Science

Girls, Science, and Awesomeness

Eduflack Marketing, Science, STEM

For decades, we have collectively wrung our hands about how to get women (as well as minorities and low-income students) interested in science and math.  In the late 1990s, when I was first starting to work in the education space, I remember the controversy over a new Barbie doll that proclaimed “math is hard,” a sentiment that many felt would set progress back another generation.

In 2008 and 2009, I was fortunate enough to help lead the Pennsylvania STEM Initiative.  More than a decade later, one of our major charges was how to better engage women (both K-12 and higher ed) in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics areas.  We were always looking for that one big idea that would completely change the way folks thought about STEM and STEM skills.  But it was never discovered.
And now that I am a father, I look at my daughter, a precocious first grader, and wonder what I can do to make sure she gets the math and science background that virtually all students will need to succeed once she graduates from college and prepares to take on the world. 
So I was particularly tickled to see a piece on Slate today that features a new commercial for a product from a company called GoldieBlox.  Typically, I don’t like to write about companies and their products.  But the commercial offered up by GoldieBlox requires me to break my own rules and sing the praises of this terrific piece of edu-marketing.
The goal is simple (I assume).  GoldieBlox is looking to sell a tinkertoy/connex-like product to parents of young girls.  But how the did it is far from simple.  GoldieBlox made engineering cool why empowering women.  Seeing the different pieces and how they work was fun to watch, even with the computer’s sound off.
But what really made my day was the soundtrack.  The company took The Beastie Boys’ “Girls” song (as a child of the 1980s, Eduflack was particularly proud of that) and rewrote it as a power anthem for girls’ ingenuity and the necessary breaking of the pink princess stereotypes.  
Check out the commercial.  You can find it here on YouTube.  And kudos to GoldieBlox for refusing to buy into the stereotypes and making a meaningful contribution on how to make STEM cool.

The State of Science, Fordham Style

Eduflack 21CS, CCSS, Science

As Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and their assessments continue to dominate our thinking and our grousing, it is only natural that we are keyed in on math and reading performance.  After all, that is what CCSS focuses on.  

And while NCLB promised to bring student science scores up to 100% proficiency after it finished its work on reading and math, we never quite got to NCLB: Science Edition.
So it is refreshing to see a new report, released earlier this week from the Fordham Institute, that takes a deep dive into what the individual states are doing with regard to science.  Its latest state-by-state comparison can be found at Exemplary Science Standards: How Does Your State Compare? 
The report builds on Fordham’s evaluation of next generation science standards, released back in June.
While an in-depth look of science standards is hardly the topic that wins big headlines or captures the media sizzle like t-val or high-stakes testing, it is an important subject that lies at the heart of meaningful student achievement.  For all of the talk about critical thinking and the analytical skills that so many bemoan being lost in our current testing culture, science is where we can find it.  So it is essential that our states are continuing to push their great science expectations so that students are knowledgeable and able on all things science.
And for those who just can’t get enough of the CCSS, Fordham also offers up a document looking at how science standards align with CCSS-math.  And thanks to Politico and its Morning Education platform for placing a spotlight on this important subject.
Happy reading!

Spectacular Science

Eduflack Science

I’ll admit it, I’m a science fair nerd.  Twenty years ago, Eduflack was the West Virginia State Science Fair Grand Prize Winner.  After doing a year-long experiment on the topic of verbal conditioning (whether we are moved by someone saying something is good or bad) and its impact on age groups (young kids, high schoolers, senior citizens), I was actually recognized as having the best science fair project in the entire Mountain State.

