Have We Learned Anything?

There was an interesting article in The Christian Science Monitor the other day (“Wanted: More science and math teachers in the US”) that caused me to wonder: should I laugh or should I cry? The premise of that article is that there is a drastic shortage of qualified science and mathematics teachers in this country and schools will need some 200,000 such individuals over the next decade.

I hold a Ph. D. in Science Education with an emphasis in chemical education and I have thirty years experience, yet I cannot get schools in this area to look at my resume or vita. Is the fact that I am “old” and have experience a factor in my not being hired? I have thirty years experience plus a commitment and dedication to teaching but no one is interested in hiring me. Why? Is it better for school systems across the country to hire “rookies” with virtually no experience and hope that they last?

More to the point and as the title of this piece implies, when are we going to learn what it takes to improve science and mathematics education in this country?

First, the good news; the article notes that about 1/3 of new science and math teachers typically leave the profession after three years. That’s an improvement; when I started teaching in 1971, it was about 50% over 5 years. But the reasons were about the same (lack of support, poor pay, or poor working conditions). The only problem is that not much else has changed in the thirty-plus years since I started.

The article notes fewer than 6 out of 10 science teachers are certified in the areas that they teach. Those are essentially the same numbers as ten and even twenty years ago.

The article noted that one of the teachers hired had to take courses on how to teach, not just to meet certification requirements but to understand how one successfully teaches science. Now, these are not the type of courses that critics of educational schools so often deride. I agree that there are a number of courses that education majors take that they could probably do without (I have taken one or two such courses) but courses in the methodology of teaching are as important to successful teaching as a core foundation in the subject that you are teaching. As with the statistics about the lack of certified teachers, the preparation of those teachers coming into the classroom is no better than it was ten or twenty years ago.

To me, the central point of the article was its statement that

“The United States is not only facing a dearth of future homegrown scientists and engineers, she and others say, but increasingly, everyday citizens need science literacy.”

And those in science education have been making the comment for the past twenty-plus years. We are still trying to find ways of getting qualified people in mathematics and science into the classroom and yet it doesn’t seem that our efforts have made much difference or impact. This is not the first time someone has suggested ways to improve science education and it is not the first time I have addressed the issue; see “The Crisis in Science and Mathematics (1990)”.

Why is it then that we keep addressing this same problem?

First, the focus is wrong. Instead of continually seeking new teachers, we should be working with the ones in place. As I noted in my 1990 piece, the ones who are making the best impact on science education in the classroom are the ones who have been teaching for several years. We routinely place our new hires in the lower rated schools and often without mentors. Even if they want to try something new and innovative, many times they do not have the support or equipment needed to implement the changes. The information they often have about teaching is “textbook” oriented but the classroom to which they are often assigned is as far from the textbook as anything imaginable.

It is no wonder that they leave the profession. We also do not give them the opportunity to teach the subject that they have studied. Instead, the new hires get the freshman classes and have to wait for the older teachers to retire before getting a chance to teach the “good” courses.

The second major problem is that we are trying to improve science and mathematics education without supporting science and mathematics instruction. The crisis in science and mathematics today is on the same level or higher than the 1957 crisis caused by the Soviet Union’s launching of Sputnik. In fact, the crisis today may be greater today because 1) there was a plan in place to respond to the Soviet’s launch and 2) there is no “visible” threat today that compares to the “visible” threat of Sputnik orbiting the earth every 96.2 minutes. The threat today is more subtle because our ability to think and analyze is limited, which is why there is a crisis.

The response to Sputnik was a massive infusion of Federal funds. But over the course of the 1960’s and early 70’s, funds were reduced to a trickle. In addition to supporting various curriculum projects (outlined in “Liberal Arts and Science Education in the 21^st Century”), the funds were used to support additional education (I know several individuals who obtained their Master’s degree with NSF funding) and the upgrading of laboratory facilities (this also included buying equipment and chemicals). These funds were critical to the curriculum projects because the curriculum projects were very much laboratory-oriented.

