9 ms·

I have the unpopular idea that Math, and in a broad sense, STEM, is mandatory for EVERYONE, especially teachers, regardless what they teach. Can a teacher teach

I have the unpopular idea that Math, and in a broad sense, STEM, is mandatory for EVERYONE, especially teachers, regardless what they teach. Can a teacher teach well if his language skill is poor? Probably not, same for STEM. Of course how much mandatory Math needed and IF a previous test has been passed is good enough is up to debate.

zozbot234 5y ago
> regardless what they teach. Huh? Why should we care about the math skills of someone who only teaches English or French? Proficiency assessments should absolutely be subject-specific.
- whitexn--g28h 5y ago
  A teacher should be able to understand the grade distribution on tests and throughout the year to identify if their assessments are too easy or too difficult, and if they may be racially biased. The argument that the tests unfairly bias certain groups is only known because the people administering the test understand math.
  - watwut 5y ago
    You don't need to know anything about geometry for that. And even teachers who know math won't use statistical methods too if their test for 22 students ended up badly this year.
    - whitexn--g28h 5y ago
      It’s just interesting that we are using statistical methods to argue that teachers don’t need to understand basic math. Ontario doesn’t have dedicated math teachers until high school, many of these teachers will need to teach math in grades 3-8.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        > Ontario doesn’t have dedicated math teachers until high school Then that should be fixed, at least wrt. junior high. There's no reason to expect an English or French teacher to be proficient in Math, or vise versa.
      - watwut 5y ago
        I am not using statistic methods? But I also think that there should be specialized teachers for math long before high school. Teaching math (or whatever) is not just about knowing it, it is also about know how to teach it at this or that age. And I don't think general purpose teacher can be good in knowing how to teach all subjects. I am perfectly fine with teachers who cant pass this test teaching subjects that are not math or physics (or chemistry I guess). I am absolutely not fine with math teacher who passed this test and that is extend of it. Specifically, math teacher should know a lot more.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Okay, but surely that could be tested as part of basic teaching competency, not math per se. You might as well say people need to know math to be able to look at the clock and figure out how to be at work on time, or to figure out if they’re driving above or below the speed limit.
  - skeeter2020 5y ago
    >> and if they may be racially biased How would moderate math skills possibly help with that? You think every public school teacher should be run statistical sampling on a continual basis AND dynamically addressing them?
- opan 5y ago
  When I was a student I had to be decent in every subject. Why would teachers have less strict requirements? Surely they were once students. I want math and science teachers using proper spelling and grammar even if that's not the subject they teach.
- detaro 5y ago
  As the document clearly lays out, any teacher can be required to teach math, only for higher levels it is behind additional certifications. And many classes have overlaps, e.g. at least around here language classes are also where a good chunk of media literacy happens, for which a basic understanding of math is sort-of needed.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Then they should get rid of that requirement, since it's unfairly disadvantaging racialized teachers. But if you're going to teach math you should absolutely be competent in the actual subject you're teaching.
mk81 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sabellito 5y ago
Poor language skills would mean that a person would perform poorly at explaining all subjects. I don't understand the connection you made to STEM.
- Nbox9 5y ago
  Root comment states that language skills are required for teaching all subjects, and math is also fundamental to all subjects. Root comment is of the “unpopular opinion” (their words, I consider this phrase to be an emotional appeal when used in this context) that some basic skills are required of everyone in the teaching profession, regardless of the age or subject they teach, and that those basic skills include mathematics.
  - sabellito 5y ago
    Thank you, I got that. Perhaps I should've explicitly added to my comment that my lack of understanding is about how school maths would help with, say, literature or arts teaching.
kerneloftruth 5y ago
I agree, and find it odd that such a view is unpopular. STEM is as foundational in the modern world as language is. And, yes, especially for teachers. I went to University at a time when everyone was required, regardless of major, to take language and science classes.
- ldiracdelta 5y ago
  It is possible that some people don't have the ability to do math well in the same way that I don't have the ability, try as I may, to draw well. Should society have a place both kinds of people? Those who can't draw and those who can't do math?
  - whitexn--g28h 5y ago
    I don’t think I could make a living selling sketches in the park, but the ability to “draw a picture” is actually a basic problem solving step in a lot of these math problems.
  - vmttmv 5y ago
    The question is, should they be teachers given their inabilities? Should the blind be tour guides? Both are possible, but better solutions exist.
  - t0suj4 5y ago
    That is the point of schools! To teach people skills they don't have. Whether they're successful doing it is different discussion.
  - kerneloftruth 5y ago
    Drawing is not as essential, though, nor are musical talents or athletic abilities. The prerequisites for teaching should not include those, unless the person is to teach one of those fields. Language and STEM are foundational to learning and achieving in most every discipline.
