The Greene Tree Lighting
7th annual Women of Excellence gala
Alter vs. Genoa Area
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > August > 13 > Entry
Too much science and math?
(Will future generations know what’s happening in this photo?)
In the Wall Street Journal last week, the Fordham Foundation’s Checker Finn and education historian Diane Ravitch forcefully address an issue that has troubled me some recently.
Ohio is one of several states that is pushing schools — from the elementary grades through college — to emphasize more science, technology, engineering and math in instruction. Dayton is even angling for a “STEM” high school. Lawmakers want to start a bunch of them around the state.
But Finn and Ratvich have an important question — if science and math instruction grows, will other important subjects be crowded out? And, interestingly, they seem to take a shot at standardized testing, despite Finn’s long running support of standards and judging schools by their test scores.
You need a subscrption to read the whole story at WSJ.com. But here’s their core argument:
“But there is a problem here. Worthy though these skills are, they ignore at least half of what has long been regarded as a “well rounded” education in Western civilization: literature, art, music, history, civics and geography. Indeed, a new study from the Center on Education Policy says that, since NCLB’s enactment, nearly half of U.S. school districts have reduced the time their students spend on subjects such as art and music.
This is a mistake that will ill-serve our children while misconstruing the true nature of American competitiveness and the challenges we face in the 21st century.”
And
“The liberal arts make us “competitive” in the ways that matter most. They make us wise, thoughtful and appropriately humble. They help our human potential to bloom. And they are the foundation for a democratic civic polity, where each of us bears equal rights and responsibilities.
History and literature also impart to their students healthy skepticism and doubt, the ability to question, to ask both “why?” and “why not?” and, perhaps most important, readiness to challenge authority, push back against conventional wisdom and make one’s own way despite pressure to conform. (How will that be viewed in China?)”
And here’s the quote that blew me away on testing:
“We’re already at risk of turning U.S. schools into test-prepping skill factories where nothing matters except exam scores on basic subjects. That’s not what America needs nor is it a sufficient conception of educational accountability.”
That one’s an eye-popper because few have done more than Finn to push standards-based testing as the primary accountability measure in the U.S.
But overall, it’s hard to argue with their core point — math and science are very important and generally undervalued in the U.S. education system. Yet, emphasizing one or two subjects in schools generally has the effect of crowding out other subjects.
Finn is a history nut and I know it drives him crazy that schools faced with testing benchmarks in reading and math often skimp on subjects like history to spend more time preparing for state exams.
Is there a way we can safeguard history, literature, art, music and physical education while still prioritizing science and math? Give us your take.
(Image credit: University of Iowa)
Permalink | Comments (11) | Categories: Teaching and Learning
Comments
By School Supporter
August 14, 2007 6:19 PM | Link to this
Laura notes, “It is a constant circle of change according to the wind … teachers can sway with whatever direction the wind blows.” Perhaps this is a symptom of the problem. No one (I know of, anyway) is asking for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) at the expense of literacy and competent preparation for citizenship—although there are a few people, poorly prepared for citizenship, who demand more STEM. Perhaps professional development or curriculum is inadequate for teachers to do all that is asked of them. Perhaps there are too few hours in the American school year to be competitive with other nations. Perhaps course of study is too poorly thought out, too poorly communicated to teachers, or too poorly integrated among the disciplines. Perhaps unfunded/underfunded mandates or poorly behaving students impede teachers from helping students stay on task. With the Achieve now under study by a State Board subcommittee, this is a good time to let Columbus know how they can help.By Peter
August 14, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this
Interesting that this should be the “new” topic of concern. It was exactly what teachers and other education experts were saying when the standards and testing era began. This is what happens when politicians, rather than educators, drive educational policy.By J
August 14, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this
I have both an undergrad in Music Education and a Master’s in History - plus I work in aviation with many, many people who feel that the STEM is the way to go. In the Dayton region, it is the way to go - right now. That doesn’t mean that by the time the kids who are in elementary school graduate in 12 years, it will still be that way. Who knows what could happen with the future of WPAFB and all the jobs in the STEM fields that it brings. My point is this: we need kids today to have a well-rounded education. Equal time for every subject including art, music, PE. Then you can accurately figure out where talents lie for each individual student. When my teachers figured out I had talents in music I was given the opportunity to pursue those talents further. I had a friend who was brilliant in math and was allowed to do independent studies and take higher grade level courses to fulfill his particular needs. But we still learned all other subjects because that’s what makes a well-rounded person.By Mary
August 14, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
I suppose the system dumps comments it does not like, but here goes again. Schools could provide a well rounded education without added expense. That is what they are supposed to be doing anyway. Unfortunately, “well rounded” in the schools means a litle bit of academics thrown in with a lot of after school activities for the anointed. My daughter had test scores showing her to be in the top 4% nationally in science, but our school district seemed to be more interested in well rounding her with drill/dance team competitions than developing or encouraging her in her science and math skills. A new book “All Politics is Loco” talks about how math and science studies, and the proposed science and technology school are being politicized. The book was written by a PhD in physics, retired Air Force officer, who lives in Beavercreek. He addresses other education, state, national and political issues as well. School “well roundedness” seems to stress following orders from teachers and coaches (or at least coaches) not to learn when to “question authority” in the context of being a responsible citizen with good knowledge of history and government.By Oldprof
