Article: 2 in 5 High Schools Don't Offer Physics

[Arcadia]

I don't know how accurate this article from Cornell is but its sad.

 

"Of all school subjects, Physics has the most severe teacher shortage, followed by math and chemistry.  There are large surpluses of biology and earth science teachers.

Only 1/3 of all high school physics teachers have a degree in physics or physics education.

Almost 1/3 of all high school physics teachers have taken fewer than 3 college physics classes.

90% of middle school students are taught physical science by a teacher lacking a major or certification in the physical sciences (chemistry, geology, general science or physics). 

Our local and regional school districts have had substantial difficulty finding and retaining qualified physics teachers. 52% of New York City high schools do not even offer physics.

...

Only 1/3 of US high school students take physics. This is far less than in most countries with which we compete economically.  Many countries require all students to take physics.  To bring the US to their standard would require a fivefold increase in the number of physics teachers.  

...

Because so many physics teachers are underqualified, too few of those who do take high school physics emerge with the skills and confidence to pursue college study in physics and STEM disciplines.  Too many science-capable students end up in biology and the life sciences. "

 

https://phystec.physics.cornell.edu/content/crisis-physics-education

[regentrude]

 

 

But until we smash the system and replace it with a better one, we are working with what is, not what ought.

 

If parents demanded quality academic instruction with the same fervor they resist the teaching of human sexuality or evolution in schools, things might change. In all the years my kids attended school, the only curriculum information we received at home was about sex ed. I would have been much more interested in the math curriculum. But I guess most parents don't give a hoot, because education is not valued.

 

 

But then again, I never had Latin in school, I am studying it with my dd (not even keeping one lesson ahead), and my dd got a silver medal (one question away from gold) on the National Latin Exam. I must be doing something right. ;)

 

Sure. But language instruction by a teacher who is actually fluent in the language is a lot more efficient. Especially when it comes to a language that is spoken. I do not  believe a teacher who learns alongside the students and is not proficient herself will have her students achieve fluency. 

[JeanM]

I think it is a travesty that many high schools don't offer any physics. For students who go on to major in physics or something related, it is true that if they have a solid math background they'll be fine. However for the students who go on to major in humanities or don't go to college, high school is the time for them to be exposed to some basic scientific concepts.

 

 

 

Because the student will get college credit for a DE class but may not for an AP class.

 

Because college professors are likely more qualified to teach the class.

 

Because pulling a college professor into a high school to teach a class comprised only of high schoolers means that the students who pay tuition to the college are losing out on instructor hours dedicated to the college.

 

Among other reasons.

 

I feel the need to point out that the bolded is not always true. It seems likely that my ds will get credit for at least some of his AP classes at the colleges that he is applying to, but he probably won't get credit for the community college class. The high school where ds goes part-time makes it very difficult to take community college classes because their schedule rotates in a complex way. And the closest community college is a satellite campus that offers only a handful of classes. It's an hour drive (no public transit available) to get to the main campus.That would put a significant burden on the student.
 

[Haiku]

Sure. But language instruction by a teacher who is actually fluent in the language is a lot more efficient. Especially when it comes to a language that is spoken. I do not  believe a teacher who learns alongside the students and is not proficient herself will have her students achieve fluency. 

 

I was just being funny.

 

Or not, as the case may be.  :mellow:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think one issue is that teacher are hired as full time teachers. My high school had two classes of physics. Each class had around 12-16 students. That was only two periods for the teacher. Assimg one planning period that left three other bell periods. I'm not sure what else he taught. Maybe a 9th grade physical science?

 

I think a lot of schools would not have run sections with only 12-16 students.

 

If a school could hire a teacher part time, that would allow them to pick up people who worked half days as teachers and half as something else (ex engineers). It might let you employ someone who had retired from engineering.

[Haiku]

If parents demanded quality academic instruction with the same fervor they resist the teaching of human sexuality or evolution in schools, things might change. In all the years my kids attended school, the only curriculum information we received at home was about sex ed. I would have been much more interested in the math curriculum. But I guess most parents don't give a hoot, because education is not valued.

