English Teachers in CA being fired in greater numbers than Math and Science (degree, government)

[jenn02674]

I don't think it is an either/or situation. They aren't getting rid of every single English teacher. Both are very important but I do agree that in this country, math and science has been lacking (much does depend on the state I realize though) so I can understand cutting some resources in the English department.

[RDSLOTS]

Well, I couldn't vote now on the poll. Both subject areas are equally important.

Why would anyone assume there is less work associated with teaching English than with Math or Science? Sheesh, but the answers to the odd-numbered questions are in the back of the book.

In all seriousness, subject matter is not as critical as 'critical thinking,' which is where I think we fail our students. They cannot think. Too many teachers teach exactly like they were taught, and what they were taught, and students tire of sitting in desks, hour after hour, being lectured. I had students actually say, "just tell me what you want me to think," or "just give me the answer."

Teaching HS English is not all reading literature -- it is in analysis of the work, much like having to solve a mathematical problem. The literature should also be the foundation of a great deal of writing, in 'response to . . .' Choosing good literature is imperative to helping foster a love for reading, then moving students into analyzing the written word, and ultimately being able to write, and think for themselves.

As an adult, I use critical thinking skills every day -- whether it's in the form of math, or reading and writing, formulating an opinion and supporting an argument.


What good, exactly, is the US Constitution if, as a citizen, you cannot read it, or understand it?


Back to the poll -- there is no way to respond. Math/Science and English are equally as important. I may need to know how to work a problem, but what good is it if I cannot share how I got to the conclusion?

[GoCUBS1]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Kids can read before they get to high school. Reading in today's society is important, but spending 4 years reading such and such literature in high school seems to do very little.

Its unclear how reading literature is going to improve ones ability to reason. If you want to improve kids ability to reason then more classes should be taught in logic, abstract mathematics and scientific methodology. These subjects deal directly with the subject unlike literature.


No, teachers in the humanities and arts are paid too much. The starting pay is fairly modest, but the pay goes up a lot after a few years. After working for a few years you can get paid 50k a year for 8 months of work. Before retiring (after 15 years) my mom was getting paid about 65k for 8 months of work.....easy work at that.

Get rid of the unions and you'll see what the market really thinks of teacher's pay.

I agree with you about unions. Pay should be based on supply and demand. There is higher demand/lower supply for math & science teachers therefore we should pay them more than humanities/arts teachers. That is one way to attract higher level math & science teachers from more lucrative fields such as research, engineering, etc.

I do, however, believe that logical thinking is improved by reading literature (as well as math & science). Literature opens up a variety of experiences, history and beliefs to its reader. Relating to a historical character's experience or an author's argument for a cause expands your understading of the world and your framework for logical reasoning.

I want to add that my father was a math professor. My dad taught abstract math, logic and a course called "The Philosophy of Math." My mom was an English teacher who taught critical analysis of English literature (esp. Shakespeare). Guess who was the "logical" one?
It was my dad who was the slightly confused, eccentric mathematician. My mom had to put out lists for him for everything (how to make breakfast, get the kids ready, etc.). Otherwise, we would show up for school in our pajamas with an empty stomach.

[RDSLOTS]

Heavens, GoCUBS1! Are you MY child?

My husband, the chemist, prides himself on being 'logical' and I contend the poor fellow couldn't think his way out of a box, sometimes. I'm the English major/HS English teacher. Not that I'm perfect, mind you -- just darned close.

So, where are you? I need the trash carried out.

[GoCUBS1]

Originally Posted by RDSLOTS

Heavens, GoCUBS1! Are you MY child?

My husband, the chemist, prides himself on being 'logical' and I contend the poor fellow couldn't think his way out of a box, sometimes. I'm the English major/HS English teacher. Not that I'm perfect, mind you -- just darned close.

So, where are you? I need the trash carried out.

You are too funny! I've worked in both the creative field (with lots of writers, artists, etc.) and with mathematicians/engineers at the largest engineering company in the world (hint: it's a German co.). I've always found the "creatives" very logical and easy to understand. The high-level engineers - well that's another story. Yes, they can take a very "logical" and methodical stance on a project which can be good, but as we know life and business can often be "illogical."

In this world market, it's extremely important that you can also take a creative approach and have the flexibility to deviate from your original plan (often very hard for engineers - especially German ones). I do think studying literature can improve these types of thinking skills. But I think math and science are vital also. The trick is to have a good balance of all 3. (I didn't vote on this poll).

p.s. I do think, in general, U.S. schools are better at teaching English than at teaching Math and Science.

[Humanoid]

Why would anyone assume there is less work associated with teaching English than with Math or Science?

