Get Schooled

By MH

October 20, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Science is being stuck on the back burner because students don’t like science courses. I think it’s mainly a product of our culture- scientists are far from idolization, and theree aren’t many people who care about science in general. In fact, the whole push for alternatives to evolution serves to underscore my point. We’re not just in trouble on a state level- the problem is national. Either we shape up or consign ourselves to giving up our scientifc & technological supremacy to China, India, and South Korea.

By oldteacher

October 20, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

I don’t know enough about the science curriculum or the state graduation test to make and intelligent comment.

By oldteacher

October 20, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Oops. An instead of and. It has been a long day.

By jennifer

October 20, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Hey, if Bush doesn’t need Science then that’s good enough for the rest of the country, right?

Putting any subject on the back burner is ridiculous. Favoring one subject over another is not how to better our educational system. Math, English, Science, Social Studies, Art it’s all necessary. It’s no wonder the rest of the world thinks we’re all idiots. It’s embarrassing.

By Nel

October 20, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

I really don’t know how curcial the sciences across this state. Our elementary school has a science lab but when we had to make cuts, the science teacher was the first to be reassigned. I feel the earlier you expose children the better the will grasp the informaion. Waiting until middle school to get them interested wastes some of their most curious years. Each time the students fail one subject the system gets worked up and pushes for better results, unfortunately, something else always suffers from that lack of attention. We seem to be always chasing our tails.

By DB

October 20, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Most people in our society are scientifically illiterate, but I wouldn’t go as far to say it’s because of curriculum. It’s nationwide. Sure, all curricula could use some improvement, but it’s not the reason for scientific illiteracy. It’s more likely due to the fact that science takes work, and our kids tend to shy away from anything difficult. The whole, “I’m not good at science.” cliche is so common, yet so inaccurate.

Here’s what they’re really saying:

Science stinks because I can’t “wing it” and get good grades. However, it is interesting, only if I didn’t have to get grades. My science teacher is boring!

By Jake

October 20, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Thanks Patti. The editorial points out the vast discrepancy between the 3-5% first time failure rates for math and English conmpared with 29% for science. This appears to be curriculum and incompetent teacher driven rather than the poor kids, minorities, the administrators, or the parents that are to blame for all the other shortcomings of public school. My one memorable experience is my daughter telling me the science CRCT test didn’t go too well because they tested physical science while her school had taught earth science all that year. Somethings wrong somewhere.

By teacher

October 20, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

DB: There is a similar “it’s OK to be illiterate” mentality with math, too. No one would dare say, “I can’t read,” but they have no problem at all saying, “I can’t do Science,” or “I can’t do Math.”

By Nel

October 20, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

When the system stops assigning teachers to teach their specialty, then maybe something will change. If the subject is not your passion then it’s pretty impossible to fully engage your class. They best teachers are those who actually teach their specialty and have a passion for it that sucks the class in. I recall having an english teacher who because of his love for the subject, got us excited through his excitement, and he was even able to draw in the disinterested kids who liked to sit in the back.

By MW

October 20, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

I am a middle school science teacher and couldn’t agree more with most of these comments. As No Child Left Behind stands now, students’ science scores in elementary and middle school don’t count yet. I think they begin this year and although it usually does, testing shouldn’t dictate your teaching on a daily basis. Schools do have a tendency to focus on reading and math and hopefully that will soon change. Our responsibility as science teachers is to engage students and get them to enjoy science as see a future in it. Our country is falling behind in science graduates at the university level and in turn losing jobs to the more qualified. Students need to value science as well as other subjects and see a future in it!!

I really do hate to hear the incompetent teacher comment, though. There is incompetence in every field (and probably millions of mistakes in my very own message) and you hate to see it where children are involved but most of us are intelligent and trying all we can to help our students succeed.

By Dan

October 20, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

It is very telling that the areas we have the greatest failure in are the areas that are most objective. In ELHI math and science. There is little to no flexibility to the answers. It is right or wrong. So the feel good teaching and grading methods, that have permeated the education system (such rewarding effort instead of results) can’t mask the poor performance in those areas.

By HS Science

October 20, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

What a perfect subject for the day. My school is facing the fact that we will be reorganized next year, due to our AYP. In a staff meeting on Monday, the State’s observer made mention of our scores in science and the remark of “the teachers” came out. Naturally, I was offended by a former Language Arts Teacher’s disecting my teaching methods. So, I offered the challenge (not expecting it to be taken) that since my Physical Science classes were scheduled to take a benchmark covering the chemical portion of the course and we would be reviewing on Wednesday, why doesn’t she sit in om my review and take the test. OOPS, she accepted the challenge.

