Not only did many of them contribute to mathematics, physics, and physiology, but all of them were avid theorists in the sciences of human nature. They were cognitive neuroscientists, who tried to explain thought and emotion in terms of physical mechanisms of the nervous system. They were evolutionary psychologists, who speculated on life in a state of nature and on animal instincts that are “infused into our bosoms.” And they were social psychologists, who wrote of the moral sentiments that draw us together, the selfish passions that inflame us, and the foibles of shortsightedness that frustrate our best-laid plans.115
Today, we have scientific knowledge those giants “never dreamed of,” so you would think, Pinker argues, scholars in the humanities and liberal arts would avail themselves of more of the ideas from the sciences. But, while “everyone endorses science when it can cure disease, monitor the environment, or bash political opponents, the intrusion of science into the territories of the humanities has been deeply resented.” This has led to the creation of intellectual and academic silos at both our college and university levels and even in our elementary and secondary education teaching and thinking—more on that shortly. Think again about what uniting the fields, or interdisciplinary efforts could do for advances in both the sciences and liberal arts—after all, “A consilience with science offers the humanities countless possibilities for innovation in understanding. Art, culture, and society are products of human brains.”116 Pinker offers examples at the end of his essay:
The humanities would enjoy more of the explanatory depth of the sciences, to say nothing of the kind of a progressive agenda that appeals to deans and donors. The sciences could challenge their theories with the natural experiments and ecologically valid phenomena that have been so richly characterized by humanists.
In some disciplines, this consilience is a fait accompli. Archeology has grown from a branch of art history to a high-tech science. Linguistics and the philosophy of mind shade into cognitive science and neuroscience.
Similar opportunities are there for the exploring. The visual arts could avail themselves of the explosion of knowledge in vision science, including the perception of color, shape, texture, and lighting, and the evolutionary aesthetics of faces and landscapes. Music scholars have much to discuss with the scientists who study the perception of speech and the brain’s analysis of the auditory world.
And there is much to say about what science can do with and for political science and literature as well (and Pinker does). The point flows in both directions: science classes would not only benefit from more understandings from the liberal arts but the “math-science death march” could be slowed by such importations. If science or engineering students see their courses as dull compared to what is being taught in, say, the psychology classrooms and labs, all would benefit from more of an interdisciplinary curricula, beginning with interaction with faculty from other fields in each other’s classrooms and labs, when and where the opportunity for connections and mutual learning and benefits can be shown.
This is one way to think about saving not only the humanities but also inspiring and keeping students in the math and science disciplines. No field should be isolated, on an island, or in a silo… the great minds of the Enlightenment, for one, did not see their studies that way, they saw unifying themes and an intellectual relationship between all their theories and works. This issue gets us to the elementary and secondary education levels as well.
In his five reforms suggested to reinvigorate STEM education in K-12 education, two of Secretary of Education William Bennett’s suggestions to education reformers are indeed along these lines:
Do not segregate math and science classes from the rest of the school building or coursework. Turn away from the notion of specialized elementary and secondary schools whose focus is on math and science. These areas of study should be in all schools and deemed a critical part of each and every school’s broad curriculum. Students who excel in these areas should not be seen as “different” or labeled as “special” or worse.
Each and every class taught, where possible and relevant, should adopt forms of mathematical and scientific methods in its pedagogy, engage in practices of “building models, arguing from evidence and communicating findings” so as to “increase the likelihood that students will learns the ideas of science or engineering and mathematics at a deeper, more enduring level,” as two STEM scholars recently suggested.117
As I move into other reforms for K-12 education, let me summarize Dr. Bennett’s other suggestions as well: front-load STEM-related teaching. We should seek out children’s natural intellectual curiosities and teach mathematical and scientific concepts earlier in school, treating those subjects as important as reading and writing. Front-loading STEM concepts is critical and preschool is not too early to start. We must also do a better job of training teachers, especially in the early grades, in math and science so that they can integrate those subjects and topics as much as possible into their curricula. Finally, schools should avail themselves of non-profit organizations like Project Lead The Way, organizations with records of success in teacher training and student success.118
Simply put, one can read all the academic papers and studies one wants, there are reams, and I have reviewed most of them. But they all conclude that we have at least five problems we need to overcome: Engaging students in STEM subjects too late and then not enough; teaching poor and boring content; not integrating math and science with other subjects; ineffective teacher training; and a paucity of women and minorities in the fields.
Working backwards, the issue of inspiring more women and minorities in the STEM related fields is one I take personally, not only because I know these fields to be promising economically but also because I know it can be done. Take Toppenish High School in the State of Washington, about which I will have more to say later: Toppenish has a student population of over ninety percent minority and nearly all of the students come from low-income families. Nevertheless, their former principal, Trevor Greene, instituted Project Lead The Way’s rigorous engineering and biomedical sciences program for which he credits much of his school’s success. From starting with a handful of engineering classes at the high school level, today there are over thirty sections of PLTW classes at Toppenish.
