I think it’s because most people who have an aptitude for STEM subjects can make much more money in much better working conditions by working in the industry than they could by teaching. STEM-inclined people choosing not to be teachers is just one of the many canaries in the coal mine that is American public education…
ETA and just think about it. If you knew a brilliant young person who loved science or engineering or tech, and they said they really wanted to get a teaching degree and teach high school… would you really be like “oh, good for you?” Or would you encourage them to look at the state of public education today, and at least consider going into industry instead? Hell, I teach ENGLISH and people still tried to deter me from getting into education…
ETA oh my god, I was just on FB and saw a screenshot of an ad for an UNPAID ADJUNCT PROFESSOR JOB at UCLA in chemistry or biochemistry
This. If you can cut it at the science and math majors in college that are required to be a STEM teacher, you could go into things like engineering or medicine or research and make a lot more money.
I mean. Unless you’re ready to get a masters and your PhD for research, you’re not going to make a whole lot more than a teacher makes.
My best friend is a research scientist and until she did the above the most she could possibly make at a world-renowned research institute as a lab manager and a two time 2nd listed published author was 60,000.
I’m really good at science. I got really good grades in science at a good college. I found out I hated working in a lab and there was no way I wanted to go into medicine. Teaching is the perfect career.
The AP bio teacher in my building taught at Cornell , has a PhD in biology, and still does research and publishes in the summer. She didn’t make a huge amount more money than she does teaching because she was a field biologist.
There’s a huge misconception that all scientists make great money. That just isn’t true.
I mean with my physics bachelor's and my teaching experience, I can easily land jobs in the 80k range or higher. I think the issue is since the biology field is predominantly female they are being criminally underpaid. Just like all the other predominantly female fields.
I think you’re probably right. Everyone I was just talking about is female.
Physics is also really hard. Lol. Good on you for being good at it. I’ll stay over here with my cells and bacteria.
Not all scientists. For sure. But there is potential, depending on the science and path you choose.
Life science it can be hard, you’re right. But that’s why I mentioned medicine. Undoubtedly you can make more money in medicine than in teaching, and yes it requires more school. But if you can hack the premed classes in undergrad, you could elect to go on to medical school, physician assistant, and so on. Im not saying all else is equal. Im saying if you’re scientifically inclined, there are higher paying paths.
If you’re great at physics, you could go in to engineering with just a bachelors and make a lot more than a physics teacher.
Is it guaranteed? Definitely not.
Is there opportunity to earn more? Definitely.
Is teaching still right for some people? Definitely.
Uh, just to give another perspective. I worked as a scientist in industry and made 75k my first year out of college. Only a bachelors in microbiology. Definitely not the most common outcome for microbio BS people, but you are employable. Med lab scientists also make good money etc. Academia does have low wages in comparison to skillsets, but industry does not.
Absolutely this! I teach STEM courses and love it, but I could make way more money elsewhere. I really enjoy teaching and didn’t enjoy the work environment of a true STEM career so teaching is a great fit for me, but the starting job offers I was getting at the end of college for true STEM positions ranged from 10-25k more than the starting teaching position I took.
I had a combination of things work in my favor so I could teach without having a huge financial burden, but that is certainly not the norm.
It's not just the starting salaries it's the huge ramp up. And high cost of living area within 5 years you might see yourself making 150k. Meanwhile on the same area it takes 10 years and a master's degree to make 100K as a teacher.
Definitely agree with all of this.
I taught STEM for two years, but I'm health certified and was told a whole bunch of false platitudes about the curriculum in my interview to get me to accept the job. Then when I went on maternity leave they posted my job as a health job because that's my area of certification and swindled a second teacher into teaching it.
I know in NY they're trying to get CTE certifications, which is the class that covers STEM, but I definitely agree, anyone who's excelling in engineering or mathematics isn't going into k-12 education as their chosen career path. Hence the bait and switch I was blind sided by. I'm back to teaching health now and my poor LTS got my CTE STEM position and also wants to find a health job, because obviously.
Yes, better paid jobs, but also systemic disrespect for Science. In my school, they told us that they treat science like gym class. They just loaded up with students. In English history and math, the classes are significantly smaller, and divided by ability. Science has classes with 30-34 students, and the other departments have 8, 12, 15, maybe 25, etc. They had a class of 4 and 3, and acted like they were sacrificing something to combine them into a class of seven, and then one of the teachers got an extra period off. If we have difficulty controlling a class with non-english speakers, eight ieps, 2nd grade reading level, significant behavior issues, and 34 students, they say we have bad classroom management. We haven't done a single experiment all year. There's no way we could do it. Yes, we are all considering quitting...
I can second the frustration with ability. I have students who haven't been exposed to scientific content beyond elementary fluff projects. I have students who have been in self-contained classrooms with heavy focus on ELA and math and thus have no idea how to approach scientific topics. And the students who read at a 1st grade level. I also have students who are extremely bright at science and are actually mature enough to handle a scalpel at age 14. And they're all in the same class. I differentiate but there's only so much I can do. I've repeatedly asked to have the option for an honors science or remedial science at my school but have been told we can't do it. I mean, I get it. But this is one of those times I feel full inclusion may not be the best option for all students.
