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.
No it doesn't. It is the point. At least if the question is "how do we attract better STEM teachers and raise our nationwide level of STEM education.
If we do not care about STEM than no, STEM teachers should not earn more. But if the push is for more STEM, as it is in my neck of the woods, that the economics really does play a part. If you want to attract the best and brightest science teachers WITH the best skill sets that translate to teaching, than you need to be willing to pay them more.
In my neck of the woods, there are a LOT of teachers (including STEM) being laid off due to economics. Some of them are pretty darn good at it too. Hmmm, perhaps your neck of the woods needs to work on recruiting from my neck of the woods.
If we want to address the quality of STEM teaching in the US, then we need to focus on the teacher preparation programs for pre-service teachers and the quality of professional development for career-changer/in-service teachers. Higher pay doesn't make teachers better; preparation does. As for retaining good stem teachers, we need to look at other factors at play besides money. Most leave within 3-5 years due to working conditions (lack of family time and lack of administrative support are the major players) rather than lack of pay (Kersaint, Lewis, Potter, & Meisels, 2006). They knew the salary going into it; what they were unprepared for was the challenges of being a teacher.
I have no issue with merit based pay (if they could ever figure out a proper way to measure it); I just don't think that teaching a STEM discipline should automatically entitle someone to greater pay.
As for suggesting that good STEM teachers should be able to teach just following the textbook, I am actually aghast. One of the big three, Glencoe, their most widespread general chemistry textbook is riddled with errors. Just in the stoichometry chapter there are 11 of 54 practice problems that give WRONG answers.
.
And this is why science teachers need to take English classes.
No one made such a suggestion.
Reading comprehension is necessary even in science.
People who want to be science teachers need to take more classes on communicating ideas, psychology, and, especially, teaching. They do not need mostly science classes. Some science classes are probably beneficial, but the focus should be on learning teaching. They are studying to be teachers, not scientists. A great sicentist who is a lousy teacher is still a lousy teacher. A great teacher who is a lousy scientist is still a great teacher.
I am willing to bet that any smart person who is a great teacher can read the book and competently teach a science course without any more than college freshman science classes. The subject matter is just not that difficult. am also willing to bet that a great teacher can teach that class better than a PhD who has little or no training or skills in teaching.
Good high school students learn enough science that they can pick out the errors in the text books. Even decent students can do that. My kids do it. You do not need 18 college science courses to pick out such errors. Do you think that your students are unable to pick out those errors after they go through your classes? the need to go to college to be able to do so becuase you did nto teach them enough to pick out those errors? I do no think that is what you are intending to say here.
What I said: By graduation, high school kids have almost enough science knowlege to teach it. What they do not have is teaching knowlege. In college they get a whole lot more science training and not enough teaching training. I think it should be the opposite. Instead of a few teaching classes and a lot of science classes, they should take a lot of teaching classes and a few science classes. It is not necessary to learn science beyond the high school level all that well, because they will not be teaching science beyond the high school level.
Some people are just good teachers. It is an innate skill. Some people can learn to teach, but they do not get enough training. Some simply can never learn to teach no matter how smart or well educated they are. No one can learn to teach science merely by taking science classes.
As for teaching applicaiton, you do not learn application to real world scenarios in college courses. Teachers generally have no real world expereince. Ideally you would have only expereicened real world retirees as teachers, but that is not going to happen. Few people are going to go back to school to take a retirement job at 1/10th of their prior income.
Actually thining about it, I really like the idea of having retirees do the teaching, if they could be convinced to do it. It would provide teachers with more real world experience and generally with more patience. It would also help resolve some of the problems with Social security running out and the government evnetually being forced to dip into evronye's 401K to pay for those who did not save for retirement.
Last edited by Coldjensens; 05-16-2012 at 03:42 PM..
That's not what that says at all. It says that a lot of English majors are -admitted- to law school. Presumably if large numbers are admitted, large numbers apply.
While the STEM majors have high acceptance rates, relatively few are admitted, presumably because they do not bother applying in the first place.
It is the same fallacy when you compare SAT scores between states with high participation and low participation.
