We Need More Science in Schools

eHam.net Home | FAQ | Log In Help | Please Subscribe

Welcome Anonymous Become a member or Login

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

We Need More Science in Schools

Fabian X. Carbone - Solis (KD5JDG) on August 23, 2004
View comments about this article!

I have had many local teenagers and even young adults tell me incessantly that cell phones and satellites (including satellite TV, wireless internet, etc) do not use radio waves.

Bottom Line: Instead of teaching the base pairings of the human DNA code at the Freshman High School level, our schools should focus on science and technology that actually has applications in everyday life. One of the fields that I have noticed as absent throughout all my years in school (public and private, BTW I am a Junior in High School now) is Radio Frequency! How could such an important backbone of communication and present communications infrastructure go unspoken of? Perhaps the ARRL and other amateur radio organizations should press their local school boards to include fundamental electricity, electronics, and RF as part of the science & technology curriculums.

That's just my two cents worth as a student, amateur radio operator, and critic of the our School Systems...

TNX & 73
Fabian X.C.S.
KD5SYH

Member Comments:

This article has expired. No more comments may be added.

We Need More Science in Schools

by AL2I on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I am occasionally surprised by the ignorance of most modern students about simple RF concepts and principles. My daughter is going into a home/correspondence program this year, and my XYL and I are trying to make Amateur radio into a science credit. If successful, we will share the details with other Alaskan hams.

73,
Dave/al2i

We Need More Science in Schools

by KC8YVE on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Hi Hi
And very well Said. When I was in school, the Science labs where all poorly stocked, and we did mostly book work instead of hands on.

But we Did have footballs and a perfectly manacured football field.

In math class the used baseball statistics in order to keep us boys interested, YAWWWWWWWNNNNN!!
See a trend here?

Here i am years later, and I am still an amature scientist, The Neighbors call me Doc, Like Back to the Future.

Keep with it you will do ok.
Tracy, KC8YVE
http://www.albert-cordova.com

We Need More Science in Schools

by NO8D on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Fabian -

You wrote: Perhaps the ARRL and other amateur radio organizations should press their local school boards to include fundamental electricity, electronics, and RF as part of the science & technology curriculums.

Actually, the ARRL is funding a great program that they call "The Big Project" which introduces math, electronics and radio fundamentals into many of our schools.

More information is available at:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/tbp/faq.html

It is a project worthy of support from all of us.

73,
Paul
NO8D

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AB8TM on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I agree, but with this edit:

I think it needs more practical HANDS ON activities. I can't tell you how many animals I've disected. But for some reason I never lit a light bulb with a 9 volt! A local ham never came in and told us about propagation and made contacts on his radio! But then again, I went to public school, so maybe that's the problem. :(

We Need More Science in Schools

by KB9YZL on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Good article, and a real problem!

This is a trend that has been going on since I was in High School. (Whew!……..That was a while ago!) Even back then, School Administrators knew that Good Science Departments generated bills, and Good Athletic Departments generated Alumni Donations. Guess who got supported!

Today the problem is compounded by the people we have in Government…….. People who can find endless Billions of dollars to bomb the crap out of Iraq, but can’t find a nickel to fund our schools.

Don’t get me wrong: I am, in no way, some sort of “knee-jerk pacifist”. I was around for “Uncle Sugar’s Far East Asia Tour”, and I believe in the application of force, where appropriate: I simply wonder what would happen if we took just one month’s worth of our Iraq expenditures, and gave to our schools.

I’m sure no one would care if we ended that whole mess over there a month early!

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
“Appliance Operator”

it's the NEA and AFT that did it

by KZ1X on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

You can't teach science if you don't have any teachers who know it.

A Union can't be a political powerhouse if you have union members who question authority.

Smart people question authority.

The NEA and AFT have manipulated the teacher selection and retention policies, through the late 60s to the mid 80s, such that there are no more public school teachers who actually know anything. The process is now self-sustaining. You now have a second generation of wonderfully dedicated, certificated, empty-headed sheep. Caring, nurturing, but not educating.

Ergo sum; Q.E.D.

Only solution is to go to private school.

Let me tell you sometime about how I, a person with three awarded patents, 12 pending, my own company, and an arm-long list of technology breakthroughs, am not allowed by any local school district to even act as a guest lecturer.

We Need More Science in Schools

by WIRELESS on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

This is sort of a funny post from a high school kid. I don't think the writer realizes there is a much bigger problem out there for him than his take on RF technology.

The author of this thread should ask himself one question. And that question is "after 12 to 14 years of formal education before the age of 18, what job am I qualified to get in order to support myself when I graduate from high school?"

The answer is "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" if you graduate from a typical high school in this country. There are some exceptions, but not many.

13 years of study and no way to support yourself, and people in this country can't figure out the problems that your people have.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by K0BG on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Lately, lots of folks have been expounding the dumbing down of our hobby. While this affects all of us who are in it, it speaks nothing of the dumbing down of our middle class who are the real contributors to our children's education. One only has to scan over a few postings on this web site to view the atrocious spelling and grammer; a tantamount of just how bad the dumbing down has become.

Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KB9YZL on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

WIRELESS:

I can’t really agree with your analysis. Even back when I was in High School, we were being asked to make choices by the time our second year rolled around. It was made very clear to us that there were two basic paths to follow: You were either headed for college, or “The Trades”. As students, we had to choose our 3rd and 4th year classes with our particular personal goals in mind.

I don’t think anyone in my graduating class was under the impression that a simple High School Degree would qualify them for anything!

Unlike you, I can’t bring myself to throw rocks at the system (at least over this issue). If a student stumbles unconsciously through four years of High School, and emerges with no saleable talent or goal, it’s really mostly their fault. (Of course “Personal Responsibility” is a concept many people try to ignore these days!)

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
“Appliance Operator”

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KD5JDG on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Nobody said that you can/should/will get a job right out of high school. The system would prefer for you to perform hard manual labor rather than continue on to an institution of higher learning. This is evident by the growing costs involved in obtaining a college diploma. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but they sure do make it hard to do. BTW I know that the issue I brought up is only one of minor problems in our public school system. However, most of it comes down to a simple error in the though pattern that is present in most administrators - arrogance. They don't know, and they don't care, as long as they THINK that they are doing right and as long as they look strict to parents. I have been told many times by my principal when conslting or asking questions and I quote, "come back and talk to me when you have a master's degree; I have a masters degree and you don't so come back when you have one." This is a direct quote with no embellishment or alterations. Very sad indeed. Nonetheless, mastr's or not, this lady doesn't talk in a very educated manner. Perhaps she is intenttionally being condescending when she talks to a student or perhaps that is the way she usually talks to people other than her own EGO. I don't get the feeling that she is too intelligent anyways, perhaps she cheated to get her beloved mastr's degree?

I am royally pissed off at the public school system, and now at charter school system which I attend since they had to bring in ths asshole and her cronies from the public school system. We were doing just fine without her, but its all downhill from now.

TNX & 73's,
Fabian X.C.S.
KD5SYH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KC0KBH on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I happen to love science, and all of my science teachers tell me how to do somewhat dangerous things(catalytic pennies, and all kinds of fire related things). I have been subscribing to Popular Science for the last 3 years.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WIRELESS on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

kb9yzl,

Your comments are pathetic. I don't usually give responses to ignorance that come from comments on this site but you are the typical example educational problems exists in this country.

Kids that are 13 years old are supposed to take personal responsibily for their future employability after high school? That's what teachers that burn hundreds of thousands of $$$$$$$$ tax money are supposed to do.

You say "I don’t think anyone in my graduating class was under the impression that a simple High School Degree would qualify them for anything!" This is the entire point of my previous post. Do you have any reading comprehension?

You say "Even back when I was in High School, we were being asked to make choices by the time our second year rolled around. It was made very clear to us that there were two basic paths to follow: You were either headed for college, or “The Trades”. As students, we had to choose our 3rd and 4th year classes with our particular personal goals in mind. " I will ask the question again, do you have any reading comprehension?
The point of my previous post was that the "trades" should be taught in high school system before the kids loose their support system. For kids who don't have parents with $200k in the bank for college, how is a hs kid suppossed to support himself and pay for a trade school if he has no skills from hs to get him any kind of a job.

You are one big phoney. Loose the smart ass attitude, you will do better. You exhibit plenty of self deluded superiority. Don't pat yourself on the back too much you might knock yourself out.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AD5PE on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AL2I:

You mentioned home/independent study for you child. My kids do this. The University of Missouri has an independent study high school, and they have an Amateur Radio class in their catalog. My older is KD5WXF, but the younger is taking this class now.

I'm not sure if it counts for science credit, but it's at least an elective. One drawback though, is that the "book" it uses is "Now You're Talking - 3rd Edition", so when they're done, they still have to study the new stuff that's changed - the current book/question pool is edition #5!

And it doesn't hurt if you "shop around". Most of these schools will readily accept credit from other ISHS programs from other colleges if they're accredited. My girls use three different schools concurrently, and will transfer all their credits to one at the end to graduate.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KB9YZL on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

WIRELESS;

(To Everyone Else: Sorry for the Spam……just ignore this.)

Since you have seen fit to label me a “…..typical example (of the) educational problems (that) exists in this country”, I’ll share a little of my personal history with you:

I supported myself through my last year in High School (by that I mean that I had an evening job that let me pay for a sleeping room, the food I ate, and the clothes I wore).

After High School, I worked a multitude of meaningless jobs so that I could afford the college courses I needed. After about ten years of that, I managed to step up to a career in Design and Mechanical Engineering, which has provided me with a fairly comfortable life, along with seven U.S. Patents to my credit.

I am still going to college, studying my other area of interest, Meteorology.

I’m sure that I have given you plenty of material here for yet another personal attack,……so have fun! Rest assured, I will not respond in kind.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
“Appliance Operator”

We Need More Science in Schools

by K4IA on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

We spend billions on schools - it is the single largest part of any county budget. Stop whining about people not being willing to spend a nickel on schools. It ain't true.

Problem with public educaiton is, instead of the three Rs, we teach social engineering, diversity, sensitivity, tolerance, and how big bad corporate America is raping the world.

This young person "gets it."

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by K7VO on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The author is obviously a very bright young man. The problem in our school systems has very little to do with how we teach the very bright.

I honestly can't think of anything more important to teach in school that "diversity, sensitivity, and tolerance". If we can't get along with our fellow human beings there is no chance of succeeding in life or business, is there? Every aspect of every business involves some level of customer service and you have to know how to deal with the customer, no matter who they are.

I would also rate reading, writing, and mathematics ahead of science. Basics have to come first. The practice of "social promotion" has to be ended. Those who disrupt schools need to be moved to what used to be called "600 school" or "reform school" so that teachers can teach not babysit. Those who aren't college material need to be offered vocational training so that they can succeed in life according to their ability.

Unions aren't the problem. The NEA and UFT were much more powerful when I was in school and my education didn't suffer. I am a product of the New York City public school system, FWIW. I suspect, though, that the system there has changed a lot over the years, much like everywhere else.

Science? Yes, by all means. My high school physics teacher was fantastic and his encouragement and pushing me towards AP physics probably led to me majoring in the field in college. I ended up doing computer work and never using the degree but I at least got some basic scientific training and education.

Back to our very bright young author. Bright kids need to be encouraged and challenged. "Mainstreaming" and teaching to the lowest common denominator has to end. Tracking in schools needs to be reestablished. If putting bright kids together with the not so bright and teaching to the bottom is part of what someone meant by "social engineering" then I agree it has to go.

Do we give enough money to the schools? Rich districts have tons of money lavished on them. Inner city schools rarely have enough even to do a good job with the basics. A big part of the problem with education in this country is the way we fund public schools. We don't have equal opportunity and that is a huge problem. There are plenty of bright kids with lots of potential in poor districts who never get a proper chance at success.

Private schools? Many can't afford them. Many don't meet standards. A recent study of charter schools in North Carolina done by Duke University shows that kids in traditional public school environments actually do much better so that conservative experiment is failing, as did many of the liberal experiments that preceeeded it. It's time to stop experimenting, start teaching, and to fix the public school system.

OK, enough ranting about education...

73,
Caity
K7VO

We Need More Science in Schools

by W2LJ on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

To K4IA:

Yay! You hit the nail on the head!

73 de Larry W2LJ

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WIRELESS on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

kb9yzl,

Do you think after spending 13 years in a school system that cost your parents $$$,$$$ maybe you should have gotten a little more from it so you wouldn't have had to do what you claim you did?

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WB2NVY on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

K0BG:
You misspelled GRAMMAR, and tantamount is an adjective, not a noun. ..glass houses, stones, etc.

We Need More Science in Schools

by K0RFD on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Fabian, the way DNA works has some pretty important applications too. Science is a pretty broad discipline; radio is but one part of it.

I was fortunate to be a geeky kid who liked science at the "right" time--in the years following the Sputnik launch that shocked America into action. The government pumped lots of money into science and math education because the US recognized a strategic value in "controlling" space and we were worried about falling behind. And money is what it takes to turn science from a futile, book-only exercise into a hands-on experience that will catch and hold a kid's interest. Labs ain't cheap. During the cold war, all you had to do was put "defense" into the name of a bill (National Defense Education Act of 1958) and it would pass. It created lots of opportunities for old farts like me--I never would have become a scientist without it.

Unfortunately, there is no longer a similar emphasis on the strategic value of science and math. Nor is there the money to sink into it, not so long as we are spending a billion and a half dollars a week in Iraq. Besides, why spend money educating American engineers anyway when we can let somebody else do it and bring them in from India on L-1 visas? What's the big deal? Companies are getting their engineers, they're just not AMERICAN engineers. (please note sarcasm and exasperation before flaming) The current strategic emphasis on terrorism is more likely to result in federal bucks being poured into educating more arabic language translators than it is into science and math. It's the new priority.

Is terrorism a great threat to America? You bet. Does it deserve ALL our money to the point that we can't fund anything else? Well, we lost 2000 Americans on 9/11. A great tragedy. But we lose lots more Americans than that each year to cancer and auto accidents. Curing cancer and building safer cars are just two places where scientists and engineers can have a huge impact, saving many more lives each year than we lose to terrorists. But it's not "sexy". And it's not in vogue.

It's easy to blame the government, the teacher's union, the extremists who want to ban books and teach Creationism instead of *real* science, but I don't think the ultimate solution will be derived from assigning blame. I think the ultimate solution is acually inside each and every one of us.

A good scientist is curious and creative. A good scientist starts life as a kid who wants to know how things work and then figures it out. These kids need to be recognized at an early age, mentored, and encouraged. As Hams, as parents, as scientists and engineers, we can all do SOMETHING.

When my daughter was in kindergarten, there was a kid in her class named Ryan Patterson. By the 2nd grade science fair, he had built his own robot. When he was in high school, he saw a deaf woman trying to make herself understood well enough to order food at Burger King. He took a golf glove and built a device into it that translates sign language to text. In his senior year, he won not only our local science fair, but also the the Siemens-Westinghouse and Intel international competitions. Why was he successful? Not because he went to private school--he didn't. It's because he was lucky enough to have adults around him who recognized his potential and a local retired engineer who took Ryan under his wing and mentored him. Google that name. See for yourself. There are lots of Ryan Pattersons out there. They just need people like *us* to take them to the next level.

