Get Schooled

By V for Vendetta

October 15, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

Let’s talk about an unpleasant topic, a reason why science test scores are pathetic in Georgia (and much of the South) — RELIGION.

The brainwashing effect that religion has in the South is not limited to backwoods areas where people hunt their own food and make their clothes out of the tanned hides of deer and cats. OK, maybe just deer. Rather, people in ALL areas of Georgia relinquish their better judgement at the mere mention of religion. Granted, you might find less of these people in downtown Atlanta, but the suburbs (where some of the best schools are) are still FULL of them.

Consider the recent spat one (crazy) mom from Loganville had against that nefarious and evil antichrist: Harry Potter. Consider that her children and probably 100% convinced that the world was created a few thousand years ago, and that we’re all brothers and sisters — products of incestuous inbreeding and familial mating. Yummy. Consider that they’ve probably never read the epic of Gilgamesh, and consequently have no idea that the story of the flood predates the Bible by about four thousand years.

I’m sure this will ignite a firestorm of angry responses, but know this: I am not saying that religion is a bad thing. Belief is up to the believer, let’s leave it at that; but in the South, more than anywhere else, that belief has a brain-washing effect on people — especially students.

I can’t even begin to tell you the ignorant crap that I’ve heard students regurgitate from their parents. Some of it ranges from innocent political nonsense (“Democrats all suck”) to far more volatile and incendiary remarks (“All gays should burn in hell”). Remember, I teach at one of the “good” schools.

The South’s science scores will ALWAYS lag behind those of other regions, and I believe this is the cause. Sure, I’m surmising based on (unverifiable) cultural details, but I think my argument has merit.

Again: religion is not necessarily a bad thing, but the way it is presented in much of the South is a bad thing. Until the brain-washing effect is eliminated, and we have more schools than churches, we will always suffer in this area of education. Have FAITH in that.

By rural Ga. Parent

October 15, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

V for V: Sir Isaac Newton would disagree with your “religion” excuse. (As do I.) The reason Georgia is performing poorly in Science (along with everything else) is partly due to a lack of emphasis on education by parents and educrats. (Parents expect all education to occur at school). Georgia schools have mistakenly fallen into the P.C. trap and refuse to group kids by ability because that is “not fair.” The teachers are left with a mixture of students in one classroom: slow learners, mixed with gifted, mixed with college-bound, mixed with pot-heads, mixed with …….etc. How can a teacher teach science, which can be complicated, to so many levels in one classroom? ALSO - science just recently became part of the NCLB CRCT requirements, so educrats put science on the back bunsen burner for the past few years.

By just a teacher

October 15, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

I don’t teach science, so this is just a guess (a hypothesis more accurately), but it seems that science is kind of the perfect storm for failure. You have to be able to read and think critically about (possibly) boring material, and you have to be able to do multi-step arithmetic. A student who is weak in either of those skills will face big hurdles in a high school science class. This might explain why as many students fail science EOCTs as math and English combined.

By Tony

October 15, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

V - that is the poorest argument I have ever heard. As a science teacher (physics and chemistry), my best students were also very religious. One is now a chemistry professor, in fact. Others are in fields where the sciences were extremely important.

rural parent is closer to the mark. Parents set the tone for expectations of their children. If parents have high expectations of the children, they are more likely to do well.

Part of the answer also lies in teacher preparation. For too many years, the state of Georgia was lax in its standards for teacher preparation for science and math teachers.

Another part of the answer is in the schools’ emphasis on athletic programs. Just as our colleges do: Tech and UGa have recently been criticised for having athletes that do not graduate.

There is now becoming an overemphasis on science courses in high school. The addition of a fourth requirement for high school students to graduate will water down courses even more.

Finally, the State of Georgia does not provide adequate resources for laboratory components in science classes. The allotments for schools to purchase science equipment and supplies has been reduced and class sizes were allowed to increase. Teacher preparation time is not adequate. The state expects science teachers to provide high level instruction for all students but only allows for a fifty to sixty minute planning period.

So how do we make a difference in teaching science to Georgia’s students? 1. double check our priorities and have actions that match; and 2. make sure teachers are adequately prepared and have adequate resources.

By Janine

October 15, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

V for V and Rural parent both make good points. However, Science requires critical, step by step reading and thinking. In Ga. students fall way below the average in reading and in critical thinking. If one cannot read and understand….then Science is pretty much out of the question,even more than other subjects. Add to that the fact that those kids who do not pass the end of course tests often actually make and A or B in the class due to the insane grade inflation we suffer here…well it doesn’t take a rocket scientist!

By LJ

October 15, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

As a graduate of a public school in GA and now a PhD candidate in a science field, I think the biggest problem is the lack of qualified teachers. For example, my high school physics teacher had a BS in marine biology, which would be fine, except that she didn’t understand the math required for the physics course.