Yes, STEM majors have the highest acceptance rate. And we are talking about a homogenous sample, college graduates applying to law school. There is nothing to remotely suggest that only the TOP physics students go to law school, as would be necessary to make the analogy to SAT/ACT issues in various states. The "best" physics students are going to go onto the top fellowships in physics PhD programs. Same for the bio and chem graduates. If anything we can make the case that the top potential STEM candidates are not applying.
Therefore the fact that STEM applicants have a higher acceptance rate completely disproves the idea that STEM applicants are lacking some skill to go to law school.
As for the SAT analogy, in some states only the top 5-10% take the SATs while in others as much as 75% are taking it. Pretending that only the top 5-10% of physics students are applying to LAW school is ridiculous. The top STEM grads go to STEM grad programs.
And this is why science teachers need to take English classes.
I have been kind enough not to point out how absolutely riddled with typos, grammatical errors, and generally "bad English" your posts have been plagued with. Maybe you should edit them before you go off playing the reading comprehension card. BTW just a cursory glance, there are over ten in this post alone.
Quote:
No one made such a suggestion.
"Most high school graduates with good grades already know enough about science or math that they could teach it with a good text to follow."
Yes, you made the suggestion that a high school grad could teach high school level science by following a text book.
Quote:
Reading comprehension is necessary even in science.
Damn good thing you are not a scientist!!
Quote:
People who want to be science teachers need to take more classes on communicating ideas, psychology, and, especially, teaching. They do not need mostly science classes. Some science classes are probably beneficial, but the focus should be on learning teaching. They are studying to be teachers, not scientists. A great sicentist who is a lousy teacher is still a lousy teacher. A great teacher who is a lousy scientist is still a great teacher.
Ah, and your experience as a science teacher has taught you this?
You can make any assinine claim you want, but it is purely anecdotal. The RESEARCH actually shows that for science, degree matters. Really go read up some Darling-Hammond, clear positive correlation between student achievement and SCIENCE DEGREE held by teacher. They showed that just having a masters in education did not improve achievement in SCIENCE at all. Apparently, it did not matter in other subjects tested.
Olsen, Dwayne G. (1985). The quality of prospective teachers: Education vs. noneducation graduates, Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (5): 56-59.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject matter preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13 (2): 125-145.
And all of the more recent stuff by Darling Hammond.
Quote:
I am willing to bet that any smart person who is a great teacher can read the book and competently teach a science course without any more than college freshman science classes. The subject matter is just not that difficult. am also willing to bet that a great teacher can teach that class better than a PhD who has little or no training or skills in teaching.
Ah so now you are changing what you said. Because before you said any high school graduate, now you are saying college freshman. By the next post will it be bachelors degree?
Anyway, research shows that a degree in ones field translates to higher achievement. You can "bet" anything you want, you would be wrong.
Second, you are setting up a strawman. It is a false dichotomy to say that content experts inherently know nothing about education. Many states, like mine, require a year of educational training for those coming from non-education route. Education training is important, but by the time we are dealing with secondary students content is just as important, as borne out by multiple studies.
Quote:
Good high school students learn enough science that they can pick out the errors in the text books. Even decent students can do that. My kids do it. You do not need 18 college science courses to pick out such errors. Do you think that your students are unable to pick out those errors after they go through your classes? the need to go to college to be able to do so becuase you did nto teach them enough to pick out those errors? I do no think that is what you are intending to say here.
My students do not know enough physical chemistry to know that even though the book claimed solubility of solids always increases with temperature that for some metal hydroxides that is not true. The do not even deal with the laws that govern these things until the 300 or 400 level courses in college.
Second, your argument is from ignorance. You really have no idea what it takes to teach college prep sciences let alone honors level and AP. Just as I know very little about the teaching of English. Only the truly arrogant and truly ignorant claim to know how to teach every subject.
And lets be very clear here, my average score on the AP exam was 4.8 last year, and the SAT II was a 760. My students are exceptional, it is the nature of the school, but they just don't know enough advanced chemistry to be able to know why the graph of solubility of DO in the Pacific is wrong in the textbook. I am sure you think you do.
Quote:
What I said: By graduation, high school kids have almost enough science knowlege to teach it. What they do not have is teaching knowlege. In college they get a whole lot more science training and not enough teaching training. I think it should be the opposite. Instead of a few teaching classes and a lot of science classes, they should take a lot of teaching classes and a few science classes. It is not necessary to learn science beyond the high school level all that well, because they will not be teaching science beyond the high school level.
