Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's the CYA culture that limits individuals from professionally nurturing eachother. It's sad actually.
I have to wonder why it's this way. In other professions, people aren'r afraid of a little competition. In fact, the brag when their mentees pass them by.
If teaching becomes a more high-demand, well-paying occupation? Then this will all come.... But people cannot continue to demand more training for teachers without additional compensation (relative to the economy of course).
Seems more and more that people want to bash the teaching profession and current teachers and demand that they do more and more to prove their qualifications.
In the meantime they ignore the fact that there is a shortage of teachers that are willing to put themselves through the CURRENT requirements in order to enter the teaching profession at current salaries. How would simply increasing the requirements to become a teacher (all else remaining equal) make MORE people want to become teachers?
Of course the answer is that it wouldn't.
Not really lecturing YOU here as I think you'd agree on this?
I agree. The real problem is we don't value teachers. Society treats teaching like it's a job anyone can do and just about anyone will try as a result. There would have to be higher compensation and professional esteem to attract better teachers.
If I hadn't already been an engineer and tired of that, I'd probably be tucking my tail about now simply because of the disrespect I get as a teacher.
Yes, SUBJECT matter experts. I never said experts in everything nor did I imply it.
"MATH" is a broad subject, is it not? "READING" is a broad subject is it not?
Do I need to be a "MATH" expert to teach 1st grade addition and subtraction? NO!
You suggest I need to be an expert on how first graders learn addition and subtraction.
Well yeah, okay. I didn't realize "teaching 1st grade addition" was what you meant when you suggested teachers needed to be "experts" in their subject. I took it as meaning "math".
My initial point was that subject matter expertise gets more necessary the older the students are to whom you are teaching, no?
You can teach chemistry to a 5th grader, but the curriculum for 5th grade chemistry is not quite as in-depth as it would be for a High School Junior... Let's teach atomic structure and move on. We aren't going to be getting into molar mass and balancing equations in 5th grade are we?
Thus, you really wouldn't have to be a chemistry "expert" to effectively teach 5th grade chemistry.
Honestly I think we're talking past each other at this point.
"MATH" is a broad subject, is it not? "READING" is a broad subject is it not?
Do I need to be a "MATH" expert to teach 1st grade addition and subtraction? NO!
You suggest I need to be an expert on how first graders learn addition and subtraction.
Well yeah, okay. I didn't realize "teaching 1st grade addition" was what you meant when you suggested teachers needed to be "experts" in their subject. I took it as meaning "math".
My initial point was that subject matter expertise gets more necessary the older the students are whom you are teaching, no?
You can teach chemistry to a 5th grader, but the curriculum for 5th grade chemistry is not quite as in-depth as it would be for a High School Junior... Let's teach atomic structure and move on. We aren't going to be getting into molar mass and balancing equations in 5th grade are we?
Thus, you really wouldn't have to be a chemistry "expert" to effectively teach 5th grade chemistry.
Yes, a subject matter expert in math would have demonstrated high proficiency in math well beyond the high school level. A 1st grade teacher would, indeed, need to be a subject matter expert in math well beyond what they are teaching and since we give teaching certificates for grouped grades (K-6) in this case, well beyond what is taught in high school. You could, lob off calculus and differential equations for an elementary school teacher but they will touch on geometry, trig, statistics, and algebra.
Reading is different. To teach reading you have to understand how the human brain learns to read. You also need to able to do it but reading is so fundamental that many of us aren't aware of how we learned to read or what reading actually entails. It's become automatic for us. So the teacher needs to be an expert in how children learn to read.
Chemistry isn't taught in 5th grade for a reason. But a science teacher needs to actually understand science in order to teach it. Science is the one subject where lots of junk science is being taught because teachers don't know science. We have kids graduating from college thinking that the seasons have something to do with the earth having an eliptical orbit around the sun. I have to unteach junk science before I teach real science. So yes, I'd expect a chemistry teacher teaching any grade level to be a subject matter expert. Maybe then entropy as disorder will die as it needs to.
I agree. The real problem is we don't value teachers. Society treats teaching like it's a job anyone can do and just about anyone will try as a result. There would have to be higher compensation and professional esteem to attract better teachers.
If I hadn't already been an engineer and tired of that, I'd probably be tucking my tail about now simply because of the disrespect I get as a teacher.
And you're just referring to the disrespect from adults... LOL!!!
Yes, a subject matter expert in math would have demonstrated high proficiency in math well beyond the high school level.
Reading is different. To teach reading you have to understand how the human brain learns to read. You also need to able to do it but reading is so fundamental that many of us aren't aware of how we learned to read or what reading actually entails. It's become automatic for us. So the teacher needs to be an expert in how children learn to read.