beaconstudios 5y ago
Why should people study STEM specifically? Maths is generally useful in life so basic algebra, trig and such makes sense. But I've never really understood why science should be mandatory in schools, beyond teaching kids about how the scientific method works and thus imparting some pro-empricism philosophical ideas. If I had to choose skills that kids were forced to learn, I'd prioritise those that would stand to benefit them the greatest - so probably some form of home economics, sales & negotiating, psychology, and such. As far as universally useful skills go, most of STEM is near the bottom of the list. [edit] to clarify my point: - A subset of STEM (maths primarily) is pragmatically useful to basically everybody and should have greater emphasis in education - most of STEM is not pragmatically useful to most people - these non-everyday-pragmatic fields should be taught, and belong within general education, but are not special in contrast to other school topics - because the criteria of "especially good" in a school context are those with actual practical use in the student's life.
- penjelly 5y ago
  physics for example, teaches people how the world actually works... thermodynamics, electricity, light, all useful information for determining fact from fiction when they turn into adults. I wasnt even good in these subjects and im still glad i was taught the ideas and can explore them more readily as an adult...
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    I'm not denying that the natural sciences are /interesting/ - but are they especially useful? If they're there to form part of a liberal arts education, to give young adults a broad experience in different fields alongside literature, art etc then great - I'm all for liberal arts education. But the parent set STEM aside as being especially and specifically important - which I disagree with. The only things that are especially and specifically important are those that will be useful in your life.
    - dspillett 5y ago
      > I'm not denying that the natural sciences are /interesting/ - but are they especially useful? The last couple of years certainly highlight the problems caused when people aren't given, or don't pay any attention to, a certain level of education in biology... The general understanding of scientific methods of enquiry/study/critique is also essential for modern life IMO, and sadly lacking in many very vocal and otherwise high profile people.
tomohawk 5y ago
This is a STEM centric site, and most people here are in that bubble. If you are in a STEM career, would you have been able to do it if you were mandated to take and pass (for example) a nursing course? You might ask what nursing has to do with STEM, and you'd be right that there is not much of an intersection, but nurses have to pass math classes that are well beyond anything they will ever encounter in a nursing career, and the math requirement is one of the main courses that prevents people from pursuing a career in nursing in our area. Likewise, for teaching, I don't think you can talk about 'teachers' in general. I know the union does, but it really does not make sense. Most teaching positions require very little math. It's too bad that anyone with a teaching degree can teach any math class in high school, whether they know the math or not. I have the experience of being taught by such a teacher. I survived, but you have to wonder why there are no safeguards against such a travesty. Now we know - it's unconstitutional!
neom 5y ago
Your world would be near impossible for people with sever dyscalculia. I can hardly look at numbers, they almost make me nauseous, and I'm certainly not alone. I won 3 emmy awards though and help build a now publicly traded company. Sure, I can't do math, but boy one day I'd love to teach kids! Also, my wife has a PhD in American History and she teaches it, she's Korean and her English isn't great, but people love her classes.
gopher_space 5y ago
It's fun watching the internet continually rediscover the concept of a liberal arts education.
62951413 5y ago
You are asking for a Soviet-style curriculum and we can learn from their experience. The lesson here is not quite clear-cut unfortunately. Making something mandatory for everyone at the same level doesn't make it feasible. The Soviets themselves were very clear about it and had an impressive system in place to look for what in America is called gifted children. To begin with, can you actually employ all those future engineers and scientists? China can. America arguably not so much unless some major 30-year old trends are dramatically reversed. Are your engineers and scientists respected and well paid professionals? What are the projections for the next 30 years? Again, outside of CS probably so-so. In any case, there can be only so many high-IQ jobs. And so many scientifically-minded children with high enough IQ. So a reasonable educational system would find them and promote to higher-quality schools for sure. At least in a world where your people want to be competitive with, say, the Chinese. But there are the other 80% of population and they won't be able to cope with a stringent STEM program. So they would need an alternative curriculum, probably similar to how they orient such people towards trade schools in Germany. Math is universally useful both to grow your mental capabilities and professionally. Sciences are less so unless you are planning on an engineering career. And even then people who are into chemistry are frequently not the same who are into physics who are different from those interested in molecular biology. Which again breaks this nice uniform idea of mandatory STEM! for everyone! Where I agree with you is that the less STEM there's in schools the more political indoctrination there will be instead disguised as "liberal arts and humanities". So forcing children to stretch their minds in math classes while they are young is the least damaging thing that can happen to you in school.

