I can’t help but think that most anyone with an aptitude in/for math will be hired for more money and work in a better environment than the classroom.

Also Math is one of those things where the answers do not lend themselves to connotation. It is right or wrong.

I wanted to isolate these two paragraphs:
“Math has been one of the areas where there is still a teacher shortage in the state. The poor performance of minority teaching candidates on that test, with results indicating less than a third passed, was also a concern as the state looks to recruit more minority teachers”.

Robert Higgins, acting director of the Office of Licensure and Credentials, said the passing rates in New Jersey among the minority teaching groups are similar to national trends.

Less than a third, from what I understand, is also less than 33.3%. The headlines didn’t say “a little over a half …….”

My point is, there seems to be a national fear of the truth. There seems to be a nation wide attempt to softly present the truth.

Along with Suzie Creamcheese’s comment: “I can’t help but think that most anyone with an aptitude in/for math will be hired for more money and work in a better environment than the classroom”., I have another slant. Where else, other than maybe a government job, can someone with a 58% or less mastery level of any subject work for very long?

Here’s a perspective from a 15-year teacher, who might not pass this math test. First, I’m an honors language arts teacher. The most we do with math is calculating percentages on a test, so the kids know their letter grades.

Can I speak intelligently on political, historical and current event issues that might relate to our material? Absolutely.

Why, I wonder, is our government so concerned with teachers, who might teach social studies, language arts or Chinese, being competent mathematicians?

This is by no means boasting, but I’ve been called a “master teacher” on principal evaluations, and I need a calculator to add 2 and 2.

So, if I couldn’t pass this test, should I be stripped of my certificate?

If so, would my students be better off, if they got a teacher who was brilliant in math but had no idea how to teach kids to explore literature?

I believe this test is only for those who are seeking certification in math. They’re worried because only 58% of examinees who are looking to become math teachers are passing. If the test was extended to all candidates regardless of area of certification, I imagine the pass rate would be lower. Much lower.

Interesting perspective to let a person do what they are interested in and are good doing. That same concept should be afforded to the students. I can perceive it now: each student or teacher will claim their strong suit, and only be tested in that area.

Works for me. I wanted to go to college and be a nurse, but I failed the English portion of the Comprehensive test in my state, so I never made it to college. My friend was in to cosmetology, but she failed too. Maybe it will change.

If the test is only for people seeking math certification, then the passing rates are scary. Iwould certainly expect people to score well in their own subject areas.

“Can I speak intelligently on political, historical and current event issues that might relate to our material? Absolutely.

Why, I wonder, is our government so concerned with teachers, who might teach social studies, language arts or Chinese, being competent mathematicians?”

The press release linked implies support for what Matthew said, that it was for math teachers. However, let me answer your question with a concept that we used to hold dear: A well rounded education.

I hang out (unsurprisingly) with egghead math and compsci types, but because most of them had a well rounded education, we share knowledge outside the realm of mathematics. We can intelligently discuss Shakespeare, for example, or history. Mathematics is an essential part of that well rounded education. That, my friend, is why you should be able to pass what is I’m sure an elementary math proficiency test, no matter whether you teach English lit or world history.

Well, rightwingprof, I didn’t know we’d become such good friends, so I’ll just politely disagree with your rather sarcastic reply.

As I stated earlier, I don’t know squat about math, and I can teach reading, writing, literature and life with the best of them.

At what point do you just throw in the towel and realize you’re done for? I’d like to say that this means that New Jersey will still have too few math teachers. But, most likely, it means that the standards will be reduced and the teachers will get provisional licensing to teach until they pass the easier test.

I really hate to say it, but this is an economic problem. Make teaching worthwhile (financially and socially) and you’ll be turning away qualified applicants.

Jim,

I don’t think we have to throw in the towel yet, but reforming this scenario will require some massive changes in curriculum/instruction in math education. This is no small project and is unlikely to happen. Even so, we’ve still got to try.

I agree with you about standards - I think they’ll decline to make up for these results. The bar will most certainly be lowered because that’s the quickest fix that can be tastefully obscured by re-branding new standards to be more inclusive while retaining rigor. We’ll know that it’s a sham, but few others will notice and even fewer will care.

The economic argument is sound. There’s definitely a correlation between financial rewards and the talent pool in a given sector. Any meaningful changes along these lines will *have* to be accompanied by a change in how we view teaching - talented people simply do not go into education anymore [in general, and there’s plenty of evidence to support that]. Teachers need to be seen as smart and knowledgeable rather than noble and helpful, for example. We need to start taking teaching seriously because, in truth, right now we don’t.

A quick note - I’ve added Physics is Phun to my blogroll. I’ve had the site in my RSS reader for some time now and apparently forgot to add it to the ‘roll. Apologies - that’s been fixed.

Matthew,

Thanks for the add; I’ve reciprocated.

I attended a job fair this past spring at which several hundred elementary school teachers were given screening interviews for maybe ten elementary positions. Meanwhile, there were only a handful of science candidates for a comparably large number of open positions.

I really hate making the economic argument. But giving districts the freedom to negotiate salary on a position-by-position basis also would allow them to give incentives to math and science teachers, or just good teachers (in any discipline), by hiring them at a higher salary. The entire business world uses this model, and as we’re told constantly that “Free Market Über Alles”, there’s no reason it can’t extend to teachers.

I don’t mean to imply that some teachers are more valuable than others, but certainly there is a drastic imbalance in the number of teachers qualified to teach math or science versus the number of available positions. It’s simple supply and demand.

Despite the fact that pretty much everyone thinks math and science education is the key to maintaining America’s economic advantages, no politicians and no unions are willing to go to bat to encourage more math and science students to consider teaching by increasing pay. Until that happens and the salaries for math and science teachers are comparable to non-teaching math and science positions, there will be too few math and science teachers and students will suffer.