Editorial-27 February 2007

pdf file-available from Australasian Science

 

 

Seize the Day?    

 Carpe Diem    
Pluck the Day?

 

Kurt Lambeck, President of the Australian Academy of Science and Distinguished Professor of Geophysics at the Australian National University has written a careful critique for On Line Opinion on what should be done to re-elevate the status of science in the eyes of the younger generation. He entreats us, Carpe Diem.

 

And careful to be diplomatic in his assessment, he begins by making a palpably misleading statement, "Solid research and previous experience tell us that science education in Australia is in need of a serious overhaul. Not because it’s a poor system or on the verge of breakdown but because future demands and pressures on the youth of the nation are likely to be very different from those of the past."

 

Yet to say that the percentage of teachers of science and mathematics in the primary and secondary school systems that are underqualified to teach those subjects is disquieting would be a monumental understatement.

 

And it's not only a matter of the group that are essentially unqualified and who have been pressed into service because there is no one available who knows the subjects; it is the group who have qualifications but have not kept up with the subjects for which they are responsible and it is also those that are qualified but are inadequately resourced.

 

As a result, the students they face are faced with teachers who are in no position to bring enthusiasm to their classrooms and teaching laboratories.

 

And Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training Julie Bishop's answer -- to throw a bit of money at those teachers who are judged to be better than their peers and pretend she and her government are vitally interested in solving the problem they have actively allowed to fester for a decade.

 

Now matters have disintegrated to the point where even Ms Bishop's department had to publish the review instigated by her predecessor, Brendon Nelson, which as Professor Lambeck says has even caused, "Warning bells [to be] rung in all quarters, including the federal Department of Education, Science and Training, whose first audit of science, engineering and technology skills makes compelling but depressing reading. The Department’s statistical radar shows that of the 55,000 extra science professionals the nation needs by 2011, we’ll fall short by 35 per cent. Put in human terms, that’s a staggering 19,250. Put in practical terms on the educational front, it means that in the near future, science teachers may be very hard to find." Which frankly is a gross understatement of the situation as it exists, as is evident from the three questions he throws his readers:

How many potential Australian breakthroughs in medical and other research will slip through the cracks because of our nation’s short-sightedness on education?

How will we maintain and consolidate our still-high levels of scientific knowledge if we are no longer a clever nation?

And ultimately, how long will our economy survive if not underpinned by excellence in science in the face of emerging economic superpowers such as China and India, which are working hard to ensure that science is the keystone of their economic edifices?

And the Academy's President then administers what ought to be seen as his unkindest cut: "This trend is expected to worsen over the next five years unless action is taken."

 

Face it, John Howard's Coalition Government has been pinning the tertiary education sector to the mat through any means it thought it could get away with -- indicative of a government out to administer

 

regime change

 

And with all of that the Minister for Education appears to have decided that the political way up for her is to belt the bejezus out of the states' school systems while suggesting a few bits of loose change be thrown to the plebs in the system will patch the sinking ship.

 

It remains to be seen in this election year whether the 228 page report, Top of the Class, which was tabled in the House of Representatives on February 26, will have any effect on Ms Bishop other than to commission several additional studies called for by the report. From its contents there would seem little need for her to do much else.

 

As far as getting to the heart of the problem of teacher education in mathematics and the sciences and making specific recommendations, the report is a virtual cipher.

 

When a report that took two years to complete states in one of its opening sentences, "It is imperative that steps are taken to establish what is meant by quality teacher education outcomes and to identify the approaches that best deliver them," it brings to mind Horace's observation -- The mountains went into labour but an absurd mouse was born.

 

What the report did sheet home was that the federal Government's apparent attempt to promote teacher training within universities has failed and even exacerbated  the under funding of existing faculties.

 

As The Australian's Bernard Lane writes, "to make education programs more attractive to students, [the federal government] stopped universities charging higher fees for these programs - denying faculties up to $962 more a place - and this loss was not compensated for by extra federal funds, the report says. Demand had outstripped the regulated supply of places."

 

Returning to Professor Lambeck's opinion piece, he puts forward no specific proposals for governmental policy per se. Instead he makes the point that the Academy's, "particular interest is in science but our aim is not only to foster the next generation of scientists but also to take steps to ensure the better education of children generally. Our method - to identify the nexus between literacy and science and exploit this in ways that make education effective, beneficial and a pleasure for all involved, children and teachers... [It has] over 40 years experience in the development of successful, innovative science resources in Australian schools - resources that are not only user-friendly for the teachers but have changed their behaviour and attitude to science."

 

What in fact the Academy is devoting considerable effort to in the first instance is a program to educate primary school teachers to make them good and enthusiastic purveyors of science to their charges using materials supplied by the Academy's Primary Connections program. The program does receive funding from the Department of Education, Science and Training but how far reaching the program, which is still in its early stages, will go is by no means ordained.

 

Then what? Professor Lambeck writes, "But the benefits of Primary Connections are transient if enthused primary school students enter secondary schools where it is “not cool” to do science. Primary Connections needs continuation into the secondary system to reverse the worrying trends in falling student participation at secondary level."

 

At the beginning of June last year the Academy brought together a reference group to develop a continuation of Primary Connections for secondary education.

 

According to the Academy, "Science by Doing aims to more actively engage secondary science students in a way that helps them better understand the world in which they live. The project seeks to develop enthusiastic teachers using student-centred investigations as the key to achieving the most effective science education for Australia's future. As we know, school science experiences can engage and excite students, enabling them to use scientific thinking in their private and professional lives, and inspire many to take up science and engineering careers."

 

Or when badly taught can be a complete turn off for even the brightest.

 

Currently we really don't know just how successful this initiative of the Academy will be -- it currently has a five year start up time frame -- and much of that will depend on the resources the federal and state governments are prepared to contribute. But that begs a critical point:  it is not to great an ask to bring primary school teachers up to speed to teach modern science at primary school level but it is a different matter when moving beyond junior secondary school. The matter of overcoming the paucity of graduating properly trained, intelligent and enthusiastic teachers of science at our tertiary institutions and sending them forth to teach in the nation's public schools remains unaddressed.

 

Unless of course we accept Ms Bishop's solution of throwing lose change at teachers she determines to be deserving.

 

And Professor Lambeck hasn't touched on the problems associated with the teaching of mathematics.

 

Without maths you have no science if you're talking about those individuals you want to train as scientists as distinct from the greater population whom you just want to become appreciative of science.

 

Currently the International Centre of Excellence for Education in Mathematics has developed mathematic curricula for years 5-10. And the intention is to develop the materials for the final years of high school as well.

 

 Whether or not the initiative will wither and die for lack of interest and resources or may become the basis for a revitalised primary school and secondary school interest in mathematics will depend on how well it becomes resourced and how well it will become accepted by the states' departments of education.

 

And once again we come to the matter of the role and means of the universities to gestate  the teachers of mathematics as well as science.

 

If the Academy really want to labour to bring forth teaching and research policies for the nation's benefit, it must spell them out, not only for our political masters (servants?) but for the population as a whole, and it must come to terms with just how to market them.

 

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web