Southern Regional Education Board: Florida has had a great decade of progress in education (but they left out science)

Gradebook blogged yesterday on a new report from the influential Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) titled “Florida – A Decade of Progress”.

Among the highlights from the report that Gradebook quoted was this:

In 2011, Florida’s fourth-graders outperformed the nation and region in reading and math at the Basic level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — with 71 percent scoring at or above Basic in reading, compared with 66 percent in the nation; and 84 percent at or above NAEP Basic in math, compared with 82 percent in the nation. Black and Hispanic fourth- and eighth-graders narrowed achievement gaps with white students in reading and math on NAEP Basic from 2003 to 2011.

If you bring up the document and do a simple search for the word “science”, you get three hits.  One mentions that science, along with reading and math, had been included in SREB’s 2010 “High Schools That Work” assessment.  The science results are not mentioned.

The second mention of the word “science” in the document is this:

The Challenge to Lead goals called for SREB states to ensure that salaries and benefits for college and university faculty members are competitive in the marketplace.  To attract top faculty, colleges and universities need to compete in a national labor market, particularly in such disciplines as mathematics, science, engineering and business. SREB states, however, continue to trail the nation in faculty salaries.

And the third:

States also may need to provide incentives for teachers who fill specific needs, such as teaching in particular high-need subjects –– including science, math and special education –– or geographic locales that have a difficult time attracting qualified candidates.

It’s certainly easy to agree with each of the last two statements – they are important action items for any state focused on improving science education.

But the conclusion is that if Florida has made progress in education – and it appears to have done so in reading and math – it has not yet brought the effort to bear on science that will be required to progress in that subject.

Florida universities as a “farm team” for other states’ universities: Be careful not to carry the analogy too far

A few years ago, a very earnest young woman in my class was expressing her concerns about the future of her university (and mine).  With a complete lack of guile, she said, “Dr. Cottle, all the good professors have left FSU!”

Even though I am (sometimes painfully) aware of my own limitations, I could not agree with her.  In my own department, we have lost some excellent people, one who departed for a new campus under construction in the University of California system (talk about going from the frying pan into the fire!).  But among those that young professor left behind are many who are both spectacular scholars and wonderful human beings (yes, even in a Physics Department! Don’t believe everything you see on Big Bang Theory).

Not that the financial pressure put on the university hasn’t taken its toll among those who are still here.  One young faculty member, a brilliant theorist and terrific colleague, was so insulted by last year’s compensation cut (performed via pension reduction) that he almost left.  Others may have had the same reaction, but I wasn’t within earshot.

But there are some who are left behind here at FSU who are not being courted by other institutions but are nevertheless providing valuable service to our students, helping them learn and grow.  While we all understand what President Barron means when he says that FSU and other Florida institutions have become a “farm team” for other states’ universities, it is almost inevitable that it plants a little seed of doubt in our minds that anybody still knows or cares that we are here, slogging along to do our best work every day.

As long as President Barron continues to take whatever opportunities he has to acknowledge the value of those of us on the faculty who are “left behind”, that seed of doubt will not grow.  It would be helpful if the state’s leaders would make such an acknowledgement as well.  After all, the already-executed cut to pension funding and the inevitable cuts to health insurance are going to be sending the opposite message.  The universities and their remaining professors are going to have to do their best to keep the educational trains running on time, and a little encouragement wouldn’t hurt.

(See this morning’s editorial in the Tampa Bay Times)

Next Generation Science Standards: NSTA releases statement expressing frustration with draft and process

This is NOT the controversy over the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) that we were expecting.

The National Science Teachers Association has released a statement expressing deep frustration with the most recent public draft and the development process.  They say that some of their arguments date back to the development of the NRC’s Framework on which the standards are being based, and that their concerns were ignored then as well.

Some excerpts from the NSTA statement:

NSTA has raised numerous issues throughout the process of reviewing early drafts of NGSS, as well as the Framework. NSTA is pleased to see improvements in the current NGSS draft that have been made since our last review; however, we continue to have serious and extensive concerns about the current content and architecture of the NGSS. These issues are similar to the ones we voiced in our review in November 2011 and January 2012 and are outlined below. The level of our concern has intensified considerably as a result of an increased number of individuals who have seen and commented on the draft. As we inch closer to a final draft of the standards, the NSTA leadership is concerned that some of the issues we have raised have yet to be addressed and strongly recommends that these issues be addressed now so that they are reflected in the next draft. We offer the following seven recommendations to Achieve and strongly encourage its writers to edit the current NGSS draft to reflect these recommendations. NSTA welcomes the opportunity to work together with Achieve and its writers to address these concerns in the current draft…

NSTA Recommendation 1: The NGSS should include a section on Connections to the Nature and History of Science in a manner similar to the Connections to Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science.

