Jenny D.: Teach Kids Science Early
Jenny D. is a blog/blogger of note in the Ed blogging world. She reacts to a report that Congress is planning an initiative to increase the number of US science and engineering grads with a bit of straight shooting: Teach Kids Science Early
But the [Ed] Sector says that legislators will propose a familiar mix of scholarships and loan forgiveness to get college students to major in science, which won't actually solve the problem. What might be better, ES writers say, is preparing kids in K-12 to CHOOSE science majors. Right now, a lot of kids never get the foundation to even consider majoring in engineering. What if all those kids in failing schools became proficient, even efficient, in science?The referenced Ed Sector newsletter includes this comment:
In fact, the richest untapped source of future talent will be found in our underserved cities and among left-behind poor and minority students who get inadequate preparation at the elementary and secondary level. Getting a job in the sciences means first completing a rigorous secondary math and science curriculum, graduating from high school, getting accepted to a four-year college with a quality degree program, being able to pay for college, and finishing a four-year degree. We lose huge numbers of minority and low-income students at each of these waypoints on the path to a science career.Based on my anecdotal observations of my kids' schools, I think they are right about the need to tap the potential in low-income, minority students. But I think there is another dimension that needs attention: gender. I hate to frame it as a gender issue, but the fact is that teaching is still dominated by women, and women have not achieved as well in science and math. I think this shows up in the science teaching in the primary schools. So in addition to nurturing the left brain of low-income and minority students, can we also clone a few thousand more Ms. Frizzles?
So the best strategy for boosting America's global economic standing probably isn't giving more students a reason to choose careers in science. It's giving more students the ability to choose careers in science.
3 Comments:
I am a bit cynical about this emphasis on science education. I am a female scientist who received a Ph.D. from MIT and, following a LONG postdoctoral training period, am now looking for a faculty position. I hear from my friends from graduate school, most of whom are assistant professors, that they are having a great deal of difficulty getting NIH grants. (Only about 15% of NIH grant applications are currently funded.) Not obtaining a grant which will essentially doom their science careers. We will lose a whole generation of scientists unless our government is willing to fund the research for which they have trained for so long and with which they could contribute to society. Sure, we should ensure a basic level of scientific literacy. However, how can we encourage young men and women to pursue scientific careers when their is so little support for research?
I totally agree about the need to fund basic sience research. In the US if its not funded by DOD, Big Pharma, or ... some other industry they you're outta luck.
But the need for early science ed reform is still there. I can't remember which Nobel Laureate it was, but I read an interview where he described US science ed as a massive sorting and sifting operation designed to yield the top 0.1% as scientists, and left the others behind on a slag heap. We need science literacy in all corners of our society just as much as we need science pioneers and innovators. One look at Bush and its clear we don't have it.
I agree with you kc. I am just saddened by the lack of support for these "top 0.1%" once they've finished their long and intensive training.
Post a Comment
<< Home