Yesterday, the stranger sat in class with my basic level class as we reviewed. The students did not take long to revert to their normal habits, and I mine. Today we took the Benchmark on line - the highest student scored 78% with most in the 40%-50%, my observer took the identical test and scored 87%.

After we reveiwed the scores the observer was surprised that they had learned enough in the review, and she made mention of the students that were obviously uncaring, the ones that sat and took no notes, the ones she saw with class notebooks virtually empty.

The editorial writer erred in saying that the test does not cover chemistry. The Science section of the Graduation Test covers - biology, electricity, chemistry, the physics of motion, optics, waves and much more. The problem stems from two areas. The marginal students will be at least one year removed from either Biology or Physical Science and two years removed from the other. The retention of more than 200 facts per course is low enough at a final exam - 2 years later it is down to the bare minimum.

At our school we attempt to scaffold as much as possible however our biggest problems are exactly what my observer noted -students that just do not care. It is now October, we have opened GHSGT tutoring since the second week of school, but, there are no students taking advantage. If 25 of our 184 juniors show up before March that will be a high.

Maybe yes, teachers to a degree, maybe we can blame the cirriculum to a degree, but a lot of it is the “I’ll be lucky and pass.” approach that many of our students follow.

By for a fair test

October 20, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

I am a teacher who has helped students prepare for the science test. The test has about 60 questions and a passing score is about 33-34 correct. From what I’ve seen on practice questions, I know that this test is neither a fair measure of the science curriculum, nor what students have learned about science. Most of the questions are very specific about arcane pieces of information. More importantly, the effects of failing this test can be life altering. I have seen some students overcome the failure by getting a GED and going to college. I have seen some students who barely passed the test excel at the highest level at superior colleges. The science test needs to be changed, and the whole idea that a person’s future may be determined by narrow test results eliminated.

By C.R.H.

October 20, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

I teach high school biology (some honors classes). I spend so much time focusing on CRAP that serves no useful purpose. I think the curriculum needs to be more practical. I know doctors who can’t tell me the 4 phases of mitosis…probably because that information serves no useful purpose for most productive citizens. I would rather spend time teaching practical science information students can use. I know the idea of tracking doesn’t sit well but maybe revamp the curriculum into sections: “stuff everyone needs to know”, “stuff you should be familiar with”, “stuff that would be nice to know”, “stuff that you may need to know if you ever end up on Jeopardy”. How many parents have looked at their kid’s science homework and thought “What is THAT?” I know people think that we are falling behind all the other countries in science, but our curriculum is overkill…mile wide, 1/2 inch deep!

By SWC

October 20, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this

“But the argument that the exams are too difficult for students from other countries doesn’t make sense. If students lack the English skills to handle a low-threshold graduation exam, how are they supposed to succeed in college, where language proficiency will be essential?”

Re Waivers - If they passed the language arts and math, then can’t one assume that they are proficient enough to succeed at at least some colleges? Every school is not Tech or UGA. We are being overly rigid and damaging the futures of some really good kids.

I can only comment on last year’ 5th grade science curriculum: It was VERY difficult. A lot of the stuff that they learned is now being taught in 8th grade (like cells). Maybe kids were failing because it was too difficult or broad and they never grasped the basics? Like the math curriculum?

By luvs2teach

October 20, 2005 05:19 PM | Link to this

Another great topic! Good comments, too…I agree with most, except the “unqualified teachers” comment. It’s not that I disagree completely; it’s that the unqualified ones tend to be teaching in elementary schools, special ed, and high-risk schools.

Why? Because at the elementary level, science isn’t a focus. If you’re lucky enough to get a techer who loves science, you do a lot. If you get a teachers that likes Language Arts a lot more…you get the picture.

Special Ed and high priority schools suffer from “warm-body” syndrome - any warm body will do!

As far as the curriculum goes, it is a mile wide and an inch deep - I would love to go more in-depth, or do better labs, but time keeps moving on…

We are also expected to teach reading and writing “across the curriculum” - this takes away from science time.

Teaching is a challenge in that supplies or equipment aren’t always readily available (I buy a lot of my own stuff and subscribe to the “One man’s trash…” idea), and 50 minute periods aren’t conducive to quality lab experiences.