NSTA Recommendation 2: The front matter of the NGSS should contain an overarching essay that explains the architecture of the standards, including the relationship between the individual performance expectations in a set and how each performance expectation relates to the practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts within the foundation box. The essay should also make clear how the performance expectations, practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts should be used in planning instruction and provide some examples for various topics and grade levels.

NSTA Recommendation 3: Each set of performance expectations in the NGSS should include an opening statement that explains why this set of performance expectations has been grouped together.

NSTA Recommendation 4: Every core idea should have at least two performance expectations that probe it. The first performance expectation should combine the core idea with the practice of modeling, explanation, or argumentation, and the second performance expectation should combine the core idea with one of the other five practices. The connection between these performance expectations and the core idea should be explicit.

NSTA Recommendation 5: The appropriate grade level for students to learn a particular science concept in the NGSS should not differ from the recommendations in the National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Science Literacy unless there is published research that provides evidence in favor of the move.

NSTA Recommendation 6: Any assumptions about the resources, time, and teacher expertise needed for students to achieve particular standards should be made explicit (Note: This is identical to Recommendation 11 on p. 305 of A Framework for K–12 Science Education.)

NSTA Recommendation 7: The survey mechanism used for the next public draft of the NGSS should be more user friendly than the mechanism that was used for this first public draft, and the timing of the release should be sensitive to the schedules of all educators, but particularly the schedules of classroom teachers…

NSTA’s most serious and profound concern with the NGSS first public draft is the explicit omission of nature of science. NSTA feels strongly that nature of science must be included in the NGSS, and we have made this appeal in two earlier reports to Achieve following private reviews. This recommendation was also made to Achieve following the release of the final NRC Framework (see www.nsta.org/about/standardsupdate/recommendations.aspx).

NSTA recognizes that the NRC failed to include the nature of science in the Framework, which serves as the foundation for NGSS and charge to Achieve. We consider this omission to be a major weakness of the Framework. Regardless of the omission, we appeal to Achieve to include Connections to the Nature and History of Science in a manner similar to the Connections to Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science. NSTA is also appealing to the National Research Council to encourage them to support this inclusion in the standards.

I can say from recent personal experience that these sorts of arguments over the NGSS draft have been occurring in the background.  What’s most striking about the NSTA statement is that the acrimony has now gone public.  It remains to be seen what effect it will have on the deliberations of states like Florida that are on the fence regarding adoption.

Thanks to FCS’s Jonathan Smith for bringing this to my attention.

STEM and Bright Futures: Can Florida’s public universities attract strong students? Steven Kurlander says they can’t, but…

In his Huffington Post piece arguing against a STEM emphasis for Florida’s Bright Futures scholarship program, Sun Sentinel columnist Steve Kurlander argues that the state’s public universities aren’t strong enough in math, science and engineering to attract strong students:

And let’s be realistic. The really bright kids in STEM vocations are going to attend Ivy League schools — and top-tier universities like MIT, Georgia Tech and Cal Tech — because Florida schools don’t provide the stellar credentials they seek to become the best in their fields.

Sure, lots of Florida’s best math, science and engineering majors go to schools like MIT, Caltech and the Ivy Leagues.  But some stay, too.  How do I know this?  The marquis national scholarship program for math, science and engineering is the Goldwater Scholars program.  Goldwater Scholarships are awarded to about 300 students per year in these disciplines.  In the last three years (2010-2012), students at Florida’s public universities, including FSU, UCF, UF, USF and New College earned sixteen Goldwater Scholarships.  That means that some really strong students passed up on the chance to go to MIT, Caltech and Harvard to come to our state’s public universities.

But it’s also true that Florida’s SUS institutions have missions that are very different from those of MIT, Caltech and Harvard.  The distribution of skills and abilities among math, science and engineering majors at FSU (for example) is quite a bit broader than it is at MIT.  It’s our job at FSU to provide the best possible learning opportunities so that as many of our students as possible can become strong professionals.  And that’s why we offer opportunities like the studio physics program.  Not everybody makes it – in the FSU Physics Department we typically graduate about half of the students who begin their undergraduate careers as physics majors.  But there are Florida public university students who became first-rate professionals in physical science and engineering fields who would not have made it if the state’s public university opportunities did not exist.

And it’s not just the students who benefit from the opportunities at FSU and other Florida publics.  If you added up all of the engineering and physical science students who graduate from the nation’s top 20 universities, you’d still come up way short of the demand for professionals in these fields.  Universities like FSU, UCF, UF and USF will continue to play critical roles in meeting the national need for physical scientists and engineers.

So, Mr. Kurlander, do some research.  Reasonable people can certainly disagree on the merits of tilting the Bright Futures program toward the STEM professions.  But those on both sides of the debate should argue on the basis of evidence instead of nostalgia.