August 14, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this
Finn continues to ask ‘good questions’ but why is he dominating the discussion when the few answers he’s promoted were wrong? Brain research, for decades now, has demonstrated that you don’t develop a strong mind by exercising only one part of it, just as you don’t have a strong body if you only exercise the quads. A curriculum that delivers arts, humanities, communication, math, science and phys ed in balance, with quality across the board, would produce better students in ALL subjects. That said, it’s necessary to put more resources into science and math simply because qualified teachers in those disciplines are in horrible short supply; we need to provide full student loan forgiveness for anyone who completes a BA in education with a math or science certification after six years of teaching in public schools, or something similar. And all in all, we will not get students to learn unless we start rewarding learning more than anything else—special privileges for a top GPA that exceed those extended to athletes or prom queens; driving privileges at an earlier age for teens who maintain a high GPA, etc. Curriculum is less crucial than motivation.By Another DPS Teacher
August 13, 2007 11:00 PM | Link to this
In reference to his concern, to which education-delivery entity is Mr. Finn referrring? Charter schools or public schools? If Mr. Finn and his all-knowing crew are aware of National History Day then he would know of the wonderful and insightful research many of these students do and display in their projects and presentations. Perhaps Mr. Finn should speak with Ms. Black at Meadowdale or Ms. Green at Thurgood Marshall or Mr. Sibbing at Richard Allen Edgemont. These teachers keep history alive and interesting for all of their students.By Mark
August 13, 2007 9:27 PM | Link to this
After reading Finn’s quote about testing, I am utterly convinced the sun will rise in the west and set in the east tomorrow.By Laura
August 13, 2007 6:28 PM | Link to this
Anytime you prioritize one or two subjects you do it at the expense of something else. The only was to safeguard certain subjects is to develop and enforce mandates. If there is a mandate, few administrators will go against it, even to increase test scores. If you leave anything open to interpretation, administrators are going to interpret towards testing. One current practice is to use science and social studies texts for reading. It is a good way to get the time to devote to those subjects, but shouldn’t be done at the expense of quality literature. This is actually nothing new. Many ears ago, colleges and business owners said students couldn’t write, so we spend a large portion of time teaching and practicing writing. After a few years, we began hearing that students were deficient in Math so we reworked schedules to have longer Math classes. Recently. we were told we needed to push science and then social studies. Now we hear we are neglecting all but the core subjects and all but eliminating art, music and p.e. It is a constant circle of change according to the wind of the times. That’s OK, most teachers can sway with whatever direction the wind blows.By School Supporter
August 13, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
We safeguard history by it being part of the Ohio standards and report card. It would be good to assess the adequacy of the history standards. If history weren’t important, including at the level of national security, there wouldn’t be an Army Military History Institute. Too bad historians don’t get the hearing they deserve when they write, “Recent history provides a number of useful examples … in post-conflict operations.” More to your prompt, public schools are tasked with preparing future voters. That requires a good deal of history, civics, literacy, and numeracy. If American students mastered in 12 years the math expected of Singapore students in 10 years, that would be sufficient numeracy. The fact that we struggle with this, despite “Nation at Risk” and our lapsed goal to be first in the world in math and science, well, that would be a question for historians like Diane Ravitch. Has she ever been wrong?By emery_r
August 13, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this
Scott — the question raised by Finn & Ravitch is a good one. Since instructional time during the school day and school year IS limited, if the curriculum is increasingly focused on ANY particular subject(s), something has got to give. Sadly, this usually means history, the arts and phys ed get cut. After all, we’re obviously dealing with a “zero sum game.” Every choice requires a cost/benefit analysis so we can understand what’s being given up in order to gain something else of value. FYI, it’s possible to access a much longer and detailed version of the Finn & Ravitch study at http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/BeyondTheBasics_Final.pdf This Adobe Acrobat document is 192 pages long, compared to the 1100+ words in the limited access Wall Street Journal article. (There’s a 10-page introduction in the longer document that summarizes their points pretty well, if 192 pages is too long to wade through!) Happy reading to everyone. I hope there is a good discussion on this blog about such a critically important issue.By David
August 13, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
Oh no. The folks with all the answers are at it again. If the DDN didn’t give them so much press or at least hadn’t in the past they wouldn’t have seemed as important as they think they are. They got charter schools out of public money and with public busing (what a mess that causes). They criticize the STRS retirement system. Now they don’t like what they bought with Bush/Boehner/Kennedy with their contributions and lobbying when they got NCLB!????? Gimme a break. If the guy thinks history will save our economy, get him a job at Walmart. Science and math are all that’s left. People like him and his republicans have moved all the jobs away so the people get paid less and the “big wigs” get huge pay from the extra profits for the Chinese goods Americans buy with no remorse. Let Fordham lobby Bush and Boehner and Kennedy for less testing now. They got what they wanted. BTW charter schools haven’t done well with the testing, have they. Worse or equal to the public schools (unless you pass out the test in advance and call it practice, grin). Maybe Fordham can lobby for less waste of money on charter schools with uncertified teachers (in the area taught) and principals that can’t get a job in the public schools. Careful Fordham, you might get what you wished for, hehe.