Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

School district specific but yow!
http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/local_wpri_massachusetts_aspiring_school_teachers_fail_in_math20090519

Aspiring school teachers
fail in math
Only 27 percent of the teaching
candidates pass
Updated: Tuesday, 19 May 2009, 1:47 PM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 19 May 2009, 7:41 AM EDT

Bruce Morin
MALDEN, Mass. (WPRI) - According to state education officials, nearly three-quarters of the people who took the state elementary school teacher’s licensing exam this year failed the new math section.

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education released the results Tuesday. They say that only 27 percent of the more than 600 candidates who took the test passed. The test was administered in March of this year.

The teacher’s licensing exam tested potential teachers on their knowledge of elementary school mathematics. This included geometry, statistics, and probability.

Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester was not surprised by the results. He told the Boston Globe that these results indicate many students are not receiving an adequate math education.

Tom Scott, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents , said "The high failure rate puts a shining light on a deficiency in teacher-prep programs."

Math teachers aren't smart.
[sarcasm]Like no one knew that.[/sarcasm]

I just re-read that. Think about that. Only one third of their applicants could do elementary school math.


Holy

That is a rather shocking statistic.Damn now I know who to blame for all my lifes mistakes!!!

The article is misleading. Elementary school mathematics is a misnomer, as all that's taught as "mathematics" at that level is computation - no actual math is taught (or learned). What the teachers are demonstrating is imperfect computation, not inadequate comprehension. Google "Lockhart's Lament" for details.

It should make them a lot cheaper to pay, though.

Nurglitch wrote:The article is misleading. Elementary school mathematics is a misnomer, as all that's taught as "mathematics" at that level is computation - no actual math is taught (or learned). What the teachers are demonstrating is imperfect computation, not inadequate comprehension. Google "Lockhart's Lament" for details.

um...sure.

I don't find it surprising as well, but I'm married to an art teacher. As long as she can count pieces of paper and cotton balls then she's good.

What percentage of Elementary teachers actually teach math?

i want to be a teacher and i also suck at math

Nurglitch wrote:The article is misleading. Elementary school mathematics is a misnomer, as all that's taught as "mathematics" at that level is computation - no actual math is taught (or learned). What the teachers are demonstrating is imperfect computation, not inadequate comprehension. Google "Lockhart's Lament" for details.

But they're teaching computation. How can they teach it if they don't know it?
And its not imperfect, its 2/3 FAIL

barlio wrote:

What percentage of Elementary teachers actually teach math?

They couldn't tell you.

It's because the US has an emphasis on teaching, not on the subject. The take teachers and try to get them to learn math. They don't take mathematicians and try to get them to learn teaching.

I'm just waiting for the follow-up that the State board had an erroneous calculation.

Genghis Connie has a 100 average in math and had a perfect TAKS test (her principal is very happy we're in the school...). Better for counting how many ways her mongol hordes can conquer your city.

Frazzled wrote:Genghis Connie has a 100 average in math and had a perfect TAKS test (her principal is very happy we're in the school...). Better for counting how many ways her mongol hordes can conquer your city.

And I thought the Simpsons and Springfield were ficticious...........

Well, except for the conquering. Lisa would be figuring out how put the town on geothermal power.

What's on those tests is much more than just "elementary" math. I'm an el. ed. major myself and we have to take a test called the Praxxis and it tests all the way through algebra, etc. If you don't use that crap on a daily basis its easy to forget!

dietrich wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Genghis Connie has a 100 average in math and had a perfect TAKS test (her principal is very happy we're in the school...). Better for counting how many ways her mongol hordes can conquer your city.

And I thought the Simpsons and Springfield were ficticious...........

Well, except for the conquering. Lisa would be figuring out how put the town on geothermal power.

I was informed by She Who Must Be Obeyed, that she had a boy following her about in her group of minions at an event the other day. A BOY!!!!
It only took them a few hours to pry the shotgun out of my hands...

mcfly wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:The article is misleading. Elementary school mathematics is a misnomer, as all that's taught as "mathematics" at that level is computation - no actual math is taught (or learned). What the teachers are demonstrating is imperfect computation, not inadequate comprehension. Google "Lockhart's Lament" for details.

But they're teaching computation. How can they teach it if they don't know it?
And its not imperfect, its 2/3 FAIL

There's a considerable difference between teaching a skill, and being able to apply that skill in a consistent and correct manner. If being unable to apply a skill disqualified people from teaching, then the entire coaching staff at the Olympics would be sacked. But, realistically, they aren't because they do not have the skill that they teaching their athletes; they have the skill to educate athletes in the skills that the athletes apply.

