Raising HS science requirements may = poor college performance

Parent Cafe
41

<p>"quote: Unless and until teaching science pays the same (or more) as doing science, the level of science education will suffer. </p>

<p>Actually, there is some truth to this, imo. I’ll start my post with a disclosure that both my H and I are teachers, in the arts, public schools."</p>

<p>Hopefully I’m not going to cause offense here, but how many of your coworkers (fellow teachers at your school) are teaching because they’re not smart enough to do anything related to their field? I went to a strong high school, so I didn’t run into this much there (when I did it was with the Business education department mostly, academics were strong), but I remember middle school having teachers who were clearly too stupid to do much of anything else. Not all of them, but if I can go to a school and point out teachers who are dumber than a most of the kids in their class, something is wrong. </p>

<p>But I guess that’s what middle/high school are for. The future researchers and scientists of the world are going to be college graduates, and they’ll be smart enough to catch up to what they need to do in college.</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>Way to support using all of the brain! Good advice to teach a kid to back down from things that are unfamiliar or what you deem to be irrelevant to their future development - as if you know that about yourself let alone some else at 15 or 16 (the age of a kid when the next year’s schedules are typically put together). Is my sarcasm coming across? I don’t mean to be snarky, but I just don’t get this at all.</p>

<p>Maybe it’s because my son always loved making the connections between the subjects he has studied that has brought him greater understanding - not for the grade but for actual learning - that I don’t get this mode of thinking. One of the things I know his teacher’s put in his recommendations is just how much the kid enjoyed learning and truthfully, it usually followed that the more difficult the material, the more he rose to the challenge. I’d like to think we provided him a great education and he truly took advantage of what the teacher’s offered. But as I’ve said… I would have bet a pretty penny that the kid would have been all humanities based on his general interests and specifically his enjoyment of his classes during sophomore and start of junior year. It wasn’t until nearly december of his senior year that a real fire got in that kid due to one class… just one. So if you think tracking a kid and cutting off his exposure and opportunity is the right way to go, that’s your right. But I simply cannot see any benefit whatsoever. Do you really think a young kid knows this about himself? More important, does a parent know what lies inside a kid just because it’s theirs? Seems to me that if parents could pick and choose their kids curriculum like that, the world’s youth would be crushed by the helicopter parents diving in to completely take over. Yuk!</p>

43

<p>The reason the requirements were put in place was not to increase science literacy, but to increase the number of students pursuing a career in science. It failed to do so, and further, fewer of the better students went into science careers. Also, the standards don’t appear to have been lowered since 5 of 6 of the students received a C at best.</p>

<p>My guess is that the problem is not with the science teachers or the curriculum, but the fact that most of the students cannot read or understand a high school textbook. Data from one new Chicago HS showed that out of 160 9th grade students only 23 were at grade-level for reading, with double that number reading at the third grade level. By having those kids in the course the better students suffer and probably come to dislike the subject matter as a result. Not a pretty picture.</p>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, please- you’re being a bit condescending here. I didn’t say anything about a parent maneuvering a kid’s course selection. My kid knew pretty well from the age of about 13 that she had no interest in science or math- so what? She’s done well enough in those math and science courses that she HAD to take and excelled in literature and the arts. Taking MORE math and science would have precluded her from taking courses she was passionate about- and for what? To give a math and science person a job?</p>

45

<p>“Seems to me that if parents could pick and choose their kids curriculum like that, the world’s youth would be crushed by the helicopter parents diving in to completely take over. Yuk!”</p>

<p>So you then believe that the state legislatures, who have never met your kid, or likely any of the kids in your school, should be the ones deciding these things? Because surely these people have better interest in the kids than their own parents. Hell, they have those kids interests at heart better than those kids do themselves.</p>

<p>So no, I don’t think a kid at 16 or his parents know exactly what that kid will end up doing as an adult. I do think that they have a better clue than people who have never met them, and who’s only real interests are votes and cash. But if you think otherwise, I guess that’s your right too.</p>