The reward?  I represented West Virginia at the International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) down in Orlando, FL.  While I didn’t win, place, or show in the Behavioral Sciences category at ISEF, I did bring home a specialty award (and some cash for college) from a research group taken by my approach.
Why do I share all this?  This morning, I am flying out to Los Angeles for this year’s ISEF.  Two decades after I brought my display and research study down to Orlando, I now get to be a judge at the ISEF.  And I couldn’t be more excited!
I competed in science fairs for four years in high school.  Three of those years, I competed at the state science fair (once in New Mexico, twice in West Virginia).  Science fairs helped me with my writing, my presentation skills, inquiry and reflection.  It served as my introduction to “research,” a core component to my professional days today (albeit in a different field.)  And I actually enjoyed it (except for putting together those actual displays).
I keep hearing how science fairs are going the way of the dodo, that it doesn’t fit in our standards/assessment-focused world and requires too much time from both the student and teacher.  But I refuse to believe it. 
So I’m really looking forward to setting foot in the exhibit hall today and feeling the excitement, nervousness, and general energy offered by the students gathered.  There are few experiences quite like ISEF, and I’m just tickled I get to revisit one of those high school highlights.

Celebrating the Science Fair

Eduflack accountability, assessment, AYP, Science, teachers

During his State of the Union address last month, President Barack Obama showed the love for the science fair, saying winners of the science fair deserve the same kudos as winners of the Super Bowl.  But this week, The New York Times has an article detailing how the American science fair is on the decline, placing the blame at the feet of the U.S. Department of Education and its policies on student achievement and accountability and the fact that science fairs take up a lot of work, both for the teacher and the student.

Personally, Eduflack is sick and tired of hearing accountability (and its bastard step-sister AYP) for being blamed for all that ails our schools.  Anyone who has been a part of a successful science fair experience knows that doing so improves both student learning and student achievement.  Done effectively, science fairs can spur a love for learning, better engage students in the classroom (beyond just the science classroom), and instill the sort of 21st century skills we are seeking from our students.  And we won’t even talk about those pesky science accountability requirements that are supposed to be coming online any year now.
Believe it or not, Eduflack knows of what he speaks this time around.  Yes, I am a former science fair geek.  In fact, I once was the grand prize winner for the West Virginia State Science Fair.  I competed in the International Science and Engineering Fair (and even took home an award).  My project?  A study in behavioral science, looking at the impact of verbal conditioning (both good and bad) and human subjects of different ages.  (And for those who care, I found that positive verbal conditioning had far more impact than negative, even on my youngest test subjects.)
There is no doubt that science fairs can be time consuming.  A good project requires a great deal of work from the student, from the student’s science teacher, and from all of the teachers and community members who help assemble and judge the fair itself.  But it is one of those efforts where the payoff far exceeds the cost.  Students learn to work beyond the textbook, thinking critically and solving real problems relevant to them.  They are experimenting and writing and orally presenting and figuring out how to visually depict their project and its findings.  They are seeing something through from start to finish, and they are getting supports from their teachers every step along the way.  In many ways, it is instruction the way we all intended it — project based, relevant, comprehensive, measurable, and with long-term impact.
Perhaps President Obama is wrong.  We shouldn’t be celebrating the winners of science fairs … we should be celebrating all of those who take the time to experiment and compete in the first place.  We should be finding ways to support teachers in the process, giving them the time and resources to integrate fairs into the instructional day.  We should be projecting the value of the science fair, not seeing it as an extracurricular burden but rather as a terrific tool for inspiring creativity and exploration in students, particularly those who are not the science “whiz kids” as defined by test scores or AP classes.  And we should be thanking all of those teachers who continue to do whatever it takes to keep this wonderful practice alive, despite the added burdens and added hours associated with the science fair.
As a former competitor and a former winner, Eduflack thanks you.
 

STEM-ing the Rising Education Tide

Eduflack High School, Math, Science, STEM

It is hard to ignore the momentum that STEM (science-technology-engineering-mathematics) education is gaining these days.  For years now, states and school districts have invested heavily in STEM education, first as a proactive step to allow our students to better compete in a flat, global economy and most recently as a reactive step to a changing economy and greatly changing job prospects.  No matter the reason, STEM is hot.  It is the only instructional area singled out for bonus points in Race to the Top applications.  Last fall, the White House announced a new federal initiative directing $250 million in new dollars to STEM efforts.  And that doesn’t even count the buckets of money that have been committed to the cause from the National Science Foundation, NASA, philanthropies like the Gates Foundation, and countless corporate entities.

