> 1st skilled workers ARE skilled thinkers... my father was a sheet metal
> worker and he could do me six-ways to Sunday on layout.
I've already apologized (sort of) for the inappropriate symbolizing of the
college-graduate-types vs. the non-college-graduate-types. Further, not
all college grads are skilled thinkers, nor are all skilled workers. I was
trying to champion the concept of valuing those jobs done by non-college
graduates equally with those done by college grads.
> 2nd I really wonder about the pounding on elementary teachers. If we really
> did pay differentials - they should be paid the MOST. I can't think of a
> tougher job... The examples have all been about that one teacher who..
> Would you want to be catagorized by one really bad teacher in your area?
I don't think "pounding" is the appropriate term. Why are teachers so
sensitive to criticism? If my students do poorly in the next math class I
think I should be interested and see whether it is something that I can do
something about. If I need to change something I'm doing, I should be
delighted to do it. If I am, indeed, teaching well, then maybe my criteria
for passing them should be examined. If they enter my class without the
necessary basis to succeed, then I do need to look to the previous level
as a place for possible improvement.
I, too, have taught at elementary-through-high school. I have also worked
extensively with elementary school math teachers. The generalization that
many are poorly equipped to teach math is accurate in my experience. (I
noted wonderful exceptons.) The comments from others who have taught a
Math for Elementary School Teachers supports the view that a significant
proportion of those who choose to teach at the elementary level are
math-negative.
> It's easy to dump on the prior level... And easy to suggest how THEY should
> do THEIR job better. I'm more concerned about how I can do my job better.
"Dumping on the prior level" is not what it's all about. Evaluating the
needs at ALL levels should be our interest. Avoiding constructive
criticism is not a way to improve.
We don't get paid for how hard our job is; we get paid for how much we can
contribute to a child's development--and that includes attitudes and
competence in math. Teachers--and there are many, believe it or
don't--who, through their own attitudes, transmit a negative view of math
should not, in my opinion, be placed in a position where they can do that
harm to the students. (This is just as true in college as in elementary
school, but the greater harm is done at the earlier age.)
So let's all quit "dumping" on each other and see whether we can actually
get to some real suggestions for improving what is clearly a bad
situation.
John M. Flanigan <johnf@hawaii.edu> The equation is the final arbiter.
Math Resource Instructor --Werner Heisenberg
Kapi'olani Community College The scoreboard is the final arbiter.
Honolulu, Hawaii --Bill Walton