Finally the students themselves are a challenge. So many think that science should be “fun” - not in a learning way, but in a video game way. I do hands-on activities, demonstrations, video streaming, songs - borderline “edutainment” in an attempt to draw in some of these kids.

They think they can learn by osmosis - sit in the classroom while the teacher talks and the knowledge magically moves into your brain. Getting them to engage in analysis is painful.

In an ideal world, I would have students with a natural curiousity and a good work ethic. I would have time to develop good inquiry-based activities and long-term, multi-trial experiments based on questions the students wanted to answer (like real science). I would have all the supplies at my finger tips. We would have 90 or 120 minute blocks in which to conduct these experiments. I would be able to cross the curriculum with math and data organization, library and internet research, and writing of analyses and conclusions to their labs.

Ah, a pefect world - if only I had an “easy button” like the commercial says…

By Sci-teacher

October 21, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

I have been teaching science at the high school level for the past 20 years. I am also the department chair and heavily involved in the new GPS curriculum. It is better. What remains to be seen is how it will effect the GHSGT. Will it continue to be a trivia test that I doubt that most of the legislature could pass or will it also be better?

By DB

October 21, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this

Curricula are definitely a mile wide and a half inch deep. And they take so long to change with the modern times due to the bureaucracy(and public in some cases). I can only speak for biology. Luckily, where I work, a few of us get together and write our own curriculum. And it’s quite up to date, and it goes right along with what’s important in biology according to scientists, THINGS LIKE EVOLUTION BEING THE FOUNDATION OF BIOLOGY! And, C.R.H., our last meeting discussed taking out the “labels” for the stages of mitosis and getting right to the point as to a holistic “model” of what happens and then what can go wrong and what effects it may have. In memorizing the specific stages, kids lose the “big picture” that is so important.

HS Science: I feel bad that you have to go through such experiences. I’ve been there and done that. That’s another prime example of everyone putting the blame on teachers and “hovering” around them suggesting their “new strategies with different names” each week. And thanks for the laugh. There’s nothing better than a former language arts teachers dissecting the methods of a science teacher, or the opposite. Well, at least it wasn’t an ex-elementary teacher, which is also very common. What people need to understand is that there is no “magic formula” for teaching as each teacher is different and is effective(or not) in his or her own way. You’re either a teacher, or you’re not. If you’re not, you should find something else to do, and administrators should get rid of you. If you are, any good teacher will always be trying to improve on his or her own, anyway. This, hovering, creates nothing more than resentment.

I once had a principal who sincerely thought methods of controlling first graders actually worked with high schoolers. It’s no wonder she was fired and the school was almost shut down. Then, ironically, she became the curriculum coordinator for all schools of the district.

By Tom Rod

October 21, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Science is nothing more than a passion to know how the world REALLY works. It is not facts, it is not test tubes and gadgets. It is the same inate curiosity that all memebers of our species are born with. ALL children are scientists until the schools bore them out of it.

Also Science and learning in general does not have the respect of society in general. I think most Americans might be surprised to learn that all members of the Chinese Politbureau have degrees in Science, Engineering or a related technical field. How many politicians in America even know what real science is?

It is not just the schools, it is the overall attitude of our society, our culture, our country and our political “leadership” that is the real problem.

It is rapidly leading us down the path to becoming a third world country in science and technology.

By DB

October 21, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Tom: Exactly! I tell all of my students that we’re all born scientists and mathematicians in that we use curiosity and logic to understand the world around us(to increase the chance for survival). Most just learn to ignore it or dislike it due to to various reasons.

By Karen Armsby

October 21, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

I am not a teacher, but my undergrad degree was in biology, and I studied ichthyology (fishes) in grad school. I am a lifelong nature lover and reader and watcher. Science permeates all that we see and do, from cooking and cleaning, to erecting buildings, roads and bridges, to medicine, drug research and manufacturing, pharmacy, to materials research and manufacture for clothing or airline and car seats, or space shuttle skin, or semi conductor and battery production.

If kids say they can’t do science it may be because the curriculum is BORING, and there is no excuse for that given the resources in the media and the research capabilities on the internet. When one of my kids was in third grade the teachers got together the summer before, went to Georgia State for help and developed their own curriculum. It was a fabulous year of undersea, and geology and insect exploration. I went in as a guest lecturer on the social structure of ants and on fossils. One student came up to me nine years later at high school graduation and told me how much she had remembered and enjoyed my talk on the ants in third grade!