As the funding dried up and ran out, schools quit buying chemicals and equipment and the laboratory portion of the curriculum slowly disappeared. The effect of this is seen in the evolution of the chemistry textbook over the past forty years.

Most of today’s chemistry textbooks are 2^nd and 3^rd generation descendants of the textbooks and curriculum projects of the 60’s and 70’s. The initial textbooks were very much laboratory-oriented and required lab work by the students to provide the evidence for the theories presented in lecture. While laboratory exercises and experiments were phased out because of increasing costs (many people would be surprised to know that a rise in the price of crude oil often leads to a rise in the price of chemicals for research, development and production), the teaching of theory continued. But without the experiential knowledge gained in the laboratory to support the theory present, theories were taught as if they were facts (and that has caused several other problems).

The solution to the problem, in fact, the solution to the problems with teaching today is demand accountability from our teachers. This is not new (as I noted in the “The Crisis in Science and Mathematics (1990)”). It is easier to have our students take exams and measure how well they do on the exam but teachers will respond, as was noted in the Wall Street Journal article that I alluded to, by teaching (to) the test and even giving out the answers.

There is a crisis in science and mathematics education. It is not a new crisis but one that has been developing over the past twenty or so years. The answer is not simply to hire new teachers with scientific or mathematical backgrounds and teach them how to teach. We knew twenty years ago that we had to change the nature of professional development programs. It is good to see that the teachers mentioned in the article that precipitated this piece are getting support for their efforts; when I started teaching in 1971, I was required by contract to take similar courses but I received no support. It will take more than offering salaries that entice qualified science and math majors to venture into the classroom and stay for a career; it will take a change in the mind set of the public that our schools are the place where our most valuable resource is educated to move us into the unknown that we call the future.

Cross-posted to RedBlueChristian

People walking on the moon?

The last person to walk on the moon was Eugene Cernan, commander of Apollo 17.  He and Harrison Schmidt, the first astronaut who was also a scientist, landed on the moon on December 11, 1972, and left on December 14th.  Unless someone has gone to the moon without us knowing about it, it has been 36 years since anyone has walked on the moon.  For how many students is a discussion of walking on the moon a history lesson rather than a science lesson?

I bring this up, in part because of the pieces I have posted on the crisis in science and math and because of the following cartoon, which I obtained in 1986 (March 2nd, if I am not mistaken).

The Crisis in Science and Mathematics (1990)

The following letter appeared in the November 13, 1989 issue of Chemical and Engineering News:

Upgrading Science

SIR: Education in the physical/biological sciences and mathematics sectors can be easily (but with bloodletting) upgraded at the precollege level as follows.

Eliminate tenure completely and adopt objective methods of performance review used in industry to weed out the deadwood and reward and attract solid professional talent to primary and secondary school education. Industry no longer has any guarantee of permanent professional employment. This died in the early 1960s. If you can’t produce, out you go — no one good-old-boy system to protect you.

Start attracting enthusiastic, talented people by paying them competitive salaries. If this requires a surtax at the state level, so be it. The time for hand-wringing and bemoaning poor quality technical education must come to an end now! Let’s get our best industrial people together into a task force and get the mechanisms into place that will start the upgrading of our nation’s science and math programs within the next year.

Seymour Broad

Cincinnati

The following was my reply, printed in the February 5, 1990 issue.

Teaching Science Teachers

SIR: Seymour Broad’s letter (C & E N, November 13, 1989) presents an interesting, although possibly wrong, solution to the problem of correcting science education in the U. S. today.

I will not address the issue of tenure in terms of the implication that it is used to hide incompetent or improperly prepared teachers. This is more of a political issue than an education issue. The rational that maintaining tenure does so also ignores the fact that many of the better teachers (as identified by the National Science Teachers Association) have a longer term of service than do most teachers. This would indicate that the problems of improving science education lies more at the administrative levels than it does in the classroom.

Broad is correct in stating the need to attract talented personnel into teaching; yet, he does not appear to realize that the majority of funding for teacher salaries comes from local funding, rather than state sources. Additionally, many schools use a salary schedule independent of teaching area. Changing this salary schedule to reflect market supply and demand is also a political, rather than educational, issue. And if there are changes in salaries, such changes will be made at the administrative level rather than in the classroom.