zozbot234 5y ago

> regardless what they teach. Huh? Why should we care about the math skills of someone who only teaches English or French? Proficiency assessments should absolutely be subject-specific.

whitexn--g28h 5y ago
A teacher should be able to understand the grade distribution on tests and throughout the year to identify if their assessments are too easy or too difficult, and if they may be racially biased. The argument that the tests unfairly bias certain groups is only known because the people administering the test understand math.
- watwut 5y ago
  You don't need to know anything about geometry for that. And even teachers who know math won't use statistical methods too if their test for 22 students ended up badly this year.
  - whitexn--g28h 5y ago
    It’s just interesting that we are using statistical methods to argue that teachers don’t need to understand basic math. Ontario doesn’t have dedicated math teachers until high school, many of these teachers will need to teach math in grades 3-8.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      > Ontario doesn’t have dedicated math teachers until high school Then that should be fixed, at least wrt. junior high. There's no reason to expect an English or French teacher to be proficient in Math, or vise versa.
    - watwut 5y ago
      I am not using statistic methods? But I also think that there should be specialized teachers for math long before high school. Teaching math (or whatever) is not just about knowing it, it is also about know how to teach it at this or that age. And I don't think general purpose teacher can be good in knowing how to teach all subjects. I am perfectly fine with teachers who cant pass this test teaching subjects that are not math or physics (or chemistry I guess). I am absolutely not fine with math teacher who passed this test and that is extend of it. Specifically, math teacher should know a lot more.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Okay, but surely that could be tested as part of basic teaching competency, not math per se. You might as well say people need to know math to be able to look at the clock and figure out how to be at work on time, or to figure out if they’re driving above or below the speed limit.
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  >> and if they may be racially biased How would moderate math skills possibly help with that? You think every public school teacher should be run statistical sampling on a continual basis AND dynamically addressing them?
opan 5y ago
When I was a student I had to be decent in every subject. Why would teachers have less strict requirements? Surely they were once students. I want math and science teachers using proper spelling and grammar even if that's not the subject they teach.
detaro 5y ago
As the document clearly lays out, any teacher can be required to teach math, only for higher levels it is behind additional certifications. And many classes have overlaps, e.g. at least around here language classes are also where a good chunk of media literacy happens, for which a basic understanding of math is sort-of needed.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Then they should get rid of that requirement, since it's unfairly disadvantaging racialized teachers. But if you're going to teach math you should absolutely be competent in the actual subject you're teaching.

mk81 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sabellito 5y ago

Poor language skills would mean that a person would perform poorly at explaining all subjects. I don't understand the connection you made to STEM.

Nbox9 5y ago
Root comment states that language skills are required for teaching all subjects, and math is also fundamental to all subjects. Root comment is of the “unpopular opinion” (their words, I consider this phrase to be an emotional appeal when used in this context) that some basic skills are required of everyone in the teaching profession, regardless of the age or subject they teach, and that those basic skills include mathematics.
- sabellito 5y ago
  Thank you, I got that. Perhaps I should've explicitly added to my comment that my lack of understanding is about how school maths would help with, say, literature or arts teaching.

kerneloftruth 5y ago

I agree, and find it odd that such a view is unpopular. STEM is as foundational in the modern world as language is. And, yes, especially for teachers. I went to University at a time when everyone was required, regardless of major, to take language and science classes.

ldiracdelta 5y ago
It is possible that some people don't have the ability to do math well in the same way that I don't have the ability, try as I may, to draw well. Should society have a place both kinds of people? Those who can't draw and those who can't do math?
- whitexn--g28h 5y ago
  I don’t think I could make a living selling sketches in the park, but the ability to “draw a picture” is actually a basic problem solving step in a lot of these math problems.
- vmttmv 5y ago
  The question is, should they be teachers given their inabilities? Should the blind be tour guides? Both are possible, but better solutions exist.
- t0suj4 5y ago
  That is the point of schools! To teach people skills they don't have. Whether they're successful doing it is different discussion.
- kerneloftruth 5y ago
  Drawing is not as essential, though, nor are musical talents or athletic abilities. The prerequisites for teaching should not include those, unless the person is to teach one of those fields. Language and STEM are foundational to learning and achieving in most every discipline.

