Science and the State of Education in the U.S.

The entries posted within this blog are typically research-based. However, this entry will be on a personal level. Consider it an editorial.

I frequently get into debates with my friends. Whether it is politics, current events, or religion, it quickly becomes heated. Yet, we all consider this normal and get over our differences afterward.

Our last debate rested squarely on Intelligent Design (ID). I defended it, even though I have a strong background in mathematics and science. No, I am not a fundamentalist who wishes to live in Kansas and revolutionize science by re-tooling science classes by injecting Christianity via Intelligent Design. Not even IntelligentDesign.org advocates its teaching in public schools. Instead, I believe ID is a useful tool.

Let me drive this thought using two thrusts. First, ID is useful in that it brings us to the boundaries of science, involves many members of society to reflect on public education, and invites us all to become involved in a process of making reformations in education. Second, it dovetails nicely into the energies spent by our presidential candidates, who advocate for many changes within education.

A friend of mine who teaches science, wrote, "The philosophy that says that science has the final say over all knowledge – which sounds fairly fundamentalist to me – is known as scientism, for which there is no scientific evidence." He was trying to make a distinction regarding a certain philosophy of science extremism versus the application of pure science.

The conversation hit on infinities, the fact that ID rests beyond scientific principles, and another fact that science is a philosophy. The e-mail communications did a great job unveiling science for what it is: a philosophy of empiricism and/or an ability to observe, measure, and interact with one’s environment. As a result of this philosophy and carrying out the process, certain properties of the universe can be discovered.

However, science carries out a number of theories that are not directly visible. Tools are used, particles are measured through the interaction of other particles, and mathematical systems are constructed and then consequently solved to predict phenomena. Direct observability is not always done, making such acts targets for debate from within and without of the science community.

Couple this with public misconceptions, complete ignorance, and the duty of science of refute counterclaims. The result is science education needs to devote itself to shoring up these problem areas that exist in societies, especially in communities that believe heavily in non-scientific explanations of our universe.

Science education needs to address this and can do so by changing the way it teaches science or at least incorporating crucial lessons that could address the differences between non-science and science.

What, you don’t trust the opinions of this educator?

Look at what Professor Michael Reiss has to say. He writes, “If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works.”

Look at Miriam-Webster’s first definition of science, the first definition states, “the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”

If we compare this great country to other countries in the world, it certainly is not number one. According to the 1999 Third International Math and Science Study (TIMMS), the U.S. was significantly beaten by 14 countries in science (3 countries non-significantly) and 14 countries in mathematics (4 countries non-significantly). It is clear there is certainly a lot of misconception for us to deal with and maybe we should look at science education.

When I first studied science, I thought I was learning something very fundamental to that which informed human beings must know. It was a mighty subject with infinite potential. I still think it to be so.

Science has its place and sure does come with striking potential for the good it does for solving our problems. Nevertheless, it does not come without drawbacks. It too must be kept in check by the other disciplines that exist. Having science exist as an isolated study on its own brings limits to it, and consequent perils.

It is not to say we shouldn't teach it. It isn't to say kids shouldn't learn it. It is to say that we need to teach its limits and the balance of knowledge within the framework of all bodies of knowledge. Doing this brings wondrous possibilities to learning/teaching and the disciplines themselves.

If we do not glimpse beyond our barriers and show the limits of our disciplines, do we really do them justice? Also, how do we get kids to think outside the box if all we do is present boxes of information to them?

My science teacher friend also wrote:

"[U]s educators know full well the push in education science is for interdisciplinary discovery in order to more closely represent real life. So mark's heart is in the right place and there are legit arguments about where the boundaries of science are, but in our utilitarian education system which is raising servants for the man, we have no room for philosophy and barely room for arts, etc."

This is unfortunate, but true. Science curricula are not free to be easily manipulated by adding units that could address this science vs. non-discussion. Curricula exist under a great number of forces that seek to change it, such as the preparation for state-mandated testing, bridging students from one area of science to the next level or area, and making sure students possess basic skills for movement into the workforce. Since the units cannot easily be changed, how teachers introduce their lessons must be addressed, which requires a great deal of finesse.

Yet, we make a great argument for breaking thresholds for learning and teaching, but how far do we go in reality? Aren't we all very traditional teachers? Despite my chagrin over this topic and desire to be unique and innovative, I'm quite traditional. I want to break outside the box, but doing so makes me feel like I'm punching pillows. How do we push past our boundaries and create lessons that are truly awe-inspiring and motivators for life-long learning?

Is what we are doing practical, meaning applicable to living in the modern world with its fast-paced changes? It is questionable. I think we all impart tidbits of knowledge, maintain order in the classroom, and hope for the best. Is there a concerted movement to change? Despite NCLB and our best intentions, we have yet to change. Part of it is getting over our inertia to make change, which may stem from a lack of desire to change or a lack of knowledge of how to change.

ID, despite the thoughts one may have on the subject, certain does stir up the hornet's nest, which initiates change. It may be the energy needed to get us past this educational inertia

A comment was made during the debates by a moderator: the U.S. spends more money per capita than any other country in the world. Yet, our output – in light of numerous studies from independent organizations – state that other countries do better than us.

Instead of citing false arguments about racial differences, economic disparities, tax laws, and other pointless lines of defense to maintain the status quo, we need to look at things differently. We are failing students if we continue to be out produced by students in other countries.

If teachers including myself were to be graded based on the money we spend and the output we produce in education, we certainly would not be walking away with "A"s. Would we be able to defend our benefits and our salaries?

I guess I should shut up. I guess teachers, administrator, and state legislators should simply collect our paychecks and keep doing the same old thing. I guess parents should continue to create babies but be unwilling to take a stake in their development in reaching adulthood. Why rock the boat when it is so profitable and it works so well?

Our candidates do not agree with such complacency. Obama is for merit pay and Charter Schools. McCain goes further and wants to include vouchers as an option. I cannot argue against any of these as they initiate change and provide a vehicle for ongoing dialogue between all members of society.

Intelligent Design may be a lightening rod for debate, but the state of education in the United States could certainly benefit from the jolts.

Resources
Intelligent Design Website on Education: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/education.php.
Professor Michael Reiss: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism.
TIMMS Report: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001027.pdf.