<p>I was reading Alan Greenspan's new book The Age of Turbulence when I found this interesting passage where he talks about education in America: </p>
<p>
[quote]
One of the skills too many high school graduates lack is proficiency in math. It is a skill more than any other that is required to achieve skilled-job status. . . . Yet people whose scholarship I respeck, and who are in a position to know [details of U.S. education], complain that the math teachers of my childhood have been replaced with teachers with degrees in education but much too often with no math or science degree or competence in the subject matter. In 2000, for example, nearly two-fifths of public secondary school math teachers did not have a major or minor in math, math education, or a related field. . . . Different pay scales for high school teachers in different disciplines may go against the ethos of teaching. Perhaps money should not be an incentive. But it is. . . . It is becoming increasingly clear that a flat pay scale when demand is far from flat is a form of price fixing that undermines the ability to attract qualified math teachers. Since the financial opportunities for experts in math or science outside of teaching are vast, and for English literature teachers outside of teaching, limited, math teachers are likely to be a cut blew the average teaching professional at the same pay grade. Teaching math is likely being left to those who are unable to claim more lucrative jobs. That is far less true of English literature or history teachers.
<p>I'm all for it. If an English teacher feels it's unfair there math teacher down the hall is making more money than them, then they can use some of their continuing education time to learn math.</p>
<p>This also seems like a great way to cause infighting among teachers' unions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One of the skills too many high school graduates lack is proficiency in math. It is a skill more than any other that is required to achieve skilled-job status. . .
[/quote]
I don't think that's even true. Most HS graduates also can't write (just ask college profs...). And that is a skill even more universally important.</p>
<p>Only if the teacher has an undergraduate degree in Math or something related. The incompetence of high school math is because it's being taught by teachers who have undergraduate degree not in math but rather in some humanities major or political science major.</p>
<p>oh can relate, daughters 7th grade algebra teacher last year was an ENGLISH major with a certificate to teach middle school math. Taught the subject as an English major, tried to get a list of topics for review for final, she said she didn't have a list, her exams were old Regents exam questions, it was a nightmare. </p>
<p>It is also impossible to obtain even a qualified tutor to help.</p>
<p>"One of the skills too many high school graduates lack is proficiency in math."</p>
<p>No, paying math and science teachers more is not going to get more HS students proficient in Math, any more than paying Phys. Ed teachers more is going to make more HS students physically fit. (BTW, the average HS teacher in my state makes over $50K/year, and the cashiers here still can't calculate the correct change.)</p>
<p>As an English teacher (the rare one who is math and science proficient-I tutor both Calculus and Physics), I would interject another aspect to this argument. Should I be paid more because I spend additional time outside of class grading 120 papers?</p>
<p>There is an argument about test scores being the basis of a salary scale...if that becomes the case, how much of a martyr would I be to take Special Ed, or ESL students? BTW-I teach them all.</p>
<p>I think teachers take it on the chin enough. This smacks of the same argument of...those who can't...teach, but if you ever had a true teacher, you know the difference.</p>
<p>Definitely agreed. We have a capitalist society, and some teachers are more in demand than others--and some potential teachers can demand more from the non-teaching job market than others. We're not going to attract smart math and science teachers if the salaries aren't at least slightly more competitive. Most areas have a shortage of qualified math, chemistry, and physics teachers... they simply can't recruit adequately if districts don't provision for extra money for more in-demand subjects. I think it sucks that we value some subjects more than others this way, but that's the mess we've gotten ourselves into and now we have to figure out the best way to get talented, qualified people into the classroom.</p>
<p>Interestingly, even when they're technically prohibited by union rules from paying more to certain subjects, many districts will find a way. When my girlfriend finished her MEd and was looking for high school chemistry teaching jobs, she turned down a district because they weren't quite what she was looking for--and they mysteriously managed to find more years of experience in her resume (and so a couple thousand more in salary) every time she turned them down, until they'd gone up $9,000 from the original offer and she simply couldn't pass it up. Never in a million years would they have done that for someone in history or English, but they knew if they didn't hire her they'd likely have to find someone who didn't really know chemistry.</p>
<p>The new 5th-grade math teacher introduced the visitor to her class, "This is my boyfriend. He is 29 years old and he is a lawyer."
There's a math exam the following day. The last question: "What's my boyfriend's age?"
One student said, "This is not math."