Today, President Obama is slated to announce an additional $250 million to “improve science and math instruction,” essentially doubling the commitment his team made to the topic just a few short months ago in November.  The full story can be found here.

As someone who has worked in STEM education for many years, there is something satisfying about seeing the time, attention, and resources being devoted to this key issue.  There is little question that STEM literacy is a non-negotiable when it comes to an effective education.  The knowledge and skills learned through STEM instruction is not only important for the future rocket scientists and brain surgeons of the world, but it is essential for anyone who hopes to hold any sort of gainful employment in the coming years.  Coupling the necessary science and math with a STEM focus on problem solving, collaboration, critical thinking, is key.  Not only does it keep students engaged (and thus on the path to graduation), but it also demonstrates the relevance of what they are learning (at least when it is done correctly and effectively).

The public-private partnership proposed by the Obama Administration seems focused primarily on teachers, both in the training of new teachers and the in-service support of existing STEM teachers.  The details of both are still to be determined (we seem to have number targets, but not the how quite yet).  Regardless, there are a number of issues that dear ol’ Eduflack hopes are being considered as part of our increased commitment to STEM education:
* Mid-career changers — The changes in the economy have put a great number of STEM-skilled professionals out looking for new positions.  Just by looking at the pharmaceutical and telecommunications sectors alone, we have a great number of potential STEM educators ready, willing, and skilled.  We need to look at specific ways to equip these individuals with the pedagogy and support they need to be effective teachers.  Perhaps we can look to Pennsylvania’s plans for mid-career transition and IBM’s 2005 experiment to transition many of its employees into teaching as models to get us going.
* STEM certification — In the broad sense, STEM is an interdisciplinary field that demonstrates how the four components (and beyond) work together to meet the changing needs of a changing world.  We can’t expect a math teacher to teach engineering or science.  (And we mostly expect that “technology” is being taught through business departments that used to teach typing).  So what about a hybrid certification for secondary STEM teachers?  It may be broader strokes than some would want, but it can be far more effective than hopin’ and prayin’ that we are able to connect the S, T, E, and M in the current model. 
* Teacher Externships — With the private sector stepping up to the plate as a partner in this new endeavor, we need to do a better job of helping teachers communicate the relevance and importance of STEM education.  Like it or not, students look to teachers who have walked the walk.  So what about teacher externships in STEM fields, where teachers take a week in the summer to shadow in local industry (paid time, of course)?  They can then take these “real world” experiences back to the classroom, speaking truth to students about what is needed in the workforce and talking firsthand about the truly interesting opportunities that are out there.

And while we are at it, what about redoubling our investment in STEM internships for students?  As a nation, we are focused on increasing our high school graduation rates while moving more students into postsecondary learning experiences.  What better way to get high school students into internships, where they can explore job possibilities in the community, learn from those who do, and better understand the knowledge, skills, and degrees/certifications necessary to actually obtain the job.  When we talk about making the high school experience more relevant, what better way can we do that by linking lessons in the classroom today with lessons in the workplace today?

At the end of the day, STEM investment needs to focus on both the teachers and the students, with clear goals and expectations for both.  We not only need more STEM teachers, but we need STEM teachers that clearly demonstrate their effectiveness.  We not only need more STEM-literate students, but we need to use that literacy to fill the pipeline of secondary and postsecondary education, whether a child aspires to be an athlete, poet, chemist, or engineer.  And we need a community that places strong value on those STEM skills, recognizing that they are non-negotiables for virtually every citizen looking to contribute to the 21st century. 

Ultimately, $500 million and corporate partnership can go a long way in rising the STEM education tide.  We just need to make sure we are all taking full advantage of the crest.

The Effectiveness of IB

Eduflack accountability, AP, AYP, High School, Math, national standards, NCLB, Science

Each year, we see the high school “rankings,” finding that those schools with a high preponderance of Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB ) programs tend to do the best.  The greater the penetration of such programs and priorities, the higher a high school ranks.  Over the years, though, the education community has begun to ask the question about true results or the true impact of these programs. 

