Needed: scientists who can teach science

Jonathan Zimmerman
Thursday, January 27, 2011

In his State of the Union address, President Obama pledged to help American schools recruit and train 100,000 new science and math teachers over the next 10 years. But he left out the scientists and the mathematicians. Also the economists, the anthropologists, the political scientists and the historians.

That's a big problem. Since the 1980s, scholars in the academic disciplines have largely ceded K-12 schooling to professors of education. If we're serious about improving our schools, we need to bring the disciplines back in.

As a professor with one foot in each camp - a disciplinary department and an education school - I'm acutely aware of the divide between them. People in the disciplines generally dismiss education, and the education professors disdain the disciplines. It's mutual. It's also destructive. Too many education schools still work on the myth that you can teach students "methods" of education without rigorous attention to the disciplines that they will be instructing. And most disciplinary scholars still think that anyone who understands a subject can teach it.

They're both wrong.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/26/ED0J1HEJC1.DTL

seems like she is a good example of what they want

The bottom line is that we don't need PhDs in the sciences to teach in K-12. We do need people with degrees in the sciences who take further education classes. So, good for your niece. I'm sure she'll be a really good science teacher.

"Too many education schools still work on the myth that you can teach students "methods" of education without rigorous attention to the disciplines that they will be instructing."

But I can say that, having taught a number of edu majors in "science for non-scientist" classes that they are generally the students with the worst attitudes. Most want to just check off the class on their list, show zero curiosity about anything, and will tell me to my face that the only reason they are taking the class is to get it off their required list. I really have to wonder about their ability to teach a science class or topic, even at the K-6 level.

The ones with English Lit degrees who intend to teach English probably don't have a whole lot of energy around taking a required science course.


I disagree somewhat with HB. I think that the original statement is overblown, but not BS. The bias certainly exists on "the discipline's" side. Particularly when we're talking about the hard sciences. Some of the lowest SAT and GRE averages are people who major in education... while some of the highest are in the pure science areas. The best science students tend to go into science and engineering... not education. The pay is higher and they get more respect from society.

The bias in the other direction exists as well (though IMO not to the same extent). Teaching is a separate discipline that is to some extent independent of the subject. Being a great engineer does not mean that you can teach someone else engineering. The same thing holds true in the professional environment. NFL coaches and trainers aren't always former professional athletes, and former professional athletes rarely make good coaches and trainers. Training in the business environment is almost always best handled by professional facilitators who know how to transfer knowledge... not by the specialist in the line-of-business who best knows the content.

The ideal is to have both skill-sets, so the solution is to have qualified teachers with a real background in the subjects that they teach. But while this is less common than we should prefer, it's far more common than the naysayers would like to pretend (though the sciences tend to have the lowest penetration).

it also depends on primary or secondary level -- for obvious reasons.

i found all my HS teachers well-versed on their subjects.

My HS history teacher was one of the best I ever had.

correspondingly, i had university profs that may have been tops in their field, but couldn't teach to novices worth a damn.

generalizations about "ed degrees" are bullshit; there's an agenda there.

regarding Science? A well rounded individual should express an interest in all the classical subjects including Math and Science. I am an engineer who Homeschools my younger daughter in English and Social Studies, but has my daughter in the public school for Math and Science. I do it because the English teacher has no interest in teaching English - he just wants to coach (as an aside this individual has an Education degree not a degree in English). Also I want my daughter to actually study the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Reformation. You can actually graduate from our school system without studying these subjects. I am taking her 7th and 8th Social Studies and making sure she gets taught about Western Civilization.

In my mind the subject dominates method. If you do not know your subject, you cannot teach it. Also the passion comes from the subject and not from the method. Most of all I want my daughters' teachers to be passionate about their subject. Good teachers can change the attitudes of students. For example my older daughter went from the lousy English teacher in 7th and 8th grade to a wonderful one for 9th grade. She has gone from considering a career in Science (she had a wonderful Physical Science teacher in 8th grade) to one in English/Communication. She is good in both (actually I think she is better in Science/Math than English, but I want her to follow her passions whereever they lead).

teachers need a minor in the field they teach at least.

I remember one report from a decade or so ago that said that barely half of WA secondary math teachers had a major or minor in the subject... and (IIRC) that included a BA in "math education" which is really not the equivelent of a major (or sometimes even a minor) in math.

minors. that was in the 70s.

apparently in 2001, supposedly due to "teacher shortages" wa started with alternative certifications:

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/AltCertInterim.pdf

From the UW:

The first major decision is what grade level you want to teach. People who teach young children (e.g. Kindergarten through 6th grade) are usually responsible for teaching all subjects. Therefore, your undergraduate program would require academic breadth, but almost any major is acceptable, including an education major.