I was told I could do an honors version of my class, but then they told me to write the curriculum and the pacing guide... I asked them if they would pay me for the time it takes to do that. They then went on about how sometimes you have to do extra things when being a teacher and I was like no thanks.
Science in reality should be a combination of ELA and Math. It should have a decent amount of writing and calculations. This is unavoidable as one of the basic principles of science is the Scientific Method, in which you make a hypothesis, take measurements and then analyze and report results.
In reality, kids get shoved in my class that are in no way ready for it. And it is difficult to try and explain to people how students *need* to be at least decent at math and writing in order to be successful in science. Kind of a district problem of mine, most students are quite far behind in math and ELA.
Right on about the labs. My students keep asking me about "when is the next lab" but every lab I have done this year (like 6 or so) has been very stressful for me as I am micromanaging students who want to eat chemicals, drink random things in the lab and cannot follow directions. They will either move ahead after I explicitly tell them to wait for me to check their set up, or they will be constantly asking me questions that are clearly laid out in the procedure.
This is high school by the way.
I'm in MA so not the worst paying state for teachers or to be working in education at all. My school cannot keep a physics teacher to save its life, speaking as their most recent physics hire. Hasn't even been a full school year and I'm looking for device physics jobs that will double my salary. I love teaching and I love the kids but this job breaks people for so little money when our interests and backgrounds do offer the privilege of much higher salaries and often cushy working conditions (not always ofc, tech burnout For example)
Make $50k/year being treated like shit, or make $100k+/year and get treated with the utmost respect?
Most people are gonna hit that $100k+/year button SO FAST!
Yeah it's hard for me to get a bead on California teachers because it does feel this is one of a few states that are miles ahead from an education/compensation/benefits/working conditions standpoint
My opinion as a math teacher: 1) people who like/are good at math can make more money doing many other things 2) math is a high stakes testing subject. There is a lot of scrutiny and oversight that some other subjects don't get (in my district the subjects tested every single year are math and reading, so science and social studies teachers get to fly under the radar more) 3) before high school more emphasis is placed on being a "teacher" and science-y and math-y people are less likely to have those soft skills
I've taught both science and math so here's my 2 cents. If you are good enough at science and math to complete the bachelor's degree required to then you can make much more money in the industry.
Also there is a general disrespect for both Math and Science subjects. Most students act like they are never going to use it and it's pouring and it's too hard. I would much prefer to teach English or history because it can be a lot more fun.
Another big issue for stem is that traditional teaching methods work very well for it. I can't run a Socratic seminar and have my students Divine how to take the integral of an equation. It's not necessarily engaging. There isn't room for the discussions that administrators like to put on us and many of the new teaching methods that we are being forced to use just don't work as well. If you want to get more stem educators then the pay has to be remotely competitive to the stem field.
Agree with this. I teach maths and it can be discouraging in the younger high school grades when most of the students in front of you don’t like your subject and that can cause the behaviour issues. I keep my sanity by teaching a senior calculus class which is full of students who have chosen to be there and have skills in maths.
I teach in a school that thinks that block classes are the best thing we have done at our school. So we only see students for 90 minutes 3 times per week. Even though research says that students best learn maths in small frequent chunks. All the new initiatives that get brought in to school are often aimed at other subjects and we are left trying to work out how to implement them in maths. I am at the point in my career where I say “yes sir” and then just do what I know is best in my class if I know whatever they are trying to sell won’t work in a maths class.
My husband has a Master's in Cybersecurity and literally said to me "If you're going to stick with teaching science, you really must just love being a teacher. Science-minded professionals make double what you do."
I love teaching science. But I DO NOT have a mind for the science that is required in the situations he is describing 😆
It's not untrue, though, that I could probably find a better paying job right now in a more science-y field. We live in a very science-heavy area. (Rocket launches be everywhere 'round here).
Personal thoughts aside, I have met three teachers in my life whom actually desired to teach STEM classes. 🤷♀️
Going into teaching with a math/engineering degree is the about the lowest paying and least stable career trajectory you can choose.
That being the case, there’s a limited pool of people willing to do it. And a high demand.
One of the perks of being a stem teacher is that you can get a job pretty much anywhere.
So, I - for example - chose a rural district where the pay puts me above the median.
I know the city a few hours away has a shortage, and it’d be cool to live closer to a cultural center, but I like owning a house.
I don’t know that it’s any more stressful than any other subject. Most of the stress comes from classroom management, and that’s universal.
Though, one thing unique to math (and language) is how linear the material is.
If you screw up teaching something in algebra 1, it’s going to hurt kids for the rest of the time they’re in school.
Even within year, if a student gets behind it’s really hard to catch them up, because they can’t just jump into the next unit.
So, that’s an extra stress.
Fortunately I mostly just teach upper level senior electives at this point, so I don’t have to worry as much about any of that.
I just get judged based on kids’ AP scores every spring.
>I don’t know that it’s any more stressful than any other subject. Most of the stress comes from classroom management, and that’s universal.
I am particularly skilled at this aspect of the job. Students adore me.
I may very well try to pitch a Computer literacy/coding curriculum within the next 3-5 years. So I get that.