I think the lack of qualified teachers starts at the level of science education in undergraduate and graduate programs. This may just be my experience at the institutions I’ve attended, but in the sciences, research is regarded as the primary focus and teaching is secondary. In fact, teaching is disdained by many and supported by few. It seems that if that attitude could be changed, i.e. scientists valuing teaching, perhaps the shortage of qualified teachers would decrease. Maybe…

By Tony

October 15, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

just a teacher - your are correct in why many students are not successful in the advanced sciences and that is exactly why it was a huge mistake for the state of Georgia to increase the science requirements for graduation. The reason many people equate the “boring” aspect to science is more related to bad teaching strategies. This is due to inadequate teacher preparation and overemphasis on mundane content. A knowledgeable teacher knows how to bring concepts alive and generate enthusiasm.

By Janine

October 15, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Tony…I agree with most of what you say….Except… State of Georgia does not provide adequate resources for laboratory components in science classes.
Let’s not forget that the big emphasis on spending on lab equipment [as well as on spending in general] is a fairly recent thing. Most of our great scientific minds had none of the well equipped labs in their early schooling. What I think most did have…..qualified teachers [or mentors] who understood what was up!!!Those are few and far between are few and far between today

By Tiffinni

October 15, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

I teach 8th grade science. The answer to your question lies within the decisions made at the state level. My 8th grade students are required to only pass either science or history. The students know this. Until it is a requirement that the students pass all classes, the percentages will remain the same.

By Tony

October 15, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Janine, do (or did) you teach science in a Georgia school? There is an expectation that 25% of the time in a lab class be spent on laboratory exercises. The funds provided by the state are woefully inadequate to do justice to this.

By recent, do you mean since the late 1950’s? That is when a huge emphasis on science education began as a response to the “Sputnik” crisis.

By LM

October 15, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Our students do poorly because they cannot read well or think critically.

I handed envelopes to my students (middle school - 7th grade) to have them address letters to their parents. Many could not properly address the envelopes - some did not even know their address! If they could not follow the directions and a sample given on the board, how can they be expected to pass science exams that involve reading, math, and critical thinking, ALL AT THE SAME TIME?

They forgot to tell me in college that I would have students who could not read…

By John in Tampa, FLA

October 15, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

They tryed to learn me science when I was in skool but I guess I just aint the learnin tipe. At leest I got good grammer.

By rural Ga. Parent

October 15, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Tony - You are correct about teacher prep. I taught my 12th grade (rural georgia h.s.) physics class half of the time, because our physics teacher did not understand vectors. I excelled in math and science and was encouraged to attend Ga. Tech. NEVER was I encouraged to teach school. (I am female). The kids in my h.s. class who barely made it into college became teachers. Math and science were not their “thing.” This is painting with a very broad brush, as my own kids have had some very intelligent teachers who teach because they love it.

By rural Ga. Parent

October 15, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

LM- Are your 7th grade science students grouped by ability, or do you have several ability levels in one classroom? Would it be easier on you as a teacher to have all of the students in the classroom near the same level?

By GW

October 15, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

I am a 7th grade science teacher in Georgia. The state decided that the students need to “perform” in science so they changed the curriculum. Other than planting a seed in a cup the kids don’t get much science in elementary schools. By middle grades it is all new so the kids don’t even know the vocabulary or “language of science.” If they don’t learn the vocabulary inside and out just reading the tests will be very difficult. When you use the word homozygous they all just laugh because after watching so much TV they think you are talking about “bein’ gay.” They also don’t see the use in it for the future. We’re trying to train them for rocket science and they just aren’t very interested.

By DB

October 15, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

There’s a big difference between learning facts so that they can be regurgitated on a test at the end of the year and learning how to THINK. That’s one of the major reasons why science is so far behind — because the higher sciences require a student to begin to “think outside the box”, and start to assimilate and apply information from more than one source. Lab work, abstracts, demonstrations, etc., are all different sources that contribute towards this kind of learning, but by the time most kids hit that level, they have become little learning robots — learn the fact, spit it out on the standardized test when required, and go on to the next set of facts.

Personally, I don’t think religion has a great deal to do with it. You might get some interesting discussions on the one topic regarding the Big Bang theory vs. God’s seven days, but other than that, it’s hard to argue pure physics or chemical reactions in a Biblical sense. Parents and teachers who encourage kids to explore, experiment and synthesize information instead of regurgitating it are probably the most influential in this area.

By A

October 15, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

I teach high school science. One of my students’ biggest problems is a lack of motivation. I could dress as a clown and tap dance while teaching about stem cells and they would still be bored. I attempt to come up with engaging labs (with a limited budget and no planning time) and they say they are bored. And this is not all of my students, but definitely a majority. And the majority sets the tone. In preemptive defense, a parapro working with one of my students says she loves my class (and I didn’t pay her to say it). Go figure.

