Comments on 'Mobilization' for Math and Science Education

• partner k-12 and higher ed on national standards
• Posted by Joseph A Soares , Associate Professor, Department of Sociology at Wake Forest University on June 11, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT

• A sterling report that again makes the case for national science and math standards and for renewing the partnership between higher ed and k-12, but it doesn't go far enough in looking at link between national math and science competence and college admissions. Yes, we need to have college admissions take account of their recommendations for a new high school sequence in math (see page 25), but we would improve our national math and science literacy if we used subject tests, not aptitude tests, in college admissions. We would move the country toward higher standards, if higher ed relied on tests of achievement, not SAT types tests, for college admission.

• Okay, but can they read and write?
• Posted by Todd Petersen , Associate Professor of English at Southern Utah University on June 11, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT

• I agree whole heartedly, but I am always a little concerned that there has been no wide-scale mobilization for the basic literacy problems facing this country. Every time I talk to people in industry and government once they discover that I teach English I get lengthy descriptions of how incapable people are of writing even a basic legible e-mail.

  A friend of mine, who is a biomedical engineer, told me that most of his job is writing. Ditto my father-in-law the electrical engineer. Ditto auditors, biologists, and National Parks Rangers.

  I can't recall a time when anyone suggested putting more resources into making sure that students can actually read their engineering books, or that they can write proposals or document the software they are designing.

  In my experience every time someone says we need to put math and science to the forefront, it means moving something else into the background. Usually this is basic literacy curriculum. I think the emphasis is there in the elementary grades, but as students ascend, the focus diminishes.

  This emphasis on science, math, and technology creates an environment in which students feel free to say that reading and writing have no real world applicability. In the 14 years I have been teaching in Higher Ed, I have had plenty of students tell me that their engineering coursework is more important than their basic college writing courses and that is why they did not get an A in my class, even though they need one to keep their scholarship, and couldn't I please reconsider.

• Higher Education Responsibility
• Posted by Steve , Master Lecturer/ Mathematics Department at Suffolk University on June 11, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT

• From experience I know that the quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities ultimately DOES NOT begin with solid instruction at the K-12 level, it begins with the quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities. For far too long higher education has "passed the buck" by not producing qualified teachers. As a former Superintendent of Schools I personally reviewed the applications of perspective elementary and middle math school teachers and routinely screened out at least 90% because their mathematics preparation was either not existent or extremely weak.

  Higher education needs to signifcantly raise teacher preparation standards to attract students with the preparation they seek.

• National Math & Science Standards
• Posted by Richard Hake , Emeritus Professor of Physics at Indiana University on June 11, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT

•  

  The Carnegie-IAS (Institute for Advanced Study) report "The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy" http://www.opportunityequation.org/TheOpportunityEquation.pdf  (5.5 MB)] challenges the nation to:

   

  a. establish common standards for the nation in mathematics and science-standards that are fewer, clearer, and higher - along with high-quality assessments,

   

   b. improve math and science teaching - and our methods for recruiting and preparing teachers and for managing the nation's teaching talent, and

   

  c. redesign schools and systems to deliver excellent, equitable math and science learning.

   

  Regarding "a," I hope Carnegie-IAS is aware of a somewhat parallel effort, the “Common Core State Standards Initiative” (CCSSI) aimed at developing National Education Standards (NES) for the U.S., recently widely reported in the media – see e.g.,  Maria Glod’s Washington Post report at “46 States, D.C. Plan to Draft Common Education Standards,” online at http://tinyurl.com/pwktx2 . 

  Thus far, the internet reaction to the CCSSI & NES has been mostly negative, but on the positive side Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani  http://edexcellence.net/international_education_standards/policy_brief.pdf  : (a) make  the case for NES in the U.S., based on an in-depth study of NES in 10 other countries: Russia, France, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, and the Netherlands, and (b) distill from their international study an important lesson: "It's NOT true that national standards portend loss of local control."

   

    

   

• raising teacher preparation standards?
• Posted by John Farley , Professor of Physics at UNLV on June 11, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT

• To Steve, who screened out at least 90% of prospective elementary math and middle school teachers:

  If we can't get enough math teachers now, and we raise standards (and if that's all we do), then we'll have even fewer math teachers. Suppose that we standards a LOT: requiring that elementary school teachers know calculus and complex variables? Then you'll be screening out 100% of the candidates.

  There are lots of things you can do with a math degree that pay better than teaching. So we have to raise salaries for math teachers, or raising standards will just aggravate existing shortages.

• give the students some incentive ...
• Posted by Maren Purves , software engineer at (not speaking for) Joint astronomy Centre on June 12, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT

• As long as it is easier to get scholarships for football or volunteer work, most of which are "needs based" on top of it, why should a bright young high school graduate go into a 'difficult' subject, and then to end up in a relatively low paying (at least here in Hawaii) profession like teaching?

