EDITORIAL: Don't know much about math

We need a merit based system as a foundation and then an education degree and certification.

This is not a secret. Walter Williams has been persistently, for years, pointing out the poor quality of students going into elementary education. Nothing will change until the teacher unions lose their stranglehold on teaching. The Democrats empower the NEA and the Republicans are afraid of them. So nothing will change, and our children will continue to be taught by the poorly qualified, poorly educated, unenlightened and unprepared teachers we put before them. The real question is why aren't the NEA and all teachers embarrassed by their incompetence? And why aren't the universities that are turning out these incompetent teachers ashamed of their own incompetence? And why aren't we, as a society, marching with pitchforks on the educational establishment , for what they are doing to our future.

As a teacher, I am offended. I know...big surprise, right? But even though Goulait contends that I don't fit into the "best and brightest" category, I'm no dummy! Goulait does not take into account that an elementary teacher does not have to teach things that are on on the SAT test. If one cannot solve an advanced math problem in which a high school senior is expected to be proficient, it does not follow that he or she cannot teach a third grade class multiple digit multiplication or fractions. The reason college bound seniors are not attracted to elementary education has little to do with the fact that they are required to get a degree in education instead of math or some other "more important" subject. It is the pay scale. And by the way...to be a teacher, one NEEDS a degree in elementary education. In addition, one can choose a double major...elementary education and the subject of your choice. Ever hear of that? I won't argue that many teacher preparation programs are lacking (though I would tend to argue that it is in language arts literacy and classroom management), but even the best programs out there are lacking because there is only so much one can learn in four years. As with any field, there is a lot more to know than meets the eye. An advanced degree might be the answer, but the best way to learn to teach is to have the opportunity to apply everything one has learned in college. Why is teaching any different from anything else when it comes to learning how to do it? We all learn best by doing. No one will graduate from any program a fully proficient teacher. Everyone has to practice first. Yes there is student teaching, but isn't enough practice and it really isn't authentic in my opinion (at least in my experience), because it's not one's own classroom that is set up from day one based on one's own style. In response to a previous comment, I agree that it is time for the unions to go. They did their job and are no longer called for--they all but force laziness. Oops, did I say that out loud? I'm not sure a merit based system is the answer because I don't know if the authors of such a system would take into account that we are dealing with children who come to us with a range of issues that affect their learing and performance on a day to day basis. To attach pay raises to standardized testing--a one and done test--would be a mistake for a number of reasons, not the least of which is then we will have teachers teaching to a test and our students will not learn.

Smmckeown writes: "If one cannot solve an advanced math problem in which a high school senior is expected to be proficient, it does not follow that he or she cannot teach a third grade class multiple digit multiplication or fractions." I must strongly disagree. If you can't do well on the SAT math test, which is hardly "advanced math", then you don't understand the subject well enough to explain "why" to a smart third grader.

I am a math teacher myself, at a private university in Philadelphia, and have taught the elementary-ed math course before. I agree with the editorial and wish to reply to smmckeown, in particular on the paragraph: "...an elementary teacher does not have to teach things that are on the SAT test. If one cannot solve an advanced math problem in which a high school senior is expected to be proficient, it does not follow that he or she cannot teach a third grade class multiple digit multiplication or fractions." Elementary-ed math courses take a position like smmckeown's -- that a teacher should know the material to be taught, and needs little else. But this ultimately suggests that, other than some pedagogy training, an elementary school teacher needs only an elementary school education. Obviously, this is not true. Students at any level make mistakes that require explanations deriving from the underlying reason the techniques being taught really work. They ask questions that test the context of a problem and require deeper thinking to understand. If a teacher is not prepared to isolate mistakes, he or she will be less able to repair them; if not educated about more complex math skills, the teacher will be unable to take advantage of teachable moments with complex questions. To teach the multiplication algorithm, it is good for a teacher to know how to multiply polynomials. Common student mistakes in learning this process can be better addressed if the teacher knows the underlying pattern of degreed terms and coefficients, even if these never come up explicitly. The teacher should know the laws of commutativity, associativity and distributivity -- again, even if never named in the classroom, they will help address student errors and give the teacher a way to answer probing questions from students. Reducing fractions involves concepts like divisibility, prime numbers, greatest common divisor, the Euclidean algorithm, and other concepts that are studied in a college course on number theory (though basic number theory is quite accessible to high schoolers!). It also has connections with the history of math that can make the subject come alive for students: did you know that the ancient Egyptians didn't use fractions except for those like 1/2, 1/3, and so on? Or that the way they divided involves a method different from our long division? These are just two small examples brought up above. In my opinion, elementary educators would be well served by a better preparation curriculum, at least in math where I have experience and possibly beyond if the same philosophy holds in those courses. The coursework should expect them to be able to master college-level skills in math, and grasp the context of mathematics in mathematical thinking and history, at the same level we expect of any college graduate. To expect less is to tell our elementary students that math is unimportant, and sows the seeds for later deficiency of skills.

I'm all for a common sense plan that will finally allow us to improve education. School vouchers. Anything else is throwing good money after bad. Government schools have failed our nations children and our nation for way to long.

I have read all of the comments and have thought about this...The job of the teacher was a one point one of the most respected jobs that you could hold in America. Now, if you state that you are a school teacher especially elementary school teacher in an urban area, then they are looked at as a glorified babysitter. Just in a room looking out for students who don't want to learn and have other things to do like sell crack to keep their mangled families surviving day to day. I do agree that being a teacher today is more of a challenge than maybe 50 years ago, but one that can at least be managable. It is a poor excuse to say that one can only learn so much in four years. If you are serious about having this career, the you should do everything that you can to study teaching skills, techniques and variables even when you are not sitting in a college classroom. As far as students are concerned, if teachers are waiting until the highschool level to try to cram as much knowledge into students heads before graduation, then it is too late. If you do not have a student learning good math skills from day one in kindergarten and can keep them interested through the sixth grade, something is wrong with you. People used to say it was like moulding clay, I look at it like training a puppy or kitten. Catch the mistakes early and let them know why things are so and the want to learn becomes stronger as the years go by. I believe that parents should be increasingly interested in their childrens education and not just use schools as just some place to drop your kids during the day. Stop being so damn lazy and get into your kids lives, be their friends later, be their parents now. Stop over-scheduling their activities...your child does not need a play date. Your child needs to learn how to be a child and you need to learn how to be a REAL parent. Teachers need to stop coddling parents. Don't give them false hope by telling them that their children are bright and ambitious when they are actually lazy no-accounts who don't want to learn but want to be a distraction to others. Teachers, don't be afraid to get rid of these types of students. Unfortunately, schools do reflect life...not every child is an abstract genius, you will find a whole lot of losers just like the real world. Bottom line is this: You need to know early that this is what you want to do, this is what you have a passion to do and that you are committed. You are going to get it from every angle, government regulations, the teachers unions, school principles and supervisors and especially parents. Take your Tylenol, swallow hard, say a prayer and hold on tight...but especially learn everything you can early and love what you do.