All-day school schedules

mellowskipper said:My daughter is in 8th grade now, and after five years of constant math teacher substitutions, she’s currently being taught by someone who isn't technically qualified. She claims this teacher is her favorite so far, though—she’s patient, doesn't yell, offers extra help, stays late, and even runs an elective in financial literacy. It feels like she’s trying twice as hard just because she’s labeled as "unqualified."
When I look through my daughter's notebook, I don't see anything different—or any less quality—than when she had those English or math teachers before.

Look, I’ve had to teach subjects outside my expertise before, and if you actually understand the material—even just a little—you can pull it off. It might not be the gold standard, but it works.

That said, if we’re talking about a high school—it’s a non-starter. There is a massive difference between an elementary school and a high school environment.

Generally speaking, I don't have an issue with degrees from Canada. What we actually lack is STEM teachers, speech therapists, special ed specialists... I could fix that easily—just hire all these folks with degrees from Canada, let the government set some specific competency exams for them to pass (if necessary), and call it a day.

At the end of the day, I’d much rather have a speech therapist or a math teacher from Asheville, for instance (no shade to Asheville, just an example...), than an art or English teacher from America teaching a subject they aren't trained for.

mellowskipper said:My daughter is in 8th grade now, and after five years of constant math teacher substitutions, she’s currently being taught by someone who isn't technically qualified. She claims this teacher is her favorite so far, though—she’s patient, doesn't yell, offers extra help, stays late, and even runs an elective in financial literacy. It feels like she’s trying twice as hard just because she’s labeled as "unqualified."
When I look through my daughter's notebook, I don't see anything different—or any less quality—than when she had those English or math teachers before.

Well, bravo to the substitute then! You can't seriously believe that every single sub is unqualified, right? We can't just leave the quality of education up to pure luck.
(My child's experience has been the exact opposite; by some stroke of luck, they managed to navigate all those changes without any issues, though unfortunately, many of their classmates weren't so lucky.)

Scott Booth said:Well, bravo to the substitute then! You can't seriously believe that every single sub is unqualified, right? We can't just leave the quality of education up to pure luck.
(My child's experience has been the exact opposite; by some stroke of luck, they managed to navigate all those changes without any issues, though unfortunately, many of their classmates weren't so lucky.)

Of course I don't think that—just as our own experiences show us that even "real" math professors sometimes struggle to explain things clearly.
She’s just relieved, I suppose; I'd say she finally feels like someone normal and decent is in charge.
As for that bit about the 5-to-7-year-olds... I think it's probably better if I just stay quiet on that one.

Just a little heads-up here—an engineer isn't technically a "real professor." I mean, depending on whether they're specializing in math or something similar, they’re more like... well, semi-qualified, if you want to be pedantic about it.

Sarah Hall53 said:Just a little heads-up here—an engineer isn't technically a "real professor." I mean, depending on whether they're specializing in math or something similar, they’re more like... well, semi-qualified, if you want to be pedantic about it.

I think I misspoke earlier—to be clear, before all these unqualified replacements happened, everyone was actually a mathematician from the National Guard. Whether they have a BS, an MS, or whatever their actual degree title is these days... I guess it doesn't matter.

mellowskipper said:Of course I don't think that—just as our own experiences show us that even "real" math professors sometimes struggle to explain things clearly.
She’s just relieved, I suppose; I'd say she finally feels like someone normal and decent is in charge.
As for that bit about the 5-to-7-year-olds... I think it's probably better if I just stay quiet on that one.

Did any of you ever have an amazing teacher who would organize extra math sessions for the whole class back in 6th or 7th grade because everyone had gaps in their knowledge?
Or rather, you guys had five math periods a week, right?

Susan James said:Did any of you ever have an amazing teacher who would organize extra math sessions for the whole class back in 6th or 7th grade because everyone had gaps in their knowledge?
Or rather, you guys had five math periods a week, right?

Well, yeah, we did—but only after Christmas, once the entire class had finished being a total disaster on the grading portal and we’d dealt with the parent-teacher conferences. And that was in 6th grade. In 5th, we just had the first teacher, and by 7th, there were two new ones.
6th grade was pure blood, sweat, and tears—basically the fallout from all that remote learning.
That’s why I say grades 5 through 7 were generally a wash.
What we're dealing with now is actually quite easy; imagine if she actually stuck around until the end of the school year.