 

What I found, when my oldest dd was in school(s), was that schools don't actually want parents sticking their noses in. They claimed to want parental input, but they had very limited and proscribed channels for doing so, and in the end they didn't really take parental concerns and suggestions seriously. There was a pervasive attitude that the schools know best because they are comprised of educators, and mere parents couldn't possibly have any meaningful understanding of what was best for their children's education.

 

I don't think it's that parents don't give a hoot. I think it's that they a) expect schools and teachers to do what they claim to be doing and b) learn very quickly that it doesn't pay to be a "troublemaker."

[Haiku]

If a school could hire a teacher part time, that would allow them to pick up people who worked half days as teachers and half as something else (ex engineers). It might let you employ someone who had retired from engineering.

 

That would be great, but in practice there are way too many rules and regulations and red tape about who is "qualified" to be a teacher and who can get a teaching certificate. It's just another reason we pretty much need to start over with how we structure schools.

[MarkT]

I don't know how accurate this article from Cornell is but its sad.

 

"Of all school subjects, Physics has the most severe teacher shortage, followed by math and chemistry.  There are large surpluses of biology and earth science teachers.

Only 1/3 of all high school physics teachers have a degree in physics or physics education.

Almost 1/3 of all high school physics teachers have taken fewer than 3 college physics classes.

90% of middle school students are taught physical science by a teacher lacking a major or certification in the physical sciences (chemistry, geology, general science or physics). 

Our local and regional school districts have had substantial difficulty finding and retaining qualified physics teachers. 52% of New York City high schools do not even offer physics.

...

Only 1/3 of US high school students take physics. This is far less than in most countries with which we compete economically.  Many countries require all students to take physics.  To bring the US to their standard would require a fivefold increase in the number of physics teachers.  

...

Because so many physics teachers are underqualified, too few of those who do take high school physics emerge with the skills and confidence to pursue college study in physics and STEM disciplines.  Too many science-capable students end up in biology and the life sciences. "

 

https://phystec.physics.cornell.edu/content/crisis-physics-education

A pet peeve of mine with public high schools is that an otherwise qualified person (such as an early retired Engineer) must take a boat load of education crap courses.

Education certification for Elementary teachers is important but not for upper level HS science and math courses. They should take a subject knowledge test instead.

They can demonstrate ability to teach in a classroom with a live or video demo.

 

Give me the retired Engineer over the recycled Gym teacher (with certification) any day (true story currently in a local HS for Precalculus).

Edited September 5, 2016 by MarkT

[Roadrunner]

I think we need a general science degree that is designed specifically for aspiring high school science teachers. We can have an educational science degree that graduates a teacher qualified to teach both chem and physics instead of having bring for physics majors to hire.

[MarkT]

I think we need a general science degree that is designed specifically for aspiring high school science teachers. We can have an educational science degree that graduates a teacher qualified to teach both chem and physics instead of having bring for physics majors to hire.

I agree they don't have to be Physics majors.  If they understand "University Physics" (typically a 3 course sequence) then they have enough knowledge for HS Physics.

Edited September 5, 2016 by MarkT

[Roadrunner]

I agree they don't have to be Physics majors. If they understand "University Physics" (typically a 3 course sequence) then they have enough knowledge for HS Physics.

So we could have a degree with 2 years of physics, 2 years of chem, and 2 years of biology, plus math through linear algebra. You get out with teacher credential and qualified to teach a lot of classes.

[regentrude]

I agree they don't have to be Physics majors.  If they understand "University Physics" (typically a 3 course sequence) then they have enough knowledge for HS Physics.

 

Actually, I disagree here.

A good teacher needs to have subject knowledge beyond the level he is teaching.

I would not want a math teacher teach algebra 1 whose math education ended after algebra 1. Knowledge beyond that what is required of students is necessary to put concepts into perspective and to spot and correct misconceptions.