  These young people have to be given more incentive to pursue the 'harder' subjects (lower tuition for science and engineering? more scholarships for academic merit?).

  My husband and I are both scientists with graduate degrees - but also rather proud to be parents of a Dean's List Engish major. -

• Higher Education Responsibility
• Posted by Richard Hake , Emeritus Professor of Physics at Indiana University on June 13, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT

•  

  According to Stephanie Lee's report, Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation, said: "The quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities ultimately begins with solid instruction at the K-12 level. While higher education remains strong, it is clear it cannot continue without a strong foundation."

   

  Taking issue with Gregorian, "Steve" in his comment "Higher Education Responsibility" http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/11/study#Comments wrote:

   

  "From experience I know that the quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities ultimately DOES NOT begin with solid instruction at the K-12 level, it begins with the quality of math and science learning at colleges and universities. For far too long higher education has 'passed the buck' by not producing qualified teachers."

   

  Right On, Steve! The NSF's 1996 report “Shaping the Future" http://tinyurl.com/m93862  put it this way:

   

  “Many faculty in SME&T. . . .[Science, Mathematics, Engineering, & Technology]. . . at the postsecondary level continue to blame the schools for sending underprepared students to them. But, increasingly. . . . .[but not conspicuously]. . . . . . the higher education community has come to recognize the fact that teachers and principals in the K-12 system are all people who have been educated at the undergraduate level, mostly in situations in which SME&T programs have not taken seriously enough their vital part of the responsibility for the quality of America's teachers.”

   

  In consonance with the above, in 2001 physicist Don Langenberg, (at the time) Chancellor of the University of Maryland System, put it succinctly http://tinyurl.com/lhenqd (p. 23):

   

  “Although we in higher education are very skillful at ignoring the obvious, it is gradually dawning on some of us that we bear a substantial part of the responsibility for this sad situation [the state of K–12 education].”

   

• Posted by Petra , student at UT Arlington on June 16, 2009 at 11:30pm EDT

• I tried high school teaching but the students were so disinterested in science and math and disrespectful of the teachers that I quit. I had to compete with their obsession with video games, music, and sports. They weren't suppose to have their cell phones out but they were texting during class. I have returned to school to train for another career.

• Just pick one
• Posted by Roger , Electrical Engineer at Consultant on June 22, 2009 at 10:45am EDT

• Just pick one to blame, could the teachers be smarter or could colleges prepare teachers better, but I did not see anyone mention the FACT that is right fact that the generation of students in school now have little to no interest in math or science. And if the people commenting would think for a moment they would overwhelmingly agree that it is impossible to teach someone that does not want to learn. So am I blaming the students, no. I am saying that students are smart enough to know they do not want to be a nerd, a society reject, the guy who couldn't throw a football to save his life. I am saying society has painted a pretty bleek picture of what it is to be a person who knows math and science. I am also saying spending more money to make another test that the students will put no effort in taking and then dismissing the teacher for that is not the answer.

• Fear for the Future
• Posted by H1B_GO_HOME , Math at California Middle School on June 25, 2009 at 8:45am EDT

• As a parent, I should be proud of my son for getting a perfect score in Math in the California Standards Test. As a programmer, though, I fear for his future. In 2001 I began a 2½ year unemployment stint directly caused by the events on 9/11, ineligible for unemployment because I was a contract programmer working on 1099. Congress, like a thief in the night, had passed a new bill in 1998 flooding the market with millions of cheap programmers from foreign countries. When I finally got a contract in December of 2003 when the visa levels were reset I was making 60% of what I had made in 2001. Various contracts I worked ranged in pay from 40-60% of my prior pay until just recently.

  Editorials are constantly being written disparaging American IT workers and bemoaning the inability of employers to hire cheap H1B workers. Many of the articles are cut and paste jobs written by immigration lawyers, universities, ethnic hustlers and other cheap labor proponents.

  If you want Mathematicians, pay for them and watch their numbers soar. That is basic Economics 101.

• The US does not employ its scientists.
• Posted by Dr. Matthew , Job hunting physicist from Texas on August 11, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT

• As a doctorate in physics and a US citizen I pose the simple question, "Please show me a job, other than teaching, that needs my math and science skills?" It is my experience that US businesses import scientists and do not hire our home grown scientists. The imported scientists then become established and import their network of school buddies. The end result is that the demand for math and science skills, outside of parochial education, no longer exists. The next time a business (say Raytheon, Haliburton, etc.) requests more math and science majors, please insure that they are first employing your local community.