The world is full of people like this: excellent editors who couldn't write copy to save their lives, mathematicians who can do the same computation five times and come up with five different answers, software engineers who code like slowed monkeys. The list goes on. The trick is to understand what specific skills a person has pertaining to the task at hand and judge those, rather than similar but irrelevant skills such as the skills they're teaching.

Incidentally, if 2/3 of the test takers failing doesn't imply imperfect computation, then I don't know what does (3/3 would imply perfect non-computation). I've TA'd introductory logic courses where only 2/3 of the students failing a test is a godsend, given their engagement with the material in class and outside of class (note: you know how a teacher can tell you have taken the plastic wrap off of your textbook? Because the test answers were all carefully bolded on the first page for convenient reference....).

I think the real problem, for those who haven't taken the time to Google Lockhart's Lament, is that so-called "math" education doesn't actually teach math skills, it simply rewards those autistic little goons who flourish in an environment where they aren't required to use iniative or imagination. No offense to your daughter, Frazzled.

At this point I'm reminded by a quote from "Breakfast of Champions" by Kurt Vonnegut (roughly paraphrased):

"What kind of man turns his daughter into an outboard motor?"

I'm sorry but if you can't do basic math you shouldn't be a teacher. To be able to teach a thing you must understand a thing.

Frankly if you can't understand elementary school math you've got much bigger problems going on.

Speaking of understanding, how do you suppose the elementary school math test was graded? My bet is that they were marked on both getting the right answer, and showing their work, neither of which demonstrate understanding. You can understand but fail due to clerical errors, or fail to understand and succeed due to rote memorization.

My point is that it is unlikely that the teachers do not understand how the set of techniques and operations classified as "elementary school math" work. It is more likely that they cannot apply those techniques or carry out those operations with the required degree of accuracy and precision.

I'd certainly be interested in seeing what the actual test was. If I was administering such a test, I would test how well the teachers do on grading an elementary math test, i.e. how well they do evaluating student work.

Here's my math test for teaching:

+1

Actually a lot of sports coaches are ex-players. They don't lack the skills, they lack the physiology due to natural ageing.

At this point I'm reminded by a quote from "Breakfast of Champions" by Kurt Vonnegut (roughly paraphrased):

"What kind of man turns his daughter into an outboard motor?"

The kind that is in the middle of the lake and ran out of gas.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_increasing_number_of?utm_source=a-section

Were they math teachers? If not I could understand how this could happen. The article did not specify.

ShumaGorath wrote:Were they math teachers? If not I could understand how this could happen. The article did not specify.

Respectfully, how could you understand that. We're talking elementary school level math here. Oh, mayhaps a translation from US school systems. In the US elementary is grades K -5 (sometimes 4 or 6 depending on state). 432*537=x is pretty much the heaviest math we're talking about. I'm thinking you pretty much need this level of math to survive without losing fingers along the way.

Why am I reminded about the old saw of:

"those who can, do. Those who can't ..." ?

I've had some good teachers (good motivators, not just drones.) and some dire ones.

The kids in my games club can't do basic arithmetic without a calculator (don't get me started on long-division or decimals to fractions).

It said geometry, statistics, and probability, then states that they failed elementary school math. People get taught geometry, statistics and probability in 4-6th grade? I wasn't taught these things until High School.


Edit:Well, I AM from Louisiana.

Frazzled wrote:
432*537=x is pretty much the heaviest math we're talking about. I'm thinking you pretty much need this level of math to survive without losing fingers along the way.

That also depends on the state, especially if its inclusive of grade 6. I lived in a top 1/3 district, and we were learning geometric proofs and basic algebra by 5th grade.

Its also worth noting that most elementary schools forbid the use of calculators (for obvious reasons). Its possible that the teachers taking the test were also denied them. I know if I was forced to do basic multiplication repeatedly I would begin making errors very shortly. After all, its insanely boring.

I have a few friends who’ve just become teachers, or are studying to become teachers. The thing to remember is that while the tests they take are the same as the ones they’ll be teaching, the passing mark is much, much higher. As in, kids pass if they kid half the test right, teachers pass if they get 95% correct. It’s at the level where a careless error can take you from a perfect score to a narrow pass or a fail.

Without information on the test itself and the passing mark required, it’s pretty hard to judge whether this really is all about inadequate teachers, a test with the bar set too high or some combination of the two.

The US might be completely different, of course. This might have been a straight up test just like the kids do, but I seriously doubt it.

Not really contributing, but wow Dogma, what school system did you go to?