Speaking of no planning time, my school has had difficulty making Adequate Yearly Progress, AYP (According to No Child Left Behind or NCLB) for the past few years. Now instead of being able to spend more time working on improving our practice, we get even more meetings which disrupt our planning time (as well as our time before or after school) and occasionally our classrooms. Luckily we get teacher work days… no, wait. They are all in-service days now. We spend our time listening to guest speakers teaching us new methods or hawking the latest software. What could be so wrong about us having an actual full uninterrupted day to sit and digest the techniques and technology we already have in place? But I digress.

The emphasis at home seems to be on students having the latest cell phones and I-pods. Caring about what goes on at school much less in science class takes a back seat to many other things. That doesn’t mean parents don’t care about grades. Some of them (a very small number) get very upset when they find out how poorly their child is doing. Sadly in many cases scientific literacy among parents is so low they can’t dig themselves out of this hole. Compound that with the economically challenged nature of the majority of my students and now you know why they can’t resort to tutoring for more one on one or small group instruction. But they certainly know how to text message their child during my class. Again, I digress.

As others have stated teaching out of subject is also a problem. My education is in biology. I just don’t know physics the same way someone who has dedicated themselves to it does. I could maybe fake it, but I am no subject matter expert. But I am certified to teach broad field (at the suggestion of my college advisor to make it easier to find work) which means I could be assigned to teach anything in science now. So depending on the fluctuations of the needs of our students I may teach any science class we offer. And I cannot amend my certificate to remove all but biology from it, so I am stuck.

Now add into the mix “repeaters”. These are students who fail a course and have to take it again. Often they fail because of poor attendance and failure to do work. So they sit through the same thing again (and sometimes again and again). As of the 36th day of school I had students with around 16 absences. Some have missed instruction for over 20 days due to Out of School Suspension for discipline. Guess what? Many of these won’t pass my class.

In my personal opinion, “free and public education” should be a one shot affair. Students who fail need to recoup lost credits on their own time and at their own expense during the summer or at night school. Instead they clog up our already overcrowded classes, and many times the problems which caused them to fail the first time are still not resolved. Add to that, if they remember anything they were taught the first time, now they think they know it all and are even more likely to be bored and tune their present teacher out. At least holding them financially responsible for this might make them think twice before they give up and decide to just repeat a class.

Most of my students work jobs all night, try to sleep through my class and then complain all day long that although their teachers are nice, they are boring. With some of the monetary, social and familial issues plaguing some of my students, I sympathize with their lack of performance. My parents made me go to sleep, and made sure I was at school and doing my work. These kids don’t have that support. I make no judgments on why that is; I am just saying it is a reality.

It is all about our priorities. Until parents get their acts together and teach their children to value education and make the most of it, there isn’t much more we can do as teachers. Notice the one conspicuously absent group in “No Child Left Behind”. The parent. Certainly this is a political maneuver to secure their vote. Would you vote for someone who questioned your parenting? Perhaps a better name would be “No Parent Held Accountable”? Or perhaps this has all be crafted as a subtle way to make public education fail so vouchers can be used by those who can afford private education.

By will

October 15, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

You can make me come to school, but you can’t make me think.

By Janine

October 15, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

It’s not about money.
It’s about:

-competent teachers

-adequate time devoted by the system and the student

-adherence to a criteria in grading/evaluation/behavior

-disciplined students who are ability grouped

-parental attitude,

-intelligent and supportive adminstrators at all levels

By V for Vendetta

October 15, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Tony, I’m not quite sure it’s the “poorest argument you’ve ever heard.” There have got to be others worse than mine!

All kidding aside, I think that it DOES play a factor in the way many kids view science (and other subjects, as well), even if it’s just on a sub-conscious level. Many people have stated the usual culprits: the inability to think critically, low school expectations, grade inflation, lack of educational background in the parents, etc. But these are afflictions that ALL of the departments in ALL of the schools in Georgia are currently facing. I have heard from colleagues that the lack of funds is something that is uniquely crippling science instruction (in certain areas), but I don’t think it is any worse than some schools inadequate funding for any subject.

Perhaps I should have slanted my argument more towards “open mindedness” instead of religion, but in the South I feel that the two go hand in hand. Sure, Biology (more specifically: evolution), makes for an easy target in uber-religious circles, but so does astronomy, chemistry (especially organic), and physics.

I agree with what Tony said, there are many religious children who excel in these subjects, as well as in other subjects, but the same could be said about any group. This isn’t exactly the scientific method I’m talking about here, just a hypothesis.

I’m not a science teacher, but I deal with narrow-mindedness on a daily basis in Language Arts. It’s quite shocking, actually. And I was simply offering a possible connection. I see parents vehemently defend beliefs, or cry infringement on others, at the expense of looking like morons in front of more learned authorities.