At the college level, Freeman Hrabowski—whose life story in civil rights began at the age of twelve when he marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. and who is now the President of the University of Maryland at Baltimore County (UMBC—a PLTW Affiliate University)—has spoken about how UMBC has successfully changed the prospects of so many underrepresented minorities in the STEM fields.119 President Hrabowski outlines what he calls the “Four Pillars” of college success in science, four things that helped to make UMBC such a success in graduating students in STEM fields, especially among minority populations. The first pillar is encouraging high expectations, hard work, and attendance. Many students fail, drop out, or simply score low in their first-year college science course. That is why those courses are often known as or called “weed out” courses. Encourage students to retake those courses just as many political science students have to retake economic and statistics courses.
Note, too, that not missing school, not missing classes, is a huge predictor of success just as study after study is now showing that absenteeism is a predictor of failure and dropping out. (One recent study revealed a “miss one/lose one” relationship where each day of missed school translated to scoring a point lower on high stakes tests).120 The second pillar is building community among students—encouraging the more advanced and successful students to mentor and tutor the less initially successful students. Getting rid of the cut-throat idea of learning and making it more of a group effort among students matters. The third pillar encourages researchers to produce researchers. The importance of labs cannot be overstated, true research is about life to students, not just school for school’s sake. Finally, the fourth pillar is interested faculty: a connection between teachers and st
udents where the teachers take personal or individual interest in students who are falling behind.
At the national level, organizations such as the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME) are confronting this issue. Under the leadership of Dr. Irving McPhail, NACME is advancing its mission to increase the number of successful underrepresented minorities in STEM careers. Through programs such as college scholarships and Engineering Academies in partnership with PLTW and the National Academies Foundation, NACME is committed to improving America’s human capital and global competitiveness.
Turning to women in STEM fields, I have seen programs like the Perry Initiative, dedicated to inspiring female students to go into the fields of orthopedics and engineering, change students’ minds and lives. The Perry Initiative, with the leadership of co-founder Dr. Jenni Buckley, does it the way PLTW does it: with inspiring role models and hands-on experience. As an example—two dozen female students from a high school science class take their Saturday to go to a Mayo Clinic for an all-day, hands-on, instruction on orthopedics led by female orthopedic surgeons, students working with the actual tools of the trade, including students putting stitches into flesh (cow tongues in most cases).
The need here is great. Women are about half the workforce in America but hold less than a quarter of STEM-related jobs. As for minorities, they receive less than 15 percent of our nation’s bachelor’s degrees in science.121 Part of the answer to inspiring more minorities and women in the STEM fields is the same as inspiring other students—starting earlier, with engaging teachers and role models, and recruitment and encouragement from teachers, parents, principals, and coaches. As an educator, I know the importance of eliminating pernicious stereotypes that elevate some students and stifle others. The National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity is doing excellent work here, and I especially like what Mimi Lufkin, the group’s CEO, says about mentoring:
Women leaders in positions of influence must bring their valuable perspective and experience to the table and support the advancement of other women in STEM. Leadership is using your position of power and influence to help create a culture of inclusion for everyone in STEM such as: mentoring other women to take on leadership opportunities; removing barriers for those coming after you; standing up, speaking up and solving inequities in your sphere of influence; balancing work and family through example and by supporting family friendly workplace policies; and by being a role model for the men and women who work with you and for the young women in your community.
As for starting earlier, I cannot emphasize this enough. Young minds form academic attitudes and prejudices early. Turn a student off from math or science in an early grade and you can almost never make up for that. Turn a student on in an early grade, and the possibilities are endless. In fact, one recent study of science graduate students and professionals found that over forty percent of them reported first becoming interested in their fields between kindergarten and fifth grade.122 Another study of 5,000 science students, tracking them through college, found that “positive classroom experiences, such as relating the content to students’ lives, were strongly associated with the completion of a college degree in STEM.”123
We are not doing a good job of encouraging this now. According to a recent study commissioned by Intel, today, sixty-three percent of teenagers never consider a profession in engineering, nearly thirty percent of teenagers do not know of any potential jobs in engineering, and twenty percent cannot explain anything about engineering’s impact on the world.124 But, supporting what I said above, the same study found that “exposure to any facts about engineering leads more than half of teens to say they are more likely to consider engineering as a career.” Simply talking about engineering, explaining what it does and is, and what fields it opens the doors to, changes half of teens’ minds! The study’s recommendations on how to accomplish this are:
Focus on helping teens understand what being an engineer is all about. Improving understanding of what engineers actually do can increase consideration, so talk about how rewarding it is to be an engineer.
Don’t dumb down what engineers do. Try to reframe the difficulty of engineering as a positive challenge, a badge of honor to be worn proudly when successful.