KZ1X--you can't lecture in the schools? There are plenty of other places to help. Volunteer to judge the science fair. Better yet, take $50 of your own money and offer a prize. Judge it yourself. Most science fairs are very supportive of local citizens and businesses who give special awards. Local Ham clubs can do the same thing. Reward the kid who built his own crystal radio or who experimented to find the "best" antenna. A framed award and $25 gift certificate at the local mall is a powerful incentive to a 12 year old. Try to recognize and reward the kids who really understand their projects and who did it themselves instead of letting dad or mom do it for them. Use your intuition to decide who tested their own ideas and who else just got a project idea out of a book so they could get a grade. The best projects often aren't pretty, but after you've judged a few fairs you can tell who the real young scientists are. Don't belong to a Ham club? Any other club can do the job. I convinced my local chapter of Trout Unlimited to give a science fair prize to the best project having to do with water. It's still science, and more important, it's still recognition to the kids.

We don't need more government. We especially don't need more whining. We need more volunteers. Schools always have and always will provide a minimal set of basics for the average kid. Where the kid goes with it is up to us. If we want "average" then we should be prepared to accept it. But if we want excellence, then we all need to do our bit to fill in that gap between "average" and "excellent". There are gifted and special kids programs in many towns. Trouble is they usually meet after school or on Saturdays when we all feel like doing something else. But they don't run on autopilot.

Don't expect government to do what you're not willing to do yourself. There are plenty of ways out there to help. If the particular volunteer job you want isn't available to you, just find a different one. It's all important.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KB9YZL on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

K4IA;

Well…………just going on the stuff in your personal profile, I’d have to guess that we went to High School at about the same time. It’s been a while since we walked those halls, hasn’t it?

My youngest is still in High School, and I have to say that my read on the curriculum isn’t quite as grim as yours. My daughter is in ROTC, as well as honors Math and Science. She doesn’t seem to have any problem at all with America’s position in the world.

I’m sure that if we looked, we could find some subjects in the offered curriculum that are heavy on the knee-jerk liberal stuff, but that’s not exactly new. It was just as true in the 60’s as it is now.

What you say is true: Education is typically the largest item in any county’s budget, but I do have to disagree on one point: Funding is still a issue. Here in the Chicago area, many districts face overcrowding and all of it’s related problems.

Have a good one!

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
“Appliance Operator”

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KB9YZL on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

WIRELESS;

You asked; “Do you think after spending 13 years in a school system that cost your parents $$$,$$$ maybe you should have gotten a little more from it……..?”

That’s a fair question……..

Honestly, I’d have to say “No”. I got from High School exactly what I wanted. I stuck with the “Four Year Math & Science Plan” because I knew where I eventually wanted to end up……..In spite of the fact that I also knew that a “Four Year” college was definitely not in the cards. If I had gone the “Vocational Route” (which was offered to me) things would have gone far differently for me in later life. (Although I do have to say that I’m amazed at what a Plumber makes these days!)

The one thing that would have really made a difference was beyond my control…….I found myself “independent” at age 17 because of my totally dysfunctional family, and had to make due without the “support structures” that many take for granted.

Here, I think, is an incredibly important point (at least to this discussion thread). The parents have to be there for the child, providing guidance, support and positive reinforcement. Without that, it’s very unlikely that the schools can fulfill their mission, no matter how much money we pour into them!

Have a good one!

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
“Appliance Operator”

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KD5JDG on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"By K4IA: We spend billions on schools - it is the single largest part of any county budget. Stop whining about people not being willing to spend a nickel on schools. It ain't true. Problem with public educaiton is, instead of the three Rs, we teach social engineering, diversity, sensitivity, tolerance, and how big bad corporate America is raping the world."

Well, actually in our school district we are taught none of the above. We're not taught much of anything, actually.

The problem is, we are taught to not question ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. We're jsut here to make the school look good, whatever it takes.

Yes, we have some OK money making it into the school system, but there are things to take into account. For instance, our public school superintendent makes $200,000 a year and he gets benifits on top of that. Does anybody else see a problem here? Look it up, Corpus Christi Independent School District. While your at it, take a look at our test scores...

I was going to start a ham radio club here at school but with such arrogant adimistration, I'm not sure if I want to take the risk of having my equipment dropped like our principal dropped my friend's guitar becasue she "knows how to hold a guitar."

TNX & 73's,
Fabian X.C.S.
KD5SYH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KA4KOE on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

YZL

Wow, such composure under a fussilade of ad hominem! My compliments, sirrah.

PAN

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WB2WIK on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Fabian, it may be that way in Corpus Christi, but it's not that way all over, at all.

My daughter just graduated high school here in Los Angeles (public) and is off to University of California next month with scholarships and grants. Her science programs were absolutely excellent, and although most of her bio and chem teachers have encouraged her all along to pursue an education in medicine, she's pursuing other fields by choice. But they really did encourage her, a lot, and they all wrote letters of recommendation to the universities where she applied, encouraging further education in the sciences.

Although she's 18 and not particularly interested in electronics, we went yesterday to the local computer store to buy her a new laptop for college, especially needed since she'll be living on campus. The ads proclaimed wireless, 802.11, etc -- and I was waiting for her to ask me what that stuff was, but she didn't have to: She completely understood the concepts and told me a few things I didn't know about them! She learned all this from her computer classes in high school.

And the local (L.A. Unified School District) middle and high schools have all invited me to speak on ham radio and its benefits to teens, any time I wish. I don't have time to visit them all (hundreds of schools) but have presented to a few, and the response was terrific. In all cases, the schools can and will dedicate a teacher to supervise and a room to locate equipment for a ham radio club if the kids want one. Some of the high schools (here) already do have a ham club. They all have biology clubs, chemistry clubs, physics clubs, computer clubs and so forth.

Our local high schools have "rocket science" clubs as well, where amateur rocketeers design and build rockets for launch with assistance of mostly retired aerospace engineers from the Rocketdyne division of Boeing, which is located here in Canoga Park: Home of the shuttle's engine design and manufacturing.

If the parents get strongly behind stuff, all kinds of things happen.

WB2WIK/6

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by N4GI on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>> and he gets benifits on top of that. Does anybody else see a problem here?<<

Yes, "benifits" is spelled wrong.

N4GI

We Need More Science in Schools

by KN4LF on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Yes real science is totally lacking in today's public schools. That's why it's so easy to convince many that junk science concepts like man induced global warming is occurring.

I have a B.S. in Meteorology and an M.S. in Space Plasma Physics but it's rare I meet anyone on the street so to speak or even in our radio hobby who have any clue as to what I'm saying about anything. BTW I have a science oriented website at KN4LF Daily Solar Space Weather & Geomagnetic Data Archive: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf5.htm.

The public school system across America is an abject failure and is turning out graduates totally and utterly incapable of functioning in life.
I have five kids and three are presently in college. Though all were studious and made good grades in high school, they still had to take remedial high school level classes during their first year of college.

Communist controlled public schools are to busy teaching acceptance of all forms of sexual deviancy, moral relativism and tolerance of societal reverse discrimination concepts.

73,
Thomas Giella, KN4LF
Plant City, FL, USA

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WIRELESS on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

What is even more pathetic than the just the school system in this country is how little Americans expect from all government workers that tax them at a rate probably closer to 70 or 80% with all the hidden and indirect taxes.

If every public employee from George Bush to my dog catcher was held to the same job expectation standards as my boss holds me(which is my customers), I might have a government that actually accomplishes something other than spending money.

How people just accept the absolute incompetence from government workers is mind numbing when you realize you are paying their salaries. If you owned a business, would you let your employees work like the government works. I don't think so.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KB9YZL on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Thomas;

While I agree with you completely on the whole “Global Warming” thing, don’t you think that you’re overstating the case just a bit when you say; “Communist controlled public schools”?????

Now………. I can’t comment on your local school districts, but I know all of the people on our local school board, and I’m fairly certain that none of them are taking their orders from a command center in The Ukraine.

The whole world of academia has always been a bit to the left of the mainstream: That’s just the way things seem to shake out. It’s the same now as it was 40 years ago.

I’ve always felt that if our American Principles and Way of Life are as strong as we know them to be, they will be able to survive the occasional “snipe” from the Left side of the aisle. (And probably be stronger for it, because those occasional shots make us consider our Basics from time to time!)

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
“Appliance Operator”

We Need More Schools that teach

by K4RAF on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The biggest single problem impeding education is the NEA. They stand in the way of learning by sponging up increased funding with higher salaries, not based on performance in the classroom.

Then they dropped teaching reading employing phonics. There is a marked drop in literacy when phonics was replaced with some "feel good" replacement around 1970. Now they are selling "Hooked on Phonics" as a bandaid after the damage is already done.

You can't learn anything if you can't read, write or do math. Science is great, but it needs a firm foundation, bonded by the mortar of drive.

RE: We Need More Schools that teach

by KB9YZL on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

K4RAF;

Bullseye!........ Right on target!

RE: We Need More Schools that teach

by KD5JDG on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

From KN4LF: "Communist controlled public schools are to busy teaching acceptance of all forms of sexual deviancy, moral relativism and tolerance of societal reverse discrimination concepts."

Not on target. They ignore those matters all togeather, actually, and its just as good that they do. Furthermore, I would take it a step further and state Facist-Controlled schools. Regardless of what the right or the left wing want to say.

Furthermore, weather you have a left-wing stance or a right-wing stance should make no difference in one's education. We are here to learn, nothing more, and nothing less. Leave the brainwashing from both sides for the media, they do a good job at it. Personally, I am very far left wing, but that has nothing to do with my education (or lack thereof). And also, left wing for me means taking an issue, studying all angles of it, and arriving at a logical conclusion based on all the data collected and common sense. Thats how I work, and alot of people could benefit from this point of view. However, I do not see the schools teaching this. What I do see them teaching (in terms of political concepts) is the idea of "don't ask." they don't want you to ask, they don't care what you think, basically they don't care about you so don't even mention it. Thats how our schools are run. Just do what your told even if it doesn't benefit you becasue we told you to do it and thats it because we don't need to explain the non-existant knowledge behind our actions.

All I have to say is damn, if I'm going to piss away 8 hours of my life everyday for the next X number of years I want to learn something and get something out of the experience. And the way the public, and now charter schools, are run these days that is not going to happen.

The original topic of my article was the fact that basic science concepts are ignored in school. It all breaks down, however, to the rationality the school adminsitrators use when designing and implementing a school system. There is a fatal flaw in it. Arrogance, and a stubburness not to learn how to do it the right way but instead to blame the students continue to plague us. My mother teaches 4th grade and also computer classess at the local community college; she can vouch for the fundemental flaws in our school system, and pays attention when I point errors in logical thinking that I take note of as a fully immersed observer (I am, after all, a student). Perhaps if the adminsitrations would set their arrogance aside and adopt a more logical train of thought, we too could crank out brilliant students.

And for those who can't/don't/won't learn, give them a trade. It'll help this country out immensely. Call me a communist if you want to (although if you knew anything about my political standings you'd know that thats far from the truth) but if we don't take care of everybody then there will be problems within our society, problems which are already present and perhaps getting worse.

And to think, this whole topic started because some people informed me that satellites and cell phones don't use radio waves.....
Haha what a grand collection our public schools crank out....

TNX & 73's,
Fabian X.C.S.
KD5SYH

BTW the above post WILL HAVE GRAMMATICAL ERRORS. This is due to the fact that since I am not composing an official paper I do not feel the need to tediously spell and grammar check all of my writing, because I do not have time. I have alot of homework to do. I do try, however, to ensure that it is accurate enough to allow for easy reading.

We Need More Science in Schools

by K0RGR on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The science programs here in our town are pretty good. Having studied a lot of biology in college, I feel like an idiot when I see what they're studying now in High School Bio - we expect bioengineering and genomics to produce a large percentage of the jobs around here for the next 50 years, so there is a heavy emphasis on it. My daughter had to learn Ohm's law and Kirchoff's laws as a freshman.

RE: We Need More Schools that teach

by K4JSR on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Gloom, doom, despair! In Atlanta, Ga., Sci-Trek just closed its doors for the final time this week end.
Sci-Trek was a hands on type of science museum for kids of all ages. There was even a working ham radio station at Sci-Trek that was regularly manned by members of The Atlanta Radio Club and by the Sci-Trek
Radio Club. There are hopes, but no plans for a re-opening of Sci-Trek elsewhere in Atlanta.
The Atlanta area is not left totally empty of science
centers or museums, thank goodness. The Dekalb County
Board of Education maintains the Fernbank Science
Center just east of Atlanta City Limits. There is a
Fernbank Science Museum that is large and independent
of the Dekalb County facility. I am not certain as
to how it is funded, but it is rather large.
I have moved some distance away from that area, which
is where I grew up, and my kids have all grown up and
are out doing "their thing". No grandkids yet,
but they *WILL* be taken to these places as long as I have life and mobility.
The Fernbank Science Center (DeKalb County BOE), is where The Atlanta Radio Club put on a display of ham
radio for three nights about 30 years ago. Fallout
from that display helped provide students to my ham
classes for four years. To my knowledge no one has
done anything like that since. SIGH! I think that
some one, somewhere is missing an excellent oppotunity
for ham radio. (HINT! HINT! Atlanta Radio Club!)
73, Cal K4JSR
Bethlehem, Ga.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WILLY on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Fabian X. Carbone - Solis (KD5JDG) on August 23, 2004

"I have had many local teenagers and even young adults tell me incessantly that cell phones and satellites (including satellite TV, wireless internet, etc) do not use radio waves. "

In a way, good.
Good that you are exposed to this sort of thing. I hope you live a long, happy, and productive life. If you are around for a number of years, you will see that there are lots of people out there, blathering on, with no idea of what they are talking about. Now it becomes a case of: how do you want to deal with it when it happens? This is up to you. You will discover that rubbing their nose in their ignorance is not a good choice, if you have not already learned this to be true.

"Bottom Line: Instead of teaching the base pairings of the human DNA code at the Freshman High School level,"

Far be it for most of us to judge that "base pairings of the human DNA code" are not worthwhile. Perhaps they are. I don't have a crystal ball.

"our schools should focus on science and technology that actually has applications in everyday life. "

In whose opinion? Yours? :)

By the way, I agree with you that the study of radio is much more interesting than the stufy of biology. But then you've posted here, where it is likely that your audience will be 'radio oriented'.

My point is this: Be open minded about the science courses that ARE being taught. Get all you can out of them.

"One of the fields that I have noticed as absent throughout all my years in school (public and private, BTW I am a Junior in High School now) is Radio Frequency! How could such an important backbone of communication and present communications infrastructure go unspoken of? "

Perhaps because there is only so much time in the school day?
Remember too, that you noticed it because it is an interest of yours.

"Perhaps the ARRL and other amateur radio organizations should press their local school boards to include fundamental electricity, electronics, and RF as part of the science & technology curriculums. "

Not a bad idea. But someone else hit this nail right on the head with:

"If the parents get strongly behind stuff,
all kinds of things happen. "

It's like this - parents are the taxpayers that pay for the schooling. They also have the most vested interest in the schools. The parents can either take on ideas on their own, as volunteer work, or they can push the school administration, perhaps through politics.