Religion is not the problem, but failure to be open-minded is. I’m sure there are many religious people on this blog who are currently branding me an aethiest of some kind. To them: thank you for proving my point (and I’m not, by the way).

In the end, I absolutely agree with what much of everyone is saying on here, but to me it sounds like the same old argument. I was simply looking for something new, a possible cause that had yet to be explored. I still think the idea has merit, and for the record, I don’t begrudge you any of your beliefs (but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with you).

Surely I am not the only one who has seen evidence of this in my classroom.

By Tom

October 15, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Between Al Gore Jr and Mr V (above), you see a perfect example of one of the reasons why Science commands less respect than it used to. “Science” is now being used as a political club with which to beat anyone who questions its dogma. Once “science” stopped being based on rigorous repeatable experimentally accurate data, it became something that is less important to teach or learn.

By M

October 15, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

This problem is not going to get better it is going to get worse. My child is in the 2nd grade. Last month I attended his school’s curriculum meeting and found out that the children do not get science and history lessons daily. The teacher explained that they only work on Science and History “When We Have Time”. I was dumb struck. The teacher continued to explain that reading and math take up most of the day and Science and History are not their priority.
This is unbelievable to me. How can we expect our kids to be interested in these subjects if they are not introduced to it adequately? As far as I’m concerned, the school system is not going’s its job with Science and History. I’ve posted local vents in my county section but no one seemed to care. Independently, I’ve tried getting my child interested in the show “Beakman’s World” because it is educational and fun. Last year my child got to go to a pumpkin patch and he enjoyed it. He wanted to keep the pumpkin seeds and plant his own patch. So we did. We saved those seeds and planted a pumpkin patch. We got one pumpkin out of it, but the patch was still a success to me because I got my child involved. Parents are going to have to step in and educate our children more and stop relying on the schools solely.

By Sidney

October 15, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

To those of you complaining about “no planning period”, get over yourselves. You know what you have to do in order to teach these classes. You shouldn’t need an hour everday (during your workday) to plan. For most of you, you’re teaching the same material with slight variations from year to year. Maybe you need to spend time outside of school to plan. Or better yet, use you summer vacations, spring break, christmas holidays, and all of the other breaks that you get to plan. For those of us who work over 40 hours a week would love to have an hour a day to plan the next day. And we would really love to have the vacations that you all receive. Instead, we take our work home with us and deal with it. I know you have to grade papers and reports and what not, but speaking from experience, that really doesn’t take that long.

As for the science issue, it all boils down to the fact that not everyone is mentally equipped to understand science, at least not at the higher levels. As some have stated before, the classes need to be divided out into ability. The students who may have a chance in the science fields, need to have the opportunity to study at the higher levels. But, for those who are not going to go to college, and who don’t care, they need the opportunity to take a more watered down class that they might be able to understand.

By concernedparent

October 15, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

The problem: Science is not taught beginning in elementary school. My child’s teacher handed out a schedule w/science or social studies scheduled for 30 minutes every afternoon. This doesn’t happen. I question my child daily about what goes on at school. Science and social studies are not taught until 3rd grade. Third grade is important because 3rd graders are tested on Social Studies and Science on the CRCT. Only enough is taught to pass the test. These are also the sections of the high school graduation test that students fail most often. I don’t think this is a coincidence. Teachers have to spend too much time working with the below average students on reading and math. Bright kids need to move on and be challenged.

By Burdell

October 15, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

Science is about learning how to think. There must be a problem solving mentality to science courses. It’s not enough to memorize the periodic table or know what ATP stands for or that F = ma. Students must know how to apply that knowledge. The emphasis must be on critical thinking to solve problems. That’s the greatest mistake teachers make when teaching science is to write equations on the board and allow kids to just plug in the numbers. Nothing is ever derived or explained in a proper context, this isn’t the completely teacher’s fault, texts are to blame as well. Examples show variables crossed out since that variable equals zero, but there is never an explanation of why it equals zero.

As far as religion or open mindness goes, it should be a no issue when it comes to high school science. Is it really that important to waste time debating the origin of the universe when that time could be devoted to learning actual facts and theorems? Everyone might have their own take on the origin of the universe but no one debates that velocity is the first derivative of position. Which is more useful to a high school student? I’d rather students know how to solve physics problems, balance chemical equations and understand the basic processes of the cell than understand all the believes and views on what might have or might not have happened at the beginning.

All that being said there should be a emphasis on attracting qualified science teachers. Of course this will never completely happen as long as English teachers are paid the same as physics teachers who are paid the same as PE teachers. Last time I looked someone with an engineering or pure sciences degree starts out at $55,000 a year while an english major starts off at $35,000 a year. If the business world recongizes the difference in demand between the two areas why can’t the school systems?