"This is math." The teacher explained, "You see, 29 is a number, isn't it?"</p>
<p>That's 8 years ago. Nice town. Good school. One episode.(Hence statistically insignificant.) But it exists.</p>
<p>Math and science teachers shouldn't be paid more because they are "better" teachers or because they teach a "tougher" subject. But if you can't get people to become math and science teachers because they can get better paying jobs in non-education fields with their math and science training, then you'll have to pay more to attract the people you want.</p>
<p>I think that there must be a better way to teach math than how it is done in the US. We have teachers, but why aren't we more successful in becoming math literate?</p>
<p>I think ellemenope has touched on the problem. Knowing math and being able to teach it are two different things. You can hire all the engineers you want to teach math but that does not guarantee that they will be able to do a good job of it. My husband is an engineer and knows his math inside and out but my 15 year old son prefers his sister who teaches Middle School social studies to tutor him because she knows how to teach it so he understands it. I'm not saying that that is the case with every teacher (we've had our share of bad math teachers) but that she does have an important TEACHING skill.</p>
<p>My personal opinion is that many people devalue teachers because they secretly think the jobs are not really difficult and THEY could teach, if they really wanted to. This is so far from the truth, it is mind-boggling. Other jobs that are devalued in (many) people's minds are daycare workers, other preschool/early childhood workers, health aides, people who teach and assist other people. Why? Is it because our mothers did some of this for all of us, and therefore it MUST be easy, and should be unpaid or low-paid labor?</p>
<p>Forgive me for my rant, and maybe it is over the top. However, when you are the person lying in bed, in pain, with all your dignity exposed to your hospice worker, you may be wishing the job paid enough to attract the very best person possible. And we seem to begrudge paying teachers when we are very willing for other occupations to be high-paying that don't benefit our precious children at all. If teaching jobs paid a lot, people would compete for the jobs.</p>
<p>ALL teachers should be paid more....lots more, and then hire the best. Our children are worth it. My 2 cents. (I'm not a teacher, btw.)</p>
<p>Last year my daughter brought home a simple calculus problem and asked her why did the teacher not solve it the way I thought to be the most intuitive. Now, I'm a good math person but not a super duper genious. She brought the question back to the teacher and the teacher did not know how to answer the question. Eventually the teacher brought it up to the department chair and he solved it for her.
This teacher is a reasonably good teacher so what gives? My only explanation was she did not have an undergraduate in something math related.
This happened at a very good school district where people pay millions to buy a small home.</p>
<p>Yes, it is very difficult to get really good science and math teachers. It is important to have good math teachers in elementary and middle school, of course. But it becomes very apparent in the higher levels in high school, when the smart kids are smarter than the teacher. It is disheartening to realize that your kid's chemistry teacher, or calculus teacher, cannot answer their questions accurately. When the best you can hope for is that they have the integrity and honesty to say, "I don't know," instead of giving the wrong answer, or spinning bs.</p>
<p>But it makes you really, really appreciate the good, good "golden" teachers. And they are definitely out there.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the whole problem is that you can't really know if someone is a good math teacher unless you can watch them teach for awhile and how would that work? I remember a math teacher my son had in Middle School who told me that she LOVED math and she loved teaching it. From students, however, I heard that she was sarcastic in class, had favorites and on the whole didn't teach well. So here's a person that loved math and apparently knew it, but was a lousy teacher.</p>
<p>I agree that you really do have to know your math and science in the higher grades to be able to teach it well but how do you evaluate the prospective teachers at the hiring stage?</p>
<p>that is, observe teachers in the classroom. Many principals get caught up in discipline issues and myriad other problems, so that they don't do this as much as they should. And unfortunately, many principals may not be very skilled themselves at identifying teaching weaknesses and knowing how to guide improvement in their teachers. This is so crucially important, in my opinion, that it should be a full-time job, but most people don't want to support more administration.</p>
<p>In my opinion, classroom observation is really the best way to determine the difference between good teachers and not-so-good teachers. Going by standardized test scores alone is certainly not the way.</p>
<p>Another twist...I am a school employee who is working in an area with a very significant shortage of personnel. Should I be paid more because replacing me could take upward of a year? (and yes...the last three job searches in my district for this discipline took 10 months, 9 months and 12 months respectively).</p>
<p>I agree that you really do have to know your math and science in the higher grades to be able to teach it well but how do you evaluate the prospective teachers at the hiring stage?</p>
<p>Many teachers in our district have a BA in education and certification &/or endorsement in subject.
Minimum requirements for subject certification- are far below what would be required for a college degree.</p>
<p>IMO- districts should not only pay those teachers more because of their scarcity, but they should allow emergency certification, so those profs at the universities working with classroom teachers so they are a step ahead of the class in science and math- can actually go into the classroom themselves.</p>
<p>I also think they should work with the state & have as a goal- educators for middle and high school, that have a BA in a subject-& subsidize a year program to enable a teaching certificate.</p>
<p>In college classes, an evaluation form for the prof is distributed- I think it could give supplemental info- even if everyone in the class treats it like a joke, that still gives useful information</p>