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.
Actually I have two single subject certs and one general. I'm certified for chemistry, physics and math. My math cert is general for grades 6-12. Unfortunately, a general science cert requires 12 hours of chemistry and/or physics, 12 earth science and 12 life science. I have zero earth and life science. The over 100 I have in chemistry and physics doesn't help. Sadly, I'm what the state says they want. They don't like that people with as few as zero credits are teaching subjects like chemistry under a general science cert but schools want that flexibility. They'd rather have a teacher they can have teach anything. I see why they do it. I don't understand why the state allows it when there are people like me who have single subject certification (I had to have a minimum of 40 credits in chemistry to get my cert) who can't find jobs.
Financially, I don't know how much longer I can do this. With the economy being what it is, and my being unable to move right now, I'll take what I can get. I will start taking classes in life and earth science next summer, just in case but I'm also looking outside of teaching for a better paying job. If that happens before I get general science certification, I won't finish the cert. Most of the classes I need are offered only during the day so a full time job in engineering would put a stop to working towards that goal. I hate to think I'll still be in the position I am for the full three years it will take me to get the general science cert but you never know. As my grandmother used to day "Time passes anyway". Might as well get as many credits as I can as fast as I can but my ear is to the ground for something else as well.
The reason why states allow general science certification is simple and basic to building a master schedule. If you didn't allow it you would be surplusing teachers and reducing them to part time each year when you build your schedule. One year you might need 3.2 Chemistry teachers and another year 2.6 based on student course selection. Remember students select courses and the schedule is built on trying to meet their selections. I don't think parents want us building a schedule and having kids get in first come first serve on a planned basis. Generalist allow you to maximize your full time staff with stability of school assignment and avoid reducing people to part time based on student course selection. As I mention above if you go from 3.2 Chem teachers to 2.6 someone is cut big time if you don't allow for flexibility.
I will. Just as soon as I have something else. I'm not foolish enough to quit without another job in hand. Unfortunately, they're still laying off engineers. Plan A is go back into engineering. Teaching is still plan B and I have to prepare for the possibility it's my only option. So, until I actually have a job back in engineering, I'll do what I have to to make myself marketable as a teacher.
Think about what you are saying and the many negative statements about teachers not being able to find other jobs etc etc etc. Yes we realize the economy is what it is but are your reasons for remaining inspiring to parents? If teaching is your only option you know what many would say that is saying.
Think about what you are saying and the many negative statements about teachers not being able to find other jobs etc etc etc. Yes we realize the economy is what it is but are your reasons for remaining inspiring to parents? If teaching is your only option you know what many would say that is saying.
It doesn't matter. Going broke is not an option. Short of winning the lotto, I can't stay where I am. However, I'm not stupid enough to pass on a paying job when I dont' have another in hand.
Trust me, I'm more irritated by the fact I can't settle in and make long range plans as anyone. As to the parents, they're used to high turn over in teachers at this school. This is nothing new. When you treat teachers like cheap, easily replacable commodities, you don't get teachers who stay. I'm not the one the parents need to take this up with. They need to take it up with those who can do something about the attrition rate.
For better or for worse I am where I am right now. I wish it were different but it isn't. I will do what is right for my family. I owe it to them to make sure they are taken care of and that means making the best decision, job wise, for them. Right now, that's working a job I know I won't stay at vs. not working at all.
It would be different if I couldn't do the job well. I can and will.
The reason why states allow general science certification is simple and basic to building a master schedule. If you didn't allow it you would be surplusing teachers and reducing them to part time each year when you build your schedule. One year you might need 3.2 Chemistry teachers and another year 2.6 based on student course selection. Remember students select courses and the schedule is built on trying to meet their selections. I don't think parents want us building a schedule and having kids get in first come first serve on a planned basis. Generalist allow you to maximize your full time staff with stability of school assignment and avoid reducing people to part time based on student course selection. As I mention above if you go from 3.2 Chem teachers to 2.6 someone is cut big time if you don't allow for flexibility.