By V for Vendetta

October 15, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

Tom,

Yikes! Lumping me in with that ninny Al Gore? That was a bit harsh. Nevermind the fact that I think An Inconveniant Truth is one-sided tripe that does not accurately portray the global warming situation. And I invented the internet.

Sidney,

Oh, woe is you. Listen, as someone who used to work in the “real” world and switched to teaching: the things I do on a daily basis as a teacher are more difficult by far than as a member of the business world rat race. I can promise you this: teachers deserve every planning period they get (most take a few hours of work home with them on top of that period), they deserve every break that they get (many work during the summer in some form or another — whether it be professional development, grading standardized tests, etc.), and ALL teachers deserved to be payed about ten grand more than they are currently getting (hey, I’m not greedy).

You lose my respect very quickly when you start slinging around the “teachers have it easy” discourse. Not a good way to join the discussion, especially on this blog.

I help out with a variety of clubs and extra-curriculars at my school. I wake up at 5am, get here by 6:30am, teach from 7am to 2pm, plan from 2pm to 3pm, and then help out after school for an hour or two. Usually, I finally make it home by 6pm. Sidney, I can assure you I’m not atypical, and I do not consider myself someone who goes “above and beyond” where my time is concerned. There are MANY teachers that spend as much time at the school as I do. Eleven hours a day for five days a week is fifty-five hours. Multiply that by 180.

I can’t stand teachers that complain (make no mistake, I’m not complaining — I chose this job over a 40 hour a week office job), but I can’t stand disrespect. I’m sorry your job is SO difficult, maybe you’d like to try mine.

By Tony

October 15, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Sidney, Planning and preparation are part of teachers’ daily responsibilities. Attitudes like yours are part of the problem when it comes to understanding what needs to happen in schools to provide a better education. Grading papers is not a trivial chore, but part of the teaching process. You also suggest that teachers work less than 40 hours a week. That is a one of the biggest myths we have to contend with. Teachers routinely work 50 hour weeks and still take work home with them. You are the one who needs to get over yourself.

By just a teacher

October 15, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

Two quick things: 1. Hands off my planning period. I’m sick of the inane arguments made by those who lacks an understanding of the profession. 2. Back off the English majors. There are plenty English majors making $5Ok and up out of college. They are called “consultants.” (Now, I have no idea why they are making that, but they are, so let’s cool it with the “English majors are lucky to have a job at all so we can justify paying teachers crap” argument.)

By Tom

October 15, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

Burdell,

You are exactly right. (Which you would be if you’re a brother of George P. like me.)

There is SOOO much science that is actually useful and has nothing to do with origins or global warming.

As a part-time HS Chem teacher, I have a small idea of what teachers face, and it is not “easy”.

The one thing that bugs me about this debate, however, is that makes some fundamental assumptions which may be wrong. When we decide that every child must complete rigorous HS science classes, they suddenly get less and less rigorous. There used to be no shame in having a College Prep track and a Trade School track. Forcing everyone through college prep does not prepare everyone for a high level college degree.

By Burdell

October 15, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

I’m not attacking English majors or defending poor teacher pay. I consider teachers public servants who are, as a majority, greatly underpaid. I’m simply advocating paying more to attract and retain good teachers whether they teach English, physics or health. I know there are English teachers out there that should be paid much more than $50k a year, I was taught by one of them. But the fact of the matter is that if you walk over to Georgia Tech and find a senior engineering or chemistry or physics major and tell him/her that you’d like to offer them a job teaching at $35k they are not going to accept the offer. As the teachers on this blog have already admitted teachers put up with much more “crap” on a daily basis than someone in the corporate world. So why teach high school science with all the problems associated with it when they could take a corporate job making $20k more a year?

By luvs2teach

October 15, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Like so many other problems in education, it’s not one problem, and it doesn’t have one solution.

Many have mentioned some of the key issues: lack of teacher preparation (improving, believe it or not, since NCLB - one of the few good things), lack of student preparation (huge, IMO, huge), lack or planning/prep time (yeah, Sidney, baby, it is a big deal, when you have to set up a lab for 125 students), and classes that are too darn big (NSTA recommends no more than 24 - we have classes ranging from 28 - 32).

I would add students that expect to be spoonfed and edutained - I love Bill Nye and Magic School Bus as much as the next guy, but science isn’t always “fun” (interesting? enlightening? sure, but not fun).

Kids don’t want to do the critical thinking necessary to do science (as opposed to simply learn science) because they have never been taught to think. “I don’t get it” is the sentence I hear most often when I am trying to get them to go beyond the textbook solution.

I would also add that we have a culture that doesn’t respect science - we respect athletics and acting more than science.

Name the last Emmy winning actor or actress?