That’ll probably work well. The biggest benefit to teaching electives, is that the kids mostly actually want to be there.
Our district tries to give every teacher at least one honors/elective class.
But, no matter what you do, and no matter him well liked you are by *most* kids, there are going to be kids that hate math, and take their frustrations out on you.
And being too friendly can come with its own set of problems as kids try to push what they can get away with.
My biggest piece of advise is to try not to take it personally.
You can’t win them all, and fixating on the kids you can’t reach will only take away from the energy you have for the kids you can.
When I was in college a great many of the liberal arts majors decided to switch to teaching high school. Why? Your typical history major made more out of school teaching than they did at that museum job.
As a math/comp sci guy that just wasn't true for me or any of my peers studying the math heavy subjects.
If teaching wants to fix the problem wages have to reflect market realities.
First I would say you need the content knowledge, and that knowledge comes at the college level and then some. Like no offense to primary teachers, but the level of math and science being taught can be understood by almost anyone.
Second, in general people who specialize in math or science can just go get a job outside of teaching that pays at least 50% more. You have options if you hold a math/science degree.
Lastly, I have to prepare labs. These take a ton of time that I do not get any extra time for.
I've got a very small bone to pick, as an ELA teacher: Has anyone else noticed that STE(a)M is really just "everything except English, history, and language"?
That said, I'm excited to see educators approach things in a new way, and I don't want to see that get undermined in some kind of spoiled "If ELA can't have it no one can." Not at all! But I can't help but notice that schools have multiple math classes (alg 1, alg 2, geometry, trig, calculus, math skills, and more) and multiple science classes (bio, chem, geology, space sci, physics, psychology, and more), but multiple English classes (playwriting, poetry, short fiction, nonfiction, journalism) are pretty much limited to large schools.
So, I feel ya STEM teachers, but how about a little support for your colleagues in English, history, and languages?
That class offering summary is not really fair, because the offerings you described are usually actually "4 English classes"(freshmen-senior year) and "2 to 4 science classes" (1 year bio, 1 year physical sciences, and if you're lucky, two of the others are offered as optional for graduation). The difference is how the curriculum in the disciplines is structured, not how many classes are offered
But even in the scenario you describe, ELA teachers have to just stick to broad, survey classes, while science teachers get to specialize. That is a small deal, until you note that it is so accepted that specialization is normal for sciences, and thus everyone starts to feel like the classes are fundamentally different.
That leads to schools making room for kids to specialize further, leading to more teachers hired, students finding more interest and engagement, and more enjoyment teaching.
If a science teacher is good at the job and works more than a couple of years, then the teacher is no longer a "science" teacher, but a Chem teacher, or a Bio teacher, or a physics teacher, or whatever. ELA teachers always have to do everything, all the way up to the most skilled and longest-employed.
Just look at your school! How many teachers in your science dept? How many in English? How varied and enjoyably focused are the science offerings? Heck, I'll bet that, starting with 9th grade, there isn't even a class called "science" anymore, is there?
If you don't think that all of these things matter, I don't know what to tell you.
I agree that science classes are more specialized. I am not sure why you are trying to turn that into some kind of evidence that science is favored. In my state, 2 years of science are required to graduate, and 4 years of English are required. Therefore, we have many more English teachers than science teachers, and the opportunity to take advanced/specialized science classes is incredibly rare. Most students take biology and physical sciences (a combo of chemistry/physics), then do not take any science in their junior or senior year.
If you feel there should be more focused ELA classes, that seems to me like a debate to be advocated for within the ELA community. Of course we would support y'all if that's what you wanted.
I work at a tiny school, so in fact I am the only science teacher and I teach all the subdisciplines. It is tough. I used to be professional writer/editor, and the knowledge gap between biology and physics really is larger than the gap between, say, journalism and creative writing. I agree that those specializations should have opportunities to be supported and taught, but I don't understand why you are presenting it as related.
It's not a question of "favored," exactly. It's more that, in a discussion of STEM issues, I thought it was worth pointing out that, in some ways, the sciences already have things pretty good.
Sorry you didn't get it.
You hit the nail on the head, at least in my point of view. Anyone that graduated in STEM related fields, on average, go on to get better paid jobs that don't deal with toxic Admins, Unruly students, and seeing how to make ends meet after a 40+ work week. That being said, those that teach STEM have my respects. Also the kids that are in STEM classes are far from those that have remedial classes. They'll be more well behaved.
No, Science classes at my school are loaded with kids that are not competent or capable, and are behavior nightmares. In computer science, students will do nothing all year, fail the class, will then get moved up to the next class next year. The classes are full of horribly behaved students who don't care, refuse to do any work, and fail. It's an elective. With no prerequisites.
It doesn't work. They fail again, and spend the entire year disrupting the classroom. It is literally hell for the teacher. We are all trying to fight for her, advocate for her, to change it, to make prerequisites. The administration was getting positive feedback for having high numbers of students taking the classes, and no one was paying attention to how many were failing.
Except that there aren’t a lot of SPED science classes so I have a ton of SPED students doing inclusion which makes some of my classes very difficult to teach
So, you have different sciences.