A teacher who just completed introductory calc based physics should not be teaching AP physics because he is lacking broader perspective.

 

Would any parent be content having their kid take instrument lessons from a teacher whose mastery is just at about the same level as the student hopes to achieve at the end of the year?

Edited September 5, 2016 by regentrude

[regentrude]

I think one issue is that teacher are hired as full time teachers. My high school had two classes of physics. Each class had around 12-16 students. That was only two periods for the teacher. Assimg one planning period that left three other bell periods. I'm not sure what else he taught. Maybe a 9th grade physical science?

 

I think a lot of schools would not have run sections with only 12-16 students.

 

 

Any physicist would have plenty of subject expertise to teach high school math, because the degree requires at least four semesters of math beyond what is taught even at calc BC level. So, I don't see a problem. Hire one physicist to teach physics and mathematics.

Edited September 5, 2016 by regentrude

[MarkT]

Actually, I disagree here.

A good teacher needs to have subject knowledge beyond the level he is teaching.

I would not want a math teacher teach algebra 1 whose math education ended after algebra 1. Knowledge beyond that what is required of students is necessary to put concepts into perspective and to spot and correct misconceptions.

A teacher who just completed introductory calc based physics should not be teaching AP physics because he is lacking broader perspective.

So a recently retired Engineer who only took "University Physics" is not capable of teaching AP Physics C??  (assuming that Engineer recently "re-learned" all the Physics material)

 

I doubt most current AP Physics C instructors have Physics degrees.

[regentrude]

So a recently retired Engineer who only took "University Physics" is not capable of teaching AP Physics C??  (assuming that Engineer recently "re-learned" all the Physics material)

 

The fact that the person took the equivalent of AP Physics C fourty years ago and reviewed the material does not mean he has physics expertise to teach it effectively. That would depend on what he worked on during his career - whether he actively used physics, or managed projects and not think about physics at all. 

It might be better than the current situation, but would not be my ideal. 

 

I doubt most current AP Physics C instructors have Physics degrees.

 

Since in this country, you can become a teacher without knowing the subject you teach, you are probably correct.

Edited September 5, 2016 by regentrude

[Haiku]

Since in this country, you can become a teacher without knowing the subject you teach, you are probably correct.

 

This is part of why I don't think pushing college classes into high school is a great idea ... along with many other reasons I have explained with varying degrees of success/clarity of thought in this thread (and some I haven't).

[happybeachbum]

But that is only because we do not require high school teachers to be qualified to teach their subjects.

If we required math teachers to have math degrees and paid them accordingly, this would not be a problem.

 

It is ridiculous that we let people teach high school who do not possess subject expertise. And that is not just a problem in math; it is equally a problem when the German teacher is asked to teach Spanish and is one lesson ahead of the student in the book.

https://www.noodle.com/articles/can-students-pursue-stem-careers-when-math-majors-dont-teach234

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/06/08/many-stem-teachers-dont-hold-certifications

[happybeachbum]

"The rest of the world" really doesn't. There are, actually, countries where "college prep" education is far less broad and deep than what we expect kids to master in American schools to be considered college prep. In the public schools in my kids' native country, "college prep" means that after you learn to read and write, you study math and science. Exclusively. That's it. Because such a tiny, tiny percentage of the population could even dream of going to college, they pick the most promising students and teach them nothing but math and science for ten years.

 

American students might be more prepared for college-level math and science if that's how we educated our students. But we don't.

 

In some countries, only a small percentage of the students even go to school at all, and the ones who aren't extremely bright are forced out after achieving basic literacy. So the "college prep" population looks nothing like the general population.

 

I, too, lived in a country that had better public education than the United States. But that does not mean that all the students were acing calculus and and taking advanced physics classes. There were alternatives for students who couldn't or didn't want to take these classes. Just like here in the States, students who didn't excel in these classes or even take them at all were still able to go to college and succeed. My former boyfriend was a math and science disaster. He completed the equivalent of Algebra II after failing both algebra and algebra II once each. He still went university, where he got degrees in linguistics and philosophy. He currently works for the Royal Luxembourg Archives (I did not live in Luxembourg; he moved there about a decade ago). He is fluent in 8 languages but he never took (or had to take) calculus or physics.