Don't feel that I am putting you down. Quite the opposite. I commend you for actually giving some serious thought to your schooling now, and your desire for what you perceive to be positive change. I doubt you can get change though, by criticizing a biology course, in favor of a specialized course, like radio theory. But wouldn't it be interesting if you pressed the administration - properly, meaning to get the parents behind it - to add some RF teaching somehow. Even if only as extra curricular clubs. Then, if you get shot down, ask, "Why?" and see what you get. Don't ever hesitate to ask why. Especially to a public employee. If you don't like the answer, keep digging.
It gets people thinking.

You've got some ideas, you just might need some focus.

73

RE: We Need More Schools that teach

by KB9YZL on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Fabian;

Your original article was fairly well constructed, and highlighted a real issue. Many here (I among them) posted comments that supported your position.

Unfortunately, I have to step back from supporting you when you sink to the level of inflammatory rhetorical phrases such as; “Facist-Controlled schools”, “brainwashing” and “fundamentally flawed”.

I’ve heard these sort of charges many times before, starting with my own time in school back in the early 60’s; ……usually from people with larger agendas.

I don’t want to sound condescending or paternal, but I have a real problem with your strident condemnations of the system. I have been dealing with the Educational System in this country (as a student) for much longer than you have, and somehow, the issues you seem to see with such simple clarity, are no where near as clear or simple to my eyes.

I wonder if your clarity of vision will survive another 40 years of practical experience??

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
“Appliance Operator”

RE: We Need More Schools that teach

by WB2WIK on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Fabian, also, you're clearly wrong when painting with such a broad brush about public schools.

I provided a counterpoint, that being that the public school system here in L.A. is evidently excellent by clearly demonstrated measures and places great emphasis on the sciences -- all of them. I've audited my high school daughter's poli-sci class only once and was incredibly impressed with the lively exchanges between students and teacher, to the extent of screaming matches at times, but at no time did the teacher posit her position as correct and anyone else's as wrong. (The school has no official position on anything.) In fact, she invited as much conflict as necessary to stimulate rather loud discussion.

I also notice that four of the past five years, L.A. City high schools have won in the U.S. Academic Decathalon (USAD), a national competition which rotates around the country in venue and is open to all accredited high schools and their students from all fifty states. It gets very heavy participation from all states, and our schools just keep winning. In 2004, the overall champs were from El Camino Real High School, about three miles from me.

Now, why might that be?

Could be the teachers, but I really don't think so. It's the kids, with interested and highly supportive parents!

WB2WIK/6

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Caity K7VO Says this to all:

I am a product of the New York City public school system.

Me also Caity. I have no complaints of my schooling. The study was all there for me and guess the rest was up to me.

Plenty of, reading, writing and rythmatic and an abundance of science.

Lost 5 years serving my country, but came out in top condition.

I feel it was not the school, but my thoughts that this is what I want and I going to get and have it and I did. The old saying: the will and the way.

.:

RE: We Need More Schools that teach

by KD5JDG on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Well, I can say that I am only commenting on the Corpus Christi Independent School District, and not other districts or university systems.

Furthermore, as far as reconstructing the science curriculm, I'm just saying that if your going to teach a large number of students whom have not begun specializing in their prospective fields, than broad, fundemental, practical knowledge should be taught. When you neglect a subject to the point that people have misconceptions about devices that they use everyday, and also froget most of what "specialied" knowledge they were taught in class, we have a problem. RF should be taught, but only if your planning on going into that field. You'd have the same problem if you tried to teach how to set up a repeater system but not the fundementals of ecosystems in science class, or something of that nature.

Also, you too would be critical of "the system" if you were repeatedly spoken to in a condescending manner and told out right that "your not going to get into xyz University because only a select few people can go there" (the university in question was both Texas A&M Kingsville and Texas A&M College Station). I have also had teachers take advantage of the no-negotiation/no-questions-asked policy of the main office to illigitemitly get me out of their class, as well as deny use of the restroom or nurses office when I had something stuck between my contact and my eye causing it to become noticibly red and swollen. I have also been denied use of the library and computer lab during lunch simply "because". You see, at my old high-school they installed gates in the lunch area which they would lock during the lunch periods and have a guard stationed at only one and she would not let you leave no matter what, and the administration liked it that way. After speaking to the principal several times about this, he said "well thats too bad, at lunch your supposed to eat and thats it". Way to go, sport...you just cost me some time that I could've been learning something.

Maybe the grass is greener on the other side, but here in Corpus its brown, dead, and decomposing in a disgusting way.

TNX & 73's,
Fabian X.C.S.
KD5SYH

RE: We Need More Schools that teach

by KD5JDG on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Also, I would like to state that its not just me that feels this way, but the majority of Corpus Christi high school students. We are, however, ignored...Parents have only a little more power in what goes on than we do.

TNX & 73's, Fabian X.C.S. KD5SYH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by X-WB1AUW on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I seem to remember The League developing programs for schools.

People might simply associate radio waves with radios, or as radio signals; then associate television signals as TV waves, satelite signals as satelite waves, etc.

Although it would be nice if people had better understanding of “radio waves”, there might be more important subjects to be covered, like DNA, during the limited time of High School; “finite” knowledge vrs “finite” time.

It might be that the best people to address your concern are at your school, not on eHam.

73
Bob

We Need More Science in Schools

by K0EWS on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

As a teacher, I find the comments rather interesting. Education is not a national issue, but rather a state issue. Every state has content standards, and a lot of them are different; every state funds education in a different manner, every state has different teacher standards and practices, along with licensing requirements. Education cannot be catagorized and generalized in this manner. Some school districts and schools in this country are simply outstanding. Some school districts should be shut down. There are absolutely terrific and gifted teachers, and there are poor ones. It has been my experience that most of them are quite good. I will not stand here and try to defend things that are wrong with the educational systems. All problems are different, but I am fully aware of our problems in my school and community; as I see them every day. These generalizations do not bother me as they are commonly applied to any profession. People criticize the police, the federal government, their dry cleaners, their cable providers, their computer makers, etc. The fact is that no system, nor no company nor anything is perfect. There is always work to do. A friend once told me life is not perfected, it's managed.
To the original poster, your administrator has a boss. It's called a school board. In most communities, they have meetings once a month, open to the public, and most of them even have something called an open forum, where you can air your gripe. If they don't, a quick visit to a superintendent of schools will usually get you a place on the next meeting agenda. This is your right as a citizen. I suggest you check into this. Also, check with your state department of education for their content standards for science. They are probably readily available to the public on the internet.
These are just a couple of suggestions. I hope that they work. 73

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KD5JDG on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

My concerns here with the CCISD fall upon deaf, arrogant ears. I am trying to let people know what heppens when they stop becoming involved in their local school system, and that the neglect of certain fundemental subjects isn't good. Also, my reference to the DNA base pairings seems to have been misinterpreted by certain people. The fundementals of DNA should be taught, but not nesseccarily as indepth as it is taught at the Freshman high school level. Once you start specializing, thats when the indepth studies should begin. Meanwhile, more time shoudl be allotted to coving broad, practical topics.

Also, I don't know about other school systems but ours has a high-level of arrogance running amock.

Like I said, I wanted to start a ham radio club but after watching the principal drop a students guitar after having displayed arrogance towards a student trying to show her the proper way to handle an instrument, I don't particularly feel safe bringing eqipment to the school.

Arrogance has no place in schools, if I were to contact the IEEE to help coordinate an engineering program, it would fall upon deaf ears just like my other "projects" have. They'd rather just put up guarded gates in all the schools and lock us in the cafeteria while the superintendent makes $200,000 a year than spend the money on an engineering program.

From what other hams have replied about their school systems, I think its time for me to move outta here! But wait, I only have 2 years left...guess I'll just stick it out hihi

TNX & 73's,
Fabian X.C.S.
KD5SYH

We Need More Science in Schools

by N3AIU on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I'm pleased to see a young person speaking up about poor science teaching in public schools. Bravo! If you are not receiving a good science education, the school district is STEALING FROM YOU!

I also agree with the comments from some of the posters about public school teachers: very few of them know any science. Sometimes I'm amazed that I stayed in school and got a Ph.D. in astrophysics, considering how inept my science teachers were. Why would I want to pursue a science career when my teachers were themselves bored to death because they were just reading answers out of a book? I don't know the answer to that question. I can honestly say that I became a scientist in spite of my public school education.

*** Begin lunatic rantings here ***

Things that really tick me off:

1) B.A. degrees in education. In other words, we supposedly teach people "how to teach", but we don't teach them "material to teach", like science subjects. The best that most of public school teachers can do is memorize what's in the lesson planner provided by the school district. How is this behavior supposed to inspire students to pursue a career in science? Where is the love of learning and critical thinking? My dad was a college professor for 40 years, and he told me that most of the rejects (his phrase, not mine) from his department (Romance languages) ended up in the education department, where they suddenly became "A" students and ultimately public school teachers.
2) Ed.D. degrees in education. I spent five years in graduate school slogging through courses like astrophysics, quantum field theory, classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, and electromagnetics. I spent almost two years writing a 390-page Ph.D. thesis on elliptical polarization observations of binary stars. Compare my work with the amount of work required for an Ed.D. degree, which is basically nothing. They get to call themselves "doctor" just like I do, except that they're incompentent when it comes to their job, educating our youth.
3) People with Ed.D. degrees telling me that I'm not qualified to teach high school. Ha! Granted, teaching high school students is different from dealing with college, graduate, and post-doctoral students. I would be willing to take courses to learn about teaching high school kids. After I do this, however, I would be infinitely more qualified to teach high-school science than the majority of public school teachers today: I KNOW science, and I LOVE science.
4) Crappy pay for public school teachers, which is the primary reason for our mediocre education system. Why should any smart and dedicated person take a 60% pay cut compared to other jobs? Consider all the take-home work teachers have. Consider dealing with some parents who automatically think it's the teacher's fault when their student fails. Consider dealing with school boards who try to micromanage and dictate cirricula. Are people greedy for pursuing careers in other fields? No, they just want a living wage when they work hard.
5) Unions have done some good in this country (e.g., eliminating child labor, 40-hour work weeks), but when they perpetuate mediocrity (teachers who don't really know the subjects they teach AND who can't be fired) I draw the line. We need to hire science majors to teach science, English majors to teach English, math majors to teach math, etc., not education majors to read from lesson planners.
6) Quality costs money. Money is short right now because of the economy. We have thrown lots of money at education with minimal results, so I'm not surprised when Americans say that they don't want to pay any more taxes for education.

Do I have a magic solution for the problems in public education? No, which means that I should shut up now (grin) ... To be fair, it would take a large number of dedicated non-NEA people to make the case for improved education and implement it.

*** End lunatic rantings here ***

Do I have a chip on my shoulder? You bet. As a matter of fact, it's friggin' huge! Let's see what kind of flame war this post generates. I apologize in advance if I've offended any educators out there. I hope that you understand my frustration.

73, Nick N3AIU

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KD5JDG on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I too, agree that teachers need a higher salary. I can vouch for this FIRSTHAND becauee my mom is a teacher. jsut how many competent people do you know that woudl rather make some $30,000 teaching than $75,000 working as some kind of engineer and getting more money out of their degree even though they had an interest in teaching? I think this article has generated a good amount of thoughful replies, which is very good...

TNX & 73's,
Fabian X.C.S.
KD5SYH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

N3AIU,

I too have a background similar to yours, except I'm ABD. However, I disagree with your comments.

"How to teach" *is* different than "what to teach", and if your aim is to teach, then you should spend time learning how.

California, where I currently live, requires teachers to demonstrate both abilities. They are required to pass their teaching credentials and to show sufficient skill in the area they are teaching.

If you are willing to take the courses, then do so, but do so with an open mind. Teaching high school *is* much different than teaching graduate students, and "how to teach" is far more important than "what to teach."

My only comment on the 'crappy wages' argument is that California pays high school science teachers around $70,000 per year.

For K-12, I'd rather have teachers who are well prepared to teach and a passing familiarity in their subjects, than experts who have no teaching skills. The level of science or mathematics taught in the high schools doesn't take that much scientific or mathematical skill to comprehend or to convey.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by K0EWS on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I have to agree with the comments of AE6IP. Most public school teachers do study a specialized subject or area. However, the demands of a public school position, depending on the size of the district often put that teacher in charge of teaching several related subjects which they just have rudimental knowlege. An example. A student majors in English education, gets a BA, specializing in Classic English Literature. She gets a teaching job for "high school English." She may do a section of classic English lit., but she may also get to teach grammar, composition, speech, American literature, etc., etc. as well. It depends on the needs of the school, size of district, number of staff, course offerings, requirements, etc.
I compare the public school teacher to the family doctor. We are general practicioners, much like the GP at the local clinic, knowing a little bit about a lot of areas. When a student wants to specialize or get some enrichment, the good school has a talented/gifted program in place for this. A lot don't, however. At the very least, a teacher that may not be familiar with something like RF theory, should at least point the student in the direction to look; a local college, internet resources, etc. to get the student the enrichment they are looking for.
As for being a crack scientist, engineer, etc., it has been my experience that most, but certainly not all, of those personalities can't deal with the high school level; they simply don't have the patience. I am by trade, a music teacher. I don't teach music, I teach music to kids. There is a BIG difference. I MUST tolerate them at the level they are on right now to reach them, to communicate with them, and to make them better. Many in the professional ranks in their given fields simply don't do this well. As much as I like teacher education programs, educational reform, improvement, etc. etc., yada yada, frankly, teachers are born, they are not made. You can improve a crappy teacher to be a marginal teacher, but the good ones are just born that way and "get it." They will always be good teachers; as it really does requrire talent in communication, reading people, patience, tact, discipline, a level head, and many other things that cannot be taught. This is an interesting thread. Back to original subject, to the original poster, your problem sounds like it lies in the curriculum more than in the teachers, and your administator does sound interesting to brush you off like that. One of the byproducts of the No Child Left Behind Act is that most school districts are looking long and hard into the state content standards to see if they match up. You might want to see what your content standards are in the area of science. Another unfortunate thing to come about due to No Child Left Behind is that some schools teach just to the standardized test, and they just want the scores to be higher each year due to political pressure. They will often not include subject matter that doesn't deal in some way with the content standards, or the test items. It is sad that we have this mentality in some schools, as that really isn't education; teaching to a test. Real education is in the proof of APPLICATION OF KNOWLEGE AQUIRED. Example. I teach you Ohm's Law. Test would be, "Here you go, kid. Here's a breadboard, a battery and some resistors. Show me what to do to get 500 miliamps of current with that 9 volt battery. Draw the schematic, and wire it on the breadboard." If the student can do this, then we know he really does have the knowlege of what Ohm's Law is. Sadly, in most areas of education, due to large class sizes and time constraints, this just isn't practical or feesable.
Just a few thoughts. Like I said, interesting discussion.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by K4JSR on August 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

You people can argue all you want about public schools
and how to teach, but the fundamental principle of
re-inforcing interest is paramount. To blame all of the problems on educators is sheer folly. If we as
parents and grand parents do not re-inforce what our
children are taught, then the blame is ours. The same
goes for getting students exposed to learning in places outside of the classroom; i.e. "the "Real World", whatever the heck that is.
Belief that the responsibilty of education os solely that of the school systems alone is idiocy to the nth degree. You can have the best school system in the world, but if the students do not receive any external motivation and demonstrations of the usefulness of their education, the battle is lost
before it has even begun.