Again, who cares what YOU THINK? Why should we? When the research clearly shows subject area expertise is a strong correlate for student success?
I am so very happy you do not teach in my district. The concept that a teacher need no nothing about a subject beyond the book is ridiculous. Yesterday my students asked me to show them somethng I had to have had organic II for. I am sure you cannot imagine it but telling them "sorry it isn't in the book so I cannot explain it" would have been sad indeed. Sure, with bored, disengaged students who never show passion or interest in a subject, they will not ask questions that cannot be answered from the book. Nice high bar you have set there.
Quote:
Some people are just good teachers. It is an innate skill. Some people can learn to teach, but they do not get enough training. Some simply can never learn to teach no matter how smart or well educated they are. No one can learn to teach science merely by taking science classes.
Ah, back to the strawman of subject expertise OR teaching expertise. Many of us, actually usually the best of us, have both. Any more logical fallacies?
Quote:
As for teaching applicaiton,
Is that like APPLICATION?
[quote]you do not learn application to real world scenarios in college courses. [quote] Nearly every STEM grad of the last 15 years from any halfway decent school had real world experience. I had to have an entire year of internship and primary research as a grad student. Graduate school in STEM is real world application in its entirety. So, you are wrong. Again.
Quote:
Teachers generally have no real world expereince.
Do you mean EXPERIENCE?
Quote:
Ideally you would have only expereicened
EXPERIENCED. Ideally you would have spelling skills in English teachers as well.
Quote:
real world retirees as teachers, but that is not going to happen. Few people are going to go back to school to take a retirement job at 1/10th of their prior income.
Especially since the real world scientist are college profs. Half the hours triple the pay.
Quote:
Actually thining
THINKING
Quote:
about it, I really like the idea of having retirees do the teaching, if they could be convinced to do it. It would provide teachers with more real world experience and generally with more patience. It would also help resolve some of the problems with Social security running out and the government evnetually
EVENTUALLY
Quote:
being forced to dip into evronye's 401K to pay for those who did not save for retirement.
Last edited by toobusytoday; 05-16-2012 at 08:09 PM..
This a fine theoretical concept, but knowing a lot about a subject does not make you a good teacher. Teaching involves far more than content knowledge. A teacher that has a major in microbiology will never teach high school students the level of biology that they know. A teacher that knows less about biology, but has a knack for connecting with students will be far better for those students than a scientist with a PhD in Biology that doesn't understand the nuances of teaching.
See, I disagree.
I would rather have our schools filled with teaches that hold a Masters in their chosen field, NOT just a Masters in Teaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Apparently, only people who go into teaching when they are 22 can teach. Anyone who did anything else first is just kidding themselves.
IMO, the teaching isn't hard. Classroom management is and so is the open disrespect given to teachers these days.
And wish me luck, I've just been asked, for the third time in three months to submit my resume for an engineering job.
No joke right? I have seen that attitude everywhere, and it is annoying to say the least.
I agree, teaching isn't hard, I just look at it like reverse learning to be honest. The times I used that method for the kiddo when homeschooling, it worked WELL.
Oh and BTW, TAKE THE LEAP, go put that resume in and get out of teaching and do what makes YOU and your family happy. GL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk
To be fair, learning to write technically is far more applicable than knowing how to write a good story.. Yet I did not receive any technical writing training until my 2nd English course in college.
Wow, really? We learned that in Eng101. Strange...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk
I know I would have been much more into my high school chemistry class if the teacher showed us some real life examples of how the topic we were on applied to industry. For example, the degredation of TCE to ethane or how aerobic/anaerobic bacteria eat your poop and fart out methane.
Please, before I start I have to say this first! ANYONE in a STEM field, don't take this the wrong way, it's just been an observation of mine.
With that said, maybe it's because the STEM fields aren't as artistic and prone to fantasy and outside thinking?
Hear me out for a sec. We all know the "liberal arts" fields are more "right brain" based fields correct? While STEM fields are based on truths and logic and set patterns, correct?
It's EASY to see how a History teacher could make the subject come alive, from having the class role play a war, or dressing up, to showing fanciful stories and plays and movies, to visiting actual Historical places; while it's MUCH harder for someone to imagine Chemistry or Algebra could be fun.
