Is STEM Education Getting Too Many Props?

In a recent Huffington Post article, Alfie Kohn takes exception with what he sees as an excessive and disproportionate amount of emphasis given to STEM subject areas.  Using the bet humor he could muster, Kohn tries to make sense of “why STEM subjects consistently attract so much money and attention.”

Among decision leaders and the general public, I suspect that STEM enjoys an immediate advantage simply because it tends to involve numbers. Our society is inclined to regard any topic as more compelling if it can be expressed in numerical terms. Notice how rarely we evaluate schools by their impact on students' interest in learning; we focus on precisely specified achievement effects. Issues that inherently seem qualitative in nature -- intrinsic motivation, say, or the meaning of life -- we consign to the ivory tower. And when questions that don't lend themselves to quantification aren't simply brushed aside, they're reduced to numbers anyway. Witness, for example, how English teachers have been told that they not only can, but must, use rubrics to quantify their responses to students' writings.

Ok then. Where Mr. Kohn gets his figures for Science and Math "over-funding" must a very different source than that used by...well...everyone else.  And if Mr. Kohn could produce a reliable system for measuring student interest, he'd make a killing. 

I will concede a few points, although the author never made them.  First, Science and Math performance is easily compared across countries because of the universal nature of the subject areas.  For Math and Science, we have TIMMS.  Finding a way to compare Language Arts proficiency between American students and students from Singapore is an exercise in futility. An international comparison in Social Studies is even more difficult.  Afterall, General Santa Anna is held as a military and intellectual hero in Mexico and some of the world has yet to see the Industrial Revolution.

The second concession is that a degree in a STEM field does not necessarily offer better career prospects.  No degree is a “guarantee” of anything.

But in response to Mr. Kohn, I must concur with one of the online reader comments:

“I have a degree in the art, but think we have neglected math and science too much…mostl­y because it's hard and we don't want to put too much pressure on the kids. Grrr.

Perhaps if we pushed math and science a little more, people could have calculated their mortgage payments and realized they couldn't afford what a conniving bank said they could.”

Its not that Science and Math deserve more funding and attention than the humanities, it’s that they (Science, especially) have been so under-emphasized in the past.  They have also been taught incorrectly way too often.  Elementary grade teachers are almost always "Reading People" by preference and education.  That is not inherently a bad thing, but we do need to see the situation for what it is.

The habit of eschewing “the harder” subjects is carried by students when they get to college.  The graduation rate of pre-meds and engineers is still severely dwarfed by Sociology majors.  Heck, all majors are dwarfed by Sociology.

Of those that do graduate form an American university with a high level STEM degree,  growing numbers are from other countries.  Why?  Because foreign students are coming to American colleges better prepared for the hard stuff. 

What say you?  Leave your comments here and let's get to the bottom of this.  

School Improvement Initiatives Seem to be More “Show” than “Go"

In the third 2000 Presidential debate, democratic candidate Al Gore proudly announced his intentions for the future, “I am for gun-free schools!”  He said so emphatically as if the idea was a breakthrough.

His opponent responded, “Did I miss something?  He says he’s for gun-free schools.  Who isn’t?”

Fast forward almost 11 years and we have a theme that has been around for years. In his State of the Union speech, President Obama made it clear that he was for high standards for schools and quality education for all students.

Well, who isn’t?

The president is not the only one with such lofty words of expectation.  It is a common rhetoric that’s been around for awhile.  The thing that seems to keep the “show” from a proper “go” is the how.  Here are some examples:

Show: The president has claimed that we are in this generation’s “Sputnik” moment, imploring schools to stress Math and Science.

The Go: Participation in science fairs is dwindling, and student performance in science is still low across the country, especially in minority populations.  There has been no change in the view of how science should be taught.  It’s more of the same, but with more tests.

Show: Many, including the president, are calling for an end to No Child Left Behind and wholesale change to the education systems nationwide.

The Go: Race to the Top (RTTT) has increased the emphasis in and frequency of testing.  More instruction time than ever is taken away for testing and the amount will grow over the next few years.  RTTT funds were dispersed very lopsidedly to the East coast and are being spent mostly on consultants and new hires at state agencies.  Very little if any money will see the classroom.

Show:  “We need high academic standards”.

The Go: Creation of Common Core Standards.  Consultants have made a good deal of money on it thus far.  There is more to be made in curriculum alignments and crosswalk documents.  Teachers were not part of the process and still no one knows how the new standards will affect them.  South Dakota has already decided to not use standards for Social Studies, even though the state have previously committed to adopt the standards. 

Show: “We will replace ineffective teachers and principals and replace them with good ones.”

The go: We may need more thought on how we are going to do that. Teachers and principals don’t grow on trees. 

The show: “We need to have students college-ready and get more kids into college."

The go:  College degrees are issued in record numbers, but they seem to mean less and less.  A new study shows that college students really don’t learn much in their years in college and that college may be a severe waste mistake for many kids.  This may be related to a former “go” in that kids are told that the ultimate path is through a four year university and that working with your hands is for “lower people.”  Unfortunately, it is the sciences that get looked over as a result.

Ok – enough doom and gloom.  There are answers out there and the answers are solid.  Charter schools, home schools, and independent schools have experimented for years on a micro level and have had success.  In some cases, wild success.  You can find some examples here, here, here, and here.  

Arne Duncan, nor anyone at a high national level seem to see the opportunities in learning from the worker bees.  Until they do, the money will keep pouring to their handpicked consultants for solutions that do not solve much.

Should We Prepare Every Student for College?

A group from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education examined the philosophy and effects of preparing every high school student for college.  The study was released yesterday.

The movement started with good intentions to raise the academic standards, expecting that student performance will follow.  For some students, it has been a good path.   But for many others, it has been damaging, according to the study.  Education Week paraphrased the report. 

By concentrating too much on classroom-based academics with four-year college as a goal, the nation’s education system has failed vast numbers of students, who instead need solid preparation for careers requiring less than a bachelor’s degree, Harvard scholars

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce Director Anthony P. Carnevale agrees, “Since 1983 and A Nation at Risk, we’ve been very single-minded about kids going to college. It’s good, but it’s too narrow.” 

The original movement was (at least partially) grounded in sound projections.   In 1973, 70% of all US jobs were held by people with only a high school education.  In 2007, it dropped to 40%.  The future promises to show further decrease.

There seems to be some consensus that some sort of training after high school is the target to reach, whether it is vocational/technical training, an associate’s degree path, or a four year university. 

“Every high school graduate should find viable ways of pursuing both a career and a meaningful post-secondary degree or credential,” the report says. “For too many of our youth, we have treated preparing for college versus preparing for a career as mutually exclusive options.”