President Obama has set an aggressive course for the sciences in America -- with the appointment of renowned scientists to top positions in his administration, inclusion of $21.5 billion for research and development in the federal economic stimulus package, and a significant increase in science funding in his proposed budget for fiscal year 2010, among other actions. For America to maintain its leadership in the sciences in the future, however, we must also ensure that we grow scientists in sufficient numbers, and the current performance of our schools requires a dramatic transformation.
In the latest ranking of student performance in science among 15-year-olds, compiled by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States ranks 36th. In contrast, Canada ranks 4th, and three of the top seven are Chinese: Hong Kong-China (3rd), Macao-China (5th), and Chinese Taipei (7th). In addition, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, almost 30 percent of U.S. students in their first year of college are forced to take remedial science and math classes because they are not prepared to take college-level courses.
Part of the problem in our schools is both recruiting high-quality math and science teachers and retaining them. According to a 2007 National Action Plan by the National Science Board, the United States "faces a chronic shortage of qualified teachers who are adequately prepared and supported to teach STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) effectively. Local school systems encounter many barriers to recruiting and retaining high-quality STEM teachers. STEM-trained professionals often do not choose to teach, and too few educators acquire STEM training. Teachers, particularly at the elementary and middle school levels, often do not acquire sufficient STEM content knowledge or skills for teaching this content during their pre-service preparation... For STEM-trained professionals, the current job market offers non-teaching career opportunities with substantially higher salaries and often better working conditions than those professionals would receive in teaching careers."
In a fascinating new book by noted education writer Sheila Tobias and veteran science teacher Anne Baffert, entitled Science Teaching as a Profession: Why It Isn't, How It Could Be, the authors make a startling discovery. Based on their communications with nearly 500 science teachers across the United States over the past two years, they found that attrition by U.S. high-school science teachers is not primarily a function of money. More pressing are concerns about loss of autonomy, control, and stature.
Among their key findings are the following:
The authors' recommendations for action include the following:
Science Teaching as a Profession, published by Research Corporation Books, is available for downloading free of charge at www.rescorp.org. It deserves to be carefully read and discussed.
With the emphasis that President Obama has rightly placed on science, it is now incumbent upon Americans to insist that science teaching be upgraded as well.
James M. Gentile, Ph.D., is president and CEO of Research Corporation for Science Advancement, America's second-oldest foundation (www.rescorp.org.)
My second point is that, outside of information technology and medicine, science and engineering may be good-paying jobs, but they are not great-paying and also not prestigious. As an alum of MIT, I am no longer an engineer and neither are most of my classmates. When I attend the alumni gatherings in NYC, almost everyone is a doctor or a lawyer. The wealthiest people in this country are actors, athletes, bankers, and entrepreneurs. Those are the professions that look attractive to our children and what they want to learn to be. When we start seeing sexy, wealthy engineer-types on Page 6, then everyone will want to learn about science.
You've got me thinking, so thaks for the article.
At a time when the voting public has to decide on issues such as global warming, they are being told that the earth's age is six thousand years!
The very notion of the "theory of intelligent design" as a competing scientific theory, deserving treatment in a science classroom, is damaging.
A mind is a terrible thing to cripple.
Bumpy
In Germany the physics teacher isn't even allowed to teach biology, unless he/she has a biology degree and is accredited to teach biology and vice versa. What's this kind of nonsense? You really let a science teacher teach something they haven't mastered themselves? Wow... no wonder.
What about it? There should be stimulus funding available and places like MIT have a lot of the concepts and infrastructure in place http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm.
The MIT (Berkeley etc..) resources are great and some extremely gifted kids will make good use of them by achieving second year university level (or higher) while they are still going to high school. But they can't teach Johnny how to read, write and do mental math. It just doesn't work that way.
Of course there comes a point when one must interface with the real world, but I see no reason to train oneself on it.
When teachers say they need autonomy they mean they need the ability to teach science without fear of upsetting the flat earthers.
Just to further anger the hellfire brimstone crowd, note that Dick York (who played the John Scopes character) later starred on "Bewitched" as the husband of a witch...and after he left due to health problems, got replaced by a gay man.
I thought that was pretty much what we are doing... not to teach it at all.