Its not less work, but your wage is rarely based solely on the amount of work you do. English teachers are a dime a dozen, in a normal market that would drive wages down.

Guess who was the "logical" one?

Yeah...but that is equivocating a bit. Remembering to bring your lunch to work etc etc has little to do with logic and ones ability to reason.

Literature opens up a variety of experiences, history and beliefs to its reader.

The problem is forcing kids to read literature does not really have this effect. I do not have a problem with literature courses in High school, but its unclear why kids have to take 4 years of them while only 2 years of math is required (At least in California). Furthermore a lot of the things people suggest English courses teach can be more directly taught in other subjects (e.g., Philosophy, Social science, Logic etc). The current education system in America exists as if its still 1900, the focus on "English" is part of this.

[RDSLOTS]

Granted, English teachers may be a dime a dozen -- but that's of their own doing, and they will be competing for the job(s). Once hired, however, there shouldn't be a difference in the pay scale.

I'm not sure exactly why it appears fewer and fewer math/science majors go into education and teaching? Maybe there is the argument they have more sense?

Schools in general seem to have great difficulty these days, attracting and keeping, good teachers, regardless of majors or teaching areas.

[GoCUBS1]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

The problem is forcing kids to read literature does not really have this effect. I do not have a problem with literature courses in High school, but its unclear why kids have to take 4 years of them while only 2 years of math is required (At least in California). Furthermore a lot of the things people suggest English courses teach can be more directly taught in other subjects (e.g., Philosophy, Social science, Logic etc). The current education system in America exists as if its still 1900, the focus on "English" is part of this.

I agree there should be more math instruction. But not at the expense of English instruction.

The problem is in the quantity AND quality of math instruction as well as the shortage of qualified math teachers. I think elementary schools, in particular, should dedicate more instructional hours to building math skills that are the foundation for higher level problem solving. IMO they should abandon "fuzzy math" programs and focus more on drills, the most efficient calculation method, and mastering a topic before "looping" to another one.

Again, the critical analysis of literature is important to building a logical framework. The writing process (brainstorming, topic organization, review and editing, etc.) is important in building reasoning skills. Could writing and critical literary analysis be taught in a Philosophy class as well? Or is it better taught by an English teacher specifically educated in this process? What works would be considered "literature" vs. more "logical" Philosophy or Social Science? I formed many social opinions by reading Jonathan Swift and Upton Sinclair in H.S. English class. Should these be taught by a Philosophy instructor?

Why are many developed countries beating the U.S. at math and science AND they tend to be better at language as well? What ideas can we take from the British Natl. Curriculum or the way Asians teach math, etc.? Is it that there is more depth of topics and less breadth? Is it that kids are ability tracked more? Is it that there is a higher level of parental involvement? Are the teachers better trained? Better paid? Are subjects, like logic, more coherently taught across all disciplines?

I think these are the issues. I just don't think the math problem can be solved by cutting English instruction. The problem is with the math instruction.

[Humanoid]

Again, the critical analysis of literature is important to building a logical framework.

How so? Is there a study that shows this? The "critical analysis of literature" may build a logical framework but is it a good one? Critical thinking is not really the focus of English/literature courses instead some sort of fuzzy logic that at least to me has dubious merit outside of the courses.

The writing process (brainstorming, topic organization, review and editing, etc.) is important in building reasoning skills.

I don't know about this, but writing is certainly important. The problem is the 4 years of literature classes you take in high school does not teach writing in general. Hell even college courses in literature do not. They teach you how to write in a matter that is acceptable to people in literature, not how to write in a way that is useful in general society. One thing I really found funny in college was the dramatic difference in the way you had to write a Philosophy paper vs a paper for an English course. It was night and day!

I formed many social opinions by reading Jonathan Swift and Upton Sinclair in H.S. English class. Should these be taught by a Philosophy instructor?

High School in my mind should be a place were kids learn particular skills that they need to function in society. Unlike other subjects you do not learn particular skills from reading literature. Literature and related classes instead are a way of socializing youth into the modern group think. Not that this isn't important, but it shouldn't be mistake for something that teaches actual skills. If the US is going to compete on the global labor market its citizens are going to need more than a well socialized western mind.

I just don't think the math problem can be solved by cutting English instruction.

Then what increase the time kids spend in school? Currently High school education is dominated by subjects that socialize youth (History, English) and not ones that teach skills. Without simply increasing the hours at school its unclear how you can improve Math and Science education without removing some of the more traditional courses (History, Social studies, English etc). Half the high school students time is being spent on what amounts to socialization and propaganda.

[RDSLOTS]

Are you speaking as a teacher, Humanoid?

I am curious as to how you would defend your argument that students in HS are learning only "socialization and propaganda?" Upon what exactly are you basing this assumption?