Chemistry isn't taught in 5th grade for a reason.
Your condescension makes the fact that you were once an engineer obvious. Guess it goes with the territory, so I'll forgive you for being a bit socially inept in the course of an otherwise civil discussion.
That said? Forgive me. I guess Chemistry for ME in Middle school was 7th grade and in high school it was either 10th or 11th....
Point remains. The 7th grade curriculum was simpler and required less content expertise by the teacher.
Not sure why you're continuing to argue this?
Edit: Anyway, don't want to further belabor this point as its really just an irrelevent point relating to a matter of opinion. I find I agree with most of what you say elsewhere, so I'll just leave this here (bracing for the inevitable smart alec response which will be difficult to not respond to, but I'll do my best... ).
Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 06-28-2011 at 01:45 PM..
If your state is on the bottom half of the list, you should be asking some questions.
Student's Chances of Success [based on education]
Massachusetts A 1
New Jersey A- 2
New Hampshire A- 3
Connecticut A- 4
Minnesota B+ 5
Maryland B+ 6
Vermont B+ 7
North Dakota B 8
Virginia B 9
Pennsylvania B 10
Wisconsin B 11
Iowa B 12
New York B 13
Colorado B- 14
Kansas B- 15
Nebraska B- 16
Illinois B- 17
Utah B- 18
South Dakota B- 19
Rhode Island B- 20
Montana B- 21
Washington B- 22
Wyoming C+ 23
Delaware C+ 24
Ohio C+ 25
Maine C+ 26
Hawaii C+ 27
Missouri C+ 28
Indiana C+ 29
Michigan C+ 30
DC C+ 31
Idaho C 32
North Carolina C 33
Oregon C 34
Florida C 35
South Carolina C 36
Alaska C 37
Georgia C 38
Texas C 39
Kentucky C 40
California C 41
Alabama C- 42
Oklahoma C- 43
Tennessee C- 44
Arizona C- 45
Arkansas C- 46
West Virginia C- 47
Louisiana C- 48
Mississippi D+ 49
New Mexico D+ 50
Nevada D+ 51
Your condescension makes the fact that you were once an engineer obvious. Guess it goes with the territory, so I'll forgive you for being a bit socially inept in the course of an otherwise civil discussion.
That said? Forgive me. I guess Chemistry for ME in Middle school was 7th grade and in high school it was either 10th or 11th....
Point remains. The 7th grade curriculum was simpler and required less content expertise by the teacher.
Not sure why you're continuing to argue this?
Edit: Anyway, don't want to further belabor this point as its really just an irrelevent point relating to a matter of opinion. I find I agree with most of what you say elsewhere, so I'll just leave this here (bracing for the inevitable smart alec response which will be difficult to not respond to, but I'll do my best... ).
I will repeat, you cannot teach what you do not know. Yes, teachers should be, first and foremost, subject matter experts. They should be able to answer any question any child or parent asks them. They should know where the material they are teaching is leading and how it will be applied later. In the early grades, they should also know how children best learn what they are teaching.
Chemistry is chemistry regardless of what grade you teach it to. The subject does not change. The need for the teacher to know what they are teaching does not change. The fact we don't require subject matter expertise of science teachers is why we have kids graduating from high school and college thinking junk science is real. IMO, that is intollerable.
If you had chemistry in 7th grade, I'm impressed. It is normally taught in the 11th grade here. While there are some physical science topics touched on in middle school science (physical science), chemistry, itself, is not taught. Most students aren't ready for stoichiometry, balancing equations and reaction rates until after they've had algebra. However, if you were teaching chemistry to 7th graders you would, indeed, need to be a subject matter expert. Why do you think it's ok to try and teach what you do not, yourself, know inside out and upside down? THIS is telling of the state of education in this country when we think it's acceptable to put people in front of a classroom who are not subject matter experts.
Next you'll be telling me you can actually suck liquid up through a straw and that the bubbles in boiling water contain air (common chemistry misconceptions perpetuated by teachers who don't know better)...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, SUBJECT matter experts. I never said experts in everything nor did I imply it. 
But a science teacher needs to actually understand science in order to teach it. Science is the one subject where lots of junk science is being taught because teachers don't know science. We have kids graduating from college thinking that the seasons have something to do with the earth having an eliptical orbit around the sun. I have to unteach junk science before I teach real science. So yes, I'd expect a chemistry teacher teaching any grade level to be a subject matter expert. Maybe then entropy as disorder will die as it needs to.
).
