Deplorable State of Scientific Education

[ABierman1986]

Hi everyone, I haven't seen any threads regarding this topic so please direct me if I've missed it. I have been looking at the state of scientific and mathematics education in the US and I wanted to start a discussion on what everyone believes the current state is, and what would provide for a better education for our students.

I have a problem with all of the politics that is played into science class. We have segmented "science" into multiple subjects with distinct areas of dominance when it is well understood that cross disciplinary understanding is essential for any kind of fundamental knowledge of a topic. More than that, the sciences have an agenda to teach a set curriculum of facts and figures from the sciences so that students can pass standardized tests.

They do this instead of asking students to use deductive logic to ask why the observed phenomena led to the formulation of the current theories and discovered facts. Science is not physics, or chemistry, or biology, or any of these subjects we teach. Science is observing the world in a way that permits no assumption to be unfounded, unacknowledged or unexplored, nothing more. It is a simple tool that provides amazing power. However that's not what the average high school student believes.

As someone (like most of us I imagine) who sat through a discussion on Linnaeus' binomial nomenclature and struggled to identify mussel organs from poor xerox copies I can understand why science "sucks" for so many people. There is science in everything, and the facts that the natural world have revealed to us are important to explore and understand in detail for sure, but they are not science. An art historian is a scientist when they examine new pieces, a jazz musician is a scientist when they use musical theory to analyze music, a writer is a scientist when they decide on what type of tone, format and syntax should be used for their audience.

I don't know if it is a fear of science that keeps it from being taught, or a general ignorance of its true meaning, but how can students be productively creative if they can't think critically about their innovations? I argue that it's necessary to spread the word and promote the education of critical thinking in every class, scientific investigation into every subject, and remove the stigma of technical difficulty that is associated with science. What do you think?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

(8th August 2010 21:02)ABierman1986 Wrote:  Hi everyone, I haven't seen any threads regarding this topic so please direct me if I've missed it. I have been looking at the state of scientific and mathematics education in the US and I wanted to start a discussion on what everyone believes the current state is, and what would provide for a better education for our students.

Oh what a can of worms that US education is in the United States. It's one of those things to where no matter how much we may want to fix it, it always seems to be getting worse. Of course, schools are one of the greatest social battlegrounds in the United States, so it's no wonder that there is so many issues with it.

(8th August 2010 21:02)ABierman1986 Wrote:  I have a problem with all of the politics that is played into science class. We have segmented "science" into multiple subjects with distinct areas of dominance when it is well understood that cross disciplinary understanding is essential for any kind of fundamental knowledge of a topic. More than that, the sciences have an agenda to teach a set curriculum of facts and figures from the sciences so that students can pass standardized tests.

There are many problems beyond simply politics, but the reason politics is so strongly present in the school system is because "what we teach our children" can be as personal to parents as anything.
The ideas of what should be taught for the sciences is especially a hotbed of controversey precisely because many of the religious right in this country is at war with science and everything science represents in the world (logic, rational thought, critical thinking, intellectualism).

This is, of course, on top of the other issues of what things are more important to teach than others, at what grade should things be taught, and what standards should we have for students to achieve in this country.
The result is parents fighting to have more acedemic focus (often resulting in physical education being cut and then parents wondering why their babies are getting fat and pasty), parents who raise a stink because they can't understand why the school can't teach religious doctrine (vs. science) and constantly fight against the teaching of many basic scientific priniciples. Then there are parents who are pushing the school hard because they're not coddling their little sunshine with excellent grades (despite the student's abilities). Then there are parents who harass the school because their curriculum is too soft for their little sunshine (despite their abilities). Then you have students who think that the world owes them good grades because they consider ten minutes of study to be 'hard work'.

The list goes on and on and there is a tremendous amount of work needed to really ensure the kind of school system we really need to have in place around the whole country, but there is disagreement on how that should go about. Not to mention that a powerful but still minor element of politics (the religious right again) don't even like the idea of public schools and thinks the whole system should be privatized. I'm guessing because poor people don't deserve an education.