A decade ago, many a high school student collected AP courses like baseball cards, knowing that AP today meant college credit tomorrow.  The eduwife actually entered Stanford University as a sophomore because of all of the AP classes she took (and the fives she secured on the exams), allowing her to spend her fourth year out at the Farm gaining her master’s degree.
But times have changed.  Many colleges are now saying that even a five on an AP course is not the same as successfully completing the college course.  We’ve shifted from awarding college credit to simply allowing students to waive out of core requirements.  
The situation has always been even more murky with IB.  IB was never intended to provide college credits in a way AP does.  Designed decades ago, the program was created to ensure that students received a rigorous, comprehensive, and relevant high school learning experience.  By maximizing the time in high school through the IB curriculum, young people would become better students, better scholars, and better citizens.  
So how does all that translate when it comes to postsecondary education?  Many a college admissions officer knows that an IB graduate means a strong college candidate.  They are prepared for postsecondary work.  They are motivated.  They’ve been challenged.  They are inquisitive.  And they are able to do more than fill out bubble sheets or choose from a list of five answers.  They are scholars and learners, not merely the processors of information.
In past years, Eduflack has had the privilege of working with IB on a number of issues.  Being me, I would always ask about the research.  How do we know IB is working?  IB would say that the proof is in their alumni network.  One knows IB works when you see the complete IB graduate.  It is not just what they know, but how they apply it.  Those who complete an IB program usually move on to college.  And the IB high school instructional model has been so successful in teaching and motivating students that it has resulted in the development of both elementary and middle grades IB programs.
IB has never been about longitudinal research models.  They know the program works.  Their scholars know it works.  Their teachers, who undergo rigorous training and ongoing support, know it works.  And the schools that adopt it know it works.  They don’t need a medical-style research model to prove what they already know.  No, IB isn’t for everyone.  But those who do adopt it are better for it.  And despite the urban legends, IB isn’t just for the rich schools in the suburbs or for the uber-motivated.  IB works for all students who are motivated enough to seek a high-quality, rigorous educational program that provides the content and the skills to perform well after the IB program is completed.
But this is an era of research and of doing what is proven effective.  One’s word or one’s track record isn’t enough.  We need third party data to prove our effectiveness.  And now, IB has some of that as well.  In recent days, IB announced the Education Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) findings of its International Baccalaureate Standards Development and Alignment Project.  What did EPIC find?  
* IB is “highly aligned” with the Knowledge and Skills for University Success (KSUS) college-ready standards
* The IB Diploma’s key cognitive strategies — critical thinking skills, intellectual inquisitiveness, and interpretation — were found to be fully aligned with the expectations of university faculty
* IB math (algebra, trigonometry, and statistical standards) were completely aligned with KSUS
* IB science (chemistry, biology, and environmental science) were completely aligned with KSUS
Alignment is important.  But the data on results is even more compelling.  As part of the EPIC announcement, IB revealed that more than 80 percent of those completing the IB high school program graduate from college within six years, a rate leaps, bounds, and high jumps above the national average for high school students.  IBers are college graduates.  And there are few, if any programs, we can make that statement about with higher certainty.
IB has been one of the best-kept secrets in school improvement and innovation.  We don’t talk about it, but IB’s year-on-year growth in the United States over the last year has been the stuff on which folks write Harvard case studies.  Those teachers who have gone through the training are true believers.  Those students who secure the Diploma are real-life success stories.  And those districts who make the investment quickly realize that the cost is worth it, gaining both quantitative and qualitative return on investment almost from the get-go.
Perhaps IB’s greatest challenge is how it fits into the current environment of improvement, reform, and innovation.  IB succeeded in the NCLB years, in part, because of the misperceptions of who it was targeting.  Since many didn’t see its applicability for those students who were being left behind (despite some tremendous case studies of how IB programs have turned around schools and really helped students from historically disadvantaged groups), the program was left to operate on its own.  It connected enough with AYP and with state assessments that it was a viable alternative for those wishing to pursue it.  But it simply wasn’t seen as a solution for that bottom quartile of students, particularly with NCLB’s focus on the elementary grades.
Today, IB is at a crossroads.  As a nation, we have set hard goals for improving high school graduation rate and college attainment numbers.  The EPIC data demonstrates that IB could be one of those solutions custom-made for rising to the occasion.  The IB training and development model is one that can be used as we look to new ways to improving instruction and preparation for all teachers.  The real challenge, though, is how IB fits into the new call for common standards.  How will the IB framework align with the high school standards currently being pursued?  How do IB assessments dovetail with the assessments that will come out of common standards?  How does IB demonstrate value-add, and not add-on?
Only time will tell if IB is up to the challenge.  It has the opportunity.  It has the track record.  It can display its strengths.  Now is the time for International Baccalaureate to show it is an exemplar of best practice, and not merely a niche program.  It has the pieces.  IB just has to bring them all together for a compelling story that solves the problem so many school decisionmakers are facing.

