On October 4, 1957, history changed with the Soviet Union's successful launch of Sputnik I, the world's first man-made satellite. Americans were alarmed that we had been outpaced technologically and saw the Soviet feat as a threat to our national security. In order to catch up with the Russians, our nation swung into action and infused new funding and resources into scientific research on a priority basis that resulted in new labs springing up all over the country. To support this national initiative, schools upgraded and expanded math and science instruction at every level. Congress established scholarships and grants to enable young people to pursue science and engineering majors in college and graduate schools. These efforts paid off as a new generation of American scientists and engineers was produced and the United States became the Mecca for scientific research in virtually all fields. Now, five decades later, we are again on the verge of falling behind technologically, largely because of a failure to provide world class science and math instruction in our schools.
Physician and geneticist Francis Collins, the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, warns that the decline in math and science education has placed our nation in great peril. He charges that the scientific and technological elements upon which America has built the strongest economy in history are eroding just as other nations are emerging. An extensive study, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future by the National Academy of Sciences, revealed that in 2003, of the 15-year-olds tested for their ability to apply mathematical concepts to real-world problems, Americans ranked 24th among the students from 40 countries that participated in the examination. The Rising Above the Gathering Storm study also stated that 15 percent of all U.S. undergraduates receive their degrees in natural science or engineering compared with 38 percent in South Korea, 47 percent in France, 50 percent in China, and 67 percent in Singapore. This is not something that can be addressed in a few years. For example, it takes about 25 years to train a research physicist from kindergarten through high school, college, graduate school and post-doctoral studies.
If our nation doesn't reinvest in science education at all levels as a major national priority, there will be serious social and economic consequences. Dr. Collins asserts that, "Prior U.S. investments in science and technology counted for at least half of our economic growth since World War II. Scientific research offers our best hope for discovering new energy sources, making advances in medicine, countering global epidemics and finding solutions to climate change." With many American schools providing only a substandard science and math education, we have to ask ourselves: Will American scientists participate in the development of cures for HIV and cancer or advanced breakthroughs in car fuel cells?
Our national leaders have not responded to the erosion of our technological preeminence with sufficient funding for basic scientific research, notably through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the main source of biomedical research grants to our top universities. According to Dr. Collins, flat funding for the last five years and inflation have caused a 13 percent decrease in financial support for NIH.
We need bold national leadership to revamp instruction in these primary subjects to respond to global competition. A good place to start is to address the shortage of math and science teachers in our schools. Research by Richard M. Ingersoll, a Professor of Education and Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, found that in 2000, about 28 percent of science teachers in 7th to 12th grades don't have a major or minor in science--for math, it was 38 percent. We need to provide greater financial aid in the form of grants and scholarships to students who excel in math and science studies coupled with loan forgiveness to college students preparing to go into science and math teaching. Teachers currently in the classroom should be provided summer courses to augment their science knowledge and teaching skills. We cannot fail to prepare our children to thrive in a world where science and technology define in many ways how we work, live and entertain ourselves.
For more information about the Children's Defense Fund, go to www.childrensdefense.org.
Follow Marian Wright Edelman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChildDefender
The entire rest of the word is metric. Science is metric.
I get so sick when I see another mom crying her heart out on the Internet because some educational specialist just diagnosed her child as a nerd.
He'll never be normal. Waaaahhhhhh. Then the school system makes her spend tons of extra money to make her little freak just like all the other little kids.
If we cure these kids of their obsessions with numbers and their habits of lining up their toys and speaking bluntly when they should be discrete -- we're not going to have any physics or math geniuses left in this country at all.
Not that I'm particularly saying women's lib is bad. This previous practice was like the current practice of outsourcing, or hiring illegals at a lower rate. If we want better education, we'll have to pay for it.
One other comment: A population that is ill-educated is easier to manipulate. An active movement exists now to disempower people, keep schools underfunded, health care expensive, promote racism, etc. Sad, but true. The mantra of this movement is "lower taxes, whatever the cost."
...and many sincerely believe that lower taxes will cure all ills, even though privatizing everything, and lowering taxes to grind the poor down have done just the opposite. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4477984
There needs to be a recognition that a well educated citizenry is critical to a viable, modern democratic society; period, end of story. As long as market forces dictate the direction of education we will have a poor education.
I would actually turn your argument around and say that critical thinking is essential to understanding the scientific approach to studying nature.
On the other hand, a little more education in geography and history would do the US population no harm whatsoever. Perhaps Pharos would have benefited from some courses in the history of science and technology, or economic history.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein
I would add that many people have indebted themselves greatly in the pursuit of degrees for jobs that the department of labor "forecasted" would be a great choice. Many of those people can't make enough money to pay their student loans despite doing well in school. I would also offer them a clean slate to go into another field where they can be productive if they did a good job in pusuit of a previous degree.
I think the department of labor uses a witch with a crystal ball to forcast job trends. (It might also be that the department of labor tries to usher people into positions for those jobs that provide premium salaries to employees, in an effort to cut salaries and lower costs for businesses.)
Science and engineering degrees are extremely rigorous academically. It is a maximal effort with very little reward. Even if a person does get a good job, the engineering and science fields afford no financial security what so ever. Middle aged and experienced scientists, engineers and technicians are discarded for cheaper inexperienced grads and HB1 visa foreigners all the time.
Innovative people who are inventing are barely acknowledged as the CEO (of comparatively minuscule mental capacity and work ethic) of the companies reap ALL the financial rewards.
Our scientists and engineers are subject to all form of intrusiveness and indignity constantly undergoing background checks and drug testing. They have to sacrifice all manner of civil rights in order to find work.
The fields of science and engineering is the last Bastian of horrendous sexism and discrimination. Once out of academia, the eager engineer will be passed up for opportunity and training if they do not meet the good ol' boy pheno-type. Lower level males do not adapt well to having female above them. Higher level males will pass over the females for plum jobs in favor of far less experienced and qualified males. Constant cut-throat vying for position takes a toll. Not many other professions are so stressful for so little reward.
One of the best things that can be done to stimulate science education in this country is to offer true incentives to actual, trained scientists to become teachers: paid masters in education, tax credits, money, you name it. I myself have no desire to go into academia, and I am leaning towards government research with an eye towards entering the science policy sector. However, I would be more than willing to try teaching if, quite frankly, I could pull it off monetarily (which I would not be able to do post-graduation as of now).
I absolutely agree with you that we need more science teachers, and I would like to see the education degree requirement waived if you have a freaking Ph.D in the subject you're going to teach.
My final year, my curriculum evolved into spoon feeding my students information for standardized exam regurgitation, because that's all that mattered - not students learning the science. It was terribly depressing.
I'm sure there are people who have had a brighter experience than I did. However, considering the teacher turn-over rates, especially in science and math...I highly doubt it.
Additionally, too many politicians are directing education policy from a distance with no relevant expertise. Perhaps the people that are providing funding and setting policy should ask teachers what should be done once in a while.
We also need those leaders in religion who support real science to speak up and help us defend science against the onslaught of anti-science religionists.
I am convinced that, as now structured, grades K through 12 don't exist to teach children. Those grades exist to provide an income to teachers and administrators. The kids are merely the forced consumers of an educational "product", sold by an American institution that has become self-serving.
We must provide kids with an education that they can use as adults. That means providing a relevant curriculum, of which rigorous science and math are a big part, and hiring teachers who genuinely understand those difficult subjects .
Lech