I do not wish to suggest that there are no educational changes necessary. If it just that, without the support of school administrators, little can be done that will have long-term affects. Borrowing the business analogy of Broad, would 3M’s Post-it Notes be successful if 3M did not have the policy of allowing individuals to pursue other ideas? It has been shown time and again that innovation in the business world comes from outside the normal channels of company development. If innovation is to occur in the classroom, similar administrative support must exist.

Let us take Broad’s suggestion to remove all the deadwood and replace them with new teachers. What will happen if we get new teachers into the classroom based solely on their ability in science? There have been arguments that state graduates are not prepared for industrial work, so how can we assume that these same graduates would be prepared to teach? Knowledge of the subject matter is not enough for effective instruction to take place. There must be some consideration for how students learn as well as what they are to learn. This is evident in the studies on how teaching is done. In most cases, teaching is done in the same manner as the teacher was taught. Oftentimes, this means lectures with little laboratory instruction (or if there is laboratory instruction, with limited connections between the two). Since much of what is done in science occurs in the laboratory, these typical instructional processes do not match the manner in which science operates, and, as a result, do not give students a true picture of the subject.

The current emphasis on teacher evaluation does not take this into consideration, either. It is proper to suggest, as Broad does, that more objective means of performance evaluation be adopted. However, current evaluation of teacher performance is often done by measuring student learning. As a November 2, 1989, article in the Wall Street Journal pointed out, this process is open to much abuse and does little to meet the goals it was intended to meet. On November 16, 1989, the Wall Street Journal presented an article about alternative student evaluation methods. Such alternative methods can work only if the teacher has a firm understanding of the subject and teaching processes. If we are to measure teacher performance, it must come independent of student learning (though there is a probable correlation between the two).

Changing the way in which prospective science teachers (including those at the college level) are prepared cannot be done overnight. In the meantime, what can be done to help current classroom teachers? In an article by Penick, Yager, and Bonnstetter in Educational Leadership (October, 1986), it was noted that those teachers identified as exemplary continually upgraded their own content knowledge in addition to teaching skills. The critical need here is to help all classroom teachers update their knowledge of science.

ACS, through its local sections, can do much to help improve local science instruction. Are local teachers invited to the section meetings even if they are not ACS members? ACS has provisions for affiliated members. Does the section offer a speaker’s list to the local schools so teachers now who to call when t hey need answers to questions? What activities do sections offer to provide continuing education for local teachers? One of the greatest needs in secondary education is how to deal with the chemical stores developed over the years. Here is an area where industrial safety personnel can work with teachers to solve a major problem.

The call for improvement in science education is not new. The need for a scientifically literate populace is well understood and need not be redefined here. What we need to see is how individuals and groups are working to make that improvement.

Tony Mitchell

Science Education

University of Texas of the Permian Basin

Odessa, TX

Be It Resolved

This is the message I presented on the Epiphany of the Lord (4 January 2004) at Tompkins Corners UMC.  I used the Scriptures for the New Year instead of the lectionary for the Epiphany of the Lord (Ecclesiastes 3: 1 – 13, Revelation 21: 1 – 6, and Matthew 25: 31 – 46).

—————————–

This is the time of year when we look at things past and things yet to come. But time is a fleeting thing, and looking forward is difficult to do. There are many shows that will speak of things yet to come during the coming year but very few of these shows will come back next year and talk about how their predictions came out.

There are those who would say that John the Evangelist saw the future in his writing of the Book of Revelation. But John was writing to a group of Christians in seven different churches, each with their own problems, each with their own cares. His was not a prediction of the future but a warning of what was to come unless changes were made.

John didn’t see an end to time but rather the cause of time. “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end” was not a statement coming at the end of time but rather a statement of continuation. John recognized that God’s time and presence were continual while ours was not. We may not see much in the future to come but God is the future and in that future we have hope.