A True “Opportunity Equation”

Eduflack 21CS, Arne Duncan, Math, national standards, NGA, Science, STEM

In recent months, we have significantly raised the stakes when it comes to education improvement.  The economic stimulus bill makes clear that the success of our economy depends on the improvement of our schools.  The Data Quality Campaign (along with additional stimulus dollars) have focused on the need to improve data collection at the state level.  The recent release of NAEP long-term data pointed to the push for continued accountability.  And the most recent announcement of progress in the national standards movement — namely the National Governors Association/Council of Chief State School Officers push — have only increased the volume.

But what, exactly, are we improving?  A little more than a month ago, President Barack Obama spotlighted the need to redouble our commitment to science-technology-engineering-mathematics, or STEM, education.  Today, the Carnegie Corporation of New York-Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education amplified the instructional content call even further.  In releasing The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy, Carnegie provided a useful blueprint for moving our rhetorical commitment to improvement and STEM education into actionable items, issuing a true call to action to policymakers and educators committed to improving our nation and our economy by strengthening our academic offerings.
Specifically, Opportunity Equation issued a clarion call on four key issues:
* The need for higher levels of mathematics and science learning for all American students
* Common standards in math and science that are fewer, clearer, and higher, couple with aligned assessments
* Improved teaching and professional learning, supported by better schools and system management
* New designs for schools and systems to deliver math and science learning more effectively
Surely we have seen reports like these before.  Many issue broad platitudes.  Others are chock full of process, with little in terms of outcome.  And others still simply preach in a vacuum, demonstrating a glaring lack of understanding about our schools, particularly those students that need STEM the most.  So what makes Carnegie’s report so different than those that have come before it?
First, Opportunity Equation clearly identifies those stakeholders most important to STEM education and assigns them specific responsibilities in the improvement effort.  Throughout its report, Carnegie lays out the action stems that the federal government, states, schools and school districts, colleges and universities, unions, businesses, nonprofit organization, and philanthropy must play.  School improvement is a team game, and Carnegie has drawn up specific plays so that every stakeholder — particularly teachers and schools — has a chance to get on the court at some point during the game.
Second, it combines the requisite inputs with the necessary outcomes.  Too often, reports like this are forced to either embrace the status quo, essentially serving as a consensus document designed to make all parties happy.  Such papers focus on inputs, talking about what is possible, but ignore the outcomes that are necessary to measure true improvement.  Carnegie makes clear that process is important.  But it makes clearer that the best intentions in the world are meaningless if we aren’t delivering measurable results on the back end.  Student results, data, measurement, and accountability are key components to the Carnegie plan.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Carnegie recognizes that STEM education is for all students, and that all students should be held to higher, clearer standards (with similar accountability).  For years now, Eduflack has heard many an educator and policymaker push back that STEM education isn’t for everyone.  Our future rocket scientists and brain surgeons may benefit from STEM, but it is unnecessary for the “average” student.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Every student benefits from STEM education, particularly if that student is interested in going on to postsecondary education or holding a job after finishing their schooling.  Carnegie puts this fact front and center.  Effective STEM instruction is not about cherry-picking.  It is about a rising tide lifting all boats, providing all students — particularly those who have been left behind or neglected in the past — with the skills and instruction they need to achieve in the 21st century global classroom and workplace.
Opportunity Equation also demonstrates a nimbleness that we rarely see in studies of this sort.  The report boasts a Who’s Who on its roster of Commission members.  Usually, such a roll call means this report was in the can for months, undergoing proofing and design and gut checks to make sure all were comfortable with the language.  But Carnegie has done two things here to dispel the pattern.  First, its four priorities align with the four policy pillars put forward by EdSec Arne Duncan and the US Department of Education.  Second, Opportunity Equation calls on stakeholders to endorse the NGA/CCSSO Common Standards effort, and effort that just went public a little more than a week ago.  Relevancy is always a good thing.
In Opportunity Equation, Carnegie Corporation has clearly informed audiences on what is necessary to improve math and science instruction in the United States, building a stronger pipeline for both the economy and the community.  As Eduflack has lectured far too often, that is merely step one of effective public engagement.  Now that the inform stage is completed, it now falls to Carnegie and its supporters to build commitment to the model laid out by Carnegie and then mobilize stakeholders around the specific actions called for in the report.  
Carnegie offers yet another GPS unit for guiding us through the complexities of school improvement toward a final destination of a STEM-literate society equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary for academic and life success.  It is now up to the wide range of stakeholders (those identified by Carnegie) to actually plug the unit in and let it guide us.  Opportunity Equation provides those turn-by-turn directions to get us to the results we seek.  We just need to follow the guidance.