 

The main difference I noticed in educational philosophy and implementation when I lived overseas is that people who went through vocational education weren't looked down on. There was funding for vocational and technical education and it was seen simply as a different track for kids with different interests, not as the dumb track for the dumb kids.

The book Christy really opened my eyes about U.S education in the past. Especially pertaining to one room schools etc.

[regentrude]

https://www.noodle.com/articles/can-students-pursue-stem-careers-when-math-majors-dont-teach234

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/06/08/many-stem-teachers-dont-hold-certifications

 

thanks for the links.

 

This is horrifying and explains a  lot of the current disastrous situation.

 

 

 

Luce says the problem is most prevalent in middle school, where more than two thirds of math teachers aren't qualified to teach the subject, a 2007 report by the National Academies shows. Only 1 in 10 middle school physical science teachers have a degree or certification in the subject, according to the same report.

[Arcadia]

So a recently retired Engineer who only took "University Physics" is not capable of teaching AP Physics C?? (assuming that Engineer recently "re-learned" all the Physics material)

Putting aside classroom management issues, teaching requires the ability to do a knowledge transfer.

 

I could probably do the AP Physics C Mechanics and the AP Calc exams decently well but I won't be able to teach a class of students, one to one with my kids is bloodletting enough. My husband finds it just as hard to teach our kids despite domain knowledge.

 

My 11th/12th physics teacher was an electrical engineer who made a career switch. He is extremely patient and does free after school tutoring at the school's study hall until 6 pm daily during school term. Exam time, they take turns to stay in school until 11pm. My 11th/12th grade teachers all have a love for teaching, not so for 7th-10th grade.

[Haiku]

This is horrifying and explains a  lot of the current disastrous situation.

 

Homeschoolers, on the other hand, tend to do very well even when their parents don't have specialty degrees in all the subjects they are teaching their students.

[maize]

I've heard that some states pay k-12 teachers a decent salary, but my state is not one of them. There are multiple teachers in my family, and the pay is abysmal. Someone who likes math and physics and wants to major in a STEM subject would not be well served to become a teacher. I believe if we gave teachers of these subjects pay comparable to what they could achieve in other industries with a similar education background we would largely solve the problem of teacher supply for these subjects. I don't think there is a shortage of people who would like to teach, but providing for themselves and their families is going to come first.

[MarkT]

The fact that the person took the equivalent of AP Physics C fourty years ago and reviewed the material does not mean he has physics expertise to teach it effectively. That would depend on what he worked on during his career - whether he actively used physics, or managed projects and not think about physics at all. 

It might be better than the current situation, but would not be my ideal. 

 

 

Since in this country, you can become a teacher without knowing the subject you teach, you are probably correct.

ok - we can let them teach the basic HS Physics class and maybe AP Physics 1 & 2 (which would satisfy the needs of most high schools)

[happybeachbum]

So a recently retired Engineer who only took "University Physics" is not capable of teaching AP Physics C?? (assuming that Engineer recently "re-learned" all the Physics material)

 

I doubt most current AP Physics C instructors have Physics degrees.

It's been shown that someone who is a few steps ahead of a student can be teach it better (well somewhat) than someone who's 50 steps or.more ahead. They tend to forget the steps they had to go through in order to learn a subject because they've done it so long. Some who just learned a subject understands and remembers the steps, process they had to go through to learn the subject. They tend to be better at explaining it, because they aren't that far way from where students are. In other words they still remember what they went through and can relate to the students. They tend to focus on the concrete more than the abstract which is great but has its own set of problems. That's when someone who understands how to put more of the abstract in can be an aset. Or the teacher remembering to put the abstract in as well. Edited September 9, 2016 by happybeachbum

[MarkT]

Putting aside classroom management issues, teaching requires the ability to do a knowledge transfer.

