Teaching science to 14 and 15 year old humans

Teacher... Full Bio

I am disarmed every day by the amount of info my students do not know at this stage of their life cycle.................I am teaching the life cycle of stars for the 4th year (this is my second career....my first was in healthcare 20+ years).

Does anyone else feel this way or am I blogging to the wrong audience?

Even if you don't teach or don't teach H.S. we should all be concerned about the quality of science information or mis-information that is out there!!

Comments

We talk a lot about education. Obviously people here are better educated than most so have survived a variety of educational systems quite nicely (public/private/home school) but we all recognize that it isn't perfect.

At some point, though, we may be trying to converge unrealistically on a perfect educational system. America produces 32% of the science output of the entire world so despite the fact that everyone thinks Chinese and Indian kids are smarter, people think that only because the very best come to America.

At the high end, like here, America is tops, but at the bachelor level we are being outpopulated by Asia so in 20 years I would think they have to take over the high end too unless we get better about educating kids.

So what do you think is the issue?

Hank Campbell | 03/05/09 | 16:02 PM

I'm not sure that it's an issue about being "smarter", but I suspect that Chinese and Indian kids value an education more than their western counterparts.

As I've said elsewhere, this country tends to focus on money and consequently education is viewed as a "job". Something that needs to be endured to get to the money. Without parents to lend guidance to their children that an education can be valuable in its own right, there won't be any improvements, no matter how much money we throw at it.

Gerhard Adam | 03/05/09 | 16:46 PM

Chinese and Indian kids value an education more than their western counterparts

Value is a nuanced term. In America, you can still have a pretty good life without much of an education so the motivation/pressure is not as great here. Over there you cannot. Then there are other extremes, like Russia, where an education meant nothing at all, witnessed by the MDs and PhDs waiting tables 15 years ago.

Hank Campbell | 03/05/09 | 17:32 PM

Does anyone else feel this way or am I blogging to the wrong audience?

This is certainly the right audience.

info my students do not know

Or perhaps info they can't handle. One of my teachers, way back in whatever geological period that was, disapproved of turning students ("pupils" back then) into "factual dustbins"!

Robert H Olley | 03/05/09 | 16:56 PM

You are dead on. This is also my 4th year teaching high school science, as a second career after a being a non-tenure track research scientist at a couple different universities (totaling about 15 years). I also have 20+ years in the military (reserves and active).

Two things, first, I agree that many do not value their education. Why should they? They get 2 meals a day from the school (free and reduced lunch), they get subsidized housing and food stamps, and they can afford to have IPods, cells phones, decent clothes, etc... Why should they try, they do nothing and they live at a marginal level. In other parts of the world, education is the way out of poverty.

Secondly, many students have already given up on being able to learn "hard" subjects like science and math. At our middle school/jr high level students advance to the next grade if they pass 75% of their classes. So, for an 8 period day, they pass everything but math and science, and move on to the next grade. This is repeated all the way to high school, and now they must actually pass to get their science credits. Then 10-20% fail.

What is the answer? I don't know. I do feel that 2nd career teachers are better teachers of science, having "done" science before teaching it. My personal pet peeve is a teacher that went to school, to go to college, to come back to high school, never entering the rest of the world.

Curtis (not verified) | 03/08/09 | 20:49 PM

Thank you for your comments, I (almost, although it would not be possible) science teachers should have had to have worked in the "real world" before teaching science.................the 2nd career science teachers I know are all very good and the 1st career science teachers (not all but more rather than less) appear to be threatened by our expertise.......................to the point of sabotage, it is really sad, one twenty something teacher at the school I am currently employed has just out and out lied to me about so many logistical issues that it is just sad...........and not good for our students.

I am pretty concerned right now about the current administration. I thought Obama was going to be teacher friendly but now that I hear he wanted to pay based on performance, any teacher knows (and I teach my ass off every day w/ lots and lots of time planning) that it depends on the mix of students you get ...each year being different..........................................if I was being paid based on performance this year............it would be so totally unfair.................I hope he is just playing lip service to politicians that don't understand the real world of public education. Any thoughts??????

Christine Jones (not verified) | 03/10/09 | 09:59 AM

I suspect that they would feel threatened. However, I am intrigued in considering the role of teachers .... when did we decide that it was a profession someone could engage in WITHOUT actually having any expertise?

I idea of being a professional teacher, and not actually knowing anything else is mind-boggling.

Gerhard Adam | 03/10/09 | 10:48 AM

We probably all know people who were doing poorly/flunking in their science major in college yet were able to switch to an education major and then become a science teacher.

Like majoring in music, I often wondered what the point is. The best degree in music will not get you a job at a symphony. Likewise, a degree in education will not make you a good teacher, it will just get you an interview; being willing to teach in a crappy area for no money will get you a job in education, though.

But in defense of teachers, it is one of the 5 professions for a reason; it is a higher calling, so expertise in a narrow field is not essential. Journalism is not a profession but I think there are plenty of great journalists who are not experts in fields they write about. They learned their 'language' and then make it art and we should do that with teachers too; have a common set of fundamentals and then let the best people get rewarded more.

Hank Campbell | 03/10/09 | 11:09 AM

I don't think teaching requires a narrow focus, but we certainly don't want to have a carpentry teacher that has never built anything. Who wants to learn surgery from someone that's never wielded a scalpel?

The point is that, especially in higher education we recognize that there can be no learning without having someone with expertise to provide the guidance. However, how is one supposed to become enthused about science or mathematics when the person teaching it may not have any experience actually using it?

There are far too many teachers (especially in the younger grades) that teach these subjects badly and ultimately spoil it for the students so that by the time they get to higher education, they may well have had any interest taken out of them. I don't think it's a coincidence that soo many people have given up on science and math by the time they get to high school.

Gerhard Adam | 03/10/09 | 11:54 AM

Perhaps we need to stop mandating an education? Certainly everyone that wants an education should be able to get one, but why force those that don't? This would tend to make parents take more responsibility if they want something better for their kids.

I realize there is also a presumption that if this were to occur, then we'd have everyone on welfare, becoming criminals, or it would imperil our society.

However, consider that if someone doesn't go to school, then the welfare system (such as it is) could easily mandate the requirement that the individual pursue an education to obtain work before they would be eligible for any benefits. In other words, you get a check as long as you're in school. No job, no school .... no benefits.

As for criminals, I don't see how we're preventing that from happening anyway, so I don't see that as changing much.

In regards to the society (or natonal) interests, the truth is that people that are important for competition are those with an education, whereas those that didn't bother when they were in school aren't likely to become superstars laters.

I realize that this may sound harsh, but why are we (as a society) throwing millions of dollars at a system that consists largely of people that don't want to be there? Is it that the system doesn't work? or is it that the people in that system won't work?

In principle, I'm suggesting that this might just make education more valued again, and result in people taking responsibility for their kids as well as their achievements.

Gerhard Adam | 03/08/09 | 21:14 PM

More a 9th grade public school science teacher articles

About Christine Jones

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What People Are Saying

Books By Writers Here

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

More a 9th grade public school science teacher articles

About Christine Jones

Related Articles Here On Scientific Blogging

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What People Are Saying

Books By Writers Here