In short, the answer is far from simple and I honestly believe that fixing America's education system is actually worse than attempting to fix the economy or jobs right now.

(8th August 2010 21:02)ABierman1986 Wrote:  They do this instead of asking students to use deductive logic to ask why the observed phenomena led to the formulation of the current theories and discovered facts. Science is not physics, or chemistry, or biology, or any of these subjects we teach. Science is observing the world in a way that permits no assumption to be unfounded, unacknowledged or unexplored, nothing more. It is a simple tool that provides amazing power. However that's not what the average high school student believes.

Awhile ago, I had a conversation with a honors chemistry teacher who told me that honors chemistry is basically the same class as regular chemistry when I went to high school maybe a decade ago. One of the biggest failings of our education system appears to be that the 'solution' for our woes is to lower standards so students can keep up.
These problems were of course exasperated ever since the 'columbine' incident which was not unlike the 9/11 of the education system, which only made things worse.
It's like the people in charge of our schools have taken the movie 'idiocracy' as prophecy.

(8th August 2010 21:02)ABierman1986 Wrote:  As someone (like most of us I imagine) who sat through a discussion on Linnaeus' binomial nomenclature and struggled to identify mussel organs from poor xerox copies I can understand why science "sucks" for so many people. There is science in everything, and the facts that the natural world have revealed to us are important to explore and understand in detail for sure, but they are not science. An art historian is a scientist when they examine new pieces, a jazz musician is a scientist when they use musical theory to analyze music, a writer is a scientist when they decide on what type of tone, format and syntax should be used for their audience.

It doesn't help that it is also really difficult to find good teachers these days. Getting the necessary training is difficult, it's a decent, but not necessarily good job in terms of pay and benefits, parents and politics are always looking for a new scapegoat in schools (being accused of child molestation can ruin your career as a teacher forever - regardless of whether the accusations are true or not **ESPECIALLY** if you are a male teacher.)
But you are wrong on what a scientist is. An art historian is a scientist precisely for the same reason that any historian or archeologist is - they work to preserve the cultural past and they study that culture. Having that knowledge is just as important to history as any old timepiece or literature.
Music, Writing, and all forms of art is a kind of science. You wouldn't call them scientists, sure, but their place for critical thinking, logic, art, and so much more is indisputable.
Listen, there are a lot of reasons that science (and math for that matter) sucks, but it's not just because schools have too low a budget. That can be a part of it, sure, but the education system in the US gets a huge amount of money - so it's not really the only problem. It's teachers, parents, the school district, people who run the school district. You can really change things if you know exactly where to tweak things.

(8th August 2010 21:02)ABierman1986 Wrote:  I don't know if it is a fear of science that keeps it from being taught, or a general ignorance of its true meaning, but how can students be productively creative if they can't think critically about their innovations? I argue that it's necessary to spread the word and promote the education of critical thinking in every class, scientific investigation into every subject, and remove the stigma of technical difficulty that is associated with science. What do you think?

There are too many in this country (any number, really) with an anti-intellectualism bent that don't like ideas the school teaches that disagrees with what that parent wants to be taught to their children. The problem is systemic and needs change everywhere - from the parent-child-teacher relationship to the principal to the school board to the federal Education Board. There is a lot that needs to be done and politics is as much the problem right now as the mode for its solution.

But you're absolutely right on virtually all counts. There is a lot that needs to be done on both the local and state level. The best thing a concerned parent can do, however, is just to be just as aware of what's going on at school as the child is and make sure they damn well make sure the children are getting the best education they can.

[ABierman1986]

(8th August 2010 22:02)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:  

(8th August 2010 21:02)ABierman1986 Wrote:  As someone (like most of us I imagine) who sat through a discussion on Linnaeus' binomial nomenclature and struggled to identify mussel organs from poor xerox copies I can understand why science "sucks" for so many people. There is science in everything, and the facts that the natural world have revealed to us are important to explore and understand in detail for sure, but they are not science. An art historian is a scientist when they examine new pieces, a jazz musician is a scientist when they use musical theory to analyze music, a writer is a scientist when they decide on what type of tone, format and syntax should be used for their audience.