 

I could probably do the AP Physics C Mechanics and the AP Calc exams decently well but I won't be able to teach a class of students, one to one with my kids is bloodletting enough. My husband finds it just as hard to teach our kids despite domain knowledge.

 

My 11th/12th physics teacher was an electrical engineer who made a career switch. He is extremely patient and does free after school tutoring at the school's study hall until 6 pm daily during school term. Exam time, they take turns to stay in school until 11pm. My 11th/12th grade teachers all have a love for teaching, not so for 7th-10th grade.

teaching or coaching your own children in general is harder than teaching/coaching other children 

[maize]

Homeschoolers, on the other hand, tend to do very well even when their parents don't have specialty degrees in all the subjects they are teaching their students.

 

Homeschoolers do well when they have parents who provide support and resources and, as necessary, outside instruction. There are plenty of homeschoolers out there whose kids are not achieving at the level even of the average public school.

 

My kids are around the kitchen table right now studying Chinese--with a tutor. I wouldn't imagine they would achieve comparable results with me teaching a language I don't speak!

Edited September 5, 2016 by maize

[Haiku]

My kids are around the kitchen table right now studying Chinese--with a tutor. I wouldn't imagine they would achieve comparable results with me teaching a language I don't speak!

 

Is the tutor a certified Chinese teacher?

 

Part of why homeschoolers often do better is because they have a flexibility that the schools-as-institutions don't. Just another reason to restructure the schools.

 

There have been many studies that show that homeschoolers tend to achieve at higher levels than schooled students.

[regentrude]

Homeschoolers, on the other hand, tend to do very well even when their parents don't have specialty degrees in all the subjects they are teaching their students.

 

Some.

There are also plenty of homeschooled students who do not possess good math and science skills and who are not proficient in foreign languages.

Few homeschooling parents homeschool all subjects through high school without any outsourcing. For the IRL homeschoolers I know, we are the only family who teaches math at home. Everybody else resorts to correspondence schools, comunity college, or just does not teach higher math.

[regentrude]

Is the tutor a certified Chinese teacher?

 

I think subject expertise trumps a teacher certification any time.

 

I'd much rather have my kids tutored by a native speaker who is proficient in the language than by a teacher who has taken the minimum courses to become certified.

[Haiku]

Some.

There are also plenty of homeschooled students who do not possess good math and science skills and who are not proficient in foreign languages.

Few homeschooling parents homeschool all subjects through high school without any outsourcing. For the IRL homeschoolers I know, we are the only family who teaches math at home. Everybody else resorts to correspondence schools, comunity college, or just does not teach higher math.

 

There will be students in every population who don't achieve at high levels. But studies over the years have shown that homeschooled students tend to schieve at higher levels than schooled students, regardless of the educational background of their parents.

 

Homeschoolers are individuals and will reflect individual interests and capabilities. But they tend to have higher achievements levels than their schooled peers.

[Haiku]

I think subject expertise trumps a teacher certification any time.

 

I'd much rather have my kids tutored by a native speaker who is proficient in the language than by a teacher who has taken the minimum courses to become certified.

 

I think, regentrude, that you don't really get it when I'm being funny or facetious.

[maize]

Is the tutor a certified Chinese teacher?

 

Part of why homeschoolers often do better is because they have a flexibility that the schools-as-institutions don't. Just another reason to restructure the schools.

 

There have been many studies that show that homeschoolers tend to achieve at higher levels than schooled students.

 

She is a native speaker with many years tutoring experience.

 

I did some research in our local home education community as part of a master's degree in education. In our community at least, home educated students on average lag behind public school students in mathematics achievement on standardized test scores. They outperform public school students in language arts.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think the schools should have sports at all. Or if they do, they should be for everyone, not just for a few who make the team.

 

Yes, why should there not be opportunities for all kids to just play sports if they want to?  There is some logic I think to supplying that at schools where the kids are, and I think it supports academics as well.