 

It’s time for a serious debate about Florida’s Bright Futures scholarships and math, science and engineering fields – but this piece in the Huffington Post doesn’t contribute to it

The Sun-Sentinel’s Steven Kurlander has a piece on the Huffington Post complaining about the possibility that Florida’s Bright Futures college scholarship program may be modified to favor students majoring in STEM fields during the next legislative session.  There are several points in his piece that are worth refuting, but let’s start with this one:

But discriminating against students interested in the liberal arts poses too great a risk to our state.

When I was in law school, I found the best-prepared students had studied literature, philosophy or mathematics as undergrads. They came equipped with the analytic tools needed to understand complex cases, and master the law school game early and easily.

Aside from the obvious point that math is a STEM field, let me respond in a way that Mr. Kurlander might find objectionable – with some test scores.  The Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) presumably measures a student’s readiness for law school.  Here is a ranking of the average LSAT scores for different college majors from 2009 (courtesy of the American Institute of Physics).  You don’t find a non-STEM major until you get down to English.

Average LSAT Scores by Selected Majors, 2009.

Physics 161.5

Mathematics 159.7

Economics 157.4

Electrical Engineering 156.3

Mechanical Engineering 156.0

Chemistry 155.7

English 154.7

Biology 154.5

Computer Science 154.0

Political Science 153.0

Psychology 152.5

Pre Law 148.3

Criminal Justice 145.5 

 

In wake of BOG tuition roulette, Governor’s Higher Ed Task Force prepares to examine university performance measurements

If you’ve been skeptical that Florida’s State University System needs a better set of performance metrics, yesterday’s Board of Governors tuition roulette wheel should have cured you (stories here from the Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel and Tampa Bay Times).

Governor Scott’s Higher Ed Task Force will take that subject on during their 8.5-hour meeting on Monday in Tallahassee.  Monday’s meeting will feature a presentation by a representative of the Center for Measuring University Performance at Arizona State University.  Their 2010 ranking of the nation’s public research universities included the University of Florida in a group of seven at the top of the rankings (the other institutions in that group were Cal-Berkeley, UCLA, University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and University of Wisconsin).  Florida State University and the University of South Florida were ranked near the top of the second 25.

Saying the obvious: A new online Florida university would not address the state’s need for scientists or engineers

Regarding Speaker-designate Will Weatherford’s proposal (laid out in a recent issue of the Tallahassee Democrat) for an entirely online university:

It goes without saying that such an institution could not educate professionals in the natural sciences and engineering.

So if educating more STEM professionals is the priority, then the online university would simply be a distraction.

Governor’s Higher Ed Task Force looking for a few good parents

The Governor’s Higher Education Task Force is holding a workshop for soliciting input from parents of Florida high school and university students on July 26 at St. Petersburg College.

From the task force web site:

Parents with Florida High School or current State University System students are encouraged to attend. A total of 12 delegates from each parent category (total of 24) will be selected from self-nominations received by July 11. Please send your name and student’s current school to BlueRibbonWorkshop@gmail.com. A random drawing of 12 delegates from each parent category will be held on July 12 and notifications sent immediately thereafter.

This is a very unusual opportunity for parents to have a say.

 

 

NAEP Governing Board Chair on hands-on science study: “It’s tragic that our students are only grasping the basics”

Update (Wednesday morning):  Here is a link to the story on Education Week.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress released the results of its study of students’ facility with hands-on and interactive computer tasks this morning.  From the School Zone report:

“The report shows that students were challenged by parts of investigations requiring more variables to manipulate, strategic decision-making in collecting data, and the explanation of why a certain result was the correct conclusion,” the NAEP folks said…

…“Science is fundamental to education because it is through scientific inquiry that students understand how to solve problems and ultimately how to learn,” said David Driscoll, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, in a statement. “So it’s tragic that our students are only grasping the basics and not doing the higher-level analysis and providing written explanations needed to succeed in higher education and compete in a global economy.”

Response to Governor Bush: Virtual science classes aren’t yet ready for prime time

In an essay posted on the school choice advocacy blog redefinED, Jeb Bush evoked a picture that he might have thought would be an attractive, even halcyon scene for an old science professor like me to ponder:

With the creation of The Jetsons in the 1960s, Hanna-Barbera projected what 100 years into the future could look like. Set in 2062, The Jetsons lived in an automated, push-button world…

…What if we were to channel our inner Hanna-Barbera, and visualize what public education should look like in the digital age?

…Imagine with me an education system where a student’s homework is listening to their teacher’s lecture, and class time is spent working through the military genius of Napoleon by using the latest GPS mapping software.

Or it might be a 10th-grader in his backyard, at the picnic table, diving into his chemistry lesson via his mobile tablet. He gets so caught up in what he is learning that two hours go by before he even looks up.

