Are We Preparing Our Children to Lead in Science?

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

Comments

[Thermodynamics]

I knew science education was in trouble when Reagan shut down the Metric System in the US. Gas stations had just started selling gas in liters. The metric system works better even for cabinet makers.

The entire rest of the word is metric. Science is metric.

[QueenOfViolets]

Another thing we're doing to screw up American science is treating Asperger's syndrome like it's some awful disease that needs to be cured.

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.

[LMPE]

The de-funding of education started when the evangelical Christians started wielding a lot of power in the '70s and '80s. Their resistance to knowledge has drug the whole country down. I would be perfectly happy to pay really high taxes to fund quality education programs.

[demockracy]

Don't forget the price of women's liberation. Many energetic, smart women were teaching school when I grew up because that was the only well-paid job they could get. Not so true now, despite pay differentials between the genders. Carly Fiorina's career would have been impossible in my youth...

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

[Pharos]

One reason that science and math "reform" will fail is because it is just that; science and math. What makes those subjects more important than geography, history or English?

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.

[Eoin45]

Science is more important because the scientific method is the only method of knowing about our world that has built-in self correction and has given the most consistent results since it was instituted. You are contributing to this discussion via your computer because quantum mechanics works. I don't mean to denigrate the other subjects you mention but knowledge of the scientific method is essential to critically thinking about any assertion of truth in any field.

[Pharos]

The scientific method is presumably well understood by all scientists and yet scientists disagree on many topics, both scientific and non-scientific. The scientific method is easy to explain and every high school science text book has virtually the same definition. So why are there good, bad and mediocre scientists? Do you think Feynman, Einstein and Newton did what they did because they understood the scientific method better than anyone else? Descartes contributed enormously to mathematics and yet he used the scientific method to prove the existence of god. Aristotle used his version of the scientific method (admittedly not what modern scientists would accept) to prove that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Aristotle made enormous contributions to our knowledge and yet was also sometimes wrong. Lawyers don't use the scientific method and yet they use critical thinking and logic. Good scientists are good at what they do for the same reason that good artists are good at what they do. Science is important but but so are other subjects.

I would actually turn your argument around and say that critical thinking is essential to understanding the scientific approach to studying nature.

[GeeBee]

Quite simply, and I can barely contain my utter disbelief that someone can be so shortsighted as to ask the question, science and math lead to marketable products. Unless you want the entire industrial output of the US to be geography books, history books or English novels, printed on outdated machinery, you can surely see that science and math do have something to offer that those other subjects don't.

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.

[Pharos]

Marketable products are not the goal of education, That attitude is the problem. If one tries to constantly redefine education in terms of marketable skill, one is doomed to failure. It take 12+ years to finish high school. Decisions made early on are likely to be wrong if the only goal is a work force skilled in a particular area. Desirable skills change, Look at the difficulty the CIA (governments in general) is having finding persons fluent in foreign language that were of no importance 10 years ago. That has national security implications (real national security, not George Bush "national security"). A better educated population would tend to avoid wars because of a better understanding of culture differences as opposed to the "you're either with us or against us" attitude so prevalent today. I would suggest that avoiding war is a rather noble goal.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

[Pharos]

I could likewise say that history and poetry have something to offer that those other subjects (science) don't. It's a trivially true and not very interesting observation.

[isis]

There are not enough math and science teachers in the schools because the teaching jobs pay less and have more stress and less autonomy than jobs in industry. Lab science courses are hard to teach and can be expensive so budget cuts hit them hard. Yet most scientists love the lab and this is where they thrive. Not to mention that to teach K-12 you need to also have a teaching degree and its hard to fit the teaching coursework in with the science coursework in college. Plus you get all the people who say that rigor and passing tests is more important than things like creativity & curiosity. These people do not understand science at all.

[motoGpifupleez]

God created the world 6,000 years ago. Adam and Eve rode their dinosaurs to church to hear Jesus preach. Gay is the greatest threat to the existance to the universe. Humans are free to do as they please against the earth and all the animal inhabitants (animals have no souls so they are irrelevent). What more need be taught in American schools. I say we should leave all that heathenistic "science" and "math" to the godless Europeans and Asians. We'll get the last laugh when the Rapture comes.

[Pacific231]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44260

[benne]

Who would want to be a secondary-school teacher with the level of bureaucratic red-tape now ubiquitous in our public schools? If you want professionals, as we should want, you need to treat them like professionals.

[FreedomAgain]

Great idea - "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."

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.)

[qofdisks]

"Many of those people can't make enough money to pay their student loans despite doing well in school."

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.

[FreedomAgain]

Yep, in my experience, it just wasn't worth it.

[samiam4285]

I'm a graduate student in the biomedical sciences at a major research university that is in the top five nationally for receiving NIH funds, and we are struggling enormously. The problem is, more and more graduate students are being discouraged from going into academia once they complete their doctorates, because it is so incredibly hard to get off the ground, meaning that the next generation of graduate students suffers for training, while at the same time, we also feel discouraged from becoming teachers at the K-12 level, because we have all had 5+ years of intensive training, and though this might seem harsh, we feel that our education is wasted when high schools are willing to hire "science" teachers with no amount of scientific training. Furthermore, when you have just spent five years barely surviving on a stipend, you have no wish to go into a job that doesn't pay anything more.

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).