 

I suppose, thinking about it, that funding sports in schools is one way to have public funding for kids sports at all.  My cousin for example played basketball in high school - if he had had to pay for a league, he would have not likely played at all.

 

And some people would argue that there should be public funding for higher level/elite sports as well as fun sports.  But I think even for those who think that, there is far too much emphasis on that and not nearly enough on activity for all and general fitness - I would say the funding should be reversed, and perhaps elite sport funded through some other rout if that is what people want to do.

[RootAnn]

I only had to take two semesters of physics for my engineering degree. Dh has a different engineering degree and had to take three semesters and several further classes that make his grasp of some physics topics far superior to mine. We took the same amount of math.

 

So, I would say that, as a 'retired' engineer, I am not qualified to teach calc-based physics. But some certainly might be.

 

Y'all would be great on some committee to rethink the education system in the U.S. :)

[quark]

I'm surprised that even the CA A-G requirements don't actually require physics.

 

"Two years (three years recommended) of laboratory science providing fundamental knowledge in two of these three foundational subjects: biology, chemistry and physics. The final two years of an approved three-year integrated science program that provides rigorous coverage of at least two of the three foundational subjects may be used to fulfill this requirement. A yearlong interdisciplinary science course can meet one year of this requirement."

 

Yes, they don't. :closedeyes: Depending on the university, there are breadth requirements. Berkeley for example, requires a physical science that fulfills their seven general education/ breadth requirements before graduating from Berkeley. When I pulled up DE equivalencies through assist.org, a student could potentially fulfill that requirements without any actual fully physics course (e.g. via geology, oceanography which would have some physics but maybe more applied/ not fully physics?). There is even an engineering programming course that would fulfill this requirement.

 

[happybeachbum]

Some.

There are also plenty of homeschooled students who do not possess good math and science skills and who are not proficient in foreign languages.

Few homeschooling parents homeschool all subjects through high school without any outsourcing. For the IRL homeschoolers I know, we are the only family who teaches math at home. Everybody else resorts to correspondence schools, comunity college, or just does not teach higher math.

It could also be that people tend to focus on the subjects they struggled with as children. If it was reading that might the focus. Math that might be a focus etc. The things that came more naturally could be assumed to be the same for their child. Then there are those who focus on things that came naturally to them or were easier and a assume the same for their child. I have seen plenty a discussion on TWTM forums as well as others shocked that their child is having a hard time in math and now hates it. The same with reading. There are just too many factors to consider. Lack of interest etc. You should really read Fluent In 3 Months by Benny Lewis when it comes to languages. Edited September 9, 2016 by happybeachbum

[Bluegoat]

I'm maybe a little confused about the American system, but why would a 14 year old ready for university level classes need to get them in high school?  Here, they would go to a university, if they wanted to carry on, and if the student was really that gifted would likely be fully funded.

[happybeachbum]

I only had to take two semesters of physics for my engineering degree. Dh has a different engineering degree and had to take three semesters and several further classes that make his grasp of some physics topics far superior to mine. We took the same amount of math.

 

So, I would say that, as a 'retired' engineer, I am not qualified to teach calc-based physics. But some certainly might be.

 

Y'all would be great on some committee to rethink the education system in the U.S. :)

You might want to read Therese Huston ' s Teaching What You Don't Know. You'd be surprised at how many college professors teach outside of their expertise. It's not just T'S nor non tenured.

[happybeachbum]

I'm maybe a little confused about the American system, but why would a 14 year old ready for university level classes need to get them in high school? Here, they would go to a university, if they wanted to carry on, and if the student was really that gifted would likely be fully funded.

Sadly not here. There are exceptions. And then some schools won't even take the AP credit.

[MarkT]

I'm maybe a little confused about the American system, but why would a 14 year old ready for university level classes need to get them in high school?  Here, they would go to a university, if they wanted to carry on, and if the student was really that gifted would likely be fully funded.