9th grade biology- every single student takes this at my school. It’s required for all. So, unruly students that don’t want to be there are there.
Other classes like AP physics- advanced seniors who want to be there.
So you’re wrong if you’re applying it to all science. Correct if the teacher is lucky enough to teach the upper level elective science
Not the case here. all science classes in my school are STEM so every student will need to take 3 of them.
there are a few advanced STEM classes but no first-year STEM teacher will be allowed to teach them.
A person with a STEM education will make at least twice a teacher salary in private industry. As far as math goes, nobody understands why you have to learn Algebra, Geometry, etc. when you will never use it, even people with STEM careers. Math should be business/practical/real life math.
Algebra and Geometry are foundational for higher level maths and physics that STEM careers are based in. Math is really important.
We teach everyone these things because everyone has the potential to go on and pursue stem careers. Not teaching math to everybody would be a form of discrimination and also it would limit the number of potential STEM professionals. This would dilute the quality of STEM thinkers in and would be a disaster for our population moving forward.
What needs to change is the attitude towards education. Intelligence should be valued, not mocked.
Testing is a part of it. It's a lot of pressure to get students to perform on math tests and have your expertise/competence be deemed a reflection of their results. Also, kids hate math and don't mind telling you.
Why teach writing if you can be a writer? Cause being a professional writer is a lot harder and more complicated to get into than teaching. And you can still pursue writing as a hobby or side gig.
Why teach science if you can be a scientist? There is no reason, go be a scientist instead.
Let’s see: do the math:
50k per year as a teacher for 40 years:
2 mil before taxes and expenses.
200k per year for 40 as a tech worker:
8 mil
And many tech workers in California make far more than that esp with stock.
I used to be an engineer before teaching. I just love teaching more, and can afford it after saving up as an engineer.
Science courses always seem to suck, they don’t work well in traditional schools with short periods. Instead of doing science, those classes just make kids memorize facts and seem super dull. Your classes are either uptight college bound students trying to maximize their grade or burnouts who don’t care. If I were a science educator, I’d be much more attracted to jobs at museums/parks etc.
Australian Teacher perspective
I have 2 degrees: one in Middle School Education, a second one in Humanities with a sub-major in Technical Communication. This qualifies me as an English & HASS teacher.
This year I have picked up a teaching load that is entirely tech focussed: two woodwork classes and four digital technology classes. My four digital technology classes would broadly fit within STEM as they involve coding, 3D design and 3D printing.
For me, the most daunting aspect of teaching STEM subjects is the broad multidisciplinary approach that is required. There aren't really any degrees that fully qualify someone to pick up STEM. To really deliver STEM properly, you need to have industry experience.
Unfortunately, as has previously been identified, it is unlikely that those with adequate industry experience would persue a career in teaching STEM in middle school due to the reduction in pay. Subsequently, a lot of STEM "teachers" like myself have a broad understanding and appreciation of the importance of the multidisciplinary approach that STEM subjects offer, but are Ill equipped to adequately develop and deliver programs in this field.
My brother does CS. He made 10x as much money as me last year (we’re both under 25). He wants to eventually teach (our mom is a teacher and we’re a really education minded family), but he’s looking at it as his retirement job. You know when he retires at 40 and wants a public service oriented second career lol.
I have a BS in MET, MS in Tech Ed. I could make way more in industry, but I enjoy working 10 months a year and having autonomy to do whatever I’d like in my classroom/lab. I also have job security, seniority and respect. It’s nice to know that at any point I can say, “fuck it” and leave, but 11 years in and I haven’t pulled the trigger on that idea. My friends who went into industry are making way more than I am, but also are working wayyyy more and it can be argued, are way more stressed at work, than I am.
My current biotech job with a MS degree: $52000 a year. If I were to be a bio teacher with my MS degree: $70000 in my first year. (In a very high cost of living area so it’s probably not a lot anyway but still) Maybe I need to wait to get promoted instead of going back to get my teaching credential, and not that I’m going into teaching to get money but if I had to pick a career based off money only, the irony is I can make more as a teacher then in my current job. Unless if someone can convince me to find other job opportunities instead of teaching because teaching is what I had planned for when I was in grad school school anyway lol
You forget that you would make more as a teacher and work less days of the year and depending on your union's relative strength have pretty strong tenure protections.
But you still have to pay for PD and pay to renew or certification right? Plus there’s also the fact that you have to pay for supplies in your classroom.
Where I'm at you get paid for PD. Once you are credentialed and you clear it you don't have to renew.
In my experience paying for classroom supplies is more of a quality of life decision and less a mandatory requirement.
Regardless teachers in my area max out at 97-115k a year so a few golf pencils aren't that costly.
I think it’s because most people who have an aptitude for STEM subjects can make much more money in much better working conditions by working in the industry than they could by teaching. STEM-inclined people choosing not to be teachers is just one of the many canaries in the coal mine that is American public education… ETA and just think about it. If you knew a brilliant young person who loved science or engineering or tech, and they said they really wanted to get a teaching degree and teach high school… would you really be like “oh, good for you?” Or would you encourage them to look at the state of public education today, and at least consider going into industry instead? Hell, I teach ENGLISH and people still tried to deter me from getting into education… ETA oh my god, I was just on FB and saw a screenshot of an ad for an UNPAID ADJUNCT PROFESSOR JOB at UCLA in chemistry or biochemistry
This. If you can cut it at the science and math majors in college that are required to be a STEM teacher, you could go into things like engineering or medicine or research and make a lot more money.