I understand why districts do it. I don't understand why states allow single subject certs when they're undesired by schools. Why set the trap? If I'd been told from the beginning I needed general science certs, I wouldn't have gotten my teaching certs. It's just too long a road to a reasonable paying job considering I have no life or earth science background. A PhD in engineering would have been faster and more lucrative.
I'm just ticked off becuase they talk like my certs are what they want when nothing could be farther from the truth. Someone with a 36 credit group major in science trumps my 80+ credits in chemistry and 30+ credits in physics by a mile. I just wish they'd told me that up front instead of claiming they want to increase education standards by bringing subject matter experts into the classroom. It's misleading. Why encourage people to come out of industry when you have no place for them?
More than anything, I want to warn others who might want to do what I did. Make darned sure your certs are the ones schools actually hire before making a job change. When they said we had a shortage of chemistry teachers, I thought they meant we had a shortage of chemistry teachers not a shortage of general science teachers. Fortunately, I do have other options. It's just going to take time to find something else with the economy the way it is. I will though. It's a matter of when not if. It just makes it hard to make plans.
What's killing me right now is figuring out how to motivate students without grading everything. If I don't grade it, they don't do it. I do a lot of grading. I need to figure out some way to get them to do things without grading everything.
Maybe this?
Grade ONLY those assigments or activities which demonstrate mastery of a concept -- NOT those assignments or activities which are there to practice a concept.
Here's what I mean for English; you'll need to translate for science because you know your field better than I do.
1. For instance, let's say I graded students for keeping a notebook with notes in it. This is an example of grading an assignment that does NOT reflect mastery, but practice.
Instead, I now give them open-note quizzes. If they haven't taken notes, they're up the creek. It usually takes about one or two quizzes to figure this out, and then -- voila! -- they take notes assiduously.
2. For instance #2, let's say I previously graded them on taking reading notes. Again, this is grading on practice and not mastery of the material.
I now give them open-note reading quizzes -- they can use anything except the actual book, and I'm one of those people who asks questions such as, "Tell me what happened in Act II, scene iii." Again, if they've not done the reading or taken notes on it, they're up the creek.
3. I used to grade on vocabulary notes. Now, I grade them on vocabulary quizzes only. I do allow them a re-take option if they fell below 60% on a quiz, but though it covers the same material, it's not the same quiz.
4. I used to grade on rough drafts, works cited lists, peer editing, et cetera. Now I grade only on final drafts. They do get a redo option if their work falls below 60%, but if they fail to fix the elements I've circled, commented upon, or suggested they modify, the original grade stands.
I'm a big believer in grading folks for what they can prove to me they know.
Maybe this?
Grade ONLY those assigments or activities which demonstrate mastery of a concept -- NOT those assignments or activities which are there to practice a concept.
Here's what I mean for English; you'll need to translate for science because you know your field better than I do.
1. For instance, let's say I graded students for keeping a notebook with notes in it. This is an example of grading an assignment that does NOT reflect mastery, but practice.
Instead, I now give them open-note quizzes. If they haven't taken notes, they're up the creek. It usually takes about one or two quizzes to figure this out, and then -- voila! -- they take notes assiduously.
2. For instance #2, let's say I previously graded them on taking reading notes. Again, this is grading on practice and not mastery of the material.
I now give them open-note reading quizzes -- they can use anything except the actual book, and I'm one of those people who asks questions such as, "Tell me what happened in Act II, scene iii." Again, if they've not done the reading or taken notes on it, they're up the creek.
3. I used to grade on vocabulary notes. Now, I grade them on vocabulary quizzes only. I do allow them a re-take option if they fell below 60% on a quiz, but though it covers the same material, it's not the same quiz.