[benne]

Sorry, it just isn't the case that the biomedical field in major universities are suffering. They are getting billions for stem-cell research, to name just one field, and a number of them are getting whole science complexes, as in UW-Madison. The problem is the teaching of science, especially in K-12, and, to a lesser extent, the teachers in college. As you forget to mention, the areas you are talking about do little to no teaching, as they are designated as non-teaching research faculty. We need more in-class science teachers and professors, and among other things, we can get this if we get rid of this absurd requirement that all teachers have an education accreditation. Imagine after you get a Ph.D., you want to teach students all your knowledge, but some educational bureaucrat says you can't even step into the classroom until you take a series of education classes, many of which teach you the invaluable skill of knowing how to write your fill-in-the-blank exams.

[qofdisks]

"Funding" does not mean that the money actually reaches the scientist on the ground. It truly is a trickle down system with hardly any money making it to do actual research.

[samiam4285]

It definitely IS the case--I see it firsthand, every day when I go into work. And maybe a few places are getting brand new, beautiful complexes, but not many are, not right now. And, I didn't "forget to mention" teaching by college professors; I wasn't referring to any college-level teaching to start with. My point was that, when you graduate from graduate school, you don't have that many traditional options (academia, industry, or government), and right now academia is not necessarily the place to be unless you really have a ton of drive, because it's going to be very hard given the current funding situation.

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.

[neurogrl]

Biomedical research is struggling enormously. Stem cell research is a tiny portion of the research that goes on in science and the level of funding is actually very small in stem cell research because of the federal restrictions on acquisition of viable cell lines to work with. In addition, a lot of the stem cell research going on is funded privately. You talk about billions of dollars being spent on it. In the national budget, only 12 billion dollars is allocated to ALL scientific research. This includes the entire NIH and NSF budgets among others. Science is incredibly underfunded. New complexes are being built at universities with the help of generous alum and private donors. The past 2 years at the annual Society for Neuroscience conference, one of the major conversations I heard take place was the difficulty in obtaining funding to maintain research programs. The people talking about this lack of funding are some of the leading minds in neuroscience, not just new professors trying to get a program off the ground.

We definitely need to increase the number of teachers in science and math that actually have an educational background. The major hurdle isn't the teaching accreditation though. It's pay level. Our teachers are underpaid. As someone with an advanced degree in science, I would rather try to get a grant to fund my research than settle for a subpar salary with little to no administrative support. Either path is rather bleak at the moment.

[Kiboko]

I am a former high school science teacher & hold a MS in biology. I made it a whooping 3 years before I said "enough" and went back to research. I felt that my education was a "waste" - in fact, my colleagues in the science department resented me for it and would make fun of me because I was"the nerd", "the weirdo" - seriously, it was like being in high school. They did not care what scientific knowledge I brought into the classroom - or the fact that I taught college laboratories for 2.5 years, that wasn't "real experience". My "real experience" to get into the classroom came from shelling out $3500 for education courses that were, basically common sense. Several of the teachers in the department did not hold science degrees, what they knew of the curriculum came only from the textbook and the worksheets they passed out to the students. Or better yet, they were education majors, minoring in a science bragging how they barely passed the science courses, such as chemistry, yet they are teaching that very subject.

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.

[samiam4285]

I'm really interested to hear about your personal experience with this, and I think it's a shame that you had to go through that. And I think you're right: the turnover rates cannot be a coincidence.

[nolabels]

I would not have chosen Francis Collins to site. He was only the administrator of the Human Genome project. The fact that he is a crazy religious apologist destroys his credibility in these debates. Our failed science education is a direct result of our embrace of religion. The operative thought processes involved in accepting religion do violence to the mental faculties we need to learn science.

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.

[MrWashy]

As a science teacher, I wholeheartedly agree and applaud! The only thing to add is that when we receive additional training (in PA, I'm required to maintain continuing ed hours) that training should be relevent and useful. About 85-90% of the time, it's a waste of a day.

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.

[bbbbmer]

Quality teachers of every stripe are needed, but school curricula of every stripe is also needed to provide a well-rounded education. Recently efforts to 'reform' public education have ended up only efforts to disempower teachers unions rather than achieving any sort of 'reform' at all. A most prominent example of this is Michelle Rhee of DC schools whose practices have alienated teachers/colleagues all in the name of 'reform''. Instead a swath of good people have been tossed out with the bad based on the whims of dictatorial fiat of those like Rhee who are less qualified to teach than far too many subject to her whims. The corporate hype machine has cast this profoundly unfit charlatan in the role of wonderwoma­n/schoolma­rm because she serves corporate disdain for frontline organization, and it has painted her actions as 'good management' when in fact district results are questionable at best, and whose methods are an abomination to any civility. Teachers need cultivation and time and resources -- not a system that condemns/loathes them from the start. ''Reform'' is NOT such a system -- simple human regard for the dignity of those who teach our next generations is, and people like Rhee merely perpetuate a big corporate lie all under the ruse of doing so 'for the kids', just as any bad actor would rationalize ends justifying means. Unfortunately for these 'reformers' their ends are thwarted by their means, and ultimately harm 'the kids' they claim they serve.

[Lechuguilla]

There are many, many excellent teachers in U.S. schools. However ...

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

[jumperpin]

Sorry, our short horizon for investment dictates further outsourcing of technology to the lowest bidder on the globe. Did we train all these MBA's fer nuttin?

[MomfromTexas]

Excellent point!

[recless]

Ah, yes, the marvelous MBA. MBA = slinky. Doesn't do much, but can give a laugh when tossed down the stairs.

[FreedomAgain]

Good point. What good is an expensive tech degree if the business is offshored.