For the most part I don't think we are really discussing the truly-gifted in this topic - I think we are discussing opportunities for the top 20% of high school students.

[regentrude]

I'm maybe a little confused about the American system, but why would a 14 year old ready for university level classes need to get them in high school?  Here, they would go to a university, if they wanted to carry on, and if the student was really that gifted would likely be fully funded.

 

The student would have to show a transcript that demonstrates he has taken four years of high school level courses. For a student coming from a public school that does not allow differentiation, this would be impossible.

 

Also, while a 14 y/o may be academically capable of taking university classes, he may not be ready to live far a way from home in a dorm with adults. In fact, most universities would not accept this responsibility for such a young minor.

While I was OK with my DD taking uni courses at age 13/14 while living at home, I would not have considered graduating her and sending her to live in another state at a residential college. 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by regentrude

[quark]

I'm maybe a little confused about the American system, but why would a 14 year old ready for university level classes need to get them in high school?  Here, they would go to a university, if they wanted to carry on, and if the student was really that gifted would likely be fully funded.

 

Possibly because there are 14yo ready for university level classes (academically) but not ready to take them at a university (socially/ emotionally).

 

Giftedness is not just about academics, something many, many people, not just school admin, don't understand.

 

It would be a dream if it was fully funded! Oh my, where is this place you are referring to? :drool5:

 

ETA: sorry for repetition, I didn't see ^^. Posting at the same time.

Edited September 5, 2016 by quark

[Arcadia]

It would be a dream if it was fully funded! Oh my, where is this place you are referring to? :drool5:

Bluegoat is from Canada.

 

My husband's university education was fully funded as well as an academic scholarship stipend for his BEng and PhD (skipped MEng), and you know where we are from :)

Edited September 5, 2016 by Arcadia

[SparklyUnicorn]

But that is only because we do not require high school teachers to be qualified to teach their subjects.

If we required math teachers to have math degrees and paid them accordingly, this would not be a problem.

 

It is ridiculous that we let people teach high school who do not possess subject expertise. And that is not just a problem in math; it is equally a problem when the German teacher is asked to teach Spanish and is one lesson ahead of the student in the book. 

 

I wonder if part of it is not wanting to (or being able to) pay them what they are worth.  If I were a subject matter expert in pretty much anything I'd make a lot more money working somewhere other than a public school.  And that might be in part also a necessity to pay back student debts. 

[ScoutTN]

But that is only because we do not require high school teachers to be qualified to teach their subjects.

If we required math teachers to have math degrees and paid them accordingly, this would not be a problem.

 

It is ridiculous that we let people teach high school who do not possess subject expertise. And that is not just a problem in math; it is equally a problem when the German teacher is asked to teach Spanish and is one lesson ahead of the student in the book.

Yes and this is one reason why private schools so

often have better teaching. Most require teachers to have a degree or two in their subject. Every single teacher I had in private high school had a masters in his or her subject and several had a Ph D.

[madteaparty]

Yes and this is one reason why private schools so

often have better teaching. Most require teachers to have a degree or two in their subject. Every single teacher I had in private high school had a masters in his or her subject and several had a Ph D.

I don't know, my friend taught science at a selective NYC private middle school and she had a Masters, but nothing related to science (think a liberal arts degree). Some private schools are excellent, not all. And there's no correlation of quality to the prices they charge. Much like colleges, come to think of it.

[ScoutTN]

I don't know, my friend taught science at a selective NYC private middle school and she had a Masters, but nothing related to science (think a liberal arts degree). Some private schools are excellent, not all. And there's no correlation of quality to the prices they charge. Much like colleges, come to think of it.

I did say often, not always. ;) I agree about the prices. My NE boarding school tuition was far higher than what my selective state Univ. charged. I went on a free ride. While advanced degrees in their subjects did not make all my high school teachers amazing pedagogically, they did know and seem to enjoy their material.

