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.
I think it's more diversion to keep us from focusing on the truth which is that our students just don't work hard enough to learn STEM. You can teach it until you're blue in the face but if the student's don't take responsibility for learning, learning will not happen. The teacher is just pushing a rope. IMO, until our students buy into the program, we might as well not bother and save ourselves a billion dollars...
Under NCLB teachers had to become highly qualified in their subject matter.
So you now have science and math teachers that have the appropriate educational background.
NCLB is coming to an end so I guess they need to start on the next new directive for schools.
Under NCLB teachers had to become highly qualified in their subject matter.
So you now have science and math teachers that have the appropriate educational background.
NCLB is coming to an end so I guess they need to start on the next new directive for schools.
The definition of highly qualified is determined by the state. Here, someone who has 12 credits in physical science, 12 credits in earth science and 12 credits in life science is considered highly qualified to teach any science in grades 6-12 (The DI cert). Reality is, however, what they are really highly qualified to teach depends on which classes they took in each group (for example the 12 credits in physical science could be 3 credits in chemistry and 9 in physical science/physics or 3 in physical science and 9 in chemistry). However, because of ease of scheduling, schools prefer this cert to a major or minor in the subject being taught.
For example, one district had 5 openings. 3 for chemistry, 1 for physics and 1 for math. They would only interview candidates who had a DI cert so I could not apply even though I have a major in chemistry, a major in math and a minor in physics. I have no earth or life science so I can't get a DI cert without going back for 24 credits on top of my over 100 in chemistry and physics combined. A friend of mine who has a DI and took one class in chemistry in college was hired to teach chemistry. She'll be the first to admit she's not highly qualified to teach chemistry but, according to the state's definition she is. She needed the job so she took it while my application was rejected because I don't have the super flexible DI cert. I'm legal to teach chemistry, physics or physical science. She's legal to teach any science in grades 6-12 so she gets the job and I kept looking.
Now, I'm not saying you need a major or even a minor in chemistry to be highly qualified but, personally, I don't consider having had one class in chemistry in college highly qualified. I think you need a little more than that.
It is frustrtatingly difficult to find work if you are single subject certified as I am. My experience is that I can't even apply for 4 out of 5 positions and that 5th positition catches everyone in the same boat I am. Those of us without a DI and we're still up against candidates who have a DI when we interview for those positions.
However, I think Obama is barking up the wrong tree here. It's not a shortage of STEM teachers or even the quality of the ones we have. It's that our students don't like hard and STEM is hard. They do not see it as their job to learn. They see it as my job to teach them. I can only do so much before they have to pick up the rope I'm playing out and pull in order for us to go forward. I see the problem as teachers pusing a rope but few students are picking up the rope and pulling. It doesn't matter how much rope I play our or how skilled I am at playing out rope if the students don't pick up and pull. Our current system holds everyone accountable for learning EXCEPT the student who is the person DOING THE LEARNING. IMO, THIS is what is wrong with education in America. It's not teacher quality and it's not a shortage of teachers to teach particular subjects. It's a shortage of students willing to do the work necessary to learn STEM.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 07-18-2012 at 07:30 AM..
When it comes to stem, i can't understand what difference a teacher makes. In my school, math and science were taught according to a district curriculum and strict district guidelines. We had an in-school math coach who enforced a particular teaching method and did classroom observations to make sure everyone was in line. Teachers were little more than robots in the delivery of instruction. I can't understand how someone can be "excellent" in that sense - excellent at what, following directions and kissing administrative butts? Even some administrators admitted that the district's math curriculum was lacking, but teachers had no choice but to follow it exactly. Under those circumstances, I don't understand how any teaching corps can make a bit of difference. They might as well invest in creating a corps of teaching androids.
When it comes to stem, i can't understand what difference a teacher makes. In my school, math and science were taught according to a district curriculum and strict district guidelines. We had an in-school math coach who enforced a particular teaching method and did classroom observations to make sure everyone was in line. Teachers were little more than robots in the delivery of instruction. I can't understand how someone can be "excellent" in that sense - excellent at what, following directions and kissing administrative butts? Even some administrators admitted that the district's math curriculum was lacking, but teachers had no choice but to follow it exactly. Under those circumstances, I don't understand how any teaching corps can make a bit of difference. They might as well invest in creating a corps of teaching androids.
You bring up a good point. What we need is a national curriculum. While things were prescribed to you, they aren't to me. I report to my admins with my plan but it's my plan. Sometimes I wish the curriculum were prescribed. I feel I don't cover enough material and I don't cover what I cover to enough depth but it's hard for me to know how I compare to the next chemistry teacher over.