People who teach older students (e.g. middle level and high school), typically teach only one subject, such as history or math. Therefore, your undergraduate program would consist of acquiring expert level knowledge by majoring in the field in which you plan to teach. If you are interested in teaching more than one subject, you can take extra classes in college to gain expertise in more than one field. If your undergraduate degree did not include a major in education, then you must still attend a teacher preparation program to get a teaching certificate.

The required teacher preparation program can stand alone as a post baccalaureate program, it can be part of a Master in Teaching (MIT) degree program, or it can be part of a Master of Education (M.Ed.) degree program. The UW Bothell's K-8 Teacher Certification program is stand alone certificate program. The Secondary and Middle Level Teacher Certification M.Ed. program is combined with an M.Ed. program.

http://www.uwb.edu/secondarycertmed/secondaryfaqs#wantteacher

"...the education professors disdain the disciplines."

Say what? Not at either of the programs I've taught in.

HB, you're right in calling bullshit on that quote, which is why the methods instructors where I am are all former teachers of that content area.

Which isn't to say that there aren't people on both sides with the proper respect for each other.

By "disdain the disciplines", they mean that the majority in the education field believe that just because you have a mastery of a given subject does not mean that you can teach it. Not that they think engineers don't understand engineering better than the vast majority of teachers... but that they aren't equiped to teach engineering. You'll see it here all the time (in fact, it's in HB's last post), particularly with the disdain for even alternative certification programs (which at least try to add formal education training to those with subject matter expertise).

Oh... they definitely believe it. The thing is... they're mostly right. :)

If you can't get the attention of your students, it doesn't matter how much you know about the subject.

BUT if you know how to TEACH, you can at least provide a structured learning environment.

There is, however, no question that the ideal is to have someone who is a subject matter expert and knows how to teach.

We're not going to be able to insist on that as the norm without much higher compensation rates. The people who have a masters in, say, chemistry and also go through a full teaching certification program are making a real personal (financial) sacrifice for this calling. There aren't enough people willing to do that.

She had a 4.0 in chemistry from an ivy league school and couldn't find a job. So she became a teacher.

Don't know if that's standard for her subject area. Maybe you need a graduate degree to find a job in science?

I think that pay and availibility of work probably vary depending on location. My first job 11 years ago with a biology degree was a seasonal food lab position. A few months later, I got a temp job at a good company, but it was a short term assignment. Around this time, I got interviews for a couple permanent positions in the food industry so I turned down another temp position at the other company. I had an entry level quality lab position for five years. For the last three of those years, I had applied to dozens of positions in both the food industry and basic lab positions and interviewed over a dozen times. Although wanting to be paid more than $12/hour may have been detrimental in securing other employment, it seemed that finding employment for a science major was rather difficult.
If I would have relocated to Madison, I probably would have found employment quicker since there are many lab companies. Unfortunately, they don't pay well either and without an advanced degree you really can't advance in any of those companies.
Now that I am a manager in the food processing industry, it would not really pay for me to teach. For less experienced science majors who don't want an advanced degree in science, it could be a good career move considering that there seems to be a lot of competition for entry level jobs and those don't pay well.

Your points are valid in my experience. Of course it is very difficult to get a science credential without having an undergraduate degree in science and even so it is still difficult to pass the exams. This may be due in part to the fact that many science teachers do not have much "bench" science experience or science experience at all beyond their undergrad degree. And this is not promoted in credentialing programs. It is assumed that candidates have sufficient science background, which is simply not true. About 10 years ago I was on a panel examining the science teacher exam in California. When we gave our recommendations for a minimum passing score for prospective science teachers, we were told that less than 1% of candidates would be eligible to teach science in California, creating a huge shortage.

You are also right that science professors could do a better job of promoting k-12 teaching as a career path. The reality is that far more people are going for PhDs right now than there are job openings for science professors. Then there are all those who don't want to get a PhD--teaching is a great option for them.

Lastly, there are some very prominent scientists who do understand the importance of k-12 science education and who contribute toward the professional development of k-12 science teachers. Bruce Ames (editor of Science) is one. He created the Science Education Partnership (SEP) program between UCSF and SFUSD. This program not only gets science teachers into the lecture hall to learn about recent discoveries and research, but into labs for summer internships to learn new techniques and develop new lab activities for their students.