Make engineering feel less remote and more personal. Give a face to engineers to help inspire and create a sense that “if they can do it, I can do it.”
Up-weight the emotional appeal of engineering. The societal benefits of what engineers do, like preventing disasters or generating cleaner electricity, are particularly resonant with teens that have never considered engineering before.125
This really is not complicated, but it is intentional—teachers, parents, counselors, coaches, principals must show and express interest. And, since the private sector has a significant stake in student engagement and success, it must be involved with our schools. As David Steel, the Executive Vice President of Strategy for Samsung Electronics North America, points out, aside from sponsoring science fairs, and showing up at job fairs, employees from Boeing to Facebook to Apple and IBM (and from all the tech products elementary, middle, and high school students use) should make efforts—out of their own companies’ future workforce and self-interest if nothing else—to get into classrooms. And principals and teachers should reach out to these companies to send them representatives. “Increased interaction between students and STEM professionals can help show that it is possible to study STEM subjects and still be cool,” Steel writes.126
A great example of a company committed to getting into classrooms is Lockheed Martin. Recognizing the importance of role models for students, thousands of Lockheed Martin engineers participate in the company’s Engineers in the Classroom program. Practicing professionals regularly collaborate with students on design projects, help students understand the importance of learning math and science, and inform students about the tremendous career opportunities available to them.
Over the years, Lockheed Martin has provided financial support to dozens of schools to help implement PLTW programs. Given the programs’ success, the company recently announced a multi-year, multi-million dollar investment to implement PLTW K-12 programs in several of America’s largest urban school districts.
Then, beyond the doing of STEM, in class and in work, there is the importance of highlighting and encouraging teachers and students. One idea a colleague of mine deployed in his home-state of Arizona was to put STEM teachers and their science fair students on his radio show—showing the rest of the city what great teachers and students can do and are doing, and making the experience for the teacher and the student all the more interesting and “cool” along the way. Radio listeners love education as a topic. “Think about it,” he says, “Everyone has some experience in education, having been a student, a parent, a teacher, you name it. A little secret about radio I did not know going in was that if you want calls and opinions and interest, make education the issue.” Principals: contact your local radio show hosts and tell them about your excelling STEM teachers and students…and try and get them on the air.
Of course, having the right teachers in America’s classrooms is where this all starts. Here are just two statistics highlighting the problem: Right now, one third of public middle school science teachers and thirty-six percent of public middle school math teachers either did not major in those subjects in college and/or are not certified to teach them.127 Meanwhile, too many states and school districts do not allow for the kinds of alternative certifications that interested prospective teachers could obtain without going through a traditional certification route. Put simply, it is difficult to transmit a love of a topic, never mind the basics of it, when one is not trained in it. I wrote above about how we need to, and can, recruit teachers from the tops of their classes. It’s not such a tall order; Teach for America does this every year, and selects a small cohort from a large pool of highly talented graduates from America’s leading colleges and universities. But we also need to re-engage
a civil and national conversation about teacher certification, merit pay, time off for additional training, more attractive salaries in underperforming schools, and metrics regarding licensure and even dismissal. This is not a conservative/liberal debate or a right/left argument. While many education experts in the field who have been arguing for these reforms tend to come from what are known as “conservative” think tanks, such reforms are also supported by non-ideological organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Democrats like Michelle Rhee, and in fact, one of the most prominent liberal think tanks, the Center for American Progress, has issued a paper advocating just these things.128
The research on inspiring teachers, excellent teachers, in their fields is conclusive and really cannot be controversial anymore. We can debate how to do it, but look at what just one recent study from two economists from Harvard and Columbia found when they studied the Value Added approach to teacher quality (Value Added is a tool to measure performance based on students’ test score increases, or decreases): “[R]eplacing a teacher whose true value-added is in the bottom 5% with a teacher of average quality would generate lifetime earnings gains worth more than $250,000 for the average classroom. On the other hand, ‘If you leave a low value-added teacher in your school for 10 years, rather than replacing him with an average teacher, you are hypothetically talking about $2.5 million in lost income.’”129 Again, great teachers make all the difference; even average teachers make great differences. It’s the bottom, small minority—roughly five percent—of the workforce that causes most of our concerns.
So, what can be done? The good news, and the reason I am optimistic, is that we have great STEM programs working in schools across America—and, an abundance of knowledge and research available to each of us not just in books or university libraries or studies presented at conferences, but through MOOCs and other online resources. One can go to the websites of Change the Equation or Project Lead The Way to access any number of studies and articles substantiating all I have written here. STEMConnector. org also hosts a set of great resources, including profiles of success stories and a daily, emailed, newsletter on the latest in STEM-related news. And one can take any of the foregoing knowledge to school principals and PTAs and curriculum committees to demand more and better STEM programming in your children’s schools.
One Nation Under-Taught Page 5