beaconstudios 5y ago

Why should people study STEM specifically? Maths is generally useful in life so basic algebra, trig and such makes sense. But I've never really understood why science should be mandatory in schools, beyond teaching kids about how the scientific method works and thus imparting some pro-empricism philosophical ideas. If I had to choose skills that kids were forced to learn, I'd prioritise those that would stand to benefit them the greatest - so probably some form of home economics, sales & negotiating, psychology, and such. As far as universally useful skills go, most of STEM is near the bottom of the list. [edit] to clarify my point: - A subset of STEM (maths primarily) is pragmatically useful to basically everybody and should have greater emphasis in education - most of STEM is not pragmatically useful to most people - these non-everyday-pragmatic fields should be taught, and belong within general education, but are not special in contrast to other school topics - because the criteria of "especially good" in a school context are those with actual practical use in the student's life.

penjelly 5y ago
physics for example, teaches people how the world actually works... thermodynamics, electricity, light, all useful information for determining fact from fiction when they turn into adults. I wasnt even good in these subjects and im still glad i was taught the ideas and can explore them more readily as an adult...
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  I'm not denying that the natural sciences are /interesting/ - but are they especially useful? If they're there to form part of a liberal arts education, to give young adults a broad experience in different fields alongside literature, art etc then great - I'm all for liberal arts education. But the parent set STEM aside as being especially and specifically important - which I disagree with. The only things that are especially and specifically important are those that will be useful in your life.
  - dspillett 5y ago
    > I'm not denying that the natural sciences are /interesting/ - but are they especially useful? The last couple of years certainly highlight the problems caused when people aren't given, or don't pay any attention to, a certain level of education in biology... The general understanding of scientific methods of enquiry/study/critique is also essential for modern life IMO, and sadly lacking in many very vocal and otherwise high profile people.

tomohawk 5y ago

This is a STEM centric site, and most people here are in that bubble. If you are in a STEM career, would you have been able to do it if you were mandated to take and pass (for example) a nursing course? You might ask what nursing has to do with STEM, and you'd be right that there is not much of an intersection, but nurses have to pass math classes that are well beyond anything they will ever encounter in a nursing career, and the math requirement is one of the main courses that prevents people from pursuing a career in nursing in our area. Likewise, for teaching, I don't think you can talk about 'teachers' in general. I know the union does, but it really does not make sense. Most teaching positions require very little math. It's too bad that anyone with a teaching degree can teach any math class in high school, whether they know the math or not. I have the experience of being taught by such a teacher. I survived, but you have to wonder why there are no safeguards against such a travesty. Now we know - it's unconstitutional!

neom 5y ago

Your world would be near impossible for people with sever dyscalculia. I can hardly look at numbers, they almost make me nauseous, and I'm certainly not alone. I won 3 emmy awards though and help build a now publicly traded company. Sure, I can't do math, but boy one day I'd love to teach kids! Also, my wife has a PhD in American History and she teaches it, she's Korean and her English isn't great, but people love her classes.

gopher_space 5y ago

It's fun watching the internet continually rediscover the concept of a liberal arts education.

62951413 5y ago

You are asking for a Soviet-style curriculum and we can learn from their experience. The lesson here is not quite clear-cut unfortunately. Making something mandatory for everyone at the same level doesn't make it feasible. The Soviets themselves were very clear about it and had an impressive system in place to look for what in America is called gifted children. To begin with, can you actually employ all those future engineers and scientists? China can. America arguably not so much unless some major 30-year old trends are dramatically reversed. Are your engineers and scientists respected and well paid professionals? What are the projections for the next 30 years? Again, outside of CS probably so-so. In any case, there can be only so many high-IQ jobs. And so many scientifically-minded children with high enough IQ. So a reasonable educational system would find them and promote to higher-quality schools for sure. At least in a world where your people want to be competitive with, say, the Chinese. But there are the other 80% of population and they won't be able to cope with a stringent STEM program. So they would need an alternative curriculum, probably similar to how they orient such people towards trade schools in Germany. Math is universally useful both to grow your mental capabilities and professionally. Sciences are less so unless you are planning on an engineering career. And even then people who are into chemistry are frequently not the same who are into physics who are different from those interested in molecular biology. Which again breaks this nice uniform idea of mandatory STEM! for everyone! Where I agree with you is that the less STEM there's in schools the more political indoctrination there will be instead disguised as "liberal arts and humanities". So forcing children to stretch their minds in math classes while they are young is the least damaging thing that can happen to you in school.