There's two primary reasons that math curriculum is dumbed down in the US: 1. the students who didn't get it the previous year but were "socially-promoted" anyway, and the teacher has to compensate; 2. the parents who see their kids not getting it and/or are afraid of their kids' homework and demand that all of the hard math be taken away.

Part of this "improving teachers" problem is that there's no good definition of what a "good" teacher does. Do they know their material? Are they effective communicators? Are they empathetic? Do they help their students pass the state tests (and each state has their own state tests)?

As a teacher, I try to emulate my favorite teachers: the 8th grade geography teacher who, through his personal stories of growing up in our small town, taught us how to be good human beings, as well as the most amazing acrostics to memorize nations and capitols; the 12th grade English teacher who taught us everything from Sir Gwain and the Green Knight to "Death of a Salesman" and the occasional university class, and had a collection of stuffed plushie sheep, the 12th grade physics teacher who showed Penn and Teller movies to debunk magic, measured the speed of light from the exit sign, and created the legends of lab-destroying pixies. Two of these teachers are gone, one frustrated by the administration, one frustrated by fellow teachers (who didn't have her teaching abilities and sued the district to make her share her classes).

As amazing as these teachers are/were, I don't know if I would have passed a state test (which hadn't yet been created) with that material. Would the teachers have been thrown out for my poor performance?

Additionally, having students be responsible for whether a teacher remains/gets higher pay is insane. The student has no incentive to pass most state tests (most states still don't require passing scores to graduate), so effort isn't rewarded. Evaluations of teachers should be done by teachers who have no direct influence on each other (the NYTimes opinions mention a system in Indiana that sounds good).

There's a conflict of interests, for lack of a better term. It's nice that the President is advocating more science education and science literacy for the general population (with which I personally agree). But there's also the state-mandated testing systems, some of which require science tests (thanks to NCLB, all states require math and language arts tests, but some states went above and beyond).

If a state requires science testing, chances are that many of its teachers will teach to that test in an attempt to keep the school afloat. Yes, there are some teachers who do amazing projects and truly inspire students, but many will not. Many teachers will feel (and are feeling) pressure to just get good scores. This atmosphere is not at all condusive to making science (or any other subject taught this way) cool.

As far as getting the public interested in science, the media has to start taking an active interest in science and making it accessible to the general public. Let's face it: a lot of new discoveries are not very simple (LHC, anyone?). Explaining why it's an amazing project and worth funding should be part of a science reporter's job. When I worked at a large public science museum, our job was to take material and bring it down to a 5th-8th grade level, which would help compensate for kids, non-native-English speakers, and non-science-literate parents. Even TV shows like CSI do not make science accessible: the fancy-schmancy machines and lab-coat-clad workers are the ones to determine identities of mysterious materials or vials of evidence.

Which is another reason that kids don't want to go into science... "dude, you'll be a NERD!"

Gever Tulley really impressed me in this talk at TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_for_kids.html

Here's his blog on the Tinkering School: http://www.tinkeringschool.com/blog/

I didn't mean to say that we should throw money at the schools; you're right, that won't solve any problems.

However, if that kind of cash (let's say $250 per kid in a 300-kid school (which is kinda small for a middle school)... that's $75K) is given to a school with the stipulation of... early childhood ed, or extra reading help, or more free/reduced meals, or rebuilding the library, getting up-to-date textbooks, or new gym equipment, or installing a computer lab (etc.), I'm pretty sure it would do some good.

Besides, what is "the problem" that you're trying to solve? Not many people can articulate this in specific terms with good student-centered reasoning (i.e., "raising math scores" isn't specific enough nor does it have a good reason for doing so).

This will put even more pressure on teachers to teach to the tests. Especially in low-income areas (where these trials are being done), teachers want their students to get what they're worth.

Kids aren't "getting smarter" (by the way, what does "smart" entail?) They're learning to play the game that is the educational system.

Also, if the sponsoring organizations can afford to pay each kid $250-500, where the heck are they getting those funds, and why aren't they giving it to inner-city schools in the first place?

The reason these districts (and not just in SC) are "low-performing" is NOT because they do not have computers.

If kids can't read in the first place, giving them laptops isn't going to solve that problem. If kids don't want to learn, giving them laptops isn't going to solve that problem either.

I am female and explosives are what got me into chemistry. Just because girls often shriek or shy from explosives doesn't mean they're actually scared or unimpressed. Most of my female students are more into fire than my male students.

Don't you dare dumb-down (girl-down?) chemistry for girls. We'll give you camo-colored knitting needles if that helps you get over it.

Be careful about explosives in today's society. While explosives are what got me into chemistry, they are now very regulated by local, state, and federal governments. Check your local laws (and your administration) regarding definitions of "bombs" and "explosives" before doing them in classroom settings.