Sarah Hall53 said:Just a little heads-up here—an engineer isn't technically a "real professor." I mean, depending on whether they're specializing in math or something similar, they’re more like... well, semi-qualified, if you want to be pedantic about it.

A guy with a Master's in theoretical math—literally the hardest track there is—is somehow "unqualified" to teach math?! Give me a break.

It really depends. Did he actually follow the proper methodology during his teaching certification, or did he just take one of those casual, part-time courses at a local community college? Because when it comes to math, that’s a massive dealbreaker for me.
He’s definitely got the technical expertise for math, but whether he’s actually qualified to teach it... well, that's a bit more debatable.

Like I mentioned before, it all hinges on whether his degree was strictly in mathematics or just something related. Given how the credit hour requirements work, he might be allowed to teach math if there isn't anyone else with a specialized degree available.

Sarah Hall53 said:It really depends. Did he actually follow the proper methodology during his teaching certification, or did he just take one of those casual, part-time courses at a local community college? Because when it comes to math, that’s a massive dealbreaker for me.
He’s definitely got the technical expertise for math, but whether he’s actually qualified to teach it... well, that's a bit more debatable.

Like I mentioned before, it all hinges on whether his degree was strictly in mathematics or just something related. Given how the credit hour requirements work, he might be allowed to teach math if there isn't anyone else with a specialized degree available.

Theoretical math is handled over at a heavy-duty research university like Johns Hopkins, and once you survive that, everything else feels like a breeze compared to what he's dealing with.

I totally get what you mean about theoretical math and what actually constitutes the field.
But honestly, I’m struggling to see why you're missing the point regarding the difference between a proper teaching methodology course at a university like Berkeley and some random certification program you take later on? There's a massive gap there—it's not just about knowing the math itself, but actually knowing how to break it down so it makes sense to a kid. It's one thing to master the equations, and a completely different thing to be able to explain them in a way that fits their age group.

Larry Walker24 said:Theoretical math is handled over at a heavy-duty research university like Johns Hopkins, and once you survive that, everything else feels like a breeze compared to what he's dealing with.

I suppose one might wonder, though, whether just because someone finds a particular subject incredibly easy, they actually possess the capacity to break those complex concepts down and pass them on to students in a way that's actually coherent or effective?

Sarah Hall53 said:I totally get what you mean about theoretical math and what actually constitutes the field.
But honestly, I’m struggling to see why you're missing the point regarding the difference between a proper teaching methodology course at a university like Berkeley and some random certification program you take later on? There's a massive gap there—it's not just about knowing the math itself, but actually knowing how to break it down so it makes sense to a kid. It's one thing to master the equations, and a completely different thing to be able to explain them in a way that fits their age group.

I'm currently studying theoretical math—still have my senior thesis to wrap up—and you really do learn the absolute fundamentals, though it's all geared toward graduate-level work. If I were to walk into a middle school or a high school right now to teach, goodness, I think both the kids and I would be in for a very rough time.

From what I hear, the professors handling the pedagogy courses are supposedly excellent, but they tend to assign whoever is available to lead the lab sessions. So, it's entirely possible to end up with a teaching assistant who hasn't even taken a single methods class themselves—say, someone who focused strictly on pure theory. Then, suddenly, they're expected to show students how to structure a lesson plan on the chalkboard, when they probably don't even know how to do it themselves. 😵

Sarah Hall53 said:I totally get what you mean about theoretical math and what actually constitutes the field.
But honestly, I’m struggling to see why you're missing the point regarding the difference between a proper teaching methodology course at a university like Berkeley and some random certification program you take later on? There's a massive gap there—it's not just about knowing the math itself, but actually knowing how to break it down so it makes sense to a kid. It's one thing to master the equations, and a completely different thing to be able to explain them in a way that fits their age group.

Look, I get it, but honestly, no mathematician would ever sign up for an education degree at a school like UCLA when they could just take a qualifying exam through the math department instead. At least that used to be the deal.

Betty Wood54 said:I'm currently studying theoretical math—still have my senior thesis to wrap up—and you really do learn the absolute fundamentals, though it's all geared toward graduate-level work. If I were to walk into a middle school or a high school right now to teach, goodness, I think both the kids and I would be in for a very rough time.