Presidential STEM

Eduflack 21CS, Math, Obama, Science, STEM, Workforce

For those who thought STEM (science-technology-engineering-mathematics) education was going to get swept away in the educational tsunamis of economic stimulus, core curriculum debates, student performance concerns, and a new national emphasis on achievement and innovation, guess again.  Speaking before the National Academy of Sciences this morning, President Barack Obama spoke of the future of science and innovation the United States.  And a good portion of it focused on education … STEM education.

I’ll let the President speak for himself here.  Lots of interesting information, particularly the shout-out to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  As I’ve noted previously, I’ve been working with the Pennsylvania STEM Initiative and the public/private partnership in the Keystone State that is driving the terrific STEM progress Gov. Ed Rendell and company is leading.  So this is a nice hat tip for the PA STEM Initiative and for other NGA STEM states that are investing in statewide, systemic STEM efforts.
So humming “Hail to the Chief,” here is a segment of the President’s STEM remarks this morning:

“Fifth, since we know that the progress and prosperity of future generations will depend on what we do now to educate the next generation, today I am announcing a renewed commitment to education in mathematics and science.  

Through this commitment, American students will move from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math over the next decade. For we know that the nation that out-educates us today – will out-compete us tomorrow.

We cannot start soon enough. We know that the quality of math and science teachers is the most influential single factor in determining whether or a student will succeed or fail in these subjects. Yet, in high school, more than twenty percent of students in math and more than sixty percent of students in chemistry and physics are taught by teachers without expertise in these fields. And this problem is only going to get worse; there is a projected shortfall of more than 280,000 math and science teachers across the country by 2015.

That is why I am announcing today that states making strong commitments and progress in math and science education will be eligible to compete later this fall for additional funds under the Secretary of Education’s $5 billion Race to the Top program.

I am challenging states to dramatically improve achievement in math and science by raising standards, modernizing science labs, upgrading curriculum, and forging partnerships to improve the use of science and technology in our classrooms.  And I am challenging states to enhance teacher preparation and training, and to attract new and qualified math and science teachers to better engage students and reinvigorate these subjects in our schools.

In this endeavor, and others, we will work to support inventive approaches.  Let’s create systems that retain and reward effective teachers, and let’s create new pathways for experienced professionals to enter the classroom.  There are, right now, chemists who could teach chemistry; physicists who could teach physics; statisticians who could teach mathematics.  But we need to create a way to bring the expertise and the enthusiasm of these folks – folks like you – into the classroom.