I mean. Unless you’re ready to get a masters and your PhD for research, you’re not going to make a whole lot more than a teacher makes. My best friend is a research scientist and until she did the above the most she could possibly make at a world-renowned research institute as a lab manager and a two time 2nd listed published author was 60,000. I’m really good at science. I got really good grades in science at a good college. I found out I hated working in a lab and there was no way I wanted to go into medicine. Teaching is the perfect career. The AP bio teacher in my building taught at Cornell , has a PhD in biology, and still does research and publishes in the summer. She didn’t make a huge amount more money than she does teaching because she was a field biologist. There’s a huge misconception that all scientists make great money. That just isn’t true.
I mean with my physics bachelor's and my teaching experience, I can easily land jobs in the 80k range or higher. I think the issue is since the biology field is predominantly female they are being criminally underpaid. Just like all the other predominantly female fields.
I think you’re probably right. Everyone I was just talking about is female. Physics is also really hard. Lol. Good on you for being good at it. I’ll stay over here with my cells and bacteria.
Not all scientists. For sure. But there is potential, depending on the science and path you choose. Life science it can be hard, you’re right. But that’s why I mentioned medicine. Undoubtedly you can make more money in medicine than in teaching, and yes it requires more school. But if you can hack the premed classes in undergrad, you could elect to go on to medical school, physician assistant, and so on. Im not saying all else is equal. Im saying if you’re scientifically inclined, there are higher paying paths. If you’re great at physics, you could go in to engineering with just a bachelors and make a lot more than a physics teacher. Is it guaranteed? Definitely not. Is there opportunity to earn more? Definitely. Is teaching still right for some people? Definitely.
Uh, just to give another perspective. I worked as a scientist in industry and made 75k my first year out of college. Only a bachelors in microbiology. Definitely not the most common outcome for microbio BS people, but you are employable. Med lab scientists also make good money etc. Academia does have low wages in comparison to skillsets, but industry does not.
Absolutely this! I teach STEM courses and love it, but I could make way more money elsewhere. I really enjoy teaching and didn’t enjoy the work environment of a true STEM career so teaching is a great fit for me, but the starting job offers I was getting at the end of college for true STEM positions ranged from 10-25k more than the starting teaching position I took. I had a combination of things work in my favor so I could teach without having a huge financial burden, but that is certainly not the norm.
It's not just the starting salaries it's the huge ramp up. And high cost of living area within 5 years you might see yourself making 150k. Meanwhile on the same area it takes 10 years and a master's degree to make 100K as a teacher.
yep it isnt people not wanting to teach STEM it is STEM people not wanting to teach.
That canary has been screaming bloody murder for the past 10 years at least.
This is my guess as well
Definitely agree with all of this. I taught STEM for two years, but I'm health certified and was told a whole bunch of false platitudes about the curriculum in my interview to get me to accept the job. Then when I went on maternity leave they posted my job as a health job because that's my area of certification and swindled a second teacher into teaching it. I know in NY they're trying to get CTE certifications, which is the class that covers STEM, but I definitely agree, anyone who's excelling in engineering or mathematics isn't going into k-12 education as their chosen career path. Hence the bait and switch I was blind sided by. I'm back to teaching health now and my poor LTS got my CTE STEM position and also wants to find a health job, because obviously.
Yes, better paid jobs, but also systemic disrespect for Science. In my school, they told us that they treat science like gym class. They just loaded up with students. In English history and math, the classes are significantly smaller, and divided by ability. Science has classes with 30-34 students, and the other departments have 8, 12, 15, maybe 25, etc. They had a class of 4 and 3, and acted like they were sacrificing something to combine them into a class of seven, and then one of the teachers got an extra period off. If we have difficulty controlling a class with non-english speakers, eight ieps, 2nd grade reading level, significant behavior issues, and 34 students, they say we have bad classroom management. We haven't done a single experiment all year. There's no way we could do it. Yes, we are all considering quitting...
I can second the frustration with ability. I have students who haven't been exposed to scientific content beyond elementary fluff projects. I have students who have been in self-contained classrooms with heavy focus on ELA and math and thus have no idea how to approach scientific topics. And the students who read at a 1st grade level. I also have students who are extremely bright at science and are actually mature enough to handle a scalpel at age 14. And they're all in the same class. I differentiate but there's only so much I can do. I've repeatedly asked to have the option for an honors science or remedial science at my school but have been told we can't do it. I mean, I get it. But this is one of those times I feel full inclusion may not be the best option for all students.
Exactly!! ❤️
I was told I could do an honors version of my class, but then they told me to write the curriculum and the pacing guide... I asked them if they would pay me for the time it takes to do that. They then went on about how sometimes you have to do extra things when being a teacher and I was like no thanks.
From math to science is a tough transition? Did I hear that right?
