A Cost Too Much for STEM Education? (August 20, 2010)

A telling paper by KM Foster and his nine co-authors from the Division of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation and the Institute for Community, University, and School Partnerships, The University of Texas in this week's issue of Science shows why producing adequate teaching of scientific, technological, engineering and mathematical (STEM) subjects in primary and secondary secondary education is, if not impossible, increasingly difficult.

STEM faculty engagement in elementary and secondary schools (K–12) can be undermined, for example, by (i) low status accorded to STEM education research and publications, (ii) a zero-sum view of faculty time allocation (e.g., K–12 engagement means time away from work more highly rewarded during promotion, tenure, and merit review), and (iii) bureaucracies that hinder collaboration between STEM faculty and K–12 teachers and administrators.

Foster, et al. note that following the USSR's launch of Sputnik in 1957 the US Congress passed the National Defense Education Act which injected significant resources to upgrade science and maths teaching. "[B]etween 1960 and 1965, almost 1000 NSF teacher institutes were held each year for high school and elementary school teachers, with roughly 20,000 teachers attending." Comparing the US population then (180x10⁶) to that of today's Australian (22.4x10⁶) that would be the equivalent of 2,500 Australian teachers attending today.

According to Foster, et al.:

Insights developed over the history of such efforts include (i) the need for research and evaluation through all stages of a project's life, (ii) the value of content and pedagogy for teacher effectiveness, (iii) the value of focusing not just on individual teachers but also on teachers' peer impact, and (iv) the importance of creating mechanisms for ongoing collaboration among teachers and with others (including higher-education faculty).

And the paper stresses that appropriate incentives were required for university faculty to participate, e.g. summer salaries, reduction of teaching duties, as well as "intellectual connections that faculty members made with schools". As an example the authors point to the alteration adopted by the University of Texas at El Paso of its tenure and promotion policy thereby rewarding faculty engagement in K–12 education.

Put simply, there must be appropriate recognition for improving teaching and learning at the postsecondary level.

Finally, the authors believe:  "As concerns mount over the college preparation and ongoing professional development of teachers, a tremendous opportunity exists to systematically address national STEM education imperatives. K–12 and higher-education partnerships could allow systematic study and application of the collaborative work, for example, as STEM faculty gain teaching knowledge and apply it to higher-education courses."

Current Australian initiatives such as the Australian Academy of Science's "Primary Connections" and the efforts of the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute (AMSI) are an excellent foundation for what should be a properly resourced governmental drive for K-15/16 Science Education. Unfortunately there is no indication from any of the major political parties that they have any intention of joining forces to undertake providing the necessary incentives.

But fending off the ~4% of migrants that are ocean-borne asylum seekers... now that's different... that's important.