This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
This Week in the "We Are So Screwed!" Department...
While Chinese tiger-moms flip-out on their kids if they don't get into Harvard AND Julliard by age 16 (if not earlier!), according to a report released last month,
it seems many - too many - American parents are content to let their
children fail basic scientific proficiency tests. This does not bode
well for our role as the most innovative Country in the world, to say
the least...
Here's some background:
The figures, which cover tests in 2009, come from the
National Assessment of Educational Assessment Progress, which is also
known by the catchier brand name “The Nation’s Report Card.”
It’s not a test of all students, but rather 156,500 fourth-graders,
15,100 eighth-graders and a surprisingly low 11,100 twelfth-graders.The selection process involved picking schools
that best represented the national, state and local demographics, and
then picking students at random from these schools. Students with
disabilities or other special educational needs were given special
conditions (such as additional time) along the lines of what they would
receive on a state exam basis. The results led to students being
graded as achieving a basic, proficient or advanced level for their age
group
The numbers really speak for themselves, and what they're saying certainly ain't good (emphasis mine).
Among fourth graders, 72% reached at least the basic grade, 34% reached at least proficient, and 1% reached the advanced level. That left 28% that failed to reach the basic grade.
Among eighth-graders, 27% failed to reach basic, 63% reached at least basic, 30% reached at least proficient, and 2% reached advanced.
In the twelfth-grade, 40% failed to reach basic, 60% reached at least basic, 21% reached at least proficient, and 1% reached advanced.
While I'm hardly surprised that only 1-2% of students tested reached
"Advanced" proficiency levels (other studies have suggested similar
results), I'm TERRIFIED by the % of students who failed to achieve even
basic proficiency, especially considering how proficiency levels are
defined:
The bar isn't exactly set too high with definitions like these, yet
an insane amount of students are still failing to clear these low
hurdles. I have some Asian and Russian/Eastern European friends who
were doing the AP Calculus BC curriculum
in by the equivalent of 8th or 9th grade in the U.S. (that class is
usually taken in 12th grade here, and only by a very, very small % of
students). By these definitions, advanced 12th graders only have to
"recognize a nuclear fission reaction;" not explain, just recognize. That is NOT FREAKING ROCKET SCIENCE! The reaction is NOT THAT HARD to recognize!
I should mention that I'm coming at this from a perspective likely
far different than that of most Americans (although some if not many of
my readers may share a similar one). I'm caucasian, both my parents
have advanced degrees, and I grew up in a relatively affluent suburb in
North NJ with relatively good public schools. My parents were also
pretty involved in making sure I did well in school.
Enough about me, though.
There's been study after study (after study) about how to improve
science & math education/performance in this Country for at least 2
decades, meanwhile there's been little in the way of progress. Surely
part of this is due to demographics, societal norms/trends, and the
like, but I believe from my experience and research the three
fundamental drivers of math/science achievement (ignoring disability,
etc) are the rigor of the academic programs, skill/knowledge of the
instructor, and the pressure and guidance applied to students by their
parents to succeed academically.
I'm not a parent but I know I was a little bastard growing up, so I realize that raising a kid is HARD!
Alot of kids I grew up with, even those who came from families similar
to mine, simply didn't care about math and science, and its clear their
parents didn't care much, either (otherwise they wouldn't be buying
their kids cars for getting C's in regular-level science classes). If
parents in affluent cities/suburbs aren't pushing their kids to achieve
in the classroom, what chance do underprivileged kids in ghettos and
inner cities have?
I'm also not a teacher, but I had a whole bunch of crappy ones (and
a few very good ones) growing up, all the way from elementary school
through graduate school. I also know a few teachers and have spent a
good deal of time talking to them about things like this. I think
tenure needs to go. It does not exist - explicitly - in any other
field, so why should it in education? It's a perverse incentive that
encourages mediocrity where we should be promoting excellence and
punishing repeated failure (this is a more nuanced discussion for
another time).
I had the distinct pleasure of being part of a "guinnea pig" class
of a new science curriculum in NJ in highschool. Instead of
traditional progression of Bio, Chem, Chem 2 or Bio 2, Physics, we had
something like Geophysical Systems, Biochemical Systems, Choice of
Chem/Bio, and senior year I think it was either Physics, Chem, Bio or
even nothing. Not only has the curriculum been moving in the wrong
direction (away from teaching more in-depth/complex subject matter),
but some of the teachers were just downright awful, both the "new
breed" and the tenured ones.
My teacher for Freshman year "Geophysical Systems" (or whatever the
hell it was called) spent a week teaching basic electronics, and I told
her the entire week she was teaching it wrong (Dad had taught me this
stuff years beforehand). My reward for trying to help was being forced
to sit in the front row with the threat of detention if I "mouthed off"
anymore.
Fast forward to the following Monday, and the teacher came in and
literally told us to throw out our notes from the prior week, that she
was going to re-teach the lesson. Last I checked, this teacher was
given early tenure and may now even be a department head. Awesome,
right?