4. I used to grade on rough drafts, works cited lists, peer editing, et cetera. Now I grade only on final drafts. They do get a redo option if their work falls below 60%, but if they fail to fix the elements I've circled, commented upon, or suggested they modify, the original grade stands.
I'm a big believer in grading folks for what they can prove to me they know.
That's a good idea. I didn't do quizzes last year because we have to have tests as 50% of the grade but this could work. I'm questioning whether or not open notes/homework quizzes demonstrate mastery but if it gets them to do the work without me spending countless hours grading it might be worth a shot. They'd also be motivated to make sure things are right as opposed to just done since that's the answer they'd have available for the quizzes.
I understand why districts do it. I don't understand why states allow single subject certs when they're undesired by schools. Why set the trap? If I'd been told from the beginning I needed general science certs, I wouldn't have gotten my teaching certs. It's just too long a road to a reasonable paying job considering I have no life or earth science background. A PhD in engineering would have been faster and more lucrative.
I'm just ticked off becuase they talk like my certs are what they want when nothing could be farther from the truth. Someone with a 36 credit group major in science trumps my 80+ credits in chemistry and 30+ credits in physics by a mile. I just wish they'd told me that up front instead of claiming they want to increase education standards by bringing subject matter experts into the classroom. It's misleading. Why encourage people to come out of industry when you have no place for them?
More than anything, I want to warn others who might want to do what I did. Make darned sure your certs are the ones schools actually hire before making a job change. When they said we had a shortage of chemistry teachers, I thought they meant we had a shortage of chemistry teachers not a shortage of general science teachers. Fortunately, I do have other options. It's just going to take time to find something else with the economy the way it is. I will though. It's a matter of when not if. It just makes it hard to make plans.
I can't speak to your specific situation but just based on credit count, I don't know to many who wouldn't prefer yours. You have a combination that is very difficult to find.
Actually I have two single subject certs and one general. I'm certified for chemistry, physics and math. My math cert is general for grades 6-12. Unfortunately, a general science cert requires 12 hours of chemistry and/or physics, 12 earth science and 12 life science. I have zero earth and life science. The over 100 I have in chemistry and physics doesn't help. Sadly, I'm what the state says they want. They don't like that people with as few as zero credits are teaching subjects like chemistry under a general science cert but schools want that flexibility. They'd rather have a teacher they can have teach anything. I see why they do it. I don't understand why the state allows it when there are people like me who have single subject certification (I had to have a minimum of 40 credits in chemistry to get my cert) who can't find jobs.
Financially, I don't know how much longer I can do this. With the economy being what it is, and my being unable to move right now, I'll take what I can get. I will start taking classes in life and earth science next summer, just in case but I'm also looking outside of teaching for a better paying job. If that happens before I get general science certification, I won't finish the cert. Most of the classes I need are offered only during the day so a full time job in engineering would put a stop to working towards that goal. I hate to think I'll still be in the position I am for the full three years it will take me to get the general science cert but you never know. As my grandmother used to day "Time passes anyway". Might as well get as many credits as I can as fast as I can but my ear is to the ground for something else as well.
Well good I'm glad you have a plan. Do you do daily searches for jobs, you never know what might pop up.
Think about what you are saying and the many negative statements about teachers not being able to find other jobs etc etc etc. Yes we realize the economy is what it is but are your reasons for remaining inspiring to parents? If teaching is your only option you know what many would say that is saying.
Frankly I'm just thanking all the Gods in all the heavens that we home school, and live halfway across the country.
Frankly I'm just thanking all the Gods in all the heavens that we home school, and live halfway across the country.
So am I.
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.
Sadly, I'm what the state says they want. They don't like that people with as few as zero credits are teaching subjects like chemistry under a general science cert but schools want that flexibility. They'd rather have a teacher they can have teach anything. I see why they do it. I don't understand why the state allows it when there are people like me who have single subject certification (I had to have a minimum of 40 credits in chemistry to get my cert) who can't find jobs. 