46

<p>Well I have to confess that I don’t like the legislature choosing the curriculum either and so sent my kids to an independent school that has a true college prep curriculum that still has art and athletic requirements. But like I was saying, my kid ended up taking most electives in the humanities. I suspect if I knew my kid had a more specific passion, there were schools that would meet that need as well, Magnets included. </p>

<p>But I did not mean to be condescending and I said nothing about anyone here specifically at all. My contention was only that if given the opportunity there are a lot of over-controlling parents who are convinced their kids will be an engineer, accountant, doctor whatever… regardless of the kid and would be all too quick to railroad an education. And I also think your run of the mill parent knows very little about teaching pedagogy or what some courses teach in problem solving or critical thinking that has less to do with the subject than with the skill.</p>

47

<p>Fair enough. But unfortunately most of us go to public schools, and therefore do have our curriculum decided by legislatures. It’s an issue of what’s better, the kids/parents judgment, or the state’s. Experts don’t come into it.</p>

48

<p>Another thing to consider is the fact that many areas of research now have greater interdisciplinary aspects. The ability of future students to think more broadly and make connections between disciplines is becoming more important. We don’t all have to be experts in each area but who knows what connections might be made by students who bring an understanding of multiple areas and not just within the sciences.</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>Experts? Who needs experts? Just look at Texas…geez </p>

<p>[Texas</a> Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html]Texas”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html)</p>

50

<p>Didn’t read all posts–just inital issue re science and the schools mentioned in the article etc</p>

<p>In our situation (re science teachers)
…
our student is a very good science and math student strong As and Bs in honors and AP leves…and the chem teacher for AP does not teach
…our student has to dig for it, and use open courseware from colleges.
Our student is a jr…so the teachers logic of "I expect them to learn how to learn this themselves since they will be in college in a semester " is just laziness on the part of a teacher who isn’t teaching…
…I think its because some students get to the point where the teacher no longer has as firm a grasp on the material to teach what the kid is asking…</p>

<p>do I want spoon feeding , no
–however when when my student goes in to ask a serious question and gets and answer like, “I had chocolate chip cookies for dessert, what did you have…” thats just dumb…I don’t know that this teacher is speaking in metaphors to get the kids to think–Could be and yet many students are like what the heck is that?</p>

<p>I have read how MIT feels the kids are coming in without the ability to think and analyze the material…lots of facts at their fingertips and they still need to be able to integrate and write about that …and thats lacking.</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>I think NCLB is partly to blame for this. Setting standards that schools must reach leads to standardized testing, which leads to teachers “teaching to the test” rather than teaching how to learn and understand.</p>

<p>(Some) Teachers are partly to blame. It’s harder to teach someone to gather information, analyze it, and synthesize a conclusion than it is to give students a handout with facts to memorize. </p>

<p>(Some) Parents are also to blame if they complain about teachers that are “too hard” or expect too much or gave my kid a bad grade and ruined their gpa.</p>

52

<p>I have an interesting viewpoint on this subject, because my H is a HS science teacher. I don’t think he’s doing that because he wasn’t smart enough to do anything real with science–After graduating with Honors from a top school with a double major in bio and philosophy, he went to med school and was an award winning student (member of AOA, the medical school honor society) wooed by top residencies but opted to be an inner city pediatrician, award-winning there, too (featured in several news shows, etc, also).</p>

<p>He left medicine to teach high school. But he didn’t leave his smarts there. He’s taught physical science, bio, Honors bio, and, in his first tenured year, AP Bio. This was supposed to be a reward (more on that later.)</p>

<p>So that’s first off. Secondly, and I hope I’m getting his thoughts right here, but I believe he would agree with Donna. In his mind, there are two main problems with the present science situation–</p>

<p>first, a curriculum not geared toward instilling a wonder toward and global understanding of science, but rather one bent on producing more biochemical researchers to make money (our state specifically acts on recommendations from the pharmaceutical industry of what they want.) This tends to create mind-numbingly boring science–all at the micro level–no time for actual encounters with the observable world. It does not create scientists.</p>

<p>Second, forcing kids into a challenging curriculum dictated by outside forces which they feel compelled to take for reasons of college acceptance. AP Bio has become a forced death march. The class is mandated to cover everything any first year college class might cover, mile high/inch deep. It’s a march with no time for depth or rumination. Most students don’t want to be there, but are afraid not to be in an AP. Bio AP teachers across the country think the program is deeply flawed, but are mandated to follow it. What should be a joy has become an endurance test for instructor and teacher.</p>