There are states, for example, doing innovative work. I am pleased to announce that Governor Ed Rendell will lead an effort with the National Governors Association to increase the number of states that are making science, technology, engineering and mathematics education a top priority.  Six states are currently participating in the initiative, including Pennsylvania, which has launched an effective program to ensure that his state has the skilled workforce in place to draw the jobs of the 21st century. I’d want every state participate.

But our work does not end with a high school diploma.  For decades, we led the world in educational attainment, and as a consequence we led the world in economic growth. The G.I. Bill, for example, helped send a generation to college. But in this new economy, we’ve come to trail other nations in graduation rates, in educational achievement, and in the production of scientists and engineers.

That’s why my administration has set a goal that will greatly enhance our ability to compete for the high-wage, high-tech jobs of the 21st century – and to foster the next generation of scientists and engineers. In the next decade – by 2020 – America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. And we’ve provided tax credits and grants to make a college education more affordable.

My budget also triples the number of National Science Foundation graduate research fellowships. This program was created as part of the Space Race five decades ago. In the decades since, it’s remained largely the same size – even as the numbers of students who seek these fellowships has skyrocketed. We ought to be supporting these young people who are pursuing scientific careers, not putting obstacles in their path.

This is how we will lead the world in new discoveries in this new century. But it will take far more than the work of government. It will take all of us. It will take all of you.

And so today I want to challenge you to use your love and knowledge of science to spark the same sense of wonder and excitement in a new generation.

America’s young people will rise to the challenge if given the opportunity – if called upon to join a cause larger than themselves. And we’ve got evidence. The average age in NASA’s mission control during the Apollo 17 mission was just 26. I know that young people today are ready to tackle the grand challenges of this century

So I want to persuade you to spend time in the classroom, talking – and showing –young people what it is that your work can mean, and what it means to you. Encourage your university to participate in pr
ograms to allow students to get a degree in scientific fields and a teaching certificate at the same time. Think about new and creative ways to engage young people in science and engineering, like science festivals, robotics competitions, and fairs that encourage young people to create, build, and invent – to be makers of things.

And I want you to know that I’m going to be working along side you. I’m going to participate in a public awareness and outreach campaign to encourage students to consider careers in science, mathematics, and engineering – because our future depends on it.

And the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation will be launching a joint initiative to inspire tens of thousands of American students to pursue careers in science, engineering and entrepreneurship related to clean energy.

It will support an educational campaign to capture the imagination of young people who can help us meet the energy challenge. It will create research opportunities for undergraduates and educational opportunities for women and minorities who too often have been underrepresented in scientific and technological fields – but are no less capable of inventing the solutions that will help us grow our economy and save our planet. And it will support fellowships, interdisciplinary graduate programs, and partnerships between academic institutions and innovative companies to prepare a generation of Americans to meet this generational challenge.”

Couldn’t have written it any better myself, Mr. President.  Hopefully, policymakers, educators, and industry leaders will all take note, lending their endorsement and intellectual and financial support to moving STEM efforts forward.  STEM is the perfect intersection of educational and economic opportunities.  And I may be biased, but the work being done by Gov. Rendell and the Pennsylvania STEM Initiative is the perfect model of promising practice for states and communities to embrace, bringing the public and private sector together for a common goal and a common dream.

Beating Up on 21CS

Eduflack Math, Science, STEM, technology, Workforce

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for the 21st century skills movement.  Last week, at an event hosted by Common Core, 21CS (embodied by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills) got pretty bloodied by the traditionalists who believe the teaching of soft 21CS mean denying our students much needed core content in reading, math, science, and the social sciences.  The Core Knowledge Foundation was the first to weigh in (http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/2009/02/25/21st-century-skills-fadbusters/ ) and Eduwonk has a powerful commentary on the event, and its implications for the future (http://www.eduwonk.com/2009/02/21st-century-skills-in-critical-condition.html ).