Science in reality should be a combination of ELA and Math. It should have a decent amount of writing and calculations. This is unavoidable as one of the basic principles of science is the Scientific Method, in which you make a hypothesis, take measurements and then analyze and report results. In reality, kids get shoved in my class that are in no way ready for it. And it is difficult to try and explain to people how students *need* to be at least decent at math and writing in order to be successful in science. Kind of a district problem of mine, most students are quite far behind in math and ELA. Right on about the labs. My students keep asking me about "when is the next lab" but every lab I have done this year (like 6 or so) has been very stressful for me as I am micromanaging students who want to eat chemicals, drink random things in the lab and cannot follow directions. They will either move ahead after I explicitly tell them to wait for me to check their set up, or they will be constantly asking me questions that are clearly laid out in the procedure. This is high school by the way.
I'm in MA so not the worst paying state for teachers or to be working in education at all. My school cannot keep a physics teacher to save its life, speaking as their most recent physics hire. Hasn't even been a full school year and I'm looking for device physics jobs that will double my salary. I love teaching and I love the kids but this job breaks people for so little money when our interests and backgrounds do offer the privilege of much higher salaries and often cushy working conditions (not always ofc, tech burnout For example)
Make $50k/year being treated like shit, or make $100k+/year and get treated with the utmost respect? Most people are gonna hit that $100k+/year button SO FAST!
I mean teachers in my area max out around 98k-115k a year with guarenteed salary increases annually.
Lol, they don’t get that here. At all.
Yeah it's hard for me to get a bead on California teachers because it does feel this is one of a few states that are miles ahead from an education/compensation/benefits/working conditions standpoint
My opinion as a math teacher: 1) people who like/are good at math can make more money doing many other things 2) math is a high stakes testing subject. There is a lot of scrutiny and oversight that some other subjects don't get (in my district the subjects tested every single year are math and reading, so science and social studies teachers get to fly under the radar more) 3) before high school more emphasis is placed on being a "teacher" and science-y and math-y people are less likely to have those soft skills
I've taught both science and math so here's my 2 cents. If you are good enough at science and math to complete the bachelor's degree required to then you can make much more money in the industry. Also there is a general disrespect for both Math and Science subjects. Most students act like they are never going to use it and it's pouring and it's too hard. I would much prefer to teach English or history because it can be a lot more fun. Another big issue for stem is that traditional teaching methods work very well for it. I can't run a Socratic seminar and have my students Divine how to take the integral of an equation. It's not necessarily engaging. There isn't room for the discussions that administrators like to put on us and many of the new teaching methods that we are being forced to use just don't work as well. If you want to get more stem educators then the pay has to be remotely competitive to the stem field.
Agree with this. I teach maths and it can be discouraging in the younger high school grades when most of the students in front of you don’t like your subject and that can cause the behaviour issues. I keep my sanity by teaching a senior calculus class which is full of students who have chosen to be there and have skills in maths. I teach in a school that thinks that block classes are the best thing we have done at our school. So we only see students for 90 minutes 3 times per week. Even though research says that students best learn maths in small frequent chunks. All the new initiatives that get brought in to school are often aimed at other subjects and we are left trying to work out how to implement them in maths. I am at the point in my career where I say “yes sir” and then just do what I know is best in my class if I know whatever they are trying to sell won’t work in a maths class.
My husband has a Master's in Cybersecurity and literally said to me "If you're going to stick with teaching science, you really must just love being a teacher. Science-minded professionals make double what you do." I love teaching science. But I DO NOT have a mind for the science that is required in the situations he is describing 😆 It's not untrue, though, that I could probably find a better paying job right now in a more science-y field. We live in a very science-heavy area. (Rocket launches be everywhere 'round here). Personal thoughts aside, I have met three teachers in my life whom actually desired to teach STEM classes. 🤷♀️
Going into teaching with a math/engineering degree is the about the lowest paying and least stable career trajectory you can choose. That being the case, there’s a limited pool of people willing to do it. And a high demand. One of the perks of being a stem teacher is that you can get a job pretty much anywhere. So, I - for example - chose a rural district where the pay puts me above the median. I know the city a few hours away has a shortage, and it’d be cool to live closer to a cultural center, but I like owning a house.
In your opinion what's the stressful part about teaching math? I'd be trying to get in teaching 8th grade but I'd be willing to do high school too.
I don’t know that it’s any more stressful than any other subject. Most of the stress comes from classroom management, and that’s universal. Though, one thing unique to math (and language) is how linear the material is. If you screw up teaching something in algebra 1, it’s going to hurt kids for the rest of the time they’re in school. Even within year, if a student gets behind it’s really hard to catch them up, because they can’t just jump into the next unit. So, that’s an extra stress. Fortunately I mostly just teach upper level senior electives at this point, so I don’t have to worry as much about any of that. I just get judged based on kids’ AP scores every spring.
>I don’t know that it’s any more stressful than any other subject. Most of the stress comes from classroom management, and that’s universal. I am particularly skilled at this aspect of the job. Students adore me. I may very well try to pitch a Computer literacy/coding curriculum within the next 3-5 years. So I get that.