73, Cal K4JSR

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AB8TM on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Posted by Fabian:
"...left wing for me means taking an issue, studying all angles of it, and arriving at a logical conclusion based on all the data collected and common sense."

Ohh, Ok. I think i get it now guys. I don't know if this is as much about "grass roots education reform" as much as it is a young man going through a certain stage in his life. Notice his concern with "arrogance." I'm sad to say this is just a fact of life.

I give Fabian about 4 years and he will be the rightest of the right wing though...I have faith!!

P.S. Besides science, I think Corpus Christi needs to do a better job on teaching politics!

73

We Need More Science in Schools

by N3AIU on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AE6IP: Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. Believe it or not, I don't think that most of your comments contradict mine.

1) Yes, learning to teach is important, but I think that there is too much emphasis placed on it compared to actually learning a subject or subjects. I've had teachers in college that definitely should have taken courses on how to teach. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

2) You speak about credentials, which I believe are required in every state. Credentials are a great thing, but seeing bad teaching first hand makes me wonder how stringent they really are.

3) Teaching high school students is different than teaching graduate students. I would be the first to agree with you. Training is definitely required for the former. If I ever decided to teach high school, I would definitely get training.

4) $70,000 per year: I guess that this is a decent salary, even for California where the cost of living tends to be high. My question is: How many years of experience is required to get that salary? I would be very surprised if a fresh-faced recent science/engineering college graduate would get paid this kind of money to teach in public school. But, a scientist/engineer right out of school could definitely get paid this salary if he went to work in private industry. More salary <--> easier to pay off student loans. Simple economics.

Is there any way to work ham radio back into this thread (grin).

73, Nick N3AIU

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KD5JDG on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AB8TM:

I don't see why you would say that I would turn right-wing, but ok. Actually, I do not liek to affiliate myself with any political parties...theres too much "politics" involved in that. But as far as what most people would say about me, I have very far left-wing ideas and social-political concepts. If you would like to discuss them, please email me as it will most certainly be off topic for this thread. FCeagle@hotmail.com

As for my use of the word "arrogance", it is the simple fact ask any student and even some parents here that we are condescended upon by adminsitrators. Its that simple. However, I woudl like to say that most of the teachers here to quite well and are very nice to us, even though there is alot of pressure put on them to return high test scores.

And yes, this article was about grassroots education reform. I think I would know, being the one who wrote the article. There was no alterior motive of my subconscious. it was simply to alert people using an example that yes, our science and technology programs are lacking. Most subsequent postings by me reveal the root of the problem.

And yes, Corpus Christi, Tx deos need to "learn politics" as a whole. Or, perhaps, they are being far too political? An example: we could've had a Toyota magnufacturing plant right here in good ol' Corpus Christi, Texas. That would've meant more jobs of all sorts (perhaps even for me so that I wouldn't have to move Cities in order to find a decent job), and would've been good for Corpus jsut over all the list goes on and on. However, it never happened, Corpus Christi basically said no. Furthermore, dangerous construction is being performed all over Corpus at one time for the past year on almost all major roads. Corpus isn't that big of a city. The list goes on and on once again...But now I am really starting to get off topic.

TNX & 73's,
Fabian X.C.S.
KD5SYH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Cal K4JSR,

Well said, and I couldn't agree more. Kids need support from their families. I was extremely fortunate. My mother didn't understand my specific interests, but encouraged myself, my brother and sister in all of our pursuits. We did the same with our daughter and are doing the same with the granddaughter.

Marty

We Need More Science in Schools

by WA0RJ on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I had a very interesting QSO the other day. I chatted with a club station at a science camp for boys in Eastern Pennsyvania. It is called Camp Watonka. Several boys gathered around the radio while the op and I had our qso. The boys asked me numerous questions. I thought the idea of a science summer camp was a great.

There are many creative things we can do to help promote education in a way that will capture the attention of young people and motivate them. We just need to decide we need to be part of the solution and do something. Many communities would welcome and support great ideas such as the science camp. Why not get something going in your location?

I am a college professor and find the level of general knowledge possessed by incoming students from our public education system to seriously lacking. They know very little about anything. Sometimes I think I've forgotten more than they have ever learned. Instead of complaining, I think the answer is to engage our young people and make learning interesting. You would be suprised how much they will learn and enjoy the process if someone will just take an interest in them and lead them.

We can do this!

We Need More Science in Schools

by N3AIU on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

K4JSR & WA0RJ: Well said!

73, Nick N3AIU

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by X-WB1AUW on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Awww, come on now!

A High School student who thinks he knows how to run a complete school system better than the admin and board of education, doesn’t have anything to do with ham radio.

73
bob

We Need More Science in Schools

by N3AIU on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

X-WB1AUW:
I don't think that KD5JDG implied that he knew how to run a school system. He is an insightful, and perhaps inciteful (grin), young man who sees something wrong with public education. He has generated a lot of stimulating dialog -- even if it some of it was off topic.

73, Nick N3AIU

We Need More Science in Schools

by AA6YQ on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Fabian, are you lamenting the absence of electromagnetic radiation from the 9th grade curriculum, or from your entire high-school curriculum?

I am not a teacher/educator, but a serious look at electromagnetic radiation requires some math under one's belt -- trigonometry at minimum, and probably some calculus and basic differential equations. Is it possible that "RF" is covered a little later in your school's curriculum?

If not, that's a shame, but you need not let it stop you. There is lots of excellent material available on the web, for example

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/

If there are other students with similar interests, you'll have more fun working through this stuff together. Perhaps you can find a teacher, acquaintance of your parents, or member of the local ham club who can help clarify things that seem murky.

By the way, don't be so quick to dismiss DNA. Base pair selection, protein folding, enzymatic action -- these "technologies" will likely end up in computational and/or storage devices a generation or two from now. And given the convergence between computation and communication...

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AA6YQ on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

N3AIU, AE6IP

One of these days, we'll realize that the most precious natural resource on this planet isn't oil or gemstones or tritium, but trained human grey matter. When that happens, education will become economically critical, and process of training, selecting, and compensating teachers (from early-childhood on up) will shift radically. Some of today's teachers have the required intellect, passion, and demeanor, but teaching will ultimately become the top rung in every professional ladder - the most demanding job, with the highest compensation.

It would be useful to accelerate this process...

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KC8VWM on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>> This is evident by the growing costs involved in obtaining a college diploma. <<<

That is because education is a business, and like any other business - the cost of the purchased "goods" are relative to any other market commodity.

It is also noteworthy to indicate that most College graduates are competeting in a job market filled with less skilled workers.

Employers seem more willing to hire these workers with less training because they are willing to work for less money.

I know of several graduates that did not reveal thier degrees to a potential employer. Why?... Employers usually equate a person with a higher degree as a person that may be requiring higher wages.

This is because we have been told by the education system to expect higher wages as a result of our degree.

There is such a thing as higher education.. however, there is also what is known as economic reality.

It is a well known fact that you are more likely to secure a job through networking prospects, personal experience, polishing a resume, and word of mouth advertising. The degree is only a small part of the larger picture in the employers mind.

This page is interesting. It describes how we are actually teaching students faulty and inaccurate information in science textbooks in College.

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/lens1.html

We Need More Science in Schools

by N5XM on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I was very happy when my HS senior son told me had aced his competency exam until he told me that 46% of the school was below average. As a result, the school teaches down to the lowest level of student generally, and the above average students do not get the attention they need. I believe in basic education with enough curriculum available for the sharper students who want to excel. Political correctness seems to be more important than actually helping young people learn how to learn. We have been hoist by our own petard. It isn't every teacher's fault, but the state of Education on the Nat'l level is and has been bankrupt.

We Need More Science in Schools

by K0RGR on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Up here, we have options for all levels of students. As my two kids are both dyslexics, I am more concerned with ensuring that they have the resources they sometimes need.

I'm not pleased with "Leave no Child Behind" for reasons I've discussed before, but we're getting by.

A popular option for kids who excel is 'Advanced Placement' classes. Kids choosing this option take classes at the local Junior College instead of at the High School. They take Freshman English or History instead of the High School version, and get full college credit for it, too. My daughter is hoping to take at least one of these classes starting next year - I think it's a great intro to college for her.

There are also vocational ed options for kids who don't plan to go to college.

Now, if you want to cry, read a high school history book sometime. If you have ever had an interest in history, the experience will probably kill it. In our district, the kids don't even have textbooks because all of them are so bad. The teachers make up the course using several different books as resources.

And you have two warring political factions trying to control the teaching of history in this state. The Democrats want chapters on the robber barons and the rise of unions, and John F. Kennedy, and the Republicans don't. The Republicans want a chapter on Ronald Reagan, and the fall of Communism, and the Democrats don't. Everybody in the state wants a chapter about how they were oppressed by my ancestors, some of whom were oppressed by my other ancestors!

We Need More Science in Schools

by HAMDUDE on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I think Fabian hit on a good point. Schools today seem to be willing to teach nonessential things to students, yet ignore basic everyday life things that students will encounter in the real world. Teaching the 3 R`s is simply not enough. Schools should teach students things they will encounter in their future careers whichever they chose.

As one poster pointed out, many schools lack a good science lab, but they sure have a perfect athletic field and a perfect state of the art gym! PE is fine...to a point...but there are much more important things in life then being a good football or basketball player...unless you plan on going pro.

Unfortunatly, the trend in modern schools is to simply herd the students through like cattle with or without any knowledge to simply get them out of the way for the next group. Its sad to see young people today with a diploma who cant even construct a proper sentence. Its even sadder to see colleges recruiting football players who can barely write their names simply because they are a good athlete.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KC9AGG on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

It's easy to blame the government, the teacher's union, the extremists who want to ban books and teach Creationism instead of *real* science, but I don't think the ultimate solution will be derived from assigning blame. I think the ultimate solution is acually inside each and every one of us.

what is real science? you don't hold up un-proven theories as fact...theories are just theories until proven to be true-then they become laws, or at least accepted axioms. teaching darwinism to the exclusion of any other theory about the origins of life is BAD SCIENCE, period... not "real" science. you are a shallow "scientist" if you accept the status quo and use some pseudo scientistic argument to promote your pet idea to the exclusion of any competing theory. be a real scientist and look at the data that's provided, and then theorize. this is about science, not peoples egos.the schools need to learn this.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WB2WIK on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I agree with AE6IP about teacher salaries. They are not low, at least surely not here in California -- and absolutely not here in Los Angeles.

Since our tax dollars pay their salaries (for public school teachers and administrators), every single one of their salaries is published annually in the L.A. Times. In L.A., about 20% of all teachers and administrators are paid over $100,000 annually. The bulk are paid between $55,000 and $75,000. And newbies starting out are paid about $45,000. This is for a job where one "works" 38 weeks a year, not 52.

If adjusted to the norm, which is where employees work 49 weeks a year (2 weeks vacation, 5 paid holidays), the salaries would look 28.9% higher -- so that starting position at $45K is really $58K. And those science teachers making $75K are really making $96.7K, adjusted. I think we must adjust the salaries, because the teachers are usually free to do whatever they wish during the summer, including getting another job for nine or ten weeks.

Teachers with advanced degrees often earn more than their normal pay rate during the summer, teaching summer courses at local junior colleges and such. At least, most of the ones I know do. This supplemental income, which is really just filling in "off" time, can be $15K for 9 weeks.

So, I don't think "earning potential" is much of a problem, at least not here and probably not in many places. Or, at least not where the teacher has the slightest ambition.

The problem surely lies with parental involvement in every aspect of their children's education and lives. Although Fabian says the parents have no more voice about this than the students, that really can't be true. Parents vote to elect senior level management of the school systems, or to elect representatives who in turn make those appointments. There's an opportunity for major revamping every four years, and probably much more frequently than that, if parents actually show up at school board meetings and hearings, which are always open to the public.

Our local school board meetings are broadcast "live" on television (well, not exactly broadcast -- they're carried by cable channels) and then replayed repeatedly at various hours (including at 2:00 am!) so anyone interested can see what's going on, and if they might want to show up at the next one to effect change.

WB2WIK/6

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KC8VWM on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"teaching darwinism to the exclusion of any other theory about the origins of life is BAD SCIENCE, period... not "real" science. you are a shallow "scientist" if you accept the status quo and use some pseudo scientistic argument to promote your pet idea to the exclusion of any competing theory."

Let's see.. You are a Berkeley grad?

:)

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KE4MOB on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Everybody has blamed everyone else. I guess us, the parents, are blameless.

We're not to blame because Johnny sits in front of the TV 6 hours an evening and doesn't do his homework.

We're not to blame for not teaching Johnny about things as patriotism, etiquette, morals, and right and wrong.

We're not to blame for not cooking decent meals, allowing our kids to eat endless amounts of junk food, and for them weighing upwards of 180 lbs when they're 10 years old.

Should there be more science in schools? Sure....but it's not going to happen as long as we force the schools to do our job for us. Schools are too busy trying to raise our children when they should only have to educate them. If we would do our job, it would make theirs much easier.

The failure of the educational system in this country is really a symptom of a much larger problem: the failure of the parenting system.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KC8VWM on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The failure of the parenting system in this country is really a symptom of a much larger problem: the failure of the political system.

... and so on, and henceforth.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W4CBL on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

K4AI

>>>Problem with public educaiton is, instead of the three Rs, we teach social engineering, diversity, sensitivity, tolerance, and how big bad corporate America is raping the world.<<<

You said it all, there. Public schools are no longer in the "education" business: they are in the liberal propaganda busisiness.

Chris W4CBL

We Need More Science in Schools

by WA0RJ on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

In reading the posts under this topic I see that we are all modernist thinkers. Modernism believes that there is "truth" which can be known and expressed in laws of nature and the universe. When we attempt to debate we couch our arguments in the form of logic. This is our weakness. Modernism is dead. The culture has become post-modern. Our schools, elementary through the universtiy levels are post-modern in their thinking. Post-modernists do not believe in absolute "truth." All truth is relative, defined by the situation and the individual experience in the situation.

When we think of our children learning history, science or whatever in school, we think in terms of modernistic thought. It just ain't that way no more. Pick up a history or science or social studies text and you will be shocked. Everything is tolerated except a belief in "truth."

This is the basic difference you see in this country between the two political parties. One is modernistic and the other post-modernistic in their approach. One party believes in discovering the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the other sees the Constitution as a document that evolves with the times not fixed in meaning and cannot provide guidance unless reinterpreted by each generation.

When we go into the FCC with facts and data about BPL (modernist approach)why won't it listen? Those in power are post-modernists and to them the data is irrelevant.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KB9YZL on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Modernist?......Post-Modernist???..............Jeeeeeezzzz!!!!!!!!!!

God help us all when they start rolling out the Social-Political Labels!

Why don’t we face the fact that this thread has developed all the appeal of Sun-Ripe Road Kill? ………… Let’s walk away from this collection of poorly constructed political soapboxes while we still have our sanity!