From what I hear, the professors handling the pedagogy courses are supposedly excellent, but they tend to assign whoever is available to lead the lab sessions. So, it's entirely possible to end up with a teaching assistant who hasn't even taken a single methods class themselves—say, someone who focused strictly on pure theory. Then, suddenly, they're expected to show students how to structure a lesson plan on the chalkboard, when they probably don't even know how to do it themselves. 😵

I know this girl who graduated with a perfect 4.0 in theoretical math and she’s teaching at a local high school now; she’s bored out of her mind because the problems she has to give them are just "laughable and way too easy" for her.

And I’ve heard stories about how some professors in the math education department basically treat students like garbage, failing people left and right just because they feel like it. Honestly, the faculty in the professional training courses aren't any more chill or reasonable either.

Larry Walker24 said:I know this girl who graduated with a perfect 4.0 in theoretical math and she’s teaching at a local high school now; she’s bored out of her mind because the problems she has to give them are just "laughable and way too easy" for her.

And I’ve heard stories about how some professors in the math education department basically treat students like garbage, failing people left and right just because they feel like it. Honestly, the faculty in the professional training courses aren't any more chill or reasonable either.

Well, I mean, of course they are. That’s looking at it from the perspective of someone who just finished their first year of university math, I suppose. We aren't really talking about pure mathematics here; we are talking about being prepared to actually teach a curriculum.

Larry Walker24 said:Look, I get it, but honestly, no mathematician would ever sign up for an education degree at a school like UCLA when they could just take a qualifying exam through the math department instead. At least that used to be the deal.

I actually knew a colleague who decided to go for a teaching master's degree after finishing a non-teaching undergraduate program. It was quite a hurdle; he had to pass all the pedagogy, psychology, and didactics courses from the graduate level, plus some geometry credits we didn't cover in our standard track.

Back in the day, when programs were mostly four-year tracks, there were just a handful of deficiency exams to clear. But now that everything has shifted to this 3+2 model, the gap is much wider. I honestly don't think they'd just tell you to take a couple of extra classes; they'd probably tell you that you need to enroll in a full teaching credential program instead.

Betty Wood54 said:I actually knew a colleague who decided to go for a teaching master's degree after finishing a non-teaching undergraduate program. It was quite a hurdle; he had to pass all the pedagogy, psychology, and didactics courses from the graduate level, plus some geometry credits we didn't cover in our standard track.

Back in the day, when programs were mostly four-year tracks, there were just a handful of deficiency exams to clear. But now that everything has shifted to this 3+2 model, the gap is much wider. I honestly don't think they'd just tell you to take a couple of extra classes; they'd probably tell you that you need to enroll in a full teaching credential program instead.

I think he’s talking about descriptive geometry, but I can't be 100% sure.

Fair enough, but look—the Dean actually announced they might bring back that 3+2 model specifically for teaching tracks. The idea is to boost enrollment numbers. They want people who finish in three years to be eligible to teach middle school, while the ones who grind through all five years get the option to teach both middle and high school.

But hey, that's just his pitch. Who knows if it'll actually ever happen or if it'll just stay an idea on paper.

Larry Walker24 said:I know this girl who graduated with a perfect 4.0 in theoretical math and she’s teaching at a local high school now; she’s bored out of her mind because the problems she has to give them are just "laughable and way too easy" for her.

And I’ve heard stories about how some professors in the math education department basically treat students like garbage, failing people left and right just because they feel like it. Honestly, the faculty in the professional training courses aren't any more chill or reasonable either.

Well, I guess we're moving into the realm of nursery tales now, aren't we?🙄
If you look at it from that perspective, there probably isn't a single teacher out there who doesn't find their own subject matter to be "laughable and incredibly easy" at some point. I mean, you have to actually know how to function in a classroom, and I doubt any teacher finds it to be a true mental marathon to teach a kid how to count to ten or write a capital letter I.
Is it really "laughable and easy" for you to explain that H stands for hydrogen and O stands for oxygen, or whatever else comes up in class? 🥱
The people who are strictly looking for constant challenges, more complexity, and the chance to constantly discover new horizons... they usually don't end up working in the American public school system.

Being a teacher really takes a certain level of patience, psychology, and just having the right kind of personality. It seems a bit odd to me when someone with an engineering degree in math ends up teaching in a school. I guess it’s a bit like seeing a philosopher, an engineer, or even a film critic move to the States and end up driving a cab or waiting tables. Maybe any high schooler who actually understands math could teach it at the elementary level, provided they have the right pedagogical skills and a good way with kids.

I've seen enough times where a math engineer can be pretty uninspiring and just not very effective at teaching high schoolers.