[quote=njtosd]I know this sounds like I’m 130 years old, which I am not, however . . . math as it was traditionally taught in the U.S. was sufficient to get us to the moon and to fuel the IT and biotech industries.
My mother was a science teacher – she bragged that she could get kids to like her class second best to PE. It was unfair, but years ago smart women (who would now be doctors or engineers) became math and science teachers, nurses, etc. I have encountered very few elementary teachers in recent years who love math or science (and, sadly, science in 6th grade is relegated to a 3 month “rotation” along with public speaking). If the teachers don’t love the subject, the students won’t either, regardless of all of the methods that you use to teach.
What is the answer? Pay science and math teachers more to lure science-y types to teaching. Not sure whether the unions would permit that. But when you look at the fact that California’s big industries – agriculture, high tech, biotech and pharma all are dependent on a supply of people with math and science capabilities, something has to be done.[/quote]
Agree that we should pay math and science teachers more if we’re not getting them in sufficient quantity and quality with the current pay structure.
And since some teachers can earn more for being bilingual or for having certain certifications, I think one could easily make the argument that math and science teachers could be paid more.