DB says he develops his own curriculum, and that is what should be happening in all the science classrooms. Scientific research and discoveries change every day. Teachers and students need to keep their reading current.

And good reading and math skills, critical thinking and the ability to research are all needed skills to be good scientists. In my humble opinion, kids that say they cannot do science, are either bored in their classes, or lack the reading and math skills to accomplish their studies.

By RF

October 21, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Karen—maybe such dialogues as these will encourage parents to demand curriculum changes. I remember taking notes in science, but we weren’t under the pressure kids are now to master curricula for mandated tests. I can tell you as a teacher that the pressure has been on for years now to “get’em ready for the tests”, which I believe has destroyed much of the interest in science. It’s hard to continue to be creative in the face of mounting paperwork required so we can prove that we’re teaching what is required. It stifles creativity over time, especially in high school. Teachers just don’t have the time anymore to plan the supplemental, interesting stuff like guest speakers, fun labs, or just walks through nature. It’s sad to see how boring science has become.

By DB

October 21, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Yes, it’s all about cramming in all the information for the test. I did that up in NY, and the funny part was that the curriculum didn’t really include the last 15-20 years of molecular biology that has changed almost everything. Therefore, even the test was out of date and used “dumbed down” words that don’t really test critical thinking. I remember some words, like autotrophic, couldn’t be used unless they specifically define them in the test questions. Ridiculous!

Keep in mind, I’m not the only one who writes the curriculum. It’s about 6 teachers getting together. That way we don’t have the “let’s learn only what I like” scenario in the curriculum, which happens when you have only one teacher. And as a school, we all teach the same objectives, and all our kids take the same exams at the end, which allows us to analyze everything together(and separately). The point is that the school trusts us as teachers to come up with a curriculum, and it allows us to manage it appropriately. The scores are all relative, and we know we teach a rigorous course, so scores don’t really matter other than judging yourself as compared to your peers, even then it’s not so reliable. And that fosters all sorts of creativity and passion, not to mention current information. For instance, back a few years ago with the Anthrax cases, we used anthrax as an example for teaching about spores and ways in which bacterial diseases can be spread, how they infect us, and how they kill us. The kids fealt like they were learning useful information, and it made a lot of difference. That’s almost impossible with “statewide” curricula. In fact, many curricula barely even teach about bacteria. How sad.

By DB

October 21, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Curriculum is a big factor, but I still believe it all boils down to the interest and motivation of the students, which is, by enlarge, determined by society.

By RF

October 21, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

If more schools were willing to step up to the plate and group teachers together like yours did, we might actually see some positive results. My principal had us meet as departments and write out what we felt was the important part of our curriculum, and we focus on that. Our scores have in recent years reflected taht upswing in interest for the teachers and the students. Schools in larger systems are almost not able to even think of doing something like this.

By Karen Armsby

October 21, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Teachers arise and take back your profession! Adhering to an outdated state mandated curriculum, plowing through phd. (piled higher and deeper) administrative paperwork, and endless testing, are destroying your central task of teaching.

By RF

October 21, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

But how do we avoid the phd?? I HATE the useless paperwork, and thankfully am in a system that hasn’t gotten into that. We can’t just refuse to do it, although I generally put it off as long as possible! And the schools that miss AYP for several years and fall under state control have it even worse. We can put it off and ignore it, but eventually the evil paper-craving monster comes to get us!—LOL

By The Coach

October 21, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

The whole problem with the exam is that it tests the trivial facts of science. The core skill that kids in a science class should learn is problem solving. Most science teachers I know(myself included), use the content to teach this skill. The new GPS reflect this need. However, the graduation test wants rote memorization, which has absolutely nothing to do with problem solving.

BTW, Jake, please, please, please do more research before you attack someone in a profession. It would be just as easy top= say there are morons writing editorials for the AJC, though that would be better left to the vent.

By Tony

October 21, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

The Georgia High School Graduation Test in science is flawed in many ways. The biggest flaw is the focus on minute details of vocabulary instead of bigger principles of science processes. For instance, students are required to discern the differences between angiosperms and gymnosperms. One of the writers decried the use of rote learning by teachers, yet when teachers are confronted with tests designed in the manner of the graduation test, they are forced to use these strategies.

