Teach And Learn

Reality Check 2006

The recent Reality Check 2006 survey of district leaders had this fascinating quote about STEM education.

"Despite forceful calls from business leaders and policymakers to upgrade math and science education, most superintendents (59 percent) and principals (66 percent) say this is not a serious problem in their local schools."

I'd argue this is the key problem with reforming mathematics and science education. The general public--and most members of the education enterprise--do not understand science and mathematics and their practice, and, quite frankly, are scared of them. Without central leadership to counter this, we won't get very far. I'd advocate policies that made transparent the STEM practices and results for states and large districts in the manner of EdWeek or Fordham's report cards, and to do that over time, so that attention can be maintained.

NSB Commission on 21st Century Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

The website of the new National Science Board's Commission on 21st Century STEM education is well worth a read. It's unclear what sort of recommendations this group will come up with, but I understand that their charge is to make solutions that will be politically possible.

If I was talking to the commission, I'd advocate for some of the following:

• Mechanisms to make transparent the STEM education plans and progress of large states and large districts--an annual scorecard, perhaps. By building off of what we know about large-scale change, such a tool would help accountablilty.
• Concentrated leadership development work--at the teacher, school, and district level. They're the people who call the shots, and sadly, most don't know much about STEM education.
• Research about school models, with an eye towards replication. Charters are here to stay, and there's not many places for EMOs and charter operators to go to learn more about creating viable STEM education programs in their schools.

Here's hoping that this powerful group will be able to devise recommendations that can be enacted.

Scientists and Politics

Chris Mooney of The Republican War On Science fame has a overview of the growing mobilization of the scientific community in politics politics in the November Seed. I guess we'll know on Wednesday morning if any of this renewed interest amounts to much.

I have certainly been frustrated at the scientific community for blaming the general public for not understanding their work, and for the various scientific organizations to come late to the organizing and lobbying game. It's clearly not how we like to work, but remaining in our ivory towers while other people figure it out for us in all likelihood isn't going to get the results we'd like.

Scientists And Educators For America

I just found out about Scientists and Engineers For America (SEFORA), a new PAC "dedicated to electing public officials who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy." There's even a New York Times article already.

It's great to see even part of the scientific community get organizied to work within the political system for change.

Politics First, Reading Last

Friday's report from the Department of Education's Inspector General claiming that the Reading First grant was subject to heavy-duty politics is incredibly disturbing. (Here's the New York Times summary of the story.) Some will say they're not surprised by the overt politics, but I'm more concerned that this will just makes issues of reading instruction subject to much more political scruitney, getting in the way of helping students. And while NCTM seems to be reaching a not-very-calm accord with their critics, it probably is evidence that these issues will remain confrontational and divisive. That's too bad.

District Administration on Gates

I was surprised to read this open letter to the Bill Gates in the current issue of District Administration. Written by Gary Stager, an adjunct professor at Pepperdine University, it is insightful and critical--a real surprise for a magazine that's generally filled with product reviews and fluff. While I don't agree with all of the letter--it's a bit too much establishment-centered whining for me--it's great to see something that takes a stand in these pages. It certainly means I'll look forward to the next District Adminstration that lands in my mailbox.

But the real exciting news about the Gates Foundation work is here.

Germany's Angela Merkel on Science Policy

German Chancelor Angela Merkel (of back-rub fame) has a fascinating editorial in a recent Science, where she lays out in one page the demand and strategy for science as a way to under gird her country's future direction.

Nice to see political leaders articulating science policy so clearly and succinctly.

Governors On Science Education

Here's a link to a National Governors Association press release that seems to more pandering and posturing about the science education and competitiveness issue. I'm not holding my breath for real results, but it's nice to see some political energy being spent on the issue.

DoEd's Teacher-to-Teacher

I'm all for teachers talking to teachers, but if the Feds were serious about connecting mathematics teachers with one another, there's so much more they could do:

• Fund real networking events (groups take people and money to sustain them).
• Make more online databases of student work, exams, and curriculum modules, with social networking capabilities.
• Instead of class-size reduction, use the funds for more in-school teacher discussion time.
• Create an online database of artifacts of leadership practice that support teacher communication and collaboration.
• Etc.

Still, nice start.

Should the US Take a Page Out of China's Schoolbook?

Seed magazine has a summary of a the New York Asia Society's report about mathematics and science education in China. The reason for the Chinese success, according to this report, is the strong emphasis they put on mathematics, science, and technology. The comments about creativity in the sciences are interesting--with this sort of focus, the US educational establishment should certainly take this as a wake-up call.