<p>H would adore to teach a science class that focused on real, thoughtful encounters with the natural world. A class that emphasized critical thinking. Not a biochemical slog through pharmaceutical training. </p>

<p>And I can guarantee something–the science class he would like to teach, is one both Donna and her son would enjoy. But it’s not the class that the state, nor country, wants.</p>

53

<p>

yes and it was a dumb reason. back to my post #3 - teach science in high school for the sake of teaching science. not to create scientists.</p>

<p>garland - instill wonder!! Yes, I like that. good post!
your H’s students are lucky. my brother is a hs science teacher and says the same thing. There is no reason to teach cell biology in 9th grade bio! no one teaches gross biology anymore. Teach it the way it was learned over the years by biologists - plants and animals and learn the classifications on a gross level - not a micro level that young minds often can’t visualize.</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>Sadly, this is true of just about every teacher. So many are hampered by school boards, legislatures, PTAs. I think our educational system would be much stronger if communities could hire the best teachers they could and let them teach their passion. I also wish they had the ability to fire those who didn’t perform.</p>

55

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>While I think the rationale was not dumb, the outcome was never in doubt. Thus it was a dumb waste or resources and a stupid study where only academics (and government types) will find the ‘aha moment’. The rest of us could have told them the outcome before wasting their time. (Hint: before adding graduation requirements to a district with a 50% dropout rate, perhaps they should focus their time on getting kids to stay in school first.)</p>

<p>garland: </p>

<p>with all due respect, I haven’t the faintest idea what your “first” body paragraph suggests. The second (too many kids/wrong kids in AP Bio) is not a “state” issue but a local issue. Does the state require AP Bio? (I thought not.) Is it the state’s fault that most kids are there, bcos they are “afraid” to be elsewhere? (No again?)</p>

<p>fwiw: California, the “state” does not have too many mandated requirements. The rush to AP is ALL local, at the local school board level. (Our HS limits AP Bio to upper classmen only.)</p>

56

<p>BB–my first body paragraph explains that my H left medicine for teaching. not sure what’s unclear about that.</p>

<p>I’m not sure where I said that the AP Bio classes is a state issue. The state science standards are indeed a state issue–they mandate what must be taught in bio, chem, etc; AP bio is a separate subject (thus in its own paragraph).</p>

57

<p>sorry, garland, I took the info about your hubby as background. But regardless, I was commenting on your par. that started with “first.”</p>

<p>btw: our HS Bio teacher is a graduate of Yale Med. Brutal class, but turns into an “easy” 5 on the AP test.</p>

58

<p>We have students (most) we don’t read the book, don’t do the labs, and don’t want to be in the class. Our former AP bio teacher, who used to produce classes of 5’s, retired partly because of the changes in the class, and the students. He became disspirited. H’s first year, so no track record, but he’s not optimiistic despite Herculean efforts.</p>

<p>The paragraph starting “first” describes the approach to science according to state standards–prioritizing the creation of employees for science-based industry. I don’t know how to explain how that’s different from an approach guided by intrinsic curiosity, direct observation, and the ability to pursue a few ideas deeply and critically. It seems clear to me.</p>

59

<p>I’d like to introduce the idea that once kids have been ‘sold’ on pursuing science, math or technology careers, they are faced with the prospect of industry offshoring and H1B visa ‘guest workers’ that drive down salaries. Not an exciting prospect.</p>

60

<p>

It’s marvelous that you had the opportunity to send your child to a good private school with rigorous, interesting academics. The same is not going to be true for every family, and that’s the problem with your argument. You are equating taking classes to learning and discovery, a relationship that is extremely tenuous at many schools in this country.

I’m just going to point out that this is subjective. Biochemistry is the only thing that has kept me sane in AP Bio this year, because I utterly despise the more macro aspects of biology.

This is a fact of a globalized world that is going to be felt by all fields over time. The most personal services are safest, and things like medicine and teaching are very available to STEM students.</p>