitimate. I think it is a bit inaccurate and oversimplified. Then again, I've seen a lot of posts (here and elsewhere) that are supportive of teachers in which the heroics of all teachers are over-glorified.

I wish to maintain that teachers are human, and like the human population in general, there are teachers the fill the spectrum from super incredible to utterly intolerable.

If you gather 12 people in one room and ask them what the best method of public education would be, you would get 20 different answers.

 

[noblegas]

Well I think it is safe to say that nobel has little to no experience working with moderatly sized groups of average grade school students. Also, he is clueless as it has to do with knowing what teachers really have to deal with.

So $ 50,000.00 is what you consider appropriate to pay someone to figure out how to teach 100 plus students per semester, tutor each of them seperately, grade papers, make sure each class is interesting enough to engage each and every student in their own favortie fashion, and then also to have a life?

You make me laugh!

You make me laugh! I think a teacher's salary should be based on the overall performance of the students in the class. You think that teachers should received $50,000 , no matter if he is a good teacher or bad teacher. Teachers should receive high pay based on the performance of the students in the subjects that the teachers teach and based on how engaged the the students are in the class, not how many students teachers teach. Quality is what should count, not quantity.

Your concept of making every class interesting enough for each and every student to learn effectively and at the same rate, is laughable, and harkens back to the days of small classrooms, where the teachers had close to martial law inside the school room. Not even possible by a long stretch for the general population.

I am not in favored of the class model unless the students take the initiative to go to a class on their own based on their own free will, not through coercion. That way, most students in the classroom will be eager to be their in the first place. The model for learning that I propose is to have either students learn whatever subject matter they want to learn own their own and this would not be hard for a student to do given that most teacher basicallly summarized what is in the textbook anyway. The other method I propose is to have parents higher private tutors for their sons and daughters and then that would spawn a market for private tutors in a variety of subject matter and not just tutors who tutor for SAT prep courses. Parents would easily assesed if the teacher that they hired will suit the learning needs of the individual child, and not have the child be taught by some random stranger who's teaching crendentials they are not familiar with.

You say that Fenyman suggested that ideal physics education would occur in a 1-1 fashion yet fail to explain how this even possible.

Why do you figure teaching a subject with only one teacher and one student is not possible? Have you ever heard of homeschooling and hiring private tutors to help students catch up in the class? If you don't believe what I said about feynman views on learning, take a look at the prefaces of one of his introductory physics books and you will see that I am correct.
Are you serious in even considering that is an option in the world of advanced academia much less public school systems?

So, please do explain how you would fix the current public school system.

I would get rid of it and completely replace it with the models of learning that I proposed.

 

[noblegas]

So Noblegas's student designed class schedule

Period 1. Video game walk through
Period 2. Advanced Ipod.
Period 3. Hacky sack.
Period 4. Let's play another video game.
Period 5. Politically incorrect jokes.

I am sure that most parents are concern about the quality of education that their child receives. They would not allow their child to just goof off and try to direct their children to devote more time to their interests.


Sounds like fun, I bet you would get good student participation and happy students.

Trouble is after a few years of this there would be no new games, So the first period might have to be changed to nap time.

The concept of letting the students have say in what is taught is ludicrous.

How so? Why don't you think strangers know what's best for what the students should learn and not the students themselves or the parents? Maybe the students think that most of the subjects that they learn in school are not relevant to what they encountered in the real world or related to their individual interest and frankly I agree with them. Why should a student be forced to learn about what mitochondria is or be forced to read all of the plays of Shakespeare if he will never apply what he learned to his entire life ?

Unfortunately your illiterate views are all too common in this country. Meanwhile in Asia for example the students take education very seriously. Perhaps we need to add Japanese to the schedule so you can understand what your boss is saying after you get out of school.

Well, they may take their education seriously, but what does that have to do with the way students learn in the United States? Why do you believe that we need to focus on behind ahead of China and Japan on standardized tests when we should be promoting an individual style learning approach and not what the school board wants the children to learn.

 

[Jack21222]

So Noblegas's student designed class schedule

Period 1. Video game walk through
Period 2. Advanced Ipod.
Period 3. Hacky sack.
Period 4. Let's play another video game.
Period 5. Politically incorrect jokes.


Sounds like fun, I bet you would get good student participation and happy students.

Trouble is after a few years of this there would be no new games, So the first period might have to be changed to nap time.

The concept of letting the students have say in what is taught is ludicrous.

Unfortunately your illiterate views are all too common in this country. Meanwhile in Asia for example the students take education very seriously. Perhaps we need to add Japanese to the schedule so you can understand what your boss is saying after you get out of school.

