News & Views item - October 2012 |
Science's Take on Education and the White House. (October 30, 2012)
The journal Science this week asked its staff to analyse what the President of the United States will face with regard to a number of issues involving science and technology when he enteres the Oval Office. Here we reprint Jeffrey Mervis assessment with regard to education.
_____________________________________
For better or worse, teachers have captured the lion's share of the meager attention given to education during this year's presidential election. Their political activism infuriates Mitt Romney, who would like to ban teachers' unions from making campaign contributions. In addition, his support for vouchers—channeling federal funding for low-income and disabled students to parents rather than to local and state agencies—is designed in part to blunt the influence of teachers' unions in making policy. In contrast, President Barack Obama has relied on these unions to help get out the vote, and he frequently mentions that funds from his massive 2009 federal stimulus package have kept hundreds of thousands of classroom teachers on the payroll.
But what do the two candidates think about the job that those teachers are paid
to do? Both men have said that teachers are the essential ingredient in a good
school. And although it may be easy to dismiss their comments as an applause
line, their position also squares with a growing body of research on the
powerful influence of good teachers on student learning.
Those findings could play a role in several pieces of legislation coming up for
review as soon as next year. Two key reauthorizations are the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, which former President George W. Bush branded “No Child
Left Behind,” and the Higher Education Act, which governs student lending and
teacher training. Also on the table are special education and technical
education programs, as well as the Department of Education's research arm, the
Institute of Education Sciences. Scientists hope that research on teacher
quality will get a boost regardless of which man is elected.
The federal government provides less than 10% of all funding for elementary and
secondary education in the United States, and STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) education receives a tiny fraction of that federal
investment. Even so, Obama has probably spent more time talking about STEM
education than any president in recent memory. His stump speech invariably
includes his promise to train 100,000 more science and math teachers over the
next decade as part of a broader effort to build a more technology-savvy
workforce. Obama has also run on his record of fostering state-based educational
innovations through a $4 billion Race to the Top competition for schools, as
well as a public-private partnership, called Educate to Innovate, created to
attract more students, in particular women and minorities, into STEM fields.
Romney hasn't ignored the subject, although he has much less to say about
science and math education. He believes that Washington has no business
financing implementation of the so-called Common Core, a voluntary effort by 45
states and the District of Columbia to adopt a similar curriculum in math and
language arts, and a companion common assessment of student performance. That
stance presumably would also apply to the pending next-generation science
standards that have yet to be embraced by the states. At the same time, however,
he backs efforts by states to hold teachers accountable for how much students
learn, including losing their jobs if test scores stagnate.
The importance of science education to the Obama administration is no
coincidence. Physics Nobelist Carl Wieman was the driving force for STEM
education policies during most of Obama's first term before leaving the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy in June for treatment of a serious
medical condition. Wieman has spent more than a decade conducting research on
two related issues: how to improve undergraduate science courses, and the
training of future STEM teachers. He believes that both areas would benefit from
an approach he calls “deliberate practice,” that is, treating the brain as a
muscle that acquires skills through extended and strenuous learning activities.
Two recent reports, one by a presidential advisory body on improving STEM
education and another by the U.S. National Academies on discipline-based science
education, strike similar themes on what needs to be done.
In short, a second Obama administration will likely continue its push to beef up
federal STEM education efforts. Romney, on the other hand, would probably be
content to see local authorities take the initiative.
—JEFFREY MERVIS