To suggest large-scale incompetence is an affront to the dedicated professionals who work hard everyday to teach our children. The editorial board is out of touch with what happens in schools. To publish such a claim suggests to me there is incompetence in the ranks of journalists for not investigating further the true causes of failure rates on the graduation tests.

There are many reasons for the higher failure rates on the state’s science test that are not related to competence of the teacher. The design of the test, as already mentioned, motivation of students to engage in learning science content, the value of science education from family and community, and an overemphasis on trivializing science content into miniature tidbits of information.

By Karen Armsby

October 21, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

RF, I guess teachers need to get organized and present a united front, a positive plan of action, and sound reasons for needed changes to your principals, and if that doesn’t work, go to your local school boards, and on up the ladder to the state board of ed. Every industry gets bogged down in paper, but now many businesses are going paperless, reducing and eliminating redundant systems, and working smarter, not harder. I think change has to start from within your teacher ranks. You are the ones having to juggle all of these extra tasks and teach too and then if your class, or school or system doesn’t make the grade, then it falls back on you the teacher. You teachers are the ones who should put on your thinking caps, look at how businesses manage and balance more and more tasks, and find a way to simplify your time committment to paperwork, so that you have more time to teach. You need to break the vicious adminstrative paper and test monster cycle.

By DB

October 21, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Well, here’s the secret. I work in a private school if you didn’t already know. I do little, if any, paperwork(other than correcting papers, performance reports, grades, and college recs). Anything the students can do for themselves is required that they do it. It’s just too bad the public system didn’t work that way. Everyone’s just too busy playing CYA.

I do remember the paperwork from public school. Things like “failure cards” where you have to fill out this long sheet every time a kid fails, almost as if you were specifically punished for each failing kid. Then there were “Intervention Plans” for each failing kid where you prescribed a plan of recovery for each student although they never did one thing you suggested. Then there were all sorts of psychological assessments for each kid, which is usually a waste of time. What are some other examples of paperwork? I’m interested. All these things are a perfect manifestation of responsibility being shifted away from the students.

By DB

October 21, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Karen: Thanks for the support, but the real change will only come from parents like you demanding it.

By Karen Armsby

October 21, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

DB, Well I did a LOT of griping about the science classes when my kids were in elementary school, and I like to think that is part of the reason the third grade teachers created their own curriculum. I found the high school science curriculum to be very good and challenging for my kids, and top notch teachers, including Doc Neace, the Deacula HS physics teacher fired by Gwinnett County. The problem with too much adminsitrative paperwork and testing requirements is arises with the control that school superintendents and adminsitrators and ‘expert’ educators exert over you teachers. That is a systemic or internal business problem that can only change from within your ‘industry.’

By Karen Armsby

October 21, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Please excuse my typos and grammar faults arising from hasty editing in my previous post.

By Robert

October 21, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

As a high school science teacher, this is my perspective….

The teachers in the lower grades do not seem to like/enjoy/want to/or are good at teaching science. I have had discussions with elementary teachers that tell me outright that they don’t ever teach science at all because they do not feel comfortable with the content. I have had direct discussions with middle school teachers that have told me that they focus on “social skills” and don’t worry too much about science content.

So, when these kids get to high school science classes they are in trouble. For the most part the kids believe that science should be something “fun” where it is not “hard” and they don’t have to do any “work” and yet will pass or even make an A. The kids don’t behave (so much for middle school “social skills”) and they just don’t want to learn. The high school teachers are expected to make magic happen such that these kids can pass these standardized tests.

In high school, we now have the End-of-Course test that proves what the students know and don’t know. There is also the graduation test that proves what the students know and don’t know. Regardless of how it makes me look as a high school science teacher, I think that these tests are a good thing - it makes a high school diploma mean something. However, I think that the science teaching needs to change from Grade 1.

By teacherteacher

October 21, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

How is it that America puts science above democracy? Why this mad quest to produce scientists? For jobs? Have you looked at labor forcasts for the next 12 years? There’s not a lot of need for people who can balance chemical equations. I agree science is important, but science in our schools is atrocious.

Because tests have reduced science to committing fact to memory, children, who naturally seek to explore their worlds, come to know science as drudging through uninspiring texts. The “why” of childhood becomes the “who cares” of adolescence. Science is history is geography is math is just another thing to remember.

Your science curricula and the tests you employ to measure it aren’t only worthless, they are dangerous. Skill and drill science, practiced in order to drive up test scores, destroys creativity, innovation, and collaboration, important components of genuine scientific enterprise.