This thread needs to die.

Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
“Appliance Operator”

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WB2WIK on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

To get back to Fabian's original subject...

I did note in today's local paper that "SAT" testing should also die. It's become counterproductive, evidently. Based on some research by the L.A. Times here, they can't find any correlation between SAT scores and actual success in anything, college or otherwise.

Maybe this is true. I know some of my daughter's high school courses were so focused on scoring highly on certain achievement tests that they spent an entire semester on "how to take the test," and really didn't learn a damned thing other than how to score higher based on tricks to achieve a higher score.

That *does* seem rather counterproductive.

WB2WIK/6

We Need More Science in Schools

by W7PW on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Some schools are, in fact, doing a good job of teaching more than traditional science!

My son attends Silver Stage High School in Silver Springs, NV, where he will be a Junior in the coming year. The school opened in his Freshman year and thus far he has had an opportunity to take one semester each of electronics, robotics and Cisco networking, in addition to the ususal science offerings. In addition they have a very nice Amateur Radio station on campus.

My son will certainly be looking forward to the opportunities presented in his final 2 years of high school which, I believe, will be on par with the last 2 years.

Jack Parker, AE7DX (ex-W7PW)

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KG4JNL on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Amen, education starts at home not in school.If our children are not educated in the simple little rules at home and follow them.How can we expect them follow little rules in school or the big rules of life.
We as a generation starting in the late fiftys thru middle seventys followed such trash as Dr. Spock.Im as guilty as the rest I expected the school system to teach my kids values plus educate them.If children havent the basic values by the time they enter school then teaching them is even harder.
We took religion ,spanking(not beating) and now we are removing pride in our country.I for one know who is to blame you and I are!!
Steve

We Need More Science in Schools

by KE2IV on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"Bottom Line: Instead of teaching the base pairings of the human DNA code at the Freshman High School level, our schools should focus on science and technology that actually has applications in everyday life."

Well, to start with, base pairings of human DNA is actually much more relevant to HS science than RF.

You should consider that one of the key reasons for presenting science (or any other field of knowledge) in HS is to whet a student's appetite for finding a professional preference. One that will only find fruition after college and, perhaps, graduate school. So, DNA pairing information is quite interesting to a future medical professional, for instance.

But what is more saddening is how science education generally, has been destroyed in our schools. Too often, for example, you can no longer teach the simple theory of evolution without some group demanding equal time for a disguised religious indoctrination known as "creationism".

So, to avoid "controversy", schools continue to "dumb down" science education. And yes, that means you're particular scientific interest is no better served than the would be biologist's!

Not to be a doomsayer - but I can assure you that Chinese students are not wasting time "learning" creationism when they could be studying RF theory or DNA pairings, for example.

We Need More Science in Schools

by KI4CYQ on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I would agree

In my Junior High there is not a whole lot taught about radio waves. Now light and ocean waves are covered but not radio. Even in this age of cell phones and WIFI internet people still dont know why they work.

just my 2 cents

73
Jay
KI4CYQ

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

WA0RJ,

I'm certain that not everyone in this thread falls neatly into the modern/post-modern bin. Some of us, for example, are pragmatic empiricists. I don't know what "truth" is, but I do know that quantum mechanics works very well.

Post-modernism is, of course, a simple form of intellectual laziness. Not able to find absolutes to adhere to, and unwilling to deal with relativism, it throws up its hands and surrenders.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> You said it all, there. Public schools are no longer
> in the "education" business: they are in the liberal
> propaganda busisiness.

Given the number of school boards across the country, especially in the south, that are controlled by avowed conseratives, I am amused that the anti-liberal knee jerk shows up in the education debate.

However, you are incorrect to say "no longer", as if education wasn't previously liberal. The gentleman from Virginia, responsible in a large fashion for our system of liberal higher education was president nearly 200 years ago, after all.

I'm sure that Mr. Jefferson, as well as Mr. Franklin, would be sad that our school systems have fallen from their great liberal heritage.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> what is real science?

Not, alas, what you suggest below.

> you don't hold up un-proven theories as
> fact...

No theory is ever "proven", nor ever held up as a "fact."

> theories are just theories until proven to be true-
> then they become laws, or at least accepted axioms.

No. "law" in science does not mean "proven theory". Rather, it means "well demonstrated relationship, usually mathematical." "Axiom" as a term isn't part of science, it's part of mathematics; which, despite what you may have learned in school is *not* science.

A "law" is a description that has been shown to hold under a wide range of circumstances. That's all it is.

A "theory" is an attempt to answer "why" questions about what we know about the universe.

An "axiom" is a statement accepted as the basis of a set of theorems. (or branch of mathematics)

> teaching darwinism to the exclusion of any other
> theory about the origins of life is BAD SCIENCE,
> period... not "real" science.

Oh, crap. When you teach science to high school students, and, for the most part, to undergraduates, you concentrate on what is accepted on the whole. "Darwinism" is well established, much documented, and heavily verified. You teach the parts that are as they are. Then you mention the areas that are not well understood.

> you are a shallow "scientist" if you accept the
> status quo and use some pseudo scientistic argument
> to promote your pet idea to the exclusion of any
> competing theory.

Yes. there are many of those, for example, wishing to teach what they call 'creation science.' You can find them easily in astronomy and energy physics as well.

> be a real scientist and look at the data that's
> provided, and then theorize.

Deriving theory from observation is a very tiny part of science, and, these days, very few people do it.

> this is about science, not peoples egos.the schools
> need to learn this.

To teach science to children, you must capture their attention, and then encourage their creativity and problem solving skills.

You do this, first and formost, by teaching them how to reason critically, how to do their own research, and how to act on their passions.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by K0RFD on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

KC9AGG wrote:

>you are a shallow "scientist" if you accept the >status quo and use some pseudo scientistic argument
>to promote your pet idea to the exclusion of any
>competing theory.

Accept the status quo? Oh my no. I only accept what fits the data. You have a better idea? Let's hear it.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> Accept the status quo? Oh my no. I only accept what
> fits the data. You have a better idea? Let's hear
> it.

That's not a very good criteria. It sort of works in some areas of physics, but it leaves you paralyzed in nearly all other branches of science.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by K0RFD on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Marty, in the context of evolution (which is where I think he was headed with his criticism) it works very well.

Unless he or someone else is prepared to argue that the fossil record was put there by Satan to tempt us, and/or that radioactive decay rates have changed substantially over time.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Actually, in the context of _historical_ evolution, it works pretty poorly. Witness the debates over bird/dinosaurs.

Any number of theories can easily be made to fit the data, which is, itself, fragmentary, incomplete, and requiring considerable interpretation.

(It wasn't satan, by the way, it was Coyote.)

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KC8VWM on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"To teach science to children, you must capture their attention, and then encourage their creativity and problem solving skills.

You do this, first and formost, by teaching them how to reason critically, how to do their own research, and how to act on their passions."

Interesting thought...

But what I find interesting is the big education lie.

This is conveyed by many educational institutions and pertains to the idea that a persons level of education directly relates to thier personal achievement or success.

On the contrary, we all know that a person's success level at so called higher institutions of learning is only obtainable and all relative to the size and model year of car that daddy is driving at the time...

The trouble with our society is that success is a matter of personal economics, not personal education.

The Point?

Personal success is not measured by education level or even by the multiple number of degrees a person holds. Our society equates success in the form of American currency.

... The education system continues droning about the big American Dream sales pitch. Education (Colleges and Universities in particular) are nothing but another business with a ever perpetuating self marketing machine custom built into it's own foundation.

We Need More Science in Schools

by WA2JJH on August 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

You are a head of the game. Budgets for science labs are pathetic.

When we had the space race of the 1960's, there was a big technolgy push into schools.

You could try building your own kits and projects and bring them into science class.

See if you can shame the schools admin. to cough up the doe.

In NYC we have magnet science schools. Big problem is that the Honer/magnet schools. You have to take a test.

If that is your situation...go for it. The magnet schools will have more of what you want.

It is a hard road, but you packed for your journey well

73 MIKE

We Need More Science in Schools

by AD5GX on August 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I ran into both the failures and the successes of our public education system.

When I left Jr. High, the faculty told my parents to enroll me in the vocational classes as there wasn't a chance I would graduate from high school.

Then I found the wonderful (government) program called "Upward Bound" (UB). UB did a wonderfully simple thing: it taught me how to study and motivated me to strive for college.

In my Sr. year of high school I was enrolled in advanced math (I drew the line before calculus!), AP Chemistry, Physics, AP History and AP English.

I since earned my Master of Divinity degree and recently won an Air Force level award (meaning best in the USAF).

Up to high school the teachers tried hard but missed the fact that somewhere along the line I missed learning how to study!

Then the UB picked me up, dusted me off, and gave me a future. I am forever indebted to UB. (Although UB seems to have worked on "outdated" principles of competition!

The high school chemistry I took was more advanced than my first two college chemistry classes! I had to give up my lunch in high school for chemistry to have time to complete the lab sessions. (How many kids choose to do that?)

I ended up with a basic knowledge of science and very good critical thinking skills which have served me well!

73!

Matt
AD5GX

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by K0RFD on August 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I think the debate over birds/dinosaurs will continue for some time. It hasn't fully played out yet. Geologists tend to not only think in geologic time, but to reason in geologic time as well. I oughta know, I are one.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KD5JDG on August 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> You said it all, there. Public schools are no longer
> in the "education" business: they are in the liberal
> propaganda busisiness.

"Given the number of school boards across the country, especially in the south, that are controlled by avowed conseratives, I am amused that the anti-liberal knee jerk shows up in the education debate. "

No way. Being a student I think I would know if propaganda was being dessimated towards us. Hell, if anything, almost all of my classes have conservative teachers, and the administration is certainly conservative. However, I hear no conservative nor any liberal "propaganda" being directed towards us. Sorry, no dice. I don't see why anybody thinks that.

TNX & 73's,
Fabian X.C.S.
KD5SYH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Aha! A Geologist! One of the scary moments of my life: being passenger in a State Geologic Survey truck while an old hand expert drove, and described the surrounding geology to a recent hire from out of state.

I know the Boulder Batholith is interesting, but not enough to die for.

We Need More Science in Schools

by M0AFJ on August 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Going back to the thread, a good comment Fabian. In the UK the RSGB runs a bus which is kitted out with HF, VHF including satellite, PSK etc. This is driven to schools, youth groups county shows etc and amateur radio is demonstrated and explained to the audience.
The funding for the bus is by donation from UK and foreign hams and it is manned by a RSGB approved employee.
From all accounts this has been a huge success attracting a number of young people of both sexes and all demographic groups to the hobby.
I understand the the WIA (Wireless Institute of Australia) are starting a similar scheme,is this not something that our friends in the States could not organise?,

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by N9YB on August 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"The biggest single problem impeding education is the NEA. "

IMHO, the single biggest problem impeding education is the lack of parental involvement. I know who with whom my kids associate, I know their teachers, I know their curriculum and my kids know my and my XYL's expectations.

I take the time to anwser their questions and am alway willing to sit down with them to assist in their studies.

We encourage sports, music, a knowledge of current events, Amateur Radio and a variety of other activities that provide for a well rounding upbringing.

Will we be able to control everything, no, but that is not the intent. I am involved enough to give them a pretty good idea of right and wrong, good and bad as well as the wherewithal to make them understand that their lot in life is pretty darn good compared to many on this planet.

Just one man's $0.02...

We Need More Science in Schools

by KB1GHC on August 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Yeah I agree, I’m from entering my junior year of high school. Their putting too much pressure for English, actually, my school supposedly has the hardest English requirements to graduate than any other school in the state.

Too many IDIOTS are passing the science classes too. It took us about 2 months just to go ever the ohms law. (And out classes are 1 1/2 hours long)

What REALLY pisses me off about my schools science program is computer science. If I had $1 for every spyware/adware/malware program i deleted trying to use the damn computer, I could by myself a nice FTDX-9000 or an IC-7800.

When i entered my freshmen year, and i was choosing my courses, they had a class for CompTIA A+ IT certification (you had to drive to a nearby school to take) a Programming Course, and a few other courses. BUT you needed to be a senior to take the classes, now those classes aren’t offered.

Another thing that pisses me off about school in all of the United States is that everything is standardized. SAT/PSAT/MCAS (in MA)/CATS (in CT) thanks to Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act"

Everyone learns different, and someone going to law school is taking the same test and same classes as someone who's going to Electrical/Computer Engineering.

I think that every test/class should be different, depending on how the kid learns and thinks. Some kids are really good at reading and writing, but can't weld. Some kids can weld, but can't fix a computer, some kids can fix a computer, but can't do math.

EVERYONE IS DIFFORENT! Stop standardizing, because standardization is evil.

AND! with Bush's "No child Left Behind Act" it doesn't help the students. It doesn't help the teachers, it doesn't help anyone. BUT WHERE IS THE MONEY TO HELP PEOPLE???????

73' de Steve, KB1GHC

P.S: John Kerry 2004!

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KB1GHC on August 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Hey "WIRELESS" why don't you get a callsign before you start blasting other peoples opinions!

We Need More Science in Schools

by W3DCG on August 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

For my favorite antagonist, IV, hey there.

Actually, DNA may be more relevant, from the standpoint that biology, DNA, pertains to all living things, or once living, things.

Our DNA is something that certainly we cannot escape.

RCR Wireless News, August 23,2004
states the following:

"One Third of U.S. teens between the ages of 11 and 17 owned a phone last year, according to one poll, and that number is expected to rise to half by the end of this year."

CELLULAR PHONES. Do you see, by the end of this year, cellular industry analysts predict half the kids in this country, between 11 and 17 will have a cellular phone.

They spend many hours watching TV, and though it likely is cable, many are via Dish, and if it is cable, likely it is Satellite fed.

Additionally, they spend many hours listening to FM radio.

Many will likely have wireless Internet access, and we may call it a stretch, but it is still wireless, still RF.

Car manufacturers are wildly marketing ONStar tm, and GPS.

GPS is for sale at Walmart and Target, you don't even have to have a clerk fetch it from behind a glass counter anymore.

Hence, the author makes an excellent point.

The applications of RF on a conceptual level, with regard to wavelength and frequency, can be applied to Sound Waves, light waves, and virtually any sort of WAVE with a period and frequency. Visa Versa.

And I do agree, given how much wireless is in our daily lives, more time might well be devoted to basic electronics and RF theory, in Junior High and High Schools.

Good Article!
I think it is important to keep Education in mind, and we should consider it a normal and common topic within the realms of Amateur Radio related discussion.

We Need More Science in Schools

by WN3VAW on August 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

My daughter enters second grade next week.

She received a post card from her new teacher the other day. The teacher mailed it from Alaska, where she was taking a trip, and not only did the card welcome my daughter to the class, but talked a little bit about the trip and AK.

Today (on my day off from work) we went to the local library and spent time researching Alaska, including showing her some maps and learning something about the history of the state. Of course, I had already spent some time with her going over some of my picture QSL cards from various KL7's... since getting the post card sparked her interest in AK in general and geography in particular.

The point?

If you want your kid(s) to succeed in school, good schools and good teachers help, but it is up to YOU to take some initiative and encourage them to learn.

