Letters from modeling workshop leaders
to the Business-Higher Education Forum
The Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF) is comprised of Fortune 500 CEOs, university presidents, and foundation leaders. http://www.bhef.com
These letters by two outstanding modelers were not replied
to, unfortunately. Yet they argue for essential needs for teachers: “There
are proven models of professional development (like Modeling Instruction) that
are needed now more than ever, but are not getting the funding to reach a
significant fraction of the math & science teachers in this country.”
“What is lacking is a program that will fund new curricula development
and workshop training.”
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005
From: Larry Dukerich
Subject: Fwd: Responding to the Crisis in Math and Science Ed (BHEF)
To: info@bhef.com
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald,
I am forwarding you a post I made to the Modeling listserv (which
serves ~ 1200 teachers of physics, chemistry and physical science
nationwide and around the world) after I read excerpts of the report
released by BHEF on 2-16. You should recognize that the teachers
know what the problems are - it's just that we are not in the
position to do as much about them as we would love to
do.
You can check out what we at the Modeling Instruction Program have
been trying to do for the past decade by pointing your browser to
http://modeling.asu.edu
****
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005
To: MODELING@asu.edu
From: Larry Dukerich
Subject: Responding to the Crisis in Math and Science Ed (BHEF)
Hi Folks,
Jane [Jackson] recently posted excerpts from the report (released
2/16/05) of the Business and Higher Education Forum (BHEF) on the
sorry state of math and science education in the U.S. I managed to
curb my initial reaction to go berserk and say something totally
inappropriate to this group of what I am sure are very nice people.
However, I cannot let this one go without making some comments.
Please excuse the following tirade:
They write:
>"Mathematics and science education in this country is falling short
>of what is required to keep America productive, stable, and secure,"
>says the report. "It is not producing the quantity of mathematics
>and science talent that America needs to meet the challenges it now
>faces. Neither is it preparing all students to be scientifically
>literate citizens capable of participating in a democracy
>increasingly influenced by scientific and technological innovations."
then, go on to make the following recommendations:
>1. Establish a P-16 leadership council in each state, comprised of
>representatives from business, education, and policymakers, and
>including classroom teachers, administrators, and community college
>representatives. The councils would be responsible for defining,
>benchmarking, and initiating a statewide plan for improving P-16
>science and math education.
I'm afraid that assembling such groups to study the problem and make
recommendations that will not get funded will be a monumental waste
of time, energy and money, at a time when all three are in short
supply. This work has already been done by the members of the Glenn
Commission in their Report "Before It's Too Late" issued in Sept,
2000. A copy of the report can be obtained by pointing your browser
to http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/index.html . The report
offered not just vague goals, but specific suggestions about how to:
1. Establish an ongoing system to improve the quality of mathematics
and science teaching in grades K-12;
2. Increase significantly the number of mathematics and science
teachers and improve the quality of their preparation; and
3. Improve the working environment and make the teaching profession
more attractive for K-12 mathematics and science teachers.
>2. Address and align the five P-12 system components: content
>standards, curricula, assessments, teacher preparation, and
>accountability practices.
Yep, that's what we're doing right now in AZ (and a host of other
states). Sometimes I think it's criminal how much money is spent in
these meetings at posh hotels - I think they should be forced to meet
in school cafeterias - and spend the money they'd save on, say, new
desks to replace the ones that are falling apart.
>3. Engage business and higher education in more effective P-12
>reform roles. Business needs to be more involved and better align
>corporate education outreach programs with the state's
>standards-based initiatives. More higher education institutions must
>put the education of teachers of mathematics and science at the
>center of its mission.
If the business leaders would listen to what has already
been said
and decide to apply pressure on Congress and the Bush
administration
to actually FUND the mandates in NCLB, then I would cheer. I do
cheer when Jane, through great dint of effort, extracts enough money from
the Arizona Board of Regents or from some company like Medtronics to
run a workshop to train teachers, but the funding she obtained was
0.5% of the $$$ the state of AZ has decided to provide for tutoring
students to pass the AIMS (Arizona Instrument for Measuring Students)
graduation test. Unfortunately, the funding for the Modeling
Instruction Program, arguably one of the better teacher training
programs, is due to expire this summer. On the bright side, Project
Pathways, a Math/Science partnership designed to help math and
science teachers at the secondary level work together more
effectively, has started up at ASU and promises to provide meaningful
professional development to 300+ teachers over the next five years.