So, Atlanta, continue to outsource the evaluation of your children to educrats long enough to see minor gains on neat charts, and when we wake up from this testapalooza (loud, not a lot of substance, but hey, it’s loud!) , welcome the reality of what taking nuance, voice, creativity, inquiry, reflection, critique, and action out of our schools does to our children.

A pox on your science! A pox on your math! A pox on your tests! And if the teachers in our classrooms aren’t the most amazing individuals this country has to offer, then a pox on them too!

…steps off soapbox

By Science Teacher

October 21, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Yes, the Science GGT is horrible. It’s poorly written.

Why do students have a hard time passing the test? Simple, the Science GGT covers 3 science classes; biology, chemistry, and physics. Students have to remember detailed information from their freshman year. I don’t believe this is the case for English.

EOCT tests should be given for all science classes when the class is over not 3 years after the class.

By JD

October 21, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Parents have to be responsible for helping to instill the “love of learning” in their children before they ever go to school. As parents, we must support our children and encourage them to learn as much as they can in all subjects. Math and science are crucial to the future of this country. I only wish we paid as much attention to the learning of math and science as we do to sports in our schools.

My son was encouraged to take and learn as many math and science classes as his schedule would accomodate each year. He is now a registered nurse and he used all those high school classes in his college science and math prerequisites. Now, he is anticipating returning to school for an advanced degree.

Parents have to show value in education for their children.

By J.D.

October 21, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

Patti, what you and all of your posters have failed to understand is that a poor science curriculum is part of the Bush plan to force an introduction of Intelligent Design into our public schools science curriculum. (Blaming God for this mess we call humanity seems to be in vogue.)

By Dan

October 21, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

JD what you fail to realize is you have absolutely zero clue as to the actual influence of the fed government into the curriculm (not to mention what there plans are) I truly hope you are not a teacher passing along such nonsense to kids or trying to serve them your kool-aid

By Dan

October 21, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

I am so tired of hearing the complaining of teaching to the test to drive up scores while at the same time hearing how they are too easy because only a 50-60 is required to passs. Certainly there is a fair amount of skill and drill required in all educational disciplines to set the foundation. But if a lesson is taught with creativity and passion most kids will get excited and be interested in learning. There is a serious cause and effect issue here

By J.D.

October 21, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Dan, did you mean THEIR plans? Hope you’re not a language arts teacher! FULY? I do

By high school teacher

October 21, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

The paperless idea is great. However, teachers can’t do much to change it. The problems in education extend way beyond our individual districts or even our state. Because of “No Child Left Behind,” I envision (very soon) that all children in public education will have an individualized education plan, which is used now for Special Education students. Trust me, teachers have put on their thinking caps to eliminate the paperwork. We know how not to do it, but we must.

Based on some of the posts on the blog today, I have come to the conclusion that the general public is misinformed about what goes on in education. That’s where we need to start. For example, the general public assumes that teachers get to choose what they want to teach. The general public assumes that teachers can have a say-so in the curriculum. The general public assumes that teachers don’t know how to change what’s wrong (we do; our hands are just tied with red tape). The general public assumes that all teachers want all kids to go to college. When we disabuse the general public of this knowledge, then maybe we can improve the perspective of teachers, most of whom are very competent in their areas. I am not a science teacher, but I resent the statement that “what’s not being taught â€â€? or taught very well â€â€? across the state is science.” The results on ONE test determine the quality of science instruction? How dare you! Why don’t you go into some classrooms and watch teachers in action before you undermine our credibility?

By DB

October 21, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Karen: Thanks for the griping. Unfortunately, there are only a few parents like you. Over the years, administrators have been forced to listen less to teachers and more to the students and their parents, which means those that speak loudly. And those people usually have the wrong motives or have no idea how to make education better. I’m not saying we shouldn’t listen to parents and students, but there’s a happy medium.

Believe me, teachers do try to make change, but there’s only so much one can do when you’re bogged down with teaching, lack of support(discipline), paper work, etc. Most schools change only if it’s something that makes most parents happy, and that’s where the problems lie. The best way to change things is to teach where change is welcomed, and hopefully that will spread.

By J.G.