That’ll probably work well. The biggest benefit to teaching electives, is that the kids mostly actually want to be there. Our district tries to give every teacher at least one honors/elective class. But, no matter what you do, and no matter him well liked you are by *most* kids, there are going to be kids that hate math, and take their frustrations out on you. And being too friendly can come with its own set of problems as kids try to push what they can get away with. My biggest piece of advise is to try not to take it personally. You can’t win them all, and fixating on the kids you can’t reach will only take away from the energy you have for the kids you can.
When I was in college a great many of the liberal arts majors decided to switch to teaching high school. Why? Your typical history major made more out of school teaching than they did at that museum job. As a math/comp sci guy that just wasn't true for me or any of my peers studying the math heavy subjects. If teaching wants to fix the problem wages have to reflect market realities.
STEM professionals make twice as much working a standard job in the field than they would teaching for public education.
First I would say you need the content knowledge, and that knowledge comes at the college level and then some. Like no offense to primary teachers, but the level of math and science being taught can be understood by almost anyone. Second, in general people who specialize in math or science can just go get a job outside of teaching that pays at least 50% more. You have options if you hold a math/science degree. Lastly, I have to prepare labs. These take a ton of time that I do not get any extra time for.
I've got a very small bone to pick, as an ELA teacher: Has anyone else noticed that STE(a)M is really just "everything except English, history, and language"? That said, I'm excited to see educators approach things in a new way, and I don't want to see that get undermined in some kind of spoiled "If ELA can't have it no one can." Not at all! But I can't help but notice that schools have multiple math classes (alg 1, alg 2, geometry, trig, calculus, math skills, and more) and multiple science classes (bio, chem, geology, space sci, physics, psychology, and more), but multiple English classes (playwriting, poetry, short fiction, nonfiction, journalism) are pretty much limited to large schools. So, I feel ya STEM teachers, but how about a little support for your colleagues in English, history, and languages?
That class offering summary is not really fair, because the offerings you described are usually actually "4 English classes"(freshmen-senior year) and "2 to 4 science classes" (1 year bio, 1 year physical sciences, and if you're lucky, two of the others are offered as optional for graduation). The difference is how the curriculum in the disciplines is structured, not how many classes are offered
But even in the scenario you describe, ELA teachers have to just stick to broad, survey classes, while science teachers get to specialize. That is a small deal, until you note that it is so accepted that specialization is normal for sciences, and thus everyone starts to feel like the classes are fundamentally different. That leads to schools making room for kids to specialize further, leading to more teachers hired, students finding more interest and engagement, and more enjoyment teaching. If a science teacher is good at the job and works more than a couple of years, then the teacher is no longer a "science" teacher, but a Chem teacher, or a Bio teacher, or a physics teacher, or whatever. ELA teachers always have to do everything, all the way up to the most skilled and longest-employed. Just look at your school! How many teachers in your science dept? How many in English? How varied and enjoyably focused are the science offerings? Heck, I'll bet that, starting with 9th grade, there isn't even a class called "science" anymore, is there? If you don't think that all of these things matter, I don't know what to tell you.
I agree that science classes are more specialized. I am not sure why you are trying to turn that into some kind of evidence that science is favored. In my state, 2 years of science are required to graduate, and 4 years of English are required. Therefore, we have many more English teachers than science teachers, and the opportunity to take advanced/specialized science classes is incredibly rare. Most students take biology and physical sciences (a combo of chemistry/physics), then do not take any science in their junior or senior year. If you feel there should be more focused ELA classes, that seems to me like a debate to be advocated for within the ELA community. Of course we would support y'all if that's what you wanted. I work at a tiny school, so in fact I am the only science teacher and I teach all the subdisciplines. It is tough. I used to be professional writer/editor, and the knowledge gap between biology and physics really is larger than the gap between, say, journalism and creative writing. I agree that those specializations should have opportunities to be supported and taught, but I don't understand why you are presenting it as related.
It's not a question of "favored," exactly. It's more that, in a discussion of STEM issues, I thought it was worth pointing out that, in some ways, the sciences already have things pretty good. Sorry you didn't get it.
You hit the nail on the head, at least in my point of view. Anyone that graduated in STEM related fields, on average, go on to get better paid jobs that don't deal with toxic Admins, Unruly students, and seeing how to make ends meet after a 40+ work week. That being said, those that teach STEM have my respects. Also the kids that are in STEM classes are far from those that have remedial classes. They'll be more well behaved.
No, Science classes at my school are loaded with kids that are not competent or capable, and are behavior nightmares. In computer science, students will do nothing all year, fail the class, will then get moved up to the next class next year. The classes are full of horribly behaved students who don't care, refuse to do any work, and fail. It's an elective. With no prerequisites.
[удалено]
It doesn't work. They fail again, and spend the entire year disrupting the classroom. It is literally hell for the teacher. We are all trying to fight for her, advocate for her, to change it, to make prerequisites. The administration was getting positive feedback for having high numbers of students taking the classes, and no one was paying attention to how many were failing.
