E-Letter responses to:

n-focus: Jeffrey Mervis PREPARING TEACHERS: A New Twist on Training Teachers Science 2007; 316: 1270-1277 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Improvement of Science and Math Teachers

Donald E. Beck   (12 November 2007)

Postgraduate Support for Secondary School Science

Lester G. Paldy   (17 July 2007)

A Teacher's Viewpoint

John A. Conners   (17 July 2007)

Improvement of Science and Math Teachers 12 November 2007
Donald E. Beck Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Improvement of Science and Math Teachers	The News Focus, "A new twist on training teachers" (1 June 2007, p. 1270) featured university programs structured to train science teachers. They have a common element which we have known for decades was required—if we want to improve science and math teaching in the middle and secondary schools then the undergraduate education of these teachers needs to be removed from schools of education. By their structure these schools fail to attract students whose primary interest is in the academic subject itself. Further, there is a lack of appreciation in their faculties of the importance of knowing more about the subject matter beyond the course syllabus to successfully teach a subject and impart enthusiasm to the students. The quote from Deborah Loewenberg Ball, reported in Science (30 July 1999, p. 661), '"almost none' of what you learn as a math major 'has anything to do with the K-12 curriculum'" clearly illustrates this lack. I doubt that the problems of recruitment and training of knowledgeable teachers are confined to the sciences, and I believe that the whole of the K-12 curriculum would benefit from the elimination of all undergraduate degree programs in education. A qualified teacher should be a person with an undergraduate degree in an academic field and a certification of training in teacher education. The programs highlighted in this News Focus need to be strongly supported and widely advertised. They address the problems of the recruitment of students interested in science and mathematics to teaching and the training of teachers who are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about these subjects. Donald E. Beck Honolulu, HI, USA.
Postgraduate Support for Secondary School Science 17 July 2007
Lester G. Paldy Department of Technology and Society, Stony Brook University Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Postgraduate Support for Secondary School Science	Kudos to the research universities and faculty trying to improve undergraduate instruction to motivate more good students to consider careers in secondary school science and mathematics (“A new twist on training teachers,” J. Mervis, News Focus, 1 June 2007, p. 1270). These schools and scientists provide vital national leadership and model programs, but the challenge of providing enough well-qualified secondary school teachers to meet projected demands extends beyond pre-service training. Some estimates suggest that 40% of new secondary school science teachers leave the profession within 5 years of their initial appointments (1). Problems stem from inadequate salaries in some states, lack of good laboratory support, heavy teaching assignments including multiple lab preparations, isolation from the scientific community, and school administrations that do not always encourage innovation. Many science and mathematics teachers are assigned to teach subjects where they lack adequate training. Universities and scientific leaders can help by forming partnerships with legislators and school officials in efforts to understand and address these problems. Even more critically, they can maintain contact with science and mathematics teachers during those critical early career years by taking the initiative to invite teachers in the regions they serve to participate in the professional activities of university departments. High school (and junior high) class field trips to university laboratories and school visits by diverse groups of graduate students and undergraduate learning assistants can provide persuasive role models. As the universities described in the Mervis article demonstrate, what it takes is vision and energy, qualities that universities often possess in abundance. Working with policy-makers, they can often obtain the necessary resources to extend their support beyond the pre-service years of teacher training. Lester G. Paldy Department of Technology and Society, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-3760, USA. References 1. J. Rhoton, P. Bowers, Issues in Science Teaching Retention: Mentoring and Research (National Science Teachers Association, Washington, DC, 2003).
A Teacher's Viewpoint 17 July 2007
John A. Conners Tompkins-Cortland Community College, Respond to this E-Letter: Re: A Teacher's Viewpoint	Thank you for your coverage on “Preparing teachers” (1 June 2007, p. 1270). I fear I am one of those who “threw away a career” by making teaching my priority (it’s not regarded as “productive”). Congratulations to those colleges now recognizing that teaching is not a throw-away career for “washouts.” But where were they 35 years ago when some of us were trying to convince universities and their science divisions that broad-based knowledge and teaching were just as important as specialization and esoteric research? The efforts of the three universities and one state (California) the articles focus on certainly merit applause, but, in view of the immediate need for a well-educated citizenry and fast action in so many critical areas, let us hope and pray that it is not another case of too little, too late. It would be a huge step forward if science and math departments were more involved in training teachers. We have known for decades that more and better science and math teachers are needed. Hundreds of improvement programs, large and small, have come and gone, but few real improvements have been realized. In the “real world” of U.S. education today, compromised academic standards, unqualified teachers, shortsighted “certification” requirements, undisciplined students, grade inflation, and bad administrators continue to dominate much of the pre- college teaching environment, and those who attempt to address these issues are very likely to lose their jobs. At the college level, many of the same problems must be faced, along with meaningless evaluations where the “easiest and hottest” faculty often get the highest ratings and virtually no effort is made to determine what the students have actually learned. These matters must be dealt with, not just complained about and studied, if top quality personnel are to be recruited and retained and better education achieved. Another concern is whether most science and education departments will embrace this idea. Throughout my many years teaching science at several colleges, the dominant relationship between science and education departments tended to be one of strained cooperation at best and outright animosity at worst. Are most education departments willing to eliminate or improve the many poor “ed” courses and loosen their grip on future teachers? Realistically, how many of our potential education majors are sufficiently prepared for college-level science and math, and are they willing to put forth the effort that a solid science background requires? And will enough research-oriented scientists descend from their elevated roosts to lend a hand? The challenge is indeed enormous, and, as much as we resist admitting it, a large part of the problem is that, in our society today, good teaching and knowledge are not valued highly. We certainly need to encourage talented undergraduates to enter into teaching by emphasizing the great need for better teachers and a well-educated citizenry, along with the rewards that can come from teaching. But we also need to provide them with a realistic assessment of the conditions they are likely to be faced with and prepare them accordingly. John A. Conners Tompkins-Cortland Community College, South Otselic, NY, USA.