October 21, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

If you think science has been put on the back burner, well History has be placed in the toliet. It isn’t even history now but social studies. To quote Santayana “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Ask students today who is Vice President. You’ll get the answer I don’t know or George Wasington. Ask the question what document begins with these words “We the People”? The answer most will give will be “I think it’s the TV show Law and Order”. History is such a valuble course. It teachs us about what has made up this country, what ideas have shaped today’s society, and it teaches one to think. This is what is missing in a majority of today’s students and even our teachers, especially those of the administrative variety.

By Dan

October 21, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

JD you should teach debate. When your position has no merit, just point out meaninless errors or yell louder. The perfect strategy for simple minds

By DB

October 21, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

I don’t think people these days learn much from history, let alone anything else. Most mistakes in history stem from plain stupidity or extreme arrogance/ignorance. Besides, those that actually learn from history are hardly ever in power because they’re busy teaching it. And who ever listens to teachers and professors?

By Karen Armsby

October 21, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

J.D., The science curriculum in elementary sschools wasn’t worth a hoot 15 years ago when my kids were there. I don’t think it has anything to do with the Republicans or Bush, whatever your agenda wants to think.

By DB

October 21, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Please! Let’s not make this a political discussion!

By DB

October 21, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Almost forgot; those that learn from history also tend to be victims of it.

By Karen Armsby

October 21, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

DB, And those that claim to be victims, tend to focus on the past and have trouble moving forward.

By luvs2teach

October 21, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Robert - bravo, you echoed some of what I said about kids thinking science should be “fun.” I don’t think science should be drudgery, but I do resent kids who expect to “play” and never do any critical thinking.

I am a MS teacher, but I’m 8th grade, and I do stress skills (graphing and data analysis are my particular favorites). It may have something to do with my background as a science major rather than a traditional ed major.

We do have an issue, I feel, with teaching the kids to do true science, largely because we are pushed to do so much cross curricular material - reading, writing, and math - along with the ever popular “social skills.”

It’s not that I think science exists in a vacuum and should be taught that way; rather, I feel that science is sometimes shortchanged due to the emphasis on intergrated lessons. I do think that the way we “do” middle school is doing a diservice to the kids in all subjects, including science - but that’s a topic for another blog!

By luvs2teach

October 21, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

oops - integrated!

And…I agree Tom and Tony!

By luvs2teach

October 21, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Dan - from experience I see some different things:

Yes, the kids do get excited if you have planned an interesting an engaging activity - they get curious; they ask questions. But…when it comes time to test, they don’t always do well - no matter how engaged they were during the lesson.

This is what I observe - first, many of my kids don’t possess the neccessary background knowledge to really understand what they are observing and how it relates to what we are studying - I spend a lot of time on filling them in with background info.

Second, many of them have weak, lazy, or underdeveloped critical thinking skills - it’s hard for them to analyze, or they just don’t want to work that hard. They’re having fun while we do the lab, but when it comes time to do the report…

Finally, translating what we do in class to a test question is what I consider my “teaching to the test.”

Exampl: Right now we are testing minerals. They understand the different tests and how to use them to identify a mineral. But when I gave them some sample test questions from the CRCT, they had trouble - they have a hard time reading and interpreting the questions and relating it to what we do in class.

I once had kids blow a test question about the composition of the earth - a subject we had covered in class, and they understood very well - they could tell you each layer and what it was made of. The problem was that they didn’t understand the term “compostition.”

Another problem I have with the tests is when they frame the questions as a negative (“Which of the following is NOT an example of…”). This really throws off kids who have been taught to look for the right answer.

By luvs2teach

October 21, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

yikes…

disservice, example, composition…

long week, and the afternoon coffee hasn’t kicked in yet!

By HS Science

October 21, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

It seems that most of the science teachers agree - we have a lot to cover, a time-line to follow, and a high stakes test to prove that we have done our job. The fun thing? I think we cringe when we see the specialists come in and tell us that we must engage the students and make learning fun. How do we have fun with the electromagnetic spectrum (2-3 days max), how can a biology teacher make Mendel a block buster?

Some things can be fun in all classes but not all. If our curriculum was nothing but music, fashion, and movies we would still have kids find it boring.

I really do not care for the new GPS because the things that I could really hook the kids with (for a moment) are what is basically out. My students enjoyed the section of optics and lens why were they near or far sighted? They would try to look at other students glasses in the other classes and try to report on how many had what type of vision. The lost of boys - when it came to simple machines they enjoyed the activities and could explain what they were doing. Now it’s down to 2 or three simple questions and 2 days time by our system.