How about Oscar?

How about the Nobel Prize?

More people could answer the first two than the last(and to all my Lit friends - my daughter is an English major, so I feel your pain - I doubt many could name a Pulitzer Prize winning author, either).

We don’t foster a culture where education of any sort is to be desired or admired (the term “geek” ring a bell?). If it doesn’t have a short term benefit or large money in the futre, then why bother?

Or, in the words of one of my kids, “When are we going to use this stuff anyhow?”

Sydney - we need good math and science teachers - you’re obviously quite envious of the time we have off, and so I would like to invite you to come teach - it’s the toughest job you’ll ever love!

By luvs2teach

October 15, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

I would add that scientists don’t help our own cause when we politicize research (global warming, tobacco research, and evolution all come to mind).

It also doesn’t help the general public understand what science is or what scientists do when every bit of research becomes a headline or news blurb that seem trivial and contradictory (Vitamin C is good for you - no, it’s bad for you - no, it’s good for you - wait a minute…)

By just a teacher

October 15, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Simply put, most of us who teach do it because there are things we value more than money. I don’t know how to readjust the attitudes of those who won’t consider the profession simply based on salary. (And I realize it is a pretty privileged position to get to choose one’s profession based on those other factors.)

I forget who made the argument earlier about the academy itself not valuing teaching, but I absolutely agree. And it’s not just in science. My undergrad degree (and teaching creds) came from one of the top 3 education programs in the country. By senior year, my advisor actually admitted that the school doesn’t expect its graduates to spend much time the classroom. They expect us to “put in our time” and then get policy jobs or become professors. If education schools don’t value what happens in k-12, nobody does. Not even Al Gore.

By ga is backwards

October 15, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

here is an inconvenient truth

GA - laughably - still uses corporal punishment

By HS Teacher Too

October 15, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

I don’t think I can add anything to the discussion about what makes science education not work. It’s been covered: not enough time, not enough meaningful labs (or money for labs), elementary schools ignoring science altogether, kids misplaced into multi-ability classes, etc.

Given all that and the great discussion today, the failure rates for the EOCTs shouldn’t be surprising. Alarming, of course — but not surprising.

But while we are on the subject, what IS an appropriate failure rate? If it is too high, we say the kids aren’t learning or the test is too hard. If it’s too low, we say that the test is too easy and isn’t a valuable measure. So what’s the right answer to that question?

By Sidney

October 15, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

Obviously I struck a nerve with some of you. If you are one of the great teachers (ie, go above and beyond to help your students, actually like your job, spend more than the normal 40 hours a week) then I apologize to you. But I have first hand experience with teachers who really don’t give a darn about helping students. They show up at 8:00 and leave as soon as the bell rings at 3:30. Some of them are actually trying to beat the students out of the classroom. These are the teachers that I’m talking about. I know there are some really good teachers out there. Unfortunately they seem to be getting farther apart.

For those who want to attack me and say that I must be envious of your vacation and I need to try teaching, I have taught. I know what it’s like to deal with undesirable students and situations with the government mandating what you have to teach. I know that it’s a hard job. I also know that the curriculum doesn’t change that much from year to year. So when you teach the same subject over and over, you have your lesson plan. Granted, it does need to be modified on occassion and that does take time.

V for Vendetta: I have had your job. I know what it takes to be a good teacher. If you truly do the things you listed, then more power to you. I comend you for going above and beyond. By the way, my job is not SO difficult as you put.

By LJ

October 15, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

Speaking of the new science graduation requirements, has the state budgeted for the extra teachers it’s going to need to hire? Furthermore, where are all those teachers coming from?????

By just a teacher

October 15, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

This is what I’m saying, LJ! Unless teaching is seen as a desirable profession, fewer and fewer talented people will do it. (Also, there are ways to make the profession attractive other than increasing the base salary. I, for example, would love, just once, to have an upgrade on a flight. My friends who travel for business get that all the time and I’m so jealous! Show the teachers some love, Delta.)

By Janine

October 15, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Just a teacher,,,,,The reason English majors are making so much money in the business world is because they are the ones who can express themselves clearly in writing!! THey write coherently!!!!!!!!!!One of the biggest complaints those hiring recent advanced degree graduates is that they cannot find a candidate who can write even an interoffice memo that is grammatically correct. While many think that stuff doesn’t matter, what goes out under a big corporate letterhead is of concern to the big shots there!

By Janine

October 15, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

Just a question: Private schools do not seem to have this problem. Care to venture a guess????