It doesn't help that it is also really difficult to find good teachers these days. Getting the necessary training is difficult, it's a decent, but not necessarily good job in terms of pay and benefits, parents and politics are always looking for a new scapegoat in schools (being accused of child molestation can ruin your career as a teacher forever - regardless of whether the accusations are true or not **ESPECIALLY** if you are a male teacher.)
But you are wrong on what a scientist is. An art historian is a scientist precisely for the same reason that any historian or archeologist is - they work to preserve the cultural past and they study that culture. Having that knowledge is just as important to history as any old timepiece or literature.
Music, Writing, and all forms of art is a kind of science. You wouldn't call them scientists, sure, but their place for critical thinking, logic, art, and so much more is indisputable.
Listen, there are a lot of reasons that science (and math for that matter) sucks, but it's not just because schools have too low a budget. That can be a part of it, sure, but the education system in the US gets a huge amount of money - so it's not really the only problem. It's teachers, parents, the school district, people who run the school district. You can really change things if you know exactly where to tweak things.

I'd like to clarify my point on what a scientist is because I think you misread me; I believe a scientist is anyone who uses the scientific method to further their passions. I completely agree with you that music, writing, and all forms of art and creativity are scientific. They can be pursued scientifically, they can be investigated, and in that matter are no different in approach than cosmology or biology. This addresses the very issue I am trying to get at, though perhaps it came off as more anti-education. I am concerned that the very definitions that schools use for their educational curriculum are being warped from their correct usage. What students are taught is science is not science, it is an aspect of science, or something that was deduced scientifically and then these subjects are declared to be science. I have a problem that the schools couch higher scores on multiple choice biology tests as higher understanding of science.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I completely agree with you on the complexity of the educational system. I don't even propose to attempt to change it, at the moment. My purpose is to clarify exactly what we mean when we say we teach our children science, and regardless of what content is taught, I believe revealing the lack of science in our schools would surprise many people and perhaps spark a discussion in wider thought.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

(8th August 2010 22:25)ABierman1986 Wrote:  I'd like to clarify my point on what a scientist is because I think you misread me; I believe a scientist is anyone who uses the scientific method to further their passions. I completely agree with you that music, writing, and all forms of art and creativity are scientific. They can be pursued scientifically, they can be investigated, and in that matter are no different in approach than cosmology or biology. This addresses the very issue I am trying to get at, though perhaps it came off as more anti-education. I am concerned that the very definitions that schools use for their educational curriculum are being warped from their correct usage. What students are taught is science is not science, it is an aspect of science, or something that was deduced scientifically and then these subjects are declared to be science. I have a problem that the schools couch higher scores on multiple choice biology tests as higher understanding of science.

Hmm. I suppose then it would go more into my point regarding the constant lowering of standards instead of working to get get grades up. Still worse are people who seem to skimp on the arts (and physical education) because it's apparently less important than the sciences we're constantly lowering the bar on.
Either way, when you're right, you're right. I remember my biology teacher trying to quickly and awkwardly talk about evolution in our classroom. He did a good enough job of it, but you could almost hear him sweating over what we might do to him over simply presenting highly substantiated evidence. There is just so much effort it seems just to try to make everyone happy (parents and teachers) than try to actually do their jobs and teach the children to be able to compete in modern times.

(8th August 2010 21:02)ABierman1986 Wrote:  Thanks for the thoughtful response. I completely agree with you on the complexity of the educational system. I don't even propose to attempt to change it, at the moment. My purpose is to clarify exactly what we mean when we say we teach our children science, and regardless of what content is taught, I believe revealing the lack of science in our schools would surprise many people and perhaps spark a discussion in wider thought.

I think you've done an adequate job of that. I simply wanted to point out that the problem is more systemic than that to sort of add to what you're saying.

I think ultimately the solution is going to have to be comprehensive - perhaps moreso than the problem itself and it's going to require the politics that have been plaguing it with problems for decades. It's going to be far from easy and it's going to take even more activism, but I hope to see and perhaps participate in this necessary eventuality.