According to studies done on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_valley_school" , the students learn quite a bit, and have no trouble being accepted into college. Of those that want to go to college, something like 80% get accepted into their college of first choice. I can't find a link to the study, but the one I read said the biggest side effect of the Sudbury Valley education was a disproportionate number of entrepreneurs.

While it is true that some students try to get away without learning anything, those students will get weeded out pretty quickly. What the teachers there will tell you, though, is that learning is much more efficient in an environment where the students actually want to learn a particular subject. One teacher mentioned that he was able to teach, and his students were able to grasp, the entire elementary school math curriculum in just a few months. Because of this, even if students spend more time "playing," it's made up for by having less time wasted in a classroom, repeating things that were already learned.

Simple peer pressure works to get students to learn certain things. Nobody wants to be known as the 7 or 8 year old who still doesn't know how to read. Besides, it makes it harder to play video games, board games, Magic: The Gathering, or whatever other type of game you can think of if you can't read. Similarly, nobody wants to be the one to get the lowest grade on the SATs. Pressure from parents is another factor in determining what kids learn. If a student isn't learning enough to make their parents happy, they get pulled out of this paradise-like environment by their parents.

Plus, there is something to be said for informal learning. Kids can learn a lot by just talking with other kids, sharing things they've learned.

I have the belief that people, young people especially, are just built to learn. If you just stay out of their way, they'll learn a lot. When you start forcing them into unnatural situations, telling them to keep quiet, and boring them with details they have no interest in at the moment, you're actually preventing them from learning. That's why throughout middle and high school, they go over the same concepts year after year after year. How many times did you learn sentence structure throughout middle and high school? It must have been about 3 or 4 times for me, then once again when I got to college. That's a lot of wasted time where I could have actually been learning something, instead of rehashing something I already knew.

I'm kind of rambling a bit, so I'll sum up by saying it's irresponsible to just dismiss an educational model without digging a little deeper into it. Real life evidence shows that your hypothesis that kids will sit around and do nothing all day is not true in the majority of cases.

 

[noblegas]

I have the belief that people, young people especially, are just built to learn. If you just stay out of their way, they'll learn a lot. When you start forcing them into unnatural situations, telling them to keep quiet, and boring them with details they have no interest in at the moment, you're actually preventing them from learning. That's why throughout middle and high school, they go over the same concepts year after year after year. How many times did you learn sentence structure throughout middle and high school? It must have been about 3 or 4 times for me, then once again when I got to college. That's a lot of wasted time where I could have actually been learning something, instead of rehashing something I already knew.

Moot point! I swear that in my 12th grade english class, we were learning the same topics on grammar and sentence structures that I learned in fourth grade. I had basically the same reading list I had in 7th grade that I had in 11th grade. As far as science goes, we actually did not do science, we learn science facts which isn't science at all and when we attempted scientific experiments in the lab, we would know before hand how the experiments were and how they were supposed to turn out, which isn't science at all if you know what the experiment is beforehand! I think we also set up a school system dominated by standardized test and change , and not an atmosphere where students want to actually be their discussing the various ideas in each subject that is being taught to them. You know, when the the Academy opened up in ancient Greece , students at the Academy spent their time joining in informal discussions about philosophy and mathematics , as well and worked on solving existing problem. Even though the academy catered to only the rich, tuition was free . Many of the founding fathers
Like benjamin franklin did not attend any schools , and their were very educated men. In the 19th centuries, many venture capitalists and inventors like the Wright brothers, Thomas edison , Michael faraday, never attended formal schooling and they made siginifcant contributions to science and technology. I recommend the book The history of American education by John taylor gatto if you are interested in how the american education system came to be and how it has changed over the last 200 years. Its freely available online(http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm ). It is a very rewarding read. Kind of ironic that in school settings, most of us would spend our leisure time participating in the kind of "activity" generally offered at schools , even though the greek origin of the word school literally means "leisure"

 

[206PiruBlood]

@noblegas

I am not saying your approaches don't have their individual merits, they are just not practical, and some are seriously flawed. For example evaluating the quality of teaching through student success. How will you accomplish this? Standardized testing? In the state of Washington for example, once the WASL was introduced, many teachers started teaching for this test. Year after year in school we learned less and less variety such that the scores would seem artificially higher. The teachers that took it upon themselves to disregard the test, and teach actual skills were essentially frowned upon. The result was removing the WASL as a graduation requirement year after year because so many students still couldn't pass.

If it is so difficult to find one quality math or science teacher for an entire school, how is it at all feasible to find quality teaching for each student on an individual basis?

