What can we do to help improve science education in the US?

Agreed. Let's start there.

Let's say that we define a goal of public education.

I would like for the public education system to provide sufficient education for a High School Graduate to be employable at a level which is productive to the corporate society and rewarding to the individual.

That goal was stated in somewhat vague terms so that we do not get bogged down in dollars and cents and specific jobs just yet. Let's see if we can define a very general goal before we try to figure out the specifics.

Basically, I want to design a system in which college is considered an "extra" in the education process, not a necessity (as it currently is), because I feel that public education should provide a high standard of education so that everyone has access to it, not just those peope who can afford college.

This I'd disagree with on several levels. First of, college isn't a necessity currently. Approx. 35% of the current workforce has any college degree at all and there will continue to be jobs that don't require one. Many of those that do have college degrees haven't worked in the specialty of their degree in years so even their degrees are of limited benefit. (I wouldn't discourage anyone from going to school and getting a degree but the idea that one is necessary is greatly over-stated IMO.)

I'd also disagree with the idea that primary and secondary education systems should be producing "ready" workers. IMO, their purpose is to provide everyone with a basic core of knowledge that enables them to enter into a specialty apprenticeship, internship or continue on into post-secondary education.

It seems like most suggestons for iimproving the teaching of science are premised on the belief that the purpose of education in general is to make the students employable and productive citizens. No mention of the student having a richer life or a becoming a more responsible citizen.
As the farmer said to his son's teacher, "How's that there Shakespeare gonna' help my son plow a straight line?"

I recognize the reality of life and acknowledge that necessity of the general premise - to become employable.

Where do science teachers come from? (another reality to deal with. In the 1930's, teachers were assumed to be spinsters who would work for room and board, and $1,500 dollars a year. A man couldn't raise a family on that salary. After WWII, things improved, but not by much. In 1960, afteer forty years of dedicated teaching, a teacher in Lousiana could expect to be making about $6,00O dollars a year. A beginning teacher in more affluent states could expect to start at that salary. Whoopie!!! The 1970's saw a severe decline in the purchasing power of teachers salaries (and professors salaries). In the last twenty years or so, teachers' salaries have risen. In some cases considerbly. But not if you look at the starting point.

Now, if you were a well-educated, very intelligent, sharp as a tack college graduate with a degree in one of the sciences, would you be looking for a teaching position in chemistry or math? Or would you be looking for corporate positions?

Probably not, but there is another solution, which many tech companies are increasingly interested in, but can't get support from states/schools. Allow experienced technical people from industry/business to teach for a year or two, paid by their company. Teaches unions SCREAM about this idea - worried about their jobs, etc., so it has very little application right now.

Do companies support this idea? Which companies? Thanks.

A couple of big ones that have done it in the past are 3M and Dow. Many smaller companies allow employees to help at schools part time as well. Actually, the part-time option may be a better one (more companies would be financiallyable to participate). I did part-time teaching in math/science for a couple of years with my first employer.

When 35% of the population thinks Darwin was wrong and an additional 29% doesn't know what to think, science education is indeed in trouble.

No wonder there is global warming and kids are sick with asthma because of the environment.

Now, some misguided folks think that the liberals are the ones who want restrictions, however, it is the liberals that fought flame retardant chemicals in little kids pajamas from the beginning. After being there for a generation, those flame retardant chemicals are now in most mothers' breast milk. But that means fewer nasty women will expose their mammaries in public and protect the morals of yourng children!

billy falcon -- I graduated from college in 1969. In Michigan, my home state, a new teacher could expect to earn slightly more than $8,000. Rents for apts started at around $100/month in Detroit's inner city and in some of the more distant suburbs.

Social workers employed by the state and federal programs received about the same amount money. Three years later, when my classmates who chose the law graduated, they earned $10,000. A young woman from my class who accidentally fell into a writing job at the Detroit News by doing everything that was then wrong (taking a secretarial post) earned the same as a law school grad.

High school graduates working as bank tellers earned $5,000.

My former husband had a PhD and taught at Wayne State University for $18,000, ending in 1975. When he went into business in Massachusetts, he made $15,000 for a year straddling 1975-76.

People in Ohio generally earned about $1,000 less per annum for the same job. You have to put things in context.

easy answer : outlaw religion.