I know it can, but to turn these "boring" subjects into fun ones, a bit of artistic expression is needed, and IME not too many STEM field people have such expression.
How do you judge a subject's difficulty? Just because it is math or science?
Writing four part harmonies with proper voice leading can be very difficult. Ever have to reduce a full score including transpositions into a piano version?
Just because a teacher has to teach kindergarten doesn't mean it is easy. In fact, it is extraordinarily difficult. Try teaching a 5 year old to sit nevermind read and do math.
As parents, most of us have.
Band directors, definitely, deserve more pay. Both for the expertise they must possess to do the job and the fact they work extra hours (in my school they are already compensated for that). Unfortunately, the same does not apply to science teachers. If I worked the same hours as my counterparts, we'd never do labs, I'd never do demos and chemical waste would never get processed. Fortunately, if I never did those things, I'd never have to order chemicals, wouldn't have to maintain stores and would never have to stay after school to wash the dishes.
One way to judge a subject's difficulty is to compare how many people graduate with that major or the time it takes to get to be an expert in that field. Music is, definitely, up there. The band director has more time in his education and spends more time working at the school than the science teachers and we spend a lot.
A teacher does not need to be super good at math or science to be able to teach it. They can be average and still teach the basics that are learned pre-college. What they need is to be good teachers. One thing I recently learned as my daughter progresses through college for teaching, they spend way too much time learning more about hte subject and not enough time learning how to teach. Most high school graduates with good grades already know enough about science or math that they could teach it with a good text to follow. What they know nothing aboout is teaching. However teachers spend more time learning more abut science or math than they do learning about teaching.
From what i have seen, people who are average in their fields are often better theachers than people who are super advanced. The advanced people often do nto know how to communicate on a basic level. They cannot remember what it was like to not understand, sometimes becasue they never expereinced it. Many have social problems or personality disorders that impede their ability to teach effectively. This is true in all fields. The worst college professor I had were the ones who were famous in their field. The worst teachers I had in high school were the ones with a PhD.
Not my experience. These were the BEST professors. They knew their stuff. The worst ones were the ones who went into teaching because the real world wouldn't have them. Unfortunately, they do exist. The ones who were successful in the real world were, by far, the best professors I had. The hardest too but you learn from the hard ones so that's cool.
Not my experience. These were the BEST professors. They knew their stuff. worst ones were the ones who went into teaching because the real world wouldn't have them. Unfortunately, they do exist. The ones who were successful in the real world were, by far, the best professors I had. The hardest too but you learn from the hard ones so that's cool.
I'm only quoting Ivory because that sums it up pretty succinctly. That (particularly the bold part) happens at the high school level too, and is exactly why we shouldn't pay teachers more merely because they are science/math. In general, I think that people who are teaching because they feel like they have no choice (such as a poor job market) are going to resent it and not put forth the time and effort to even try to be decent.
Yes, STEM majors have the highest acceptance rate. And we are talking about a homogenous sample, college graduates applying to law school. There is nothing to remotely suggest that only the TOP physics students go to law school, as would be necessary to make the analogy to SAT/ACT issues in various states. The "best" physics students are going to go onto the top fellowships in physics PhD programs. Same for the bio and chem graduates. If anything we can make the case that the top potential STEM candidates are not applying.
Therefore the fact that STEM applicants have a higher acceptance rate completely disproves the idea that STEM applicants are lacking some skill to go to law school.
As for the SAT analogy, in some states only the top 5-10% take the SATs while in others as much as 75% are taking it. Pretending that only the top 5-10% of physics students are applying to LAW school is ridiculous. The top STEM grads go to STEM grad programs.
So which physics students are applying to law school? I strongly suspect that it is the physics students with the best written and verbal skills, i.e. the "best" students as far as applying to law school. The "best" physics students as far as entering physics PhD programs can easily be very poor candidates for law school.
But really it is an issue of alternatives, which is what you completely missed with my analogy. Physics students who score poorly on the LSAT have the alternatives of their physics career, and hence will not apply to law school at all. The only physics students who will actually apply to law school are those who already have high LSAT scores.
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.
And took notes. Which I have to this day.)
In general, I think that people who are teaching because they feel like they have no choice (such as a poor job market) are going to resent it and not put forth the time and effort to even try to be decent.