Projects such as these should be springing up everywhere. Over four
years ago, the Glenn Commision Report noted:
“About 56% of high school students taking physical science are taught
by out-of-field teachers, as are 27% of those taking mathematics.
These percentages are much greater in high poverty areas. Among
schools with the highest minority enrollments, for example, students
have less than a 50% chance of getting a science or mathematics
teacher who holds both a license and a degree in the field being
taught. Thus, when the dismissal bell rings each day, untold
thousands of American students depart for home having been taught
by mathematics and science teachers ill-equipped for the job.”
In 2001, I met with representatives of my Congressman and the Senators
from my state, armed with this report, and tried to get them to
persuade their bosses to work to enact legislation that would help
address this problem. They were polite but told me that so and so
was very busy and that the recommendations cost too much. To
implement the reform suggested in the report would have cost $5
billion/year. This is no small sum of money; however, what we
allocated in supplemental spending for the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan last year alone would have paid for this reform for a
whole generation of students in this country. You can make your own
judgments about our foreign policy - I'm only saying that we spend
$$$ on what we think is really important in this country and just
talk about the rest.
>4. Implement coordinated national and state-specific public
>information programs that will engage the public in the nationwide
>effort to strengthen the mathematics and science education of all
>students.
A few years ago the tenor of the debate in this country shifted to
pointing fingers of blame rather than asking how we all can work
together to fix the problem. I, for one, am tired of
hearing about
"failing schools" from civic leaders who
refuse to provide the
resources to improve the educational infrastructure. Such posturing
at the expense of those who ultimately have to implement reform is
certainly not improving morale; in fact, teachers are leaving the
profession at the time we most need them The BHEF report states:
“The teacher pool in mathematics and science education continues to
shrink as prospects interested in those subject fields are being
drawn away from teaching by broadening employment opportunities, jobs
with higher salaries, career growth potential, and greater
independence in work-related decision making. Increasing the number
of students qualified for work or higher education won't happen
unless America addresses the problem of developing and sustaining a
highly qualified mathematics and science teacher workforce.”
I think we need to move past convening blue-ribbon panels to talk
about how to improve science & math education in this country.
Ratcheting up expectations without providing the
necessary resources
to those whose job it is to help students achieve them
is somewhat
like having your physician tell you that your blood
pressure is too
high, but no, sadly, we cannot afford to give you
medication to treat
the problem. Come back in a year and we'll test you again and, if
your BP is still too high, we'll yell at you some more.
There are proven models of professional development
(like Modeling
Instruction) that are needed now more than ever, but are
not getting
the funding to reach a significant fraction of the math
& science
teachers in this country. Perhaps the BHEF should spend less time
publishing slick reports on the state of math &
science education and
work harder to persuade our civic and business leaders
to provide the
support we need.
Thank you. I'll go grade papers now.
****
--
Larry Dukerich
--------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005
From: Carmela Minaya
Subject: BHEF 48-page report
To: info@bhef.com
Cc: Larry Dukerich, Brenda Royce, Consuelo Rogers, Jane Jackson
Aloha Brian Fitzgerald,
I am a physical science, general chemistry, and advanced placement
chemistry teacher in Mililani, HI on the island of Oahu. I use Modeling
Instruction based at Arizona State University in my own classroom.
Modeling Instruction is only one of two programs nationally to be
designated with the highest honor of "exemplary" by the US Dept. of
Education. I read the BHEF report. It has created quite a stir on the
Modeling list serve where many teachers have had passionate comments
about it.
Have you read the Glenn Report of 2000 or 2001 entitled: "Before It's
Too Late?" The executive summary can be found here:
http://www.ed.gov//inits/Math/glenn/toolate-execsum.html. The same
issues are addressed in both reports. The difference is mainly who
authored the report. This report was distributed by The National
Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st century. I
am grateful that your participants expressed and tried to do something
about the shortfall in science and math education in the USA, but
unfortunately your efforts are a near duplicate of
efforts not even five
years ago.