I don't expect every kid to be a math/science genius, nor do I think
such an goal is even optimal were it even possible! Some kids are
going to be great (or even just good or realistically mediocre)
artists, tradespeople, or any number of careers in which they'll ever
need to know anything trigonometry or organic chemistry. Generally, is
it better to have a more-educated population than a less-educated one?
Absolutely, and we should make every reasonable effort (with respect to
marginal utility) to increase the level of education of the
population. This is especially true if our future really is going to
one of and "idea" or "service" economy.
I think a better educational system would be one that identifies -
relatively early on - the kids who are unlikely to (due to interest and
aptitude) achieve academic success in math/science, as well as those
who are unlikely to achieve success in the humanities and/or trades.
While all should be encouraged to improve their weak spots, we
shouldn't encourage - or worse, force - the kid who wants to be a
writer or painter to take AP Physics, nor should we force the kid who
wants to be a computer programmer to be in band/choir/art.
Similarly, we should not be forcing kids who want to work on cars
(etc) to take all these classes the lessons from which they're unlikely
to ever really use. By Senior year of highschool, the kids that are
going to be/want to be trades workers should be encouraged to pursue
such careers, not encouraged to spend all their time on academic study
so they can waste another 4 years and $100,000+ at University!
Being well-rounded is certainly preferable to extreme specialization
- especially at such a young age - but the current approach that
essentially (excepting those at the very top who generally excel in
most/all subjects) aims to make everyone a "jack of all trades, master
of none" is in need of serious overhaul. Such an overhaul would do
wonders to slow if not reverse the damage done to our
manufacturing/industrial base while ensuring a we have a well-educated
"intellectual" labor force competitive with the likes of those in Asia
and other countries.
- advertisements -
I think engineers are less expendable than some of these remarks indicate.
ya, you big guy. We're dying for qualified (or not so much) engineers. I'm seeing the business types and others flipping burgers, engineers can make their way.
- Ned
We have qualified engineers. Fired them by the tens of thousands over the dot come era. One year later they were considered unemployable.
Older engineers were expected to learn a totally new language plus tools in 4 - 6 weeks, to the point of being productive. That means working on applications, not "Hello, World". In a world where engineering is run by marketing gerbils on crystal meth, that's a little too long.
Also have hundreds of thousands of newer graduates from engineering programs who are mostly unemployed or underemployed (ie: employed doing clerical stuff, not engineering).
What's your pay? I know engineers who have spent much of the decade under or unemployed, rarely getting responses to their job applications, or being asked to accept $40k for positions that formerly would have paid $100k.
Why bother learning math and science when some douchebag fuckup of a drunk in college will simply graduate MBA skool, get a good job as a manager at a big corporation, and proceed to fire all the scientists and engineers and replace them with H1-B Pakis and Indians who work for pennies on the dollar?
Math can be fun !
Why should a student bust his ass for a degree in engineering? Those jobs are in China now. He'd be better off studying Mandarin and management.
Face it: Whatever is is that becomes the next 'Good job' is the one targeted by outsourcing specialists, H1B 'law' firms and banks for destruction.
Remember not too long ago there was a shortage of truckers and it became, for a short while, a good paying 'good job?' And suddenly Mexicans are driving on US roads.
Remember when nurses could 'write their own ticket?' and it was a 'good job?' How come suddenly ten zillion Filipino nurses were then allowed to come in?
Remember when 'computers' were a 'good job?' Suddenly IBM is running ads for outsourcing specialists and putting in a place a 'hire anywhere but here' policy, Indians are camping out 5 to a room in New Jersey and you can't turn around in NYC without tripping over a dirty, hairy Russian computer genius.
Remember when the US bar (made up of law firm Partners) gave the thumbs up to farming out basic legal document work overseas and suddenly tens of thousands of US paralegals and young lawyers were instantly relegated to Starbucks wages, if that? Hate on lawyers, but it's not my point.
Show me the next 'good job' for US workers and I'll show you ten assholes trying undercut and shop that job, whatever it is, in exchange for their own dirty cut of the outplacement fee.
Go to school and study? Seriously, yeah, our schools should be better, but I have to say, why bother? Get a two year degree or party school 'bachelors degree' in some kind of outplacement specialization and join the fucking of your neighbor.
This is what the welfare state we have creates. There is 0 motivation today for kids or parents to care if the next generation learns anything. They all believe they'll be taken care of no matter what.
It will only be after the sh*t hits the fan and the government breaks and people are left to their own devices, that the next generation will have any motivation to learn anything.
Love the avatar, Geoff-UK.
Bio-infomatics and Mandarin. ;)
Knowing math doesn't help us sue each other, which is what the heroes of our civilisation are raised to do. The adverserial system and its unlimited rewards bring Justice, and make for dramatic TV series and movies with beautiful actors speaking sharp witted lines. The other heroes are sports stars, rap artists, and reality TV whores. Math and science are not needed for any of those fields.