I agree that learning is often much more efficient when the student has a genuine interest, but in practice how many students have a genuine interest in anything at that age? How many students at university have a genuine interest in any academic subject for that matter? In all of my years I have never once heard someone ask "who is a good instructor?" As apposed to the thousands of "who is easy?" Who will I get no homework from? Who will give me a free A?

I think it is unreasonable to expect that every primary and secondary level student is truly capable of developing such an interest. Further I submit that it may be even more beneficial to hold off on specialization until one experiences the breadth of what's out there. Also, you suggest that students pursue their interests and those alone. Do you not think that everyone should at least have some scientific knowledge or the ability to not just read, but comprehend and analyze text? Sure the students might not need Shakespeare in particular but they are developing important skills.

From my experience, genuinely interested students are a rarity at all levels and there is a serious lack of responsibility in the student population. The teachers can't do that much if the students have no desire to learn anything (but that's another topic :D).

How can we inspire young people to develop academic interests!

 

[noblegas]

@noblegas

I am not saying your approaches don't have their individual merits, they are just not practical, and some are seriously flawed. For example evaluating the quality of teaching through student success. How will you accomplish this? Standardized testing? In the state of Washington for example, once the WASL was introduced, many teachers started teaching for this test. Year after year in school we learned less and less variety such that the scores would seem artificially higher. The teachers that took it upon themselves to disregard the test, and teach actual skills were essentially frowned upon. The result was removing the WASL as a graduation requirement year after year because so many students still couldn't pass.

I fail to see why you considered the notion of the student's environment where the environment would encompass only his academic needs and not the academic needs of thirty or so other students is "seriously flawed" . Thousands upon thousands of americans choose to not send their kid to a public school everyday and either home-schooled the kid themselves or hire a private tutor to home school their kid. Why do you think the conventional approaches for teaching are more effective than the approaches I have proposed? Standardized tests are not the only tools that can measure the academic merit nor are they always the most means to measure the academic merit of a student

If it is so difficult to find one quality math or science teacher for an entire school, how is it at all feasible to find quality teaching for each student on an individual basis?

I am sure if people started to have a demand for private tutors and not a demand for teachers to teach students through a collective basis, you would see more and more teachers who could teach students on an individual basis . You think it would be impractical because you don't see many teachers who tutor/teach students privately and the reason why you don't see many teachers who provide their services to individual students is because their is not a demand for such services because most parents send their child to public school.

I agree that learning is often much more efficient when the student has a genuine interest, but in practice how many students have a genuine interest in anything at that age? How many students at university have a genuine interest in any academic subject for that matter? In all of my years I have never once heard someone ask "who is a good instructor?" As apposed to the thousands of "who is easy?" Who will I get no homework from? Who will give me a free A?

I Have to agree with you about students at the university being more concerned with grades and homework more than anything else. I don't see many students actually discussing the subject matter they are learning unless it is a project or homework assignments, which makes me question whether or not students would have any discussions on the topics they discuss in class on their own free will or because they have a genuine interest in those topics. I think children would developed a natural interests in the topics that are discussed in a conventional school setting that they would normally find repulsive. I think most children have a natural curiosity about their environment anyway, but this curiosity that's ingrained in them seriously becomes depleted when they enter school. I think that we should let the kids learn on their own and not be put in a situation where they are forced to learn academic subjects. You know , Albert einstein did not go into physics because the schools he attended encouraged his interest in physics , he got into physics because he was natural inclined to discover the laws of physics around him, not to mentioned his uncle brought books on natural philosophy and math that would fostered einstein's interest in physics. In fact, einstein is famous for saying that the only thing that interefered with his learning experience was his formal education. Same thing for Newton; Even though Issac Newton attended cambridge university, he was upset that known of his professors were discussing any of the latest developments in natural philosophy and so sought to read up on the ideas of corpenicus, galileo and descartes all on his own.

I think it is unreasonable to expect that every primary and secondary level student is truly capable of developing such an interest. Further I submit that it may be even more beneficial to hold off on specialization until one experiences the breadth of what's out there. Also, you suggest that students pursue their interests and those alone. Do you not think that everyone should at least have some scientific knowledge or the ability to not just read, but comprehend and analyze text? Sure the students might not need Shakespeare in particular but they are developing important skills.

Well that's your opionion. Some people might think it would be more important for students to learn martial arts than learn shakespeare. Yes, I think everyone should have scientific knowledge because it is very useful. However, I don't think that students should be forced to learn scientific knowledge. I think they should pursue their interest in scientific knowledge on their own free will. No matter what the topic is, nobody should ever be forced to participate in something if they do not want to participate in it.