You bring up a good point. What we need is a national curriculum. While things were prescribed to you, they aren't to me. I report to my admins with my plan but it's my plan. Sometimes I wish the curriculum were prescribed. I feel I don't cover enough material and I don't cover what I cover to enough depth but it's hard for me to know how I compare to the next chemistry teacher over.
I was in elementary school, I think you are in high school - perhaps that make a difference. But isn't elementary where someone's interest in math and science begins? Not long ago I was with couple of friends with kids in elementary school - most had kids in public school, but another had a kid in a very good (and pricey) private school. The kids were talking about their favorite subjects. They all said PE, recess, or art, except the kid in private school. She said science. The kids stared at her like she had grown a second head. She went on to explain how they did all these really cool experiments and talked about all the stuff she had learned. The experiments were the kinds of things no one does in public school because they just take too much time and require too much set up, supervision, etc. We used to get a "box" of lab experiments at the beginning of the year. It was pretty pathetic stuff. Anyone who went off the res and did something else got in trouble, because then all the parents wanted to know why their kid's class didn't get to do that. The science curriculum just wasn't very interesting, and was focused on standardized test questions. Everything done had to relate to a specific standardized test question. And in any case, science was marginalized and only taught at all to the extent it fit in between math and reading, the two subjects that no child left behind cared about.
I read a disturbing comment somewhere recently that said that the current emphasis on STEM education is based on the desire to oversupply the market of tech grads in order to drive down salaries in STEM fields. I'm just enough of a conspiracy theorist to see some truth in that.
I read a disturbing comment somewhere recently that said that the current emphasis on STEM education is based on the desire to oversupply the market of tech grads in order to drive down salaries in STEM fields. I'm just enough of a conspiracy theorist to see some truth in that.
I'm not sure about that. I think the issue is that we will not be able to continue importing STEM talent as countries like China increase their manufacturing base. They will start competing with us for their own graduates. I think it's an issue of people not liking companies recruiting abroad and companies and the government realizing that it's going to get harder and harder to recruit from abroad. I think we're a long way from a glutted market for STEM talent.
Even if they managed to glut the field, it would take no time at all for students to stop going into the STEM fields and within about half a dozen years, there'd be a shortage again. I don't think wages will come down in this area. There's really no need for wages to come down nor is there an advantage to anyone if they do. STEM workerscan pay for themselves many times over.
I read a disturbing comment somewhere recently that said that the current emphasis on STEM education is based on the desire to oversupply the market of tech grads in order to drive down salaries in STEM fields. I'm just enough of a conspiracy theorist to see some truth in that.
There was an article last week from the Washington Post that was brought up in the work/employment section on this site saying how there is already an oversupply of people in STEM fields who either can't find work or are working for a lower wage compared to what they should be making.
Take for example pharmacists here in Texas. I met one last week while working as a relief pharmacy tech who said there is too many pharmacists and not enough jobs. Based on what I've read and heard (my brother being a pharmacist also), there are too many people in this field, both pharmacists and pharmacy techs, and not enough jobs for people. Sad really for those who want to be a pharmacist who pay tens of thousands of dollars who then graduate and can't find a job.
07-18-2012, 10:09 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by marie5v
When it comes to stem, i can't understand what difference a teacher makes. In my school, math and science were taught according to a district curriculum and strict district guidelines. We had an in-school math coach who enforced a particular teaching method and did classroom observations to make sure everyone was in line. Teachers were little more than robots in the delivery of instruction. I can't understand how someone can be "excellent" in that sense - excellent at what, following directions and kissing administrative butts? Even some administrators admitted that the district's math curriculum was lacking, but teachers had no choice but to follow it exactly. Under those circumstances, I don't understand how any teaching corps can make a bit of difference. They might as well invest in creating a corps of teaching androids.
I wouldn't assume that what happens in your district is representative of what happens across the country.
In my high school, biology was taught by a hardcore creationist who refused to teach evolution and routinely invoked the "god did it" non-explanation. Physics was taught by someone who was completely unqualified and awarded grades based on the amount of cleavage students would show. Oversight was minimal. We really only had physics class the one day per semester when the principal would sit in on class.
But even if they are following strict guidelines, that doesn't mean all teachers are equal. Some are really comfortable with the material and will be able to answer questions, while others are not and can't. Some are really passionate about the subjects and can make things interesting by bringing up real world examples. Others will just paraphrase the book (or read directly out of it).
Quote:
There was an article last week from the Washington Post that was brought up in the work/employment section on this site saying how there is already an oversupply of people in STEM fields who either can't find work or are working for a lower wage compared to what they should be making.
There is an oversupply in some fields like biology and organic chemistry. In materials science, CS, etc (things that are actually difficult and that people choose to study because they like the subject, not because it's a stepping stone to med school), it's very difficult to find enough qualified Americans.
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.