Unfortunately, that last scene – the 10^th-grader studying chemistry on his iPad in his backyard – didn’t have the encouraging effect on me that the Governor probably intended.  Why not?  Because we know that most students – nearly all students, in fact – don’t learn chemistry (and physics) that way, at least not with the deep understanding that is necessary to prepare for the best jobs – and informed citizenship – in the 21^st century world.

Instead of the picture of the student trying to learn in his backyard with nobody and nothing other than his iPad, consider this alternate vision:

Josh is on his back porch with two ninth-grade classmates, their iPads and a basketball.  They also have an ultrasonic motion detector and interface that communicates directly with their iPads, and their iPads have an app that plots the position reading from the detector, the instantaneous velocity (the first derivative of the position signal) and the instantaneous acceleration (the second derivative of the position signal) on the iPad screen.  They’ve checked the motion sensor and interface out from the local school district office – much as students used to check out library books.  They bounce their basketball under the motion detector, and the position, velocity and acceleration of the ball are all plotted in real time on their iPads.  From this, they can also determine the kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy of the ball at any point in its flight, and see how the friction involved in the bouncing process robs mechanical energy from the ball.  The classmates have a script to follow for the exercise, but it has been extensively evaluated and revised, and includes many leading questions that the students have to answer for themselves.

 

How the experiment looks in a physical classroom. A group of students uses technology to extract quantitative data they can analyze and use to build understanding from a concrete physical situation in real time.

There is a highly skilled and highly qualified physics teacher sitting in front of her computer (somewhere – anywhere) on a four-hour shift, responsible for monitoring the progress of these students and whomever else from her class of fifty is presently online.  She has a window on her computer screen that shows in real time the position, velocity and acceleration plots that are on the iPads of Josh and his two groupmates.

Every so often, the teacher glances at the plots from Josh and Co. to see how they are progressing.  She is doing the same for the other groups in her class who are presently active.  Every few minutes, one of the groups the teacher is monitoring asks her a question, either by voice or by text.  The teacher responds – generally with another question that pushes that group forward.  Once in awhile, a frustrated student responds with, “Can’t you just give us an answer?”  The teacher patiently responds that her job isn’t to make this easy, but instead to help the student truly understand what is going on.

The instructor pokes his nose into the students’ deliberations to respond to the students’ questions and check on the development of their understanding.

When Josh and Co. get to a critical juncture in their experiment, the teacher chimes in over their iPads with a few questions to make sure the students’ understanding of what they are measuring is headed in the right direction.  One of the boys has gotten a little off course:  “What about the motion force?” he asks.  The teacher patiently explains:  “There is no such thing as a motion force,” and then asks, “What ARE the forces on the ball?  Tell me ALL of them.”  The student stops, and then says, “Well, gravity.  And air resistance.  And I guess air resistance isn’t that big.  So really almost all gravity.”  The teacher exhorts back, “There you go – you have it now.  Keep going.”

And there it is.  Students need to work together.  There has to be a highly skilled teacher on the line to make course corrections in the students’ learning and to challenge them.  The students aren’t always going to be happy.  Students have to make real physical measurements to learn physical concepts.  And not just any experiment will do – the Physics Education Research community has demonstrated how difficult it is to design a laboratory exercise that really improves student understanding.  But they’ve also shown that all that effort is worth it.

Teaching a truly effective virtual science course would be intense, exhausting work.  It’s not at all clear that a teacher can handle more students online than in a physical classroom.  In fact, if the virtual course is really effective it would require constant individual interactions with students, much more than are ever observed in a typical (and bad) lecture class.

Implementing such a course would require an extensive investment of resources and the effort of the nation’s experts in research and development.  Doing it “on the cheap” would not work.  And we have to be realistic about the teaching skill and effort it would take to succeed in such a course.  This is not an inexpensive enterprise – instead, it probably requires a greater level of skill and focus than is generally demanded of classroom teachers.  And a single teacher will probably not be able to handle 150 students per term in such a course – and perhaps not even close to that number.

It’s also not clear that a venture capitalist would find such an enterprise attractive.  The payoff to society and the society’s economy from such an R&D project and its large-scale implementation are clear enough.  But it’s not clear that stockholders in a private concern that executes such a project would receive the material benefits necessary to make an investment attractive.

And there’s the rub.  Making this happen would require, as Governor Bush says in his essay, leaders with “vision” and “courage”.  But it would also require these leaders to be informed enough to know what genuine science learning is and to recognize that it is not “kids in rural Nebraska” learning “physics from engineers in Japan without leaving their 11th grade classroom” – another example the Governor gives.

Convincing our society’s leaders to support an effort to develop high quality virtual science classes would indeed be a feat of leadership.  Now we just need a leader who will step up to the plate to give it a try.