At the time that John wrote the Book of Revelations, Christians were experiencing the first of many persecution. To the readers, especially in the seven churches to whom the Book was directed, it was necessary to give them hope and show that there was a promise for the future.

And that is why the Preacher writes about time. The Preacher, as the author of Ecclesiastes is commonly known, saw time in passages and seasons, in moments when one should think, pause, and consider. Life was not simply a collection of bits and pieces of things done and yet to be done. Rather, life was a balance of actions and tasks.

The Preacher knew that life was futile when it was seen as a collection of things solely measured by time. Life was more than chasing after things that would not exist beyond the moment of the chase; life was more than a measure of the time we are on this planet. The Preacher knew and wrote that if we see life only in terms of what we have done, we can never even begin to see beyond today. Putting things into categories does keep things in order but it does little to help us see or understand God’s purpose.

Though we would like to even begin understanding God’s purpose, we cannot even begin to comprehend what it might be. But that should not stop us from trying. That is the very essence of the difference between our souls and us. We have been made in God’s image so we have an inborn inquisitiveness to find out about external realities. By coming to know our Creator, we can find our peace. The whole prelude to the reading of Ecclesiastes for today shows that without that purpose, all is folly.

All we can see are the micro-moments of our own existence in the grand span of eternity. But those moments give us a glimpse of what is to come. The Scriptures call us to live a life in robust faith, even during times of trial and pain. For we know that in the grand scheme of things God will make everything beautiful.

But therein lies the problem. We don’t like the idea that our time is limited. We don’t like the notion that in the grand scheme of things we are simply a blip in the passage of time. We are so caught up in our battles with time, we forget about others. Jesus spoke of the people missing Him when He was tired, poor, hungry, and homeless. But the people didn’t even know what he was talking about. “When did we see you hungry, or tired, or poor, or homeless?” they asked.

The Gospel message for today is interesting. It speaks of the Second Coming of Christ but it does not give a time when one might expect it to happen. And that is the point.

Jesus said we would never know the day, the hour, the time or the place of His coming. But our preparations should not be limited because we do not know; rather, our preparations should increase. It is easy to say that we are prepared but are we?

What would happen if someone came up to you and asked for help getting a bit to eat? What would happen if someone came up to you and asked you for a ride someplace down the road? Would you help them get the food they needed? Would you give them the ride?

It isn’t likely that such things are going to happen to you every day but it begs the question as to how you treat people you meet every day? How do you treat the people around you? Do you treat them the way you wish to be treated? Or is your treatment conditional? Do you treat them well when they do things for you?

It is very simple; our preparation of Christ is not based on apocalyptic visions or our random acts of kindness to strangers. It is based on what we do each day to those people whom we are in contact with every day.

That is why I make such a big deal about reaching out to those who are members of this church but are not here on a regular basis. But it has to be more than simply my sending letters to them. Because the letters that I send are the letters of a pastor, warning members of what will happen if they do not take action. But the words that come from the membership tell those individuals that they are in fact missed and that they are still considered a part of the community.

There really is no way that we can determine what will happen if we ignore these inactive members. But a church that does not care for its own will slowly die. A church that does not show care or concern for its own cannot show care or concern for others.

And if there is to be a Tompkins Corners United Methodist Church in 2005, it will be because there was an effort made to reach out to those in the community and try and bring them back in. Like those who heard the words of Jesus but did not know when they had missed their opportunity, so too will the opportunities for the growth of this church be fleeting and quickly gone if one is not careful.

We begin each year with resolutions, actions that we want to take that will make us better. I hope that the members of this church will resolve to reach out to the other members of this church who are not here and say to them, “You are still a part of this community and you are missed.”

John was writing at a time when the future was bleak, when the whole idea of Christianity was in doubt. But he saw hope for the future; he saw knew that God would be there. The Preacher wrote at a time when he thought his future was bleak; when he could see no purpose for living. But he saw hope; he saw that in all there was and would be God would be there. He gave him hope.

Jesus pointed out that He was here around and among us. Our hope and future lie in our ability to bring His presence into our lives and into the lives of others. I would hope and pray that we resolved to carry that mission into the future as well.