In
reading the “Blueprint for Reform – Reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act” by the United States
Department of Education
and forwarded by President
Barack Obama, I am struck by the President's comment “[other]
countries are being smarter
about how to educate their students”. Based on this, and my
interest in teaching science, I chose to dissect the section “A
Complete Education”. The section addresses strengthening
instruction in literacy and in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, while reforming standards. It addresses support for
teachers in implementing and dealing with “more rigorous
standards”. It particularly focuses on “high-need” schools and
the awarding of state funded, competitive, “Focus Grants” to the
ones who have adopted common, state-developed, college- and
career-ready standards, or use technology to address student learning
challenges in literacy. The reform mentions plans to expand access to
college coursework and other accelerated learning opportunities, and
improving access to a well-rounded education in general. In the
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics section the reform
states:
States
will award competitive subgrants to high-need districts to support
comprehensive STEM instruction in the grades and schools with
the greatest local need.
Programs must provide effective professional development for teachers
and school leaders; high-quality state- or locally-determined
curricula, instructional materials, and assessments; and
interventions that ensure that all students are served appropriately.
Subgrantees may use program funds to integrate evidence-based,
effective mathematics or science programs into the teaching of other
core academic subjects and for technology-based strategies to improve
STEM education.
The
reform goes on as such, mentioning higher standards and teacher
support, answering all the hows with “throw money at the one's most
in need”. What about the ones not
“most in need”? The President said that the renovation of the
plan would “renovate a flawed law” but “raise the expectations
for our students [and] for our schools”. In this document I simply
could not see how this motivating talk of higher standards and
smarter graduates through higher standards and grants could be
implemented in my own neighborhood school without qualifying for the
self-identified rigorous grants for those only in the highest need.
So I asked the Internet.
The
Department of Education's website contains a more thorough
explanation of the plan for the Complete
Education. Chillingly,
it first informs me that “From among U.S. postsecondary
institutions, 16 percent of undergraduate degrees are awarded in
STEM-related fields. By comparison, ... South Korea awards 41 percent
(Phillips, 2007)”. In fact, most of the section is statistical data
of the failing of teachers and students, with occasional sprinkles of
victories like “The proportion of students achieving at the Basic
level or above on the NAEP mathematics exam is increasing”. Then,
an obvious and yet profound statement is made: “Teacher content
knowledge in mathematics and science is important … Content
experience varies among high school science faculty, who may not have
a degree in the subject they are assigned to teach”.
This
very important statement is addressed in the Supporting
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education
document. It claims the reforms plan to ensure that more prospective
teachers, including STEM teachers, have access to high-quality
preparation programs by doubling the funding for these programs.
According to STEMfinity and the Department of Education's website
this funding largely comes in the form of grant programs like
“Investing in Innovation Fund” and competitive programs like
“Race to the Top”. The document also asks states to hold teacher
preparation
programs accountable for preparing teacher graduates. Quality
teachers who are successful in their preparation can be recognized
and rewarded with advancement opportunities (the document does not
specify what kind, perhaps the proposed “Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Master Teacher Corps”)
and additional compensation.
The
reform appears to address the inability of current United States
graduates to compete in the global job market in the STEM fields, and
it's solution is to “raise standards” either metaphorically or
through “improved assessment” and offer grants for the most needy
schools who are willing to align their standards to the Federal
standards and show they are making headway. Since I have never won
the lottery I will presume my school will neither be the schools who
do not need such grants (who does not need more resources, after
all), nor be among the “most needy” schools that will receive
them. The quality of my teaching falls to me. I must accept the
teacher-preparation education I can get and build on it through
periodic self-assessment and continual cultivation of my skills and
resources. Money would certainly afford a teacher physical resources
for their students in the form of newer textbooks, overhead
projectors or computer projectors, and laboratory materials. Barring
governmental windfall my greatest resource will be my dedication to
instilling the passion and curiousity of science in my students, and
my creativity. As a future science teacher I appreciate the
possibility of more resources for my neighborhood school but do not
believe these standards and methods effectively address the issue for
the majority of schools.
Resources.