'nuff said

73

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KG6MNB on August 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AB8TM::
> Ohh, Ok. I think i get it now guys. I don't know if this is as much about "grass roots education reform" as much as it is a young man going through a certain stage in his life. Notice his concern with "arrogance." I'm sad to say this is just a fact of life.
> I give Fabian about 4 years and he will be the rightest of the right wing though...I have faith!

Perhaps this is just the kind of arrogance he's talking about? God forbid anything a young person does be labelled as an intelligent choice. Unless you happen to agree with it...

Although, you might be right on that 4 year prediction. When he finds out how much he's going to have to pay for college, he might want to practice some creative accounting too. Moving his taxes offshore might help him buy those books.

WB2WIK::
> Since our tax dollars pay their salaries (for public school teachers and administrators), every single one of their salaries is published annually in the L.A. Times. In L.A., about 20% of all teachers and administrators are paid over $100,000 annually. The bulk are paid between $55,000 and $75,000. And newbies starting out are paid about $45,000. This is for a job where one "works" 38 weeks a year, not 52.

A lot of the teachers I know here in Orange County complain on a very consistant basis about their wages. One thing to consider is that teaching isn't really a 9 to 5 job (shifted however many minutes to adjust for the odd schedules they like to impose on students). I've known a few teachers personally, and the ones that are dedicated to their job, the ones that are the most amazing, rarely have any time to spare, day or night. And the many more who aren't so great? They just serve as a depressing reality to the teachers who realize how much their jobs matter.
Another thing to consider is that being a good teacher can be a very stressful job. Anticipating the "boo hoo" and "want a tissue?" responses, perhaps I can illustrate this in a way that contains a sufficient amount of manliness for the point to be taken seriously. One of the most amazing teachers I've ever had was my english teacher in my second year of high school. He not only made english an enjoyable subject for the first time in my life, but also sparked my interest in photography through his journalism class (which I took my senior year). The amount of time he spent trying to give serious feedback on essays and the like (most of which was probably ignored by many students who only cared for the grade that they were to receive) often took up most of his 'off work' time. And then he had to manage the school newspaper... And then he had to deal with endless bureaucracy regarding simple, stupid things such as the air conditioner running 24/7, freezing all his students. Or the incompetence of the network administrators deleting a months work of page layouts, or locking the computers yet again. Just a million small things about the school system that make being a serious teacher a very underpaid job.
Anyways, he was just called to serve in Afghanistan and is getting a lot more sleep.
And as for only working 38 weeks instead of 52, there was a whole set of reasons why that wasn't a very good argument for paying them less, although I can't seem to remember them now, which kind of makes my argument fall flat on its face. I think it's the mind numbing commie-waves of public education getting to me. I suppose you could always go ask the teachers about it though, they like to talk.

W4CBL::
> You said it all, there. Public schools are no longer in the "education" business: they are in the liberal propaganda busisiness.

If being nice to others is "liberal propaganda", I think we could do with some more of it. Sounds more like Christianity (or <insert non satan worshipping religion here>) to me though. Sure it's not right wing propaganda? Or maybe it's just common sense.

And as for "big bad corporate america raping the world", well, wisdom is founded upon facts. There's no use trying to stick kids' heads in the sand and pretend that the world isn't happening around them. (Where's the proof? In a newspaper near you.)

WB2WIK::
> That *does* seem rather counterproductive.

You wouldn't know the half of it, if you haven't seen the "prep classes". The horror.. the horror!

You get to buy your SAT scores nowdays, at Princeton review, etc.

My fondest memory (my parents having stuffed me into one under threat of.. well.. there were lots of threats.) was of being forced to memorize, in order, an 11x14 sheet of words. Just words, no particular relation, just random words that may or may not have appeared on the SAT. I honestly can't clearly remember a thing that went on in there, which I suspect is a good thing. Maybe it was more of KN4LF's commie mind control. So THAT's why I'm liberal! It all makes sense now.

N3AIU:
>Ed.D. degrees in education. I spent five years in graduate school slogging through courses like astrophysics, quantum field theory, classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, and electromagnetics. I spent almost two years writing a 390-page Ph.D. thesis on elliptical polarization observations of binary stars. Compare my work with the amount of work required for an Ed.D. degree, which is basically nothing. They get to call themselves "doctor" just like I do, except that they're incompentent when it comes to their job, educating our youth.

The title of Doctor means less and less nowdays. Personally, I think it should be limited to medical doctors. ("Is there a doctor here? This man's having a heart attack!" "Well, I have a PhD in computer science..."). Maybe you'd be better off creating a more specific title for yourself, like "Physics God".

---

And anyways, on to my own thoughts about the educational system.

My biggest problem with the education system is one that I can't forsee any solution to. Personalization. This goes as much for the dimmest student as for the brightest.

I'm really only qualified to speak from my perspective though, and so that's what I'll do.

My biggest problem through grade and high school (and it looks to continue throughout college as well) was that what no one wanted to tell me what I wanted to know. I really just wanted someone to teach me about electronics (a full understanding of RF is a bit heavy for high school, I'm just talking about the simple analog concepts). I waited and waited, but the opportunity never really came along. In fact, the lack of any discussion whatsoever on the subject of electronics was so annoying that I took to teaching other people about electronics. Eventually I wanted to form a club to facilitate such a purpose but not surprisingly, none of the teachers who were even remotely qualified to oversee such a club (namely the physics and chemistry teachers) had the time to do so.

I suppose the real point here was that it simply became faster for me to teach myself than to wait for other people to do it for me. In a perfect world, experts from all fields, who also happened to be exemplary teachers, would have been on call to answer my myriad of questions. Oh well.
Everyone's going to have their intrests, and unless society as a whole restructures itself around education, people who have a desire for any kind of specific knowledge are probably just going to leave school with a bitter taste in their mouth and a pile of inane memories. Mostly, because the majority of people view an education as a tool, whereas those who really want to enjoy one see it as a lifestyle.

As for the subject matter in schools, there's a lot to be said for being well rounded. And it's usually something you won't like until you achieve it. Give it a chance and learn something you didn't want to.

The last regret that I have about the public school system is that it acually prevented me from acquiring a lot of knowledge. I'm not one of those that really likes to play at being a successful 'student', but if I respect the teacher, I like to at least do a good job. When school consumes 80% of your time in what seems an endless (and sometimes meaningless) journey, it can strongly discourage you from pursuing subjects that you are truly interested in. Many projects that I had planned were simply tossed aside. Other times, I tossed school aside to pursue knowledge, as odd as that may sound.

This last point is perhaps the most important, because it means that self education simply isn't an option for a lot of people. Many of the pressures in society encourage you to do well in school. And when an educational system becomes impersonal, doing well in school is rarely synonymous with learning. People memorize a textbook for a test, and either forget it the next day, or never truly understand the subject. When you factor in taking the time out of a life where every extra minute of sleep is a precious commodity to understand something that, for all appearances, society doesn't care about, the habits of 'learning' that a scantron, fill-in-the-worksheet education system has set for you, and the simple fact that no one is going to give you a grade for it, learning something 'extra' becomes very unappealing.

And depending on the subject, your economic status might be yet another hurdle to overcome. My family was never exactly poor, but when you're trying to teach yourself electronics, every piece of equipment becomes a battle. When your parents are biologists, purchasing a scope, or a power supply, or that latest digikey order tends not to make too much sense. ("Don't you already have a power supply? You know, that one I use to charge my cell phone?")

What's the chance a poor kid is going to be able to give themselves a full understanding of electronics? It's not impossible, but it would certainly be a pretty amazing feat.

Oh well, enough rambling for now.

Who do I blame? Nobody in particular. The only ones I see trying to improve the situation, though, are the very few hard working and dedicated teachers (who probably aren't paid enough for all the crap that they have to put up with).

RE: We Need More Schools that teach

by NJ0E on August 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

K4RAF
-----

> The biggest single problem impeding education is
> the NEA. They stand in the way of learning by
> sponging up increased funding with higher salaries,
> not based on performance in the classroom.

in my opinion, the biggest obstacle facing education
is parents who don't teach their offsping to be
polite or respectful of their teachers, clergy, or
other adults.

the second biggest obstacle is that the everyone
watches far too much television these days (adults
included).

my 2c

73
scott nj0e
cw luddite

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WA1Z on August 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Hi Fabian,

I was a ham through high school as well (not too much older than you - 12 years). I got my novice ticket when I was in the 6th grade and upgraded through the classes to Extra in my freshman year. I too did not see a lot of emphasis in electronics and radio science in my high school in Haverhill, Massachusetts.

I'm a firm believer that you get out of education what you put into it. There's one thing school (including college to some degree) will teach you better than anything else: How To Learn. Try not to think just about what they are specifically teaching you. Rather, think about the *ways* in which you are learning those things. Develop your research skills, the arts of inductive and deductive reasoning, etc. Once you get out of high school or college, learning isn't going to stop. You'll be learning for the rest of your life. At least, that's the attitude I believe we all should have.

Be proud of the fact that you've picked up a good, technical hobby outside of your school curriculum. You're on the right track. However, don't put down what you're learning in school (like base pairings of human DNA). There's a place for everything. Becoming a well rounded, educated individual is extremely important. Strike a balance in the development of your knowledge base and hopefully you can make a career based upon something that interests you along the way.

Use your existing knowledge of radio science to educate your fellow students (and maybe a teacher or two) in science fairs! Trust me, it always gets a good grade! Students can be teachers too!

And get your Extra, young man!!! Keep up the good work!

And as a broader statement to our raucous bunch on this web site: Regardless how bad we all think the public school system is in this country, it was never designed to be the End-All-Be-All of the education process of our children. First, and foremost, it starts at home. And that, I believe, is the root of the REAL problem with our children's education in this country. It's not the only part, but it's the biggest part and there is a multitude of reasons why.

Let’s all go learn something new tonight.

73,
Bob WA1Z

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WIRELESS on August 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

If anyone has read kb1ghc post, the evidence of the incompetence of the schools is evident. This guy makes snotty posts as if he is some kind of prize package but his English is terrible. The guy misuses every simple rule of written English but he is criticizing his school's English standards. This is the kind of failure that everyone is going to have to depend on later.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KD7EZE on August 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

W3DCG writes: "One Third of U.S. teens between the ages of 11 and 17 owned a phone last year, according to one poll, and that number is expected to rise to half by the end of this year."

I wonder who the polling people were. Last time I checked, kids age 11 & 12 weren't teens yet. Or have they changed this with the advent of "new math"? Are they now referred to as eleventeen and twelveteen?

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

73' de Steve, KB1GHC

P.S: John Kerry 2004!

Good for a laugh. We have one outstanding joke in California and that is Kerry.

-------------

I refused my purple heart.

Badnarick Libertarian for 2004

Liberty in our lifetime. Liberty or die.

.: W6TH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KB1FHO on August 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Did you mean "grammar"?

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6YB on August 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Reminds me of what I did in 8th grade (I'm now going into 10th grade) . . .

I saw that our text book had a section regarding RF. Needless to say, I read through it, but found a mistake.

Between all the happy and colorful pictures, there was text that read, "AM waves travel farther then FM waves, because AM waves bounce off of the automosephere." No where did it say anything about the HF bands, or 30MHz. It stated that mode is the determining factor, and not frequency, of whether or not a radio wave bounces off the ionosphere.

With this in mind, I went-up to the teacher to tell her that the book was wrong. She said that it is irrevant, since we were not going to study that section. She stated that if I wish to, I can teach the class myself, and thus I did.

I scheduled a date with her, and notified my ham friend to go-out with a Kenwood VC-H1 (SSTV unit) while mobile, on that date. I, in the class room, brought in a mobile 144/440MHz radio, my Kenwood VC-H1, a laptop, and my Kenwood TH-D7 (with its built-in TNC).

I demonstarate to my class (of about 30, plus my teacher) ham radio, and basic radio principles. I showed them SSTV (and my friend sent pictures from around the city), packet, voice, and APRS. While I was describing each mode, as it was being demonstrated.

While it was not a full radio class, it was a nice introduction to ham radio and general radio principles. And now, in high school (which is located just next to the middle school), I established a amateur radio club, KG6RRR. The club, thanks to the support from the amateur radio community, has antennas on the roof, and interest in the club is high.

73, Andrew W6YB

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Why not make the changes for yourself.

You have the backing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which can make a big change in these schools whoever you are complaining.

Libertarians believe force is only for self-defense.
To solve difficult problems, use logic and creativity.

Preserve our liberties as our founders intended and is our unalienable right.

Don't let the Government control our schools. You tell them what you want and not what they throw at us.

Become an American and prove it. Give me Liberty or give me death.

.: W6TH.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AL2I on August 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

W6YB: Good Job OM!

73 DE AL2I

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AB5XZ on August 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

When I was in school, many years ago, the science programs were mediocre (the schools were good otherwise).

So I did my own experiments, read everything I could find on every kind of science, and learned a lot by myself. Ham radio was part of that. I've had a successful career in aerospace electronics.

My son and daughter went to school in a high-powered school district. They learned everything there was to learn, finished at the top of their classes, did some of their own experimentation, won science fair awards, and so on. Now my son is a respected PhD in Space Physics and my daughter is an MD and Assistant Professor at a top medical school.

The bottom line, I think, is that you shouldn't wait for science to come (back) to the schools. Just go out and start doing it!

About 140 years ago, Alexander Graham Bell sought the advice of Professor Joseph Henry (the unit of inductance is named after him). Mr. Bell wanted to know whether his "harmonic telegraph" was worthwhile. Professor Henry said it was, and that Bell should definitely pursue it. He asked Bell where he had studied physics - and Bell replied that he had learned it on his own, and he felt that he lacked the needed knowledge of electromagnetism to pursue his invention. Professor Henry said, "Well, then you'd better GET it!"

I think that's good advice today as it was 140 years ago.

73TomAB5XZ

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

It is amazing to notice how many posts are bragging of their accomplishments throughout life and with billions of tax money being spent on education and not doing the job.

I thought I read this: We Need More Science in Schools.

Or did it mean to tell you of the accomplishments throughout life.

From many posts it seems logical to go to private schools and forget about the public schools.

Guess I was a lucky one in the old days. Today for knowledge I go to school at Googles, can't beat the internet.

God Bless America.

.:

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I understand no-one wants to explain the gov't and education. I will and listen up;

There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says education is a right. There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to be involved in education.

Since the federal government got involved in education, our children have slipped from first to 29th place in terms of literacy, numeracy and other measurements of educational excellence.

The No Child Left Behind Act is just another extension of the policies that have destroyed American education.

We need to get government out of our schools. That's the only way to get back to our position of preeminence in learning.

.: W6TH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Before the US Constitution existed, the US government, in the form of the Continental Congress, mandated public education as a requirement. It is not a right, it is a duty.

Representative democracy requires an informed electorate. To become informed is to be educated. It is in the interest of the country to have a country wide publice school system, as Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin all argued.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Please read this very carefully again.

There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says education is a right.

There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to be involved in education.

I will come back to answer your form of the Continental Congress.

I need to do something in the next couple of hours.

But, I do want you to read what I mentioned, please read again.

.: W6TH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Actually I really have no need to respond, but will add this.