By Janine

October 15, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Could at least a part of the reason be, let’s see, the blackberries????? Back in the day, and I am talking as recent as the early 80’s, advanced sciences were chosen by those who had the background for taking them. There were even prerequisites in high school. YOu had to pass one -[REALLY PASS ..meet a REAL criteria..and sometimes with at least a B] before you could go on. If you didn’t, well, too bad! It didn’t mean you couldn’t go on ANYWHERE..you just had to choose another path. In Ga.the Big Boppers don’t even recognize another path!!!!!!!!!1

By SET

October 15, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

Hmmm. We expect schools that don’t even have kids up to being able to address an envelope teach the same dummies science?

As I see it we have two levels of “science” instruction. The survey courses that are taught to the proletariat so that they understand that there is a subject of “science” that their betters know about and they don’t.

And then you have the Chemistry, Physics & Biology series required for University Admission. Plus related math classes like Calculus.

Real lab science classes should be limited to students with appropriate test scores, deportment and any other prerequisites so that valuable class space and lab time is not wasted on people who don’t belong and can’t do the work.

Or you can just offer such classes in regional summer schools - UC Berkeley ran those programs in Oakland CA in the 1960s and 1970s- perhaps they still do. A year of Lab science was done in summer session - many hours per day and if you missed 3 days you were out. High School students from all over the Bay Area took classes together with a teacher/student ratio of (as I remember) 1 to 12.

You had to have the motivation because the class started early in the morning and the students commuted. Competition was tough because everyone was there having been vetted by the admissions process - there were no slackers, dummies or people who didn’t get it. All the high schools accepted these credits and all the colleges did also. It was UC Berkeley, after all.

Dr. Edward Teller ran high school physics classes at Livermore National Lab (open to applicants from the entire Bay Area). He liked Physics… Those selected students got Physics taught by a historic figure. Lucky kids.

Maybe the solution to the problem complained of here is to limit the number of people taking “real” science classes so that we don’t waste the resources and teachers. Maybe those classes should be regional and not just another class at Rydell High School. And maybe the classes should have competitive entry.

End of Problem.

By luvs2teach

October 15, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this

Sidney - If you were a teacher, and you were teaching the same curriculum from year to year, with little or no improvement or changes, then you, my friend, are part of the problem…and no wonder you look down upon teaching - you obviously didn’t extend yourself to the same extent you think others should be.

You definitely weren’t a science teacher - labs don’t stay set up year after year - they need to be replenished and reset - a time consuming task (and lack of time for that is one reason kids don’t get as much hands-on time).

I taught the same curriculum for 6 years in a row, and never taught it the same way once - I was constantly researchng, planning and attending classes over summers to bring new stuff to my class.

This year, I am teaching an entirely new curriculum, and I have to stay one step ahead of the kids at all times - and I already have ideas for stuff I’m planning on changing next year.

I worked in corporate America for twelve long tedious years before I could no longer deny my true calling - I talked myself out of teaching for many years, for many of the reasons mentioned by others above. I took a pay cut when I started, but for the most part I have never been happier - and I have never been busier! I work more total hours in a calendar year than I ever did with my corporate job - even when I worked overtime and traveled.

Anyone in corporate America knows that the recent study, showing that most people waste an average of 2 hours a day at work (online or socializing) is pretty much dead on - and any teacher will tell you we WISH we had 2 hours to waste.

BTW - that wasn’t an attack - it was a sincere invitation - I have made it a blog habit to invite all criticizers of the profession to try it out. I thought I knew what I was getting into, and I had no idea. I truly believe that people want to knock teachers because they have no idea what the job is like and I think they are envious of our UNPAID time off, like it or not.

I also have a theory that men disrespect the job more, because it is traditionally held by women - and men (sorry to all you wonderful male teachers out there - I know you exist) are typically the 8:30-4:30 folks (and where did you work that you worked less than an 8 hour day?).

So, no, I’m not complaining - I’m explaining - trying to shed insight on this little job o’mine. And, yes, I am tooting my own horn, becuase if I don’t, who will?

I like my job, and I’m good at what I do. I work hard, but I enjoy the work. May you all be able to say the same, no matter what your chosen profession.

By LJ

October 15, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this

SET, The problem is that the state of GA just did exactly the opposite of what you suggest by doing away with the vocational track and requiring all students to take 4 years of science.

At the end of the day, not every student needs to go to college. Thus, not every student needs to be prepared in high school to enter college. So IMO, not every student needs to take 4 years of science.

By just a teacher

October 15, 2007 5:31 PM | Link to this

Oh, I realize how valuable the skills of an English major are. It’s the ridiculous salaries of 23-year-old consultants that have me flummoxed. Then again, I still haven’t figured out why a left-handed baseball player is worth more than many countries’ GNP.

By Janine

October 15, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

SET and all….I well remember those SURVEY courses..Back in the days before PC. but you and I and many of us here are far removed from the decision makers who ,as in “there are none so blind as those who refuse to see, deny that there is another path to a successful life of contributing to our society. And so it is drummed into the souls of our children,…if your interests/abilities are elsewhere, there is something wrong with that!! And so, here we are….Pitiful but true!