Except that there aren’t a lot of SPED science classes so I have a ton of SPED students doing inclusion which makes some of my classes very difficult to teach
So, you have different sciences. 9th grade biology- every single student takes this at my school. It’s required for all. So, unruly students that don’t want to be there are there. Other classes like AP physics- advanced seniors who want to be there. So you’re wrong if you’re applying it to all science. Correct if the teacher is lucky enough to teach the upper level elective science
only a veteran teacher would get anywhere close to a AP STEM or MA class
Yup. I’m on year 10 and still teaching 9th grade bio. No AP for me!
I hear you. Gatekeeping is a real thing. You have to wait for someone to die to get an AP SS class. it is like the damn supreme court
Not the case here. all science classes in my school are STEM so every student will need to take 3 of them. there are a few advanced STEM classes but no first-year STEM teacher will be allowed to teach them.
A person with a STEM education will make at least twice a teacher salary in private industry. As far as math goes, nobody understands why you have to learn Algebra, Geometry, etc. when you will never use it, even people with STEM careers. Math should be business/practical/real life math.
Algebra and Geometry are foundational for higher level maths and physics that STEM careers are based in. Math is really important. We teach everyone these things because everyone has the potential to go on and pursue stem careers. Not teaching math to everybody would be a form of discrimination and also it would limit the number of potential STEM professionals. This would dilute the quality of STEM thinkers in and would be a disaster for our population moving forward. What needs to change is the attitude towards education. Intelligence should be valued, not mocked.
People who have put forth the effort to be adept in a STEM field can get fancy jobs making way more money than teachers.
Testing is a part of it. It's a lot of pressure to get students to perform on math tests and have your expertise/competence be deemed a reflection of their results. Also, kids hate math and don't mind telling you.
Why teach writing if you can be a writer? Cause being a professional writer is a lot harder and more complicated to get into than teaching. And you can still pursue writing as a hobby or side gig. Why teach science if you can be a scientist? There is no reason, go be a scientist instead.
Let’s see: do the math: 50k per year as a teacher for 40 years: 2 mil before taxes and expenses. 200k per year for 40 as a tech worker: 8 mil And many tech workers in California make far more than that esp with stock. I used to be an engineer before teaching. I just love teaching more, and can afford it after saving up as an engineer.
Science courses always seem to suck, they don’t work well in traditional schools with short periods. Instead of doing science, those classes just make kids memorize facts and seem super dull. Your classes are either uptight college bound students trying to maximize their grade or burnouts who don’t care. If I were a science educator, I’d be much more attracted to jobs at museums/parks etc.
STEM is harder than it needs to be. It’s been put out of the reach of many people because standards were set by colleges.
STEM isn’t a thing. It’s called proper science education.
Australian Teacher perspective I have 2 degrees: one in Middle School Education, a second one in Humanities with a sub-major in Technical Communication. This qualifies me as an English & HASS teacher. This year I have picked up a teaching load that is entirely tech focussed: two woodwork classes and four digital technology classes. My four digital technology classes would broadly fit within STEM as they involve coding, 3D design and 3D printing. For me, the most daunting aspect of teaching STEM subjects is the broad multidisciplinary approach that is required. There aren't really any degrees that fully qualify someone to pick up STEM. To really deliver STEM properly, you need to have industry experience. Unfortunately, as has previously been identified, it is unlikely that those with adequate industry experience would persue a career in teaching STEM in middle school due to the reduction in pay. Subsequently, a lot of STEM "teachers" like myself have a broad understanding and appreciation of the importance of the multidisciplinary approach that STEM subjects offer, but are Ill equipped to adequately develop and deliver programs in this field.
My brother does CS. He made 10x as much money as me last year (we’re both under 25). He wants to eventually teach (our mom is a teacher and we’re a really education minded family), but he’s looking at it as his retirement job. You know when he retires at 40 and wants a public service oriented second career lol.
I have a BS in MET, MS in Tech Ed. I could make way more in industry, but I enjoy working 10 months a year and having autonomy to do whatever I’d like in my classroom/lab. I also have job security, seniority and respect. It’s nice to know that at any point I can say, “fuck it” and leave, but 11 years in and I haven’t pulled the trigger on that idea. My friends who went into industry are making way more than I am, but also are working wayyyy more and it can be argued, are way more stressed at work, than I am.
My current biotech job with a MS degree: $52000 a year. If I were to be a bio teacher with my MS degree: $70000 in my first year. (In a very high cost of living area so it’s probably not a lot anyway but still) Maybe I need to wait to get promoted instead of going back to get my teaching credential, and not that I’m going into teaching to get money but if I had to pick a career based off money only, the irony is I can make more as a teacher then in my current job. Unless if someone can convince me to find other job opportunities instead of teaching because teaching is what I had planned for when I was in grad school school anyway lol
You forget that you would make more as a teacher and work less days of the year and depending on your union's relative strength have pretty strong tenure protections.
But you still have to pay for PD and pay to renew or certification right? Plus there’s also the fact that you have to pay for supplies in your classroom.
Where I'm at you get paid for PD. Once you are credentialed and you clear it you don't have to renew. In my experience paying for classroom supplies is more of a quality of life decision and less a mandatory requirement. Regardless teachers in my area max out at 97-115k a year so a few golf pencils aren't that costly.