Most teachers are concerned because these are all
wonderful ideas, but
we cannot see how those ideas will translate into
reality. We are not
short on creativity; we are deficient in time and funds
to make these
ideas impact the classroom (the frontlines). I liken the whole process
to a war. We are in a war for the minds of the next generation of
American citizens. We are in a war for the ownership of our country's
future. In
this war, many leaders are meeting and planning, but no one
is willing to fund those on the front lines who can make
the biggest
impact. It's like not funding bullet proof vests. We somehow expect to
win the war by constantly evaluating what is being done wrong without
ever doing anything tangible to address the wrongs and do retraining.
In my mind, the biggest American disadvantage is the length of our
school day and school year. Our global competitors meet with their
students for longer in a day, and for more months during a school year.
An aside to this teaching time, is time for teachers to develop their
great ideas fully in teams. We have so much responsibility on a daily
basis that this seems impossible. It would be nice if we could take a
year at a time off to have the opportunity to develop curricula.
The second disadvantage outside of time is lack of training. The Glenn
Report found that most math and science teachers are teaching outside
their expertise because math and science majors can do better
financially by entering the private sector and working for companies
Research & Development Departments. I am a case in point. I am
retraining by procuring an MNS in physics from ASU. This summer will be
my last summer. I plan to also go on to earn a Ph.D. someday because
I'd like to write and impact chemistry pedagogy that way. ASU's
Modeling Instruction program addresses many of the needs in both
reports. However, only 5% of all physics teachers know how to utilize
modeling instruction and less than that can use the method in other
scientific or mathematic disciplines. ASU runs out of grant money this
summer. I'm not sure what will happen to the program after that.
Currently, I am on a team of four teachers in three different states
trying to develop a chemistry modeling curriculum, update the assessment
tool (the Matter Concept Inventory, MCI), and schedule workshops during
summer months. We began discussions in March 2004. We know that we
could crank out great products if we could meet in person and work
really hard. We tried to meet this last Winter Break, but we are
teachers and lack the funds. We even tried to have web meetings using
the Internet, but that didn't work out. So I am currently applying for
grants to fund our meetings and our workshops. We have one inaugural
workshop set for this summer so far through ASU. I'm trying to get
funding for a workshop at my high school next summer, 2006.
May I suggest that
at your next meeting, you spend the time searching
for worthy programs that already exist and find ways
(get companies on
board or find federal funding) to help these already
existing programs
that are endangered or nearly extinct not because of
lack of
imagination, but for lack of funding. That is what happened to the Chem
ART (Action Research Team). They began working together at the turn of
the twenty-first century. They ran out of money and stopped meeting
during the summer months. I was moved to revive the group informally
because of a conversation I had with an engineering professor in MA. He
asked for our curriculum. I told him we work independently so if we go
those ideas are gone also. That saddened me so deeply that I began this
work we are doing now with no funding.
It would really help if leaders of these innovative
programs could be
funded to meet and develop curricula fully. This could be done
through universities like ASU or through teacher
organizations. These
education reform teacher leaders could be bought out of
their school for
a year at a time to do the work. The NSTA is another great organization
to work with to accomplish this. They have a teacher award program.
What is lacking is a program that will fund new
curricula development
and workshop training. If your group can help, that would be the best
and most efficient way to do so.
I truly hope that you will listen intently to those on the front-lines,
the ones who have real impact in the classroom and take action to help
those that really need the help. It's not the government agencies that
will spark change; it is the teacher in the
classroom. We are in dire
need of support not by agencies, but by funding our ideas. Thank you
for reading my concerns. I hope you can help us or help us find those
who can. It would be so wonderful if the BHEF were responsible for REAL
science and math education reform nationally. Imagine what improved
country statistics we could have in five years with real change and not
just band aid solutions.
Mahalo,
Carmela Minaya, Science Teacher
Hanalani Schools
Upper School Division
94-294 Anania Drive
Mililani, HI 96789