Unfortunately, prohibition of religion would probably work about as well as prohibition of alcohol.

Idaho's citing of large (or those not so) companies getting involved in higher education is an extremely valid and relevant position when investigating Rosborne's original question. The arguments for "practical skills" education and those of a more idealistic or philosophical nature sometime seem to counteract each other. The "more responsible citizen" seems the goal here. But how is that term defined? That citizen who is well informed and familiar with certain abstract concepts of politics and its myriad of well nuanced ideologies and able to analyze choices, seems the desired product. However, the individual that successfully meets this definition is of negative value to society if on the public dole. A parasite that saps the health of society is just that, irrespective of his level of education. Therefore the first part of the definition should demand that the citizen should be, at least, pulling his own weight.

Primarily, the individual should have a practical and societal "worth" or "value". BillyFalcon points to education's ability to add or contribute to the "richer life" so desired. So a second, and somewhat secondary, part of the definition?-that of a citizen participating in higher education that puts more emphasis upon the liberal arts and contributes to the citizen's "worth"-- should be subservient to the first. So where are the priorities? How should we balance these two factors? Positive contribution to society is paramount. Liberal arts education is probably tertiary. Secondary may be a mix of Science and liberal arts. Why Science? Well, because scientific training is infused with skepticism followed by analysis and ultimately problem resolution. These are valuable tools whether one is building a bridge or choosing a group of civic leaders.

Moving back to Idaho's observation we find that this business involvement in education has taken place before in American history. We all know this, but business played a more aggressive and successful role. A specific, but not exceptional, example is the founding of RIT (Rochester Institute of Technology). During the Industrial revolution, in this case 1829, businessmen in the Rochester, NY area experienced a shortage of skilled labor. Their solution to the problem was to band together to form an institution of higher education to meet their specific needs. This effort was similar to Idaho's example but differs by two important distinctions. The effort was more focused (towards specific skills) and it was financed mainly by the businessmen themselves. It was their investment in their own future from which they expected a return. Was this selfishness or just forward thinking? One could define this effort either way. But any debate about the judgmental terms is moot, for if we want to continue America's lead in innovative technology, we must decide how to "Invest" in the educational future given expected educational "returns". In this same vein, we may want to examine the efficiency of the educational system and how this might be improved. This always involves an examination of costs and output. This is also where arguments about fixed costs bring the teacher's union up for examination. Unions are good thing, as long as they are relevant to improving the overall economy. We all know that Unions have increased the standard of living of, not only their members, but of others by virtue of those members being more likely to spend the few extra dollars afforded them by increased income than the more wealthy. But hopefully this examination will not result in the conclusion that the teacher's union is sharing the same irrelevancy of an automobile union negotiating an increase in pay and benefits with a failing auto industry.



Rosborne's message here seems to imply that more education should be afforded to all sooner. In this context, education equates to money or, better yet, capital: the more obtained early is better than some promised larger sum obtained later. This would dovetail nicely with my earlier proposal to encourage earlier educational/vocational specialization. This encouragement should only result in voluntary actions, for those unsure about the future a broader scope should be voluntarily chosen.

The whole of this quote suggests that Rosborne feels that the national promise of public education has not been achieved. If so, I must agree. We can all recall comparisons of inter city school educational products against those of the (fill in a wealthy suburb) school district that manifest tremendous imbalances. But Rosborne's goal demands closer examination towards curriculum. He, plainoldme, and I would opt for heavier emphasis on math and science earlier. But other considerations present. Why do some districts excel in educational product and others' seem the result of some communistic central planning complete in both their lack of value and relevance? Why the inefficiencies? Why is injecting more money into some of these districts akin to stuffing money into a rat hole? Perhaps the means of educational funding should be changed from local to federal. Would this be legal plunder and tantamount to extreme socialism? Given the concern of how our society is affected by public education (or lack thereof), does this concern demand such policies?

Lastly, have we diluted the educational experience? I was listening to one of The Teaching Co. lecturers the other day. He was a few years older than me and he intimated that he took Plane Geometry in the 7th grade. I didn't get to it until the 10th! Is this anecdotal concern on my own part or a realistic trend in our schools? What about uniforms? The argument against is that they stifle individuality. If so, why do these parents then complain when their children get un-uniform education? I've seen many parochial schools with uniform requirements whose students show little concern about their attire when it comes time to demonstrate their individual talents, some even prefer to use academic excellence as their mode of individualistic "expression". Another complaint about unions and legal concerns: When it snows, (it doesn't really matter how much) education in my district suffers. What? How can the two possibly be connected? Well, given snow, one of two things will happen. Either, school is canceled altogether or postponed for 2 hours.

