🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jay-0EC958.09290427012005@news.stanford.edu>,
Jay Kadis  <jay@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
>In article <ctb6i3$1stu@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
> hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:

[snip]


>> Even this is not enough, as few teachers understand the
>> basics of their subjects, but proceed by rote.  
 -- 

>OK, got some statistics on this?

How would one get statistics on this?  Let the subject matter
scholars question the teachers on their knowledge of the basics,
and you will find few in mathematics or science who would 
challenge this statement.  But there is no way that you would
get the establishment to agree to this test.  

I have taught a few prospective teachers, and my late wife 
taught many of them.  Often coming home after a day of
teaching these, she complained of illness from that.  Not
all of them were bad in the advanced classes, but the one
time she taught prospective elementary teachers in a required
class, it was miserable.

The best piece of clear evidence we have is the "new math"
debacle of more than 40 years ago.  The teachers could not
handle the texts which had been tested on tens of thousands
of children.  There was a massive program to teach the teachers
of this and of high school mathematics, which ended in failure.
The university where I was in 1959 had a summer school for 
high school teachers who were supposedly the good ones; I
did not myself teach in that.   One of those who did stated
that at best 10% could learn the basic undergraduate abstract
mathematics courses, which should be needed to teach even
middle school mathematics.  Unfortunately, in the years since
then, those courses have declined under the pressure of 
giving degrees to weak students.

-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558