By Lisa B.

October 15, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

For elementary and middle schools to make AYP, a percentage of students must pass the CRCT in READING and MATH. Consequently, those subjects are where the focus goes. Reading and math are taught in the after school programs, Saturday school and summer school. In some elementary schools, students read books about science and social studies (i.e. Magic School Bus, “Where are you going Christopher Columbus” and other Jean Fritz books)and instruction stops there. Math has turned out to be a giant weakness, so far more time is spent there. The AMO (annual measureable objective) is going up again this year. Instead of 66.7% of all subgroups having to pass the math CRCT, the percentage will now be 73% I realize the high graduation rate cannot exceed the rate of students who pass the science portion of the HSGT, but in elementary and middle school, we MUST focus on the things that cause us to make AYP. Science doesn’t help us make it.

By CollegeProf

October 15, 2007 6:36 PM | Link to this

The problem and te solution is multi-faceted but what underlies it all is economics. For five years I required each of my college physics students to go into an elementary school and to teach kids simple physics using simple and relatively inexpensive materials. The courses were great successes with both the teachers and the students expressing their saitisfaction with what was done many times. Each time I led a classroom discussion with the physics students afterwards. In every instance the physics students said that they enjoyed the classroom teaching expereince for the most part but that there was no way they were going to exchange their projected paycheck as an engineer, pharamcist or doctor to go into a K-5 classroom for what would amount to less than half of what they would be making.

Every semester I have at least one individual who has left the field of education for reasons that usually boil down to a combination of pay and frustration with the job itself. If I remember the statistics correctly, only 2 or 3 teachers have passed the Praxis II in physics in the last five years. As one writer related, most of the advance courses in science are taught my teachers out of field who rarely, if ever, have had more training in a subject than the course they will be teaching.

Until pay in science education is raised to the point that it is competitive with the opportunities in other sectors in the economy, the profession of education will attract far fewer of the best and brightest.

By Lisa B.

October 15, 2007 6:52 PM | Link to this

Lack of planning time and lack of money are big problems in teaching science. I feel strongly that science must be taught in a “hands-on” manner. Experiments and activities require time and materials. Because of the strong focus on math and reading, few resources and little time is allocated to science materials and science prep. Requiring students to take four years of high school science instead of three will not make science a priority in middle or elementary school. Getting rid of high stakes testing would help tremendously.

By WFC

October 16, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Retired AP history teacher here with a son who is currently taking honors physics and organic chemistry (not to mention AP US history, AP lit, calculus and Latin.)

Problems with science ed:

By Ernest

October 16, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

I agree with the points raised by CollegeProf and WFC. If we really want qualified math/science teachers, we need to have a discussion about adjusting salaries for high demand disciplines. Wages in private industry far exceed what a math/science graduate can make in education. A way to better compete for those resources is to pay them more.

WFC, I’m glad to say the principal at my children’s HS is a former chemistry teacher at the school. Unfortunately, the science department does not have adequate resources for hands on labs but at least he can effective advocate for them because of his understanding of the need.

One last thing WFC, would you consider coming back in the classroom as an ‘adjunct’ teacher? Specifically, if you knew you would only teach one class (I’m really interested in the AP History) per semester, would there be incentive for you or other recently retired teachers to do that? I’m asking because I understand the demand for AP classes is exceeding the supply of teachers at this time thus wonder if this could be a workable solution in certain cases. We see this in colleges where they may use someone from the business world to teach one class so could something like this work in HS?

By rural Ga. Parent

October 16, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

WFC - you are spot-on. The same issues apply to math education. One of the UGA profs who helped write the new Georgia math standards argued (with me) that there is more than one answer for a linear equation!!! He thought eye-balling a line would give him an equally-correct answer!!! In addition, music majors and education majors (as superintendents and principals) typically did not like math or science as students, therefore, they assume that no one else understands it and the classes must be changed for others to “enjoy.”

By jim d

October 16, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

I tend to agree with V to a degree.

True story—Child spent 2 middle school years in a private school (church sponsored) Returned home after first week back in public school just really PO’d over the teaching of evolution he was being exposed to.

It took only a few minutes of discussion to explain there really was no conflict between the two. Unfortunately that discussion had to take place at home since neither side of the issue is willing to explain they can co-exist.

I do believe that this narrow focused mentallity does in fact affect our childrens ability to distinguish scientific fact from theory or belief, that it simply blurrs the picture.

By Lisa B.

October 16, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

In South Georgia, there are MANY small church-run private schools. Most of them do fine when the parents’ goal is to keep their children isolated from the mainstream. However, according to my experience of trying to “catch them up” when for whatever reason the children reenter public school, the level of academics is woefully lacking.