 

To reiterate Regentrude's earlier point, at least a BA or BS in the subject taught should be mandatory for teachers. Education degrees are largely worthless. Training is excellent, but education degrees are rarely that (except for student teaching, which is hit or miss.)

Edited September 6, 2016 by ScoutTN

[Bluegoat]

Sadly not here. There are exceptions. And then some schools won't even take the AP credit.

 

 

For the most part I don't think we are really discussing the truly-gifted in this topic - I think we are discussing opportunities for the top 20% of high school students.

 

 

The student would have to show a transcript that demonstrates he has taken four years of high school level courses. For a student coming from a public school that does not allow differentiation, this would be impossible.

 

Also, while a 14 y/o may be academically capable of taking university classes, he may not be ready to live far a way from home in a dorm with adults. In fact, most universities would not accept this responsibility for such a young minor.

While I was OK with my DD taking uni courses at age 13/14 while living at home, I would not have considered graduating her and sending her to live in another state at a residential college. 

 

 

 

 

Possibly because there are 14yo ready for university level classes (academically) but not ready to take them at a university (socially/ emotionally).

 

Giftedness is not just about academics, something many, many people, not just school admin, don't understand.

 

It would be a dream if it was fully funded! Oh my, where is this place you are referring to? :drool5:

 

ETA: sorry for repetition, I didn't see ^^. Posting at the same time.

 

 

Bluegoat is from Canada.

 

My husband's university education was fully funded as well as an academic scholarship stipend for his BEng and PhD (skipped MEng), and you know where we are from :)

 

My impression was that this student was not needing the regular high school level courses because he or she had already done the work, one way or another.  To my mind, that is clearly a student who is gifted, one that most universities would want to be able to enroll.  Are American universities really so rigid that they would not be interested in such a student if he could not show that he'd completed the right number of credits?

 

I am in Canada, but university does cost money here, even if not at US levels - but if you are done with high school level work and are capable of university credits at 14, you would be very likely to get a scholarship.  I was rather under the impression that someone so gifted would also be likely to have significant scholarship in the US.

 

The problem of attending is a real one, but distance education seems like as good an option as "university" classes taught in a high school.  Or non-credit study options with some kind of mentor - I just don't see a student like that as someone who is going to fit into the regular boxes for education, no matter what is done.  Is it really the job of the school to just keep the student busy for so many years, rather than to deliver a high school education?

 

For the top 20% who are otherwise typical - I would think that if the school is teaching at an appropriate level, there is no need for so called university classes in high school.  Especially if they are reasonable about allowing the really capable ones to potentially graduate a year early which doesn't have the same issues as a young teen going off.  If the school isn't teaching at an appropriate level, ow will they teach university classes?

[Dmmetler]

On the 14 yr old in college thing, out of four local colleges and one CC here, only one allows students to apply for DE before 11th grade, and many have a minimum age of 16 as well. So, a 14 yr old who is classified as a Freshman wouldn't have the option, and most public schools are reluctant to allow grade skips.

[regentrude]

For the top 20% who are otherwise typical - I would think that if the school is teaching at an appropriate level, there is no need for so called university classes in high school.  Especially if they are reasonable about allowing the really capable ones to potentially graduate a year early which doesn't have the same issues as a young teen going off.  If the school isn't teaching at an appropriate level, ow will they teach university classes?

 

But for the top 20%, calculus and calculus based physics would be appropriate high school courses. They are not "university classes"; they have been taught at high schools for decades and are taught in other countries to all college bound students. They are only considered "university level" here because the general level of high school education is so pathetic.

 

Graduating early is not a reasonable option for the top 20% of students. Academic ability and maturity do not always go in sync. I do not believe that all those students are ready to enter a residential college - with 40% of the cohort going to college, that would be half of all college bound students. It dos not make sense to graduate 50% of the college bound cohort a year early because schools are so crappy.

 

And again: depriving students of the 12th year of high school education and making parents pay for an expensive college education just because school cannot provide an appropriate 12th grade is cementing inequality.

Edited September 6, 2016 by regentrude