(It is not a right, it is a duty ). As you mentioned.

Duty: Catholic, Christian, Public, Private, correspondence, home studies, College and many more schools of education.

Now I can add this again to further knowledge:

There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to be involved in education.

What more can I tell you?

.: W6TH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KG6TEW on August 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Forgive me if I make some points others may have already made in this thread. I will admit I have not read all the responses. Oh, before I rant, I do teach quantum chemistry and that includes RF stuff.

I am a public high school science teacher (chemistry) and have been for 17 years. I see that many folks in this thread do not understand the politics and policies of public education. I can only speak for California. What so many folks in this threads don't realize is that the State and the colleges determine what is taught in high school. My curriculum is determined by the State of California and the UC/CSU system. I have a huge multitude of standards I must teach and if the API scores are less than highly acceptable, I can lose my job. But here's the clincher: I have to teach 2000 science students on a $5000 a year budget! WIRELESS ignorantly makes several boguss statements about education, but among them is the spending of tons of tax dollars on teachers' salaries, though we aren't educating the children. I will never rant about my lack of pay, but I have a master's degree, in science, and my pay, after 17 years, is less than $55K. I spend about $300 a year of my own money, on my students (for supplies) that I don't get reimbursed for. But I never complain. The parents would rather fund the sports program than put money into the classroom component. In this State, people vote down nearly any raise in taxes to help education - amounts of maybe $12.00 a year more for each home. But this is huge money when it is added up. So, instead of eating one less pizza a year, I work with a science budget of $5000 for 2000 kids, and a salary that is barely above poverty levels, because these poeple won't give up the 12 bucks to improve the schools. If you live in California then you know well the high cost of living. REMEMBER, I am not complaining. But when people criticize public education, they'd better know the facts. Not only have I not had a raise in more than six years, I have taken three pay cuts. Oh, it costs me $800 a month, out of pocket, to insure my two children on health insurance.

When the people of this country decide education is important, things will change for the better. But instead, the same people who piss and moan and criticize public education are the same ones voting down taxes for the schools and they are the ones spending more time complaining than taking a proactive role in education.

But money aside; as a science teacher I truly try to make more time to teach practical stuff to the kids. Unfortunately, I am to cover a tremendous number of standards. Oh, I should probably mention I am working with kids of very high intellect, kids in special education, kids on criminal probation, kids who's fathers have tried to kill them, kids who see "Orange County" as their only priority, kids who are on drugs and alcohol 70% of the time, kids who are abused and raped and forgotten, kids whose parents think taking three weeks of vacation (in the middle of the school year) is more important than school, kids who get fake boobs for prom, and every other type of kid you can imagine. I have 160 kids to teach science to - how many in the above categories do you think really care? But I care and I work hard to engage them on what little science budget money I have to spend on them. Their day might end at 3pm but I usually don't leave before 5 or 6 because I tutor them after school (and I don't get paid for this). When I get home I make dinner for my children then stay up until midnight grading papers. I work weekends and holidays. In fact, even with summer break, I work an average of 53 hours a week! Now do the math with regard to my pay.

But I love teaching and so I do it with pride and to my best ability - regardless of the lack of pay and the lack of respect from so many in this thread. To those of you who support the efforts of teachers and schools, my sincerest apology for this rant. I will stop here before I get really worked up!

73
KG6TEW

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

40% of the money we make is sent to the government in the form of income, sales, and property taxes. Schools receive nearly 87% of their budget from those taxes. $12 more may not seem like much to ask for, but like you said it adds up.

If government is unable to get by on all the taxes we pay, then there is something wrong. That something is not that we pay too little.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KG6MNB on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

W6TH::
>$12 more may not seem like much to ask for, but like you said it adds up

Enjoy your pizza.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WB4QNG on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I am sorry but I don't where you people live but I come from area where the average working man is making $28,000 year. The average teacher over $45,000 a year. 10 weeks off during the summer. 2 weeks off during Chirstmas and a week during spring break. 4 paid holidays and 10 days I am not sure what they do but the kids are not there. Plus sick days and personal days. 7 hour work days with 1 hour devoted for planning and another 30 minutes for lunch. Paid medical insurance and retire at an early age. Homework is called class work credit given if you turn it in. Test are seldom given. Can't really blame them for that. You can't correct the homework or give grades on the test you might hurt little Mike's self esteem. What we have are kids that can't read, can't write and 2+2=5. Can't get or hold a job can't be anything they did they have been told for the last 13 years how great they are.I thank the teachers who put in the long hours as for as the rest I don't blame you.
Terry
WB4QNG

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ah, but there are clauses in the constitution that allow the government to be involved in education.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AE6IP on August 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Before the US Constitution existed, the US government, in the form of the Continental Congress, mandated public education as a requirement. It is not a right, it is a duty.

Representative democracy requires an informed electorate. To become informed is to be educated. It is in the interest of the country to have a country wide publice school system, as Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin all argued.
=====================================================
=====================================================
You somehow twisted the wording.

Knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
-Continental Congress, Northwest Ordinance of 1787

Encouragement is not duty or requirement.

.: W6TH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

For Your Information.

Actually we are not in a country as it is commonly called today. We are the United States of America. Each 50 states are separate and not joined as a country therefore again we are the United States. Can also be called The United States of America.

Please refrain from calling The United States a country.

Thank you,
W6TH

.:

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

W6TH:

You quoted the wrong part of the act of the continental congress.

The US, by the way, is the fourth largest country in the world. It is, indeed, by the first definition of the term 'country' in online version of the American Heritage dictionary, a country. (The definition is "a nation or state.") Confederations of states are nations and nations are countries.

Neither of these are relevant to the two key facts though: The constitution does give the federal government the right to be involved in public education, and the federal government has done so since before there was a US constitution.

"George Washington, the only other man who became president who was also at the Constitutional Convention believed the power was there, either under general welfare or under the literature and science clause. Both Madison and Washington proposed schools, in fact the first six presidents did"

So, as you can see, federal involvement in education has been ongoing since the formation of our country.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KG6TEW on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

WB4QNG - wow, are you ever uninformed. You need a reality check on the time teachers spend at work. READ what I wrote a few threads above. Unlike you 40 hour-a-weekers, I work an average of 53 hours a week (even after considering summer, holidays, and weekends). But I do not get paid overtime. In fact, I get paid for 35 hours a week and this was true before my three paycuts in the last 5 years (thanks to state budget cuts). Personal days? Are you kidding? I get 3 personal days a year and that comes right out of my sick leave. And lets talk about working conditions while we are at it. My classes are 1 hour and 50 minutes long, each. I better not hydrate because I can't use the bathroom when I need to. I get 25 minutes for lunch - not the usual lunch HOUR that most people get. I can't take phone calls during the day unless it is during my 25 minute lunch break. Oh, and I am liable for the 32 kids per class (teenagers no less) during that nearly two hour class period. Teaching chemistry is the most dangerous course to teach, I might add. So when you make such rediculous statements about teacher time off, pay, hours worked, and working conditions, you'd better have the facts and clearly you do not.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Education is never mentioned in the Constitution.

General Welfare is mentioned here:

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
-James Madison

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-10th Admendment

There are no powers granted to the federal government allowing interference, involvment, or control of education. Because they have not been granted those powers, any law passed allowing the federal government to govern education is unconstitutional.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

At one time in the past, people of the United States were called the Commonwealth, which meant:
A nation or state governed by the people; a republic.

Today we are called a citizen which means:

A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.
A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.
A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place: “We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community” (Franklin D. Roosevelt).
Commonwealth taken away and now called Citizens to weaken the people of the United States. People less power and the government more power.

Giving money and power to government is like giving
whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in
a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps
moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize
it.

. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a
sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

W6TH

There are many aspects of US government that have been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court, without specific mention by name in the constitution.

Since the federal government has been involved in education since before the constitution existed, and since there have been no successful constitutional challenges to that involvement per se, it is obvious that the legal justification exists.

Because you can not find that justification in a layman's reading of the constitution does not mean it is not there. (And no, it's not the general welfare clause.)

wrt 'commonwealth.' The US is never refered to as a commonwealth, although several of the individual states or protectorates are. But even if it were, 'commonwealth' is not exclusive of 'country', but rather descriptive. a commonwealth, in general, is a country 'governed by the people'.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

on the matter of 'citizen'. the constitution itself uses the word 'citizen' to describe residents of the US, and despite what you may hear from the occassional source, we are, in fact, citizens of the united states, and not just of the state we reside in. If that were not true, no one could hold federal office.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

As I mentioned:

The government is taking the commonwealth from the people of these United States to the point where it no longer is a Republic and now have full control using people (citizens) in place of the commonwealth. In the future your vote will mean nothing. The government will own you. You have eyes and can't see, you have ears and can't hear.

You have a very vague idea of the future and what the future will hold for you and these United States of America.

Stop taking your information from Googles and such and read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of these United States and memorize it. I understand they do not teach the Constitution in some schools any longer, really don't know for sure, but seems like it is isn't being done.

I am not here to argue with you, to make a fool of you, but to bring out what is now happening in These United States and in the schooling systems.

These Senators, Reps, and Congressmen are worth millions of dollars, just what is your worth? Your taxes are certainly going to good use.

Lets hope the draft does not happen as I know that war is hell, been there and my body sure shows it.

I will not respond further as it is worthless.

.:

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

W6TH

I'm always amused when people claim that something the government has been doing for over 200 years is recent and illegal. Thank you for the entertainment.

I'm particularly impressed by the number of wildly unrelated side trips you've taken on such divergences as 'commonwealth'. Now you bring up wealthy congress criters. There have always been wealthy congress critters, from the start of the country.

It would be nice if the world's problems fit neatly into the small, well defined boxes you'd like to attribute them to, but they don't.

In reality, the quality of an american education has been an issue for more than 100 years, and attempts to reform the system go back to the turn of the 20th century, or earlier.

The roots of the problem are complex, ranging from how education is funded, to the debate over what it is meant to accomplish; and the solutions are complex, as well.

To understand the US constitution, you must not simply read the document. Rather, you must study the history surrounding its authorship and approval, and the history of its interpretation by the courts.

On another topic: soldiers don't understand democracy any better than civilians. The people who truely understand and value it are those who have escaped from tyranny to democracy and experienced the difference.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KG6MNB on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AE6IP::
> On another topic: soldiers don't understand democracy any better than civilians. The people who truely understand and value it are those who have escaped from tyranny to democracy and experienced the difference.

I suppose this is getting wildly off topic already, but...

Ideally, yes. However, I've seen more than immigrant from a previously Soviet controlled country become infatuated with the 'power' of the American economic system. Sometimes they become a bit tyrannic themselves on the journey to greater and greater riches.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by WB4QNG on August 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I have the facts. I know what I am talking about. I know what it is like where I live. If you have had pay cuts, only get three personal days a year, don't get paid for extra activities, and no phone. You might want to start looking to teach somewhere else. I do admire you for putting up with the kids and you sound like you are very concerned for them. I couldn't take the kids, the parents, nor an administration that could care less. If you want to complain about these things I will agree but if you want to complain about the wages, time off, hours, benifits, and pension plans your in the wrong school. You sound like the privates schools around here. Their salareis are low, hours are long and their benifts stink. The kids are great. Don't hear them complain they just move on.
Terry
WB4QNG

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AD4MZ on August 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

In response to the original topic, I agree that more science is needed in schools. My thoughts are that much more emphasis needs to be given to science in the elementary grades and not just a more massive dose in the high schools. By human nature a teacher will emphasize the subjects that they like and enjoy the most. This is good but I think that the need is for more teachers that enjoy the physical sciences to enter teaching at the elementary levels. I have about 10 years of teaching experience from the 7th grade level through 12th grade in the US. My interest in the physical sciences is credited to a wonderful 4th grade teacher, Mrs Aultry. We had to prepare a simple experiment or demonstration in front of the class each week throughout the school year. Again in the 6th and 7th grades I had teachers that required us to make classroom presentations of science experiments and encouraged participation in local science fairs. I learned to really enjoy the process of trying to understand the physical world that year in the 4th grade and it has never ended. Built my first breadboard receiver in the 8th grade and a working 80m cw transmitter in the 9th grade. First licensed as WN4MQW in 1963 when I was 13. Just my two cents.

Bob

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KG6TEW on August 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Rock On Bob!

Back to the first submission (now that I'm done with my first rant): What Fabian fails to consider is that teachers are required to teach the state standards and the standards are chosen by the university system as well as current trends in science. In the life sciences, molecular biology is emphasized (DNA, etc) because it is the technology of the times, especially since forensic science/investigation is so big. Fabian may not care about such science but that isn't the issue. I have many students who could care-less about radio and electronics as well. But that isn't the issue either. What the Fabian's of the world should do is start a ham club in their schools. This would ensure fun and learning for that topic. He could get a science teacher to be the advisor. But Fabian's science teachers are told what to teach and they have no control over that. Perhaps, as mentioned, Fabian should try to understand this and venture out and start a ham/electronics club.

There ya have it.

73,
KG6TEW

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AC0H on August 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Don't blame the teachers for the current state of affairs in education. The blame for the current mess rests squarely on the taxpayers shoulders. We've let the system get so screwed up in the last 30 years that it will take some painful and radical changes to fix it.

1. The socialogist/psycologist that decided that social advancement was more important that quantifiable achievement needs to be taken out and publicly flogged. "It's OK if little Jimmy or Susie can't read with the rest of their class, they're young enough to catch up". HORSEFEATHERS!!! When I was in school the one thing we feared more than anything was being "left behind" a grade. It doesn't happen enough these days.

2. Next in line for public flogging are the parents of the wunderkind who absolutely will not accept the fact that they have raised an idiot who can't tie his/her shoes without help, and demand that they move along with the rest of the kids their age. Do you think those lawsuits filed by these same parents are urban legends? I guarantee they're not.

3. While were at it lets add the taxpayers to the flogging line. Any taxpayer who has bitched and sniveled about the quality or content of local school curiculum's and hasn't voted in a school board election moves to the front of the line.

4. Next in line are the teachers unions. They've made it nearly impossible, short of an act of congress, to fire incompitent tenured teachers. As far as I know teaching is the only occupation that doesn't require compitence testing to get into or stay in the job. If education is the highly important thing that we all think it is, why not make sure the people we entrust our kids brains to for 8 hours a day know what the hell they're doing?

5. And finally, the disinterersted parent who thinks school systems are baby sitting services. You have a responsibility to make sure your kids are in an environment at home that emphasizes achievement. Get involved with your kids. When I was in the third grade it was my father who taught me my multiplication tables, not my teacher. The "I'm too busy" or "That's what teachers get paid for" arguments don't fly. Your kid, your responsibility.

Now, back on topic.

We need more reading, writing, math, and science in schools and just a little less useless crap.