In the former the day is pushed to the end of the year. This means, essentially, that it is lost. In the latter case the reason for the delay of two hours is that the union members charged with clearing the walkways need 2 hours to clear them (The legal concern is if some one slips and is injured). I suggested that perhaps these gentlemen might start 2 hours earlier so that school (the very reason for their employment) might start on time. The snow removal engineers could then call an early day of it and proceed home 2 hours earlier. Well, no, they can't, or won't anyway. Union rules allow for roughly only a score of white stuff removers to delay the education of four thousand students. The Union members put in their regular day and the students, returning home at the same time as a regular day, get educationally cheated. Cheated? In discussing this I was informed that, no, they are not cheated because technically if the school is open an amount of time equal to the regular time minus the 2 hours caused by the delay the state says the student gets credit for a whole day. (The reason why this credit is not passed on to the taxpayer was not forthcoming in this explanation). Mathematically: If X= "number of hours in a regular academic school day", then, I was informed, that X = X-2. Perhaps this branch of Math is the oblivion into which the tax credit I mentioned before disappears. In any case, my employers would be loath to accept this mystical math.

I am sorry for visiting my diatribe upon you but you get the gist. I would like to see more emphasis on the educational product, both its end quality and its efficient output. But if we are serious we may expect to break some eggs and step on some toes.

JM

Change society so that it shows some respect for scholarship instead of football and rap. Go into a book store and see how many more biographies of Jennifer Lopez and Madonna there are then Isaac Newton. It's clear what our society values. James Clerk Maxwell was one of the most important physicists who ever lived but try to find one biography of him in any book store. If a young person started to be interested in science and then failed to find biographies of any scientist except Einstein and Feynman (who are there only because they are personality cult figures) in bookstores or even libraries, what kind of message do you think he would get about what society values? If society has no concept of the value of study, and learning is absolutely not held up to kids as cool, how can you expect the schools to magically change this?

I agree. But how do we do it?

Why do kids respect football and rap more than scholarship? Were values different in the 40's and 50's, and if so, why did they change?

Good questions. Probably people in positions of authority have abdicated. Anyone who attempted to impose discipline in schools would probably be sued for something. Look at the villification which occurs whenever the federal government tries to introduce standardized testing not under the authority of the local board of education, i.e. the people whose work is to be appraised. It's this whole idea that there is no right or wrong, and every behavior is as good as any other. It promotes anarchy, not a sense that scholars will be rewarded and ignorant people penalized. Kids need to perceive that if they study hard they will be rewarded and respected by everyone, and that if they don't, they will be considered to have failed, not that if they study they will be ridiculed as egg heads. As long as there is the perception that ignorance is glamorous, you can see what you will get.

I could be wrong but I suspect kids in the 40's and 50's thought science was for nerds. I imagine sports and popular music were much cooler.

Probably so in the US, but in some cultures and eras, society didn't reinforce that opinion, or simply abdicate altogether giving the young a set of standards. In this society, there is not much of a message that learning is cool and deserving of respect, as one can see from looking at our schools.

Perhaps, I'm not in your country so I can't see it.

Parental involvement, parental involvement, parental involvement. Give kids some real heros instead of allowing MTV and Nickelodeon to babysit. It HAS to start at home.

Yes values are different than in the 40's/50's. They changed because of WWII. When the war was over, everyone wanted to make life all sweetness and light for their kids. The parents worked really hard to provide a good life for the kids and forgot to teach them about responsibility. Then those kids had children of their own and tried to be their buddies instead of their parents.

Perhaps schools could REQUIRE parent volunteer hours (private schools do this), REQUIRE parents to sign off on homework. Quit spending time on self-esteem for it's own sake and let kids gain self esteem from a job well done. Quit leaving all the kids in the same classroom with one teacher - you either leave the slow kids behind or the quick ones are bored out of their skulls. A little common sense would go a long way here.

withdrawn

How about offering something constructive - any ideas, or are you just doing a fly-by bash?