Science Education, Imprimis, and No Child Left Behind.

(This was yet another fast and dirty post written w/o spell check in class, I may need to edit it later, sorry guys.)

The current issue of Imprimis discusses science education, a topic of particular interest to me. I certainly agree with Dr. Herbold's analysis of the current sorry state of high school science and math education. Unfortunately, blaming the educational community, the unions, and unqualified teachers seems myopic to me. The problem has its roots in a public lack of respect for science, and consequentally a lack of respect for science education. Parents (and in particular, school board members) are extremely unlikely to support requiring 3-4 years of science and math because they simply do not see any reason for doing so. The American public simply does not care about a science gap, or see any reason that science and math are important. Time for an Ad Councilcampaign on the value of science, I suppose.

Quick thoughts on the rest of the article:

1.A very high percentage of those with a degree in the hard sciences are completely unfit to become high school instructors.

2.The NEA actually has a very strong stance on requiring high school science, the last I checked, they supported, at least via published articles, even more science and math than the National Commission on Excellence.

3.Any educator that is truly a great, or even decent, teacher is more than qualified and capable to teach several subjects, at the high school level, that they do not have a major or a minor in. The best teachers I've had were not "qualified" from Mr. Herbold's perspective to teach all of their classes.

4. Money is tight, the number of school districts that could pay a teach $100,000 a year is quite small. Actually, given the rather unfunded mandate nature of the NCLB act, the big question this article doesn't answer is where the money comes from.

5.It is insanely difficult to determine which science instructors are good, bad, and mediocre. Managing a school is not like managing a tech. Firm where one can reward for patents, market successes, etc. Rewarding teachers based on the % of students that pass a proficiency test tends to promote “teaching to the test”, which is the absolutely worst way to excite students about science.

6.I certainly find the platitudes about the No Child Left Behind act predictable, but less irritating than most current Imprimis articles. I find it amusing that the education department has been flexing the supposed rigid criteria of the act.

Ironically, the lack of motivation to properly teach science extends to Hillsdale College itself where the ridiculously broad and superficial Science 101 class is considered more than adequate, while student knowledge of the U.S. Constitution will require an entire class. During my senior dinner at Dr. Arrn's house, I suggested that requiring Chemistry 101/Physics 101 of all students, not just the honors program would be a positive change. Dr. Arrn first expressed great surprise that I would argue for expanding a program that I did not major it, then expressed his concern that Science 101 should be modified to eliminate or reduce lab sections in favor of spending more time discussing how science integrates with the rest of the core curriculum. He went as far as to suggest that instead of science 101, we should change to “Science in the Western Tradition.” Sorry Larry, but teaching scientific method REQUIRES lab time, otherwise, you're teaching a boring HISTORY of science, not science. Not to mention that making science 101 remedial, and Chemistry 101/Physics 101 required raises the bar on incoming students. I told Dr. Arrn that I believed that his “Science in the Western Tradition” plan made as much sense as teaching foreign languages without speaking exercises, and instead devoting a great deal of time to the integration of how, for example, the French language evolved in response to historical events, and was part of the western tradition.