This week, the traditional media weighs in on the controversy.  EdWeek’s Stephen Sawchuk has a terrific article on the throwdown in Education Week (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/03/04/23pushback_ep.h28.html?r=1644068071 ) and USA Today’s Greg Toppo weighs in on the same debate this morning (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-03-04-core-knowledge_N.htm ), pitting it as 21st century skills versus core knowledge.
Eduflack gets the controversy, don’t get me wrong.  When we start talking about teaching our students “soft skills” in what is already a severely limited academic day, it sends chills down the spines of those who fear we are already falling down on the job when it comes to teaching our kids the basics.  After all, who wants to substitute “world history with “Fun with Technology?”  Who wants to forgo advanced science so we can teach “Interpersonal Communication?”  And who would even think of sacrificing a foreign language so we can offer “Teamwork 101?”
At the end of the day, though, this is all a false debate.  Do our students need 21st century skills, like teamwork, problem solving, critical thinking, and such?  Yes.  Are these skills that many have already been teaching for decades (thus questioning whether they are really 21st century skills)?  Yes.  Should we, or do we, sacrifice our core curriculum to offer this collection of soft skills in its stead?  Of course not.
The debate over 21CS skills should not be one between one set of curricular goals versus the other.  This isn’t core knowledge versus soft skills.  No, our focus should be on how we teach those core subjects that are necessary.  How do we teach math and science so that we better integrate technology and critical thinking skills?  How do we teach the social sciences in a manner that focuses on project-based learning and team-based activities?  How do we ensure that a 21st century student is not being forced to unplug when they enter the classroom, and instead uses the technologies and interests that drive the rest of their life to boost their interest and achievement in core academic subjects?  And most importantly, how do we ensure all students are graduating with the content knowledge and skills needed to truly achieve in the 21st century economy?
If anything, 21CS is guilty of bad messaging and bad PR.  In a time when everyone is concerned about both academic quality and relevance to the economy, many 21CS advocates remain focused on the need for soft skills, believing they have discovered some long, lost map to student success.  In reality, they are calling for a reinforcement of the relevance of core instruction.  Their message has been off, and as a result, they’ve painted a nice, large target on the back of a well-meaning concept.
How do we move beyond it?  The first step is shifting from 21CS skills to STEM skills.  Science-technology-engineering-math education is a strong attempt at unifying core curriculum (at least math and science) with those skills needed in today’s workforce.  STEM literacy requires a keen understanding of core knowledge, along with an adeptness of 21CS.  Most importantly, it is a concept that policymakers and business leaders understand and are starting to embrace, seeing that how a student applies knowledge is just as important as the knowledge they acquire.
Yes, STEM education faces similar criticism to 21CS, but that’s only because some haven’t seen strong, effective STEM education at work.  It isn’t all keyboarding and web development.  It is advanced math and science.  It offers history lessons in technology.  And it even figures out how to teach topics like mechanical engineering in relevant concepts for secondary school students.  In its very soul, STEM is as core knowledge as it can be.
Regardless, this shouldn’t be an either/or debate.  When we look at our K-12 schools, we look at the pipeline into postsecondary education, and we observe the ever-evolving demands for a skilled workforce, it is clear we have miles to go before we solve the problem.  The answer is not more Latin, a better understanding of ancient Greek history, or a finer appreciation for the Great Books.  The true answer is found in how use new technologies, new approaches, and altogether new ways to teach our core subjects.  How do we cultivate new learning skills while reinforcing our tried-and-true curriculum?  How do we better engage a 21st century student on that core knowledge that they just don’t have an interest in or don’t see the relevance of?  How do we better engage students, rather than asking them to unplug and power down upon entering the schoolhouse doors?
What’s clear is the Partnership for 21CS is facing its last stand.  Its positioning and messaging is quickly making it irrelevant, while stoking the engines of those who have long lept to the defense of a deeply held sense of our core academic curriculum.  The Partnership needs to go back to the drawing board, build a new messaging platform, expand its pool of advocates and endorsers, and reassert its relevance in the debate on school improvement.  Otherwise, it is just another good idea that will have failed because of bad execution and an inability to connect with both those who must lead the change and the students we are trying to impact with the reform.