We Need More Science in Schools

by KI4ENY on August 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

My name is Chris Lube, and I am in the 9th grade at Western High School in Davie, Florida. In Taking my science courses in my previous grade levels, I was also surprised that the fundamentals of RF was not taught more. The teachers at my school now and the teachers at my other schools have only basically taught about wavelength, amplitude, frequency, and so on. This basic stuff is usually covered in only one chapter. I believe that it is important that this part of science should be taught more in depth. I totally agree with you, and I think that it is important for more people to know about RF because it plays such an important role in our everyday lives.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AD4MZ on August 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Glad you came on-board this thread Chris. You will find out
that in school, sometimes you will only hear about
things that interest you. This is when you have to
just decide that this is something you want to explore
either with the teachers or on your own. You have one
of the greatest resources of all times available to
you for your exploration and that is the Internet.
Yes, it is full of mine fields but with an interest
like you have, you should be able to read and study
about RF or any subject you choose. You have
shown by coming on this discussion and expressing an
interest in learning more about RF, that you are
motivated, and that is all it takes to do most things
in life. Don't let anyone stop you from learning, not
even yourself.

If you want to email me directly I would be glad to do
my best to answer any questions about RF or other
topics in science. This offer is also good for anyone
reading this. Name is Bob and email address is:
ad4mz@yahoo.com

Best of Luck

Bob

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on August 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AC0H

There are no powers granted to the federal government allowing interference, involvment, or control of education. Because they have not been granted those powers, any law passed allowing the federal government to govern education is unconstitutional.

Yet AE6IP claims that the Federal government has been involved in the school system for the past 200 years, he states even before George Washington. Now that is a man that loves his country, won't fight it, joins it.

In time there will be a large group of the Americans that love their freedom that will bring back the good of schools, so have a nice day. Time will tell.

.:

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by N6KEK on September 1, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"We spend billions on education" no we spend billions on overpaid administrators that compare themselves to Corporate CEO's who view teachers as greedy overpaid and inadequate.
They view any subject being taught except sports related as secondary. The "Alumni" operates with the mantra that lousy teachers are intolerable unless that lousy teacher is a winning coach then all of the coaches inadequate teaching skills in the other courses they teach except sports related are overlooked.

One of our education systems biggest problems is way too much emphasis is put towards the sports rather than the academics because our school boards consist of educationally inadequate laymen that 90 percent couldn't even meet the minimum education standards while they were attending schools and now they want to dicate to society what these high standards should now be.

And the publics perception of a teachers "tenure" as nothing more than a point in time that all teachers suddenly become nothing more than a parasite on the system while at the same time the publics "tenure" where the are employed suddenly is called "seniority" not "tenure" and demands protection from encroachment from the less senior individuals because now "seniority" means they are experts in their field and are much needed because of the skills they have aquired during this "tenure" at work.

Sports will always take a front seat as long as sports figures are paid the obscene wages they are paid just like our Corporate CEO's that bloat our boardrooms.

Bob

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on September 1, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

N6KEK Bob

Nice to hear your point of view Bob.

This all started back during the crash, 1929, and in came Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He ignored the Constitution and the Bill of rights completely and had a very big advantage over the American people. No jobs and people losing their homes starving, to death.

Along came the unions, welfare he supported so heavily and disturbed the big business folks. He brought Socialism to the United States. He was a failure, but people loved failure as you can see the same as today.

Socialism does not seem to be working as our deficit is deeper than ever. We no longer use gold or silver for payments, we use paper..

Back to the school issue.

Again nice topic to discuss.

.:

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by N6KEK on September 1, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I fail to see how organized labor bears 100% of the blame for every problem in the world??

Bob

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on September 1, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Bob

No blame here Bob, read this again.

Along came the unions, welfare he supported so heavily and disturbed the big business folks.

Hesitate, don't read too quickly.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by N6KEK on September 1, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Sorry I guess I did misread it. It just seems that so many forever put the blame of our school problems on the teachers and the fact that numerous school systems are represented by organized labor and I have never understood why the teachers union deserves the blame when so much blame can be metted out such as the school budgets continually being slashed to pay for other budgets and the simple fact as I pointed out that teachers are required to pass a proficency test to teach but school boards have no minimum education prerequistes and but yet they continually attempt to set the standards for the teachers and the schools and have virtually no background whatsoever or training in what these standards should consist of.
Anybody that can breath on their own can be a school board member from "village idiot" to Harvard Graduate.
Bob

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on September 2, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Read this Bob.

The first schools in this country were schools built around the Christian Churches of the communities. Even the major colleges and universities were of Christian denomination. Only after some anti-American folks saw that the way to control a nation was to control the children did we have the "creation of public schools". Of course, then it was necessary to tax the citizens so as to produce the grand scheme of "king and serf".

How little we are told.
.:

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KB3GQY on September 2, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I was listening to Y100 (100.3 FM in Philadelphia) this morning on my drive to work. Some communications engineer guy called in while they were talking about a plan to blanket the city with wireless internet. He was talking about the appliances and such that could interfere with the 2.4 Ghz network that is planned, and the host of the show asked about cellular phones. The ENGINEER said something along the lines of "oh no, cell phones just use cellular". My jaw dropped. Now, I don't remember what frequency cellular phones are on, but I am positive that it uses a RF and not "just cellular".

I was going to call in and correct the guy on the fact that cell phones do in fact use some frequencies, but they changed subjects.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on September 2, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

We Need More Science in Schools

Wrong subject

A cellular phone uses a network of shortrange transmitters located in overlapping cells.

Now you know a little more. Now what do you have to say about schools?

.:

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KB3GQY on September 2, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"Wrong subject

Now what do you have to say about schools?"

The first reply to this article by AL2I is what made me think about that engineer, that is all. I was just trying to toss in my thoughts on the seeming lack of knowledge people have DUE to thier schooling.

"A cellular phone uses a network of shortrange transmitters located in overlapping cells."

Exactly, the short range transmitters are transmitting communications using waves. The engineer who called in made it sound like cell phones don't transmit radio waves into the air because they use magical "cellular" technology.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on September 2, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Talking about schools and engineers. A newly graduated college boy tried to measure RF output using a Simpson model 260 VOM.

He later became the chief engineer.

I over looked the situation as it would make him look stupid and I have never called anyone that.

I have seen self taught engineers that put circles around some of these college grads. Amen.

Guess college doesn't do much either, although I am a college grad engineer, you know, a place of higher education.
.:

We Need More Science in Schools

by KC0NPF on September 2, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

You know, for some reason in EVERY SINGLE SCIENCE COURSE i have ever seen or been involved in, the most basic, pathetic elements of plant life, the water cycle, you name it, everything except electricity is covered. I am now enrolled in a high school physics course, they plan to get through motion and such, but electricity is ALWAYS the last unit, and it never gets covered... it's "we'll do it if we have time" yeah right... this book does slightly better in the electrical chapter, going as far as explaining a LC resonant circut, but I would bet my life savings (which incidently doesn't ammount to much) that they won't get that far. The only electrical work I've ever had explained in class is static electricity and charges, and they've HARPED on that for years now, maybe once making a circut with a lightbulb. COME ON what kind of pathetic people can't make a circut, especially after it's been explained in a way that would allow your common house cat to do it? I absolutely hate public education science courses, they never talk about anything useful... but I get stuck in them anyway...

enough said,

KC0NPF

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by N6KEK on September 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I think most science teachers are probably a little intimidated by the electric areas of science and that is why so little is paid to it but I am sure this weakness is not limited to public schools. I don't think intimidation is able discern itself between public school, private school or home schooling.

Too many people that have done great things in this world and were educated in public schools and faired just fine so don't think private schools or home schooling has the market cornered on good concise education.

Bob

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by W6TH on September 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Check what is coming out of Yale and sending out into this world.

.:

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on September 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> We've let the system get so screwed up in the last
> 30 years that it will take some painful and radical
> changes to fix it.

I've been hearing that for the last 30 years. If you check, you'll find that the problem has been an issue for more than 100 years, and a wide range of 'solutions' have been tried.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on September 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> There are no powers granted to the federal
> government allowing interference, involvment, or
> control of education. Because they have not been
> granted those powers, any law passed allowing the
> federal government to govern education is
> unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled to the contrary.

> Yet AE6IP claims that the Federal government has
> been involved in the school system for the past 200
> years, he states even before George Washington.

I would guess you mean 225 years and "Washington was president." Since you, yourself, have quoted from the enabling legislation that predates the Constitution, it is rather disingenuous of you to imply otherwise.

> In time there will be a large group of the Americans
> that love their freedom that will bring back the
> good of schools, so have a nice day. Time will tell.

Care to cite an example of good schools worth "bringing back"?

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on September 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> This all started back during the crash, 1929, and in
> came Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He ignored the
> Constitution and the Bill of rights completely and
> had a very big advantage over the American people.
> No jobs and people losing their homes starving, to
> death.

Roosevelt wanted to ignore some parts of the constitution. He wasn't able to because the supreme court, "packed" with his own nominees, overruled him. The system worked.

> Along came the unions, welfare he supported so
> heavily and disturbed the big business folks.

The union movement, and the socialist movements, in the US, predate FDR's presidency by fifty years.

> He brought Socialism to the United States.

See above.

> He was a failure, but people loved failure as you
> can see the same as today.

You have an interesting definition of "failure". Roosevelt led the US out of the Great Depression and through World War II. He was the most successful president since Thomas Jefferson. One of his greatest successes was the social safety net. "Socialism" in moderation is a good thing, and Roosevelt showed how to use it.

> Socialism does not seem to be working as our deficit
> is deeper than ever. We no longer use gold or silver
> for payments, we use paper..

The deep deficit is not a consequence of socialism. It is a consequence of squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on a meaningless war that will do more harm than good to the US's position in the world. It is a consequence of a failure of the US to adapt to changing economic conditions.

As for the gold brohaha, the gold standard held back economic growth, because the gold supply was limited. Going off the gold standard took a brake off the economic engine.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on September 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> The first schools in this country were schools built
> around the Christian Churches of the communities.

Nope. They were built around townships, under instruction from the federal government. Each township was required to use one section to finance the building and operating of public schools.

> Even the major colleges and universities were of
> Christian denomination.

Nope. *Some* major colleges and universiities were school run. Then, as today, the vast majority were either non-denominational private schools, or state colleges and universities. The land grant system (mentioned above) funded the so-call 'agricultural' colleges.

> Only after some anti-American folks saw that the way
> to control a nation was to control the children did
> we have the "creation of public schools". Of course,
> then it was necessary to tax the citizens so as to
> produce the grand scheme of "king and serf".

Ah yes, "anti-American" folks. These would be who, precisely?

The idea of public schools predates the constitution, and was a preoccupation of all of the first six presidents. Mr. Jefferson, who was hardly "anti-American" wrote passionately on the need of an informed electorate and the requirement that such an electorate be educated, at least to literacy, by a public school system.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by AE6IP on September 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

KC0NPF and N6KEK,

There is a catch-22 in introductory physics. The material is best taught to those who already are well grounded in basic calculus. But the best way to ground someone in basic calculus is to teach them applications of it to physics. If the calculus and physic courses were merged, this problem would be solved, but there's no good way to do that.

Electronics, especially, benefits from an understanding of the calculus, as well as an understanding of complex numbers and their application in the calculus.

What is taught as 'electronics', otherwise, is a pale watered down thing, that bears approximately the same relationship to electronics that a paper airplane bears to a stealth bomber.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by N6KEK on September 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

My point was don't sell short public schools. Private schools are about the same because many of the private school teachers were fired from public schools you can bet and home schooling is a joke in itsself. I venture to say that less than 1/10 of a percent of the teachers in a home school are qualified beyond doing laundry.

Bob

We Need More Science in Schools

by N3AIU on September 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

W6TH: "Check what is coming out of Yale and sending out into this world."

Yes, like GW Bush.

73, Nick N3AIU

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by K7PEH on September 4, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

N6KEK says that private school teachers were fired from public schools.

So, where does this come from. My daughter is a sixth grade teacher in a private school and she has never taught in public schools. She has a masters in education and is working on her PhD as well.

And, the private school she teaches at is very nice with its own campus and its own very nice school building. Go check it out yourself at www.tbcs.org.

Now, I also know other private school teachers and I know of some who have taught in public schools and some who haven't but I know of none who have been fired.

Anyway, has anyone, I mean anyone at all, known of any public school teacher who has been fired. Isn't that one of the basic problems of public school is that the poor teacher cannot be fired!

As for home schools and home school teachers I think that there are good home schools and poor home schools. Some parents are just not teachers and other parents are excellent teachers. But, home schools are not just teaching your kids over the dining room table anymore. They are organized loosely into actual classrooms with real teachers who happen to be parents of some of the kids. I have even taught at a home school on subjects of math and physics (high school level).

So, don't sell private or home schools short.

phil
K7PEH

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by N6KEK on September 4, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Where did I say ALL teacher in private schools have been fired from the public school system. I know of 3 that were fired from the public schools system and are now teaching in a private school. Does that mean that is the only 3 in the solar system. Surely I am not the only person in the world who knows of this same scenario.

Bob

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by K7PEH on September 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

N6KEK,

Sorry bob, my mistake. But, cool down, you are getting all bothered over nothing.

By the way, how come your call sign, N6KEK is not registered in the FCC database. I first looked you up on QRZ and then that fell through I went to the FCC database.

I suppose that maybe your name is N6KEK and I just assumed it was a ham radio call sign like I too easily assumed you had said that all private school teachers were fired from public schools.

But, if it is not your name, and if it is not a valid FCC issued license then what is your game. I suppose this is OK but I am curious as to why you are using that sort of ID if it is not your issued call sign.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KN6Z on September 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

[You can improve a crappy teacher to be a marginal teacher, but the good ones are just born that way and "get it." They will always be good teachers;]

Boy, do I ever agree with that. The best teachers I had were 7th grade World History, 8th grade General Science, 10th grade Geometry, junior college level Voice Articulation, graduate level Stellar Atmospheres. I can't remember any ways in which these people differed in methodology from the rest of the bunch. They were talking heads, then they gave tests. But they held me spell-bound.

RE: We Need More Science in Schools

by KN6Z on September 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

[KG6MNB:
N3AIU:
>Ed.D. degrees in education. I spent five years in graduate school slogging through courses like astrophysics, quantum field theory, classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, and electromagnetics. I spent almost two years writing a 390-page Ph.D. thesis on elliptical polarization observations of binary stars. Compare my work with the amount of work required for an Ed.D. degree, which is basically nothing. They get to call themselves "doctor" just like I do, except that they're incompentent when it comes to their job, educating our youth.

The title of Doctor means less and less nowdays. Personally, I think it should be limited to medical doctors. ("Is there a doctor here? This man's having a heart attack!" "Well, I have a PhD in computer science..."). Maybe you'd be better off creating a more specific title for yourself, like "Physics God".]

The Ed.D. thing bugs me too, but they deserve the "doctor" more than the MDs. The first doctorate was granted in 1150 at the University of Paris. The word â€œdoctorâ€ derives from the Latin word docere, to teach, and was originally recognized as a teaching credential rather than a research degree. The emphasis on original research emerged early in the 19th century. So let the MDs change their title to M.M. (Medicine Man) or something.

We Need More Science in Schools

by KA2IWR on October 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

It's nice to see a thread such as this. The "dumbing-down" of our American educational system has obviously been going on for quite some time and while it is very discouraging to see this constant erosion happening, it is also quite encouraging to see someone still in high school reminding the rest of us of this intolerable situation.

Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Recent Articles

VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:

rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:

Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:

Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:

Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial: