In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Pres. Obama called the current state of affairs a “Sputnik moment” for the USA: a time when we’re under great threat and need to step up to the plate so that we can “own the future.” Much has been made of the metaphor—the Atlantic did a great roundup of the various reactions on editorial pages, most of which questioned the aptness of the comparison, and PoliPulse.com has a fun graphic illustrating the breakdown of reactions posted online (12% said the public was too young to get the reference; 16% said the metaphor was irrelevant; 7% said this was “Communist language,” which is just flat-out baffling).
Whether or not the metaphor is historically accurate or helpful, I wonder about another thing: the equation Obama made over and over in his speech between education in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields, and education writ large. He often moved seamlessly back and forth between the two, without ever pointing out the equivalency he was creating. Take this paragraph:
Let’s also remember that after parents, the biggest impact on a child’s success comes from the man or woman at the front of the classroom. In South Korea, teachers are known as “nation builders.” Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones. And over the next ten years, with so many Baby Boomers retiring from our classrooms, we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math.
Then there’s this sentence, on the Dream Act, an exhortation that places science and business together at the top of the “most desirable occupation” pyramid:
Let’s stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation.
One of my friends on Facebook posted a forlorn status update: “Ooooobama, please don’t forget that the arts make space for empathy.” A friend commented consolingly: “Well….maybe at the next one.” Of course, it’s easier to push for the kind of education that will create people who can affect material change in society than it is to speak of education for “empathy” (or maybe Obama will never use that word again, after he tried it out during the Sotomayor confirmation and it didn’t go so well). John Dewey (and others!) used to make arguments about science education creating democratic, empowered minds; these aren’t the arguments being made here. (“Win the future”=not quite Deweyan.) The kind of STEM education Obama’s advocating isn’t a soft “science literacy” that could help a citizen solve everyday problems, it’s strong, powerful training that would provide new kinds of technical knowledge.
This line of argument touches one of the most fundamental questions I’m asking while writing my dissertation: when a nation promotes education in STEM subjects as by far the most desirable kind of learning, as we’re doing now and we did in the fifties and sixties, is that an unmitigatedly good thing? What does it mean to ask kids to be interested in, and to commit to, science learning? Perhaps because I myself failed to commit to a career in a STEM field, I’m curious about the effect that this line of argument might have on young people whose affinities don’t lie in the STEM direction. If you’re not going STEM, are you going nowhere?
Clearly, we need better education in STEM fields; I would never argue the opposite. But some corners of the debate over national competitiveness seem to participate in a kind of panic over our kids’ moral fiber (or lack thereof). The comments on the YouTube video above include a bunch of derogatory jibes at the “laziness” of the American teenager; this line of argument is a vague echo of the way people talked about non-science-loving American kids during the Sputnik era: they’re coddled, they’re too outer-directed to pay attention in school, they’re soft. Obama hasn’t said anything like this—if there’s blame to be assigned, he’s assigning it to schools and parents—but the Internet, apparently, will say it for him…
Chelsea
Jan 27, 2011 -
There are a couple extra things being mushed together that could be taken apart further. Why train 100,000 STEM teachers? Because K-12 teachers in the arts/humanities/social sciences almost always have degrees in the fields they teach. We may need ALL teachers to be trained in creative pegagogy, and we may need MORE truly excellent teachers in low socioeconomic schools, but it doesn’t seem (to me, in the current economy) that we need an increase in sheer numbers of K-12 non-STEM teachers.
Another thing that he doesn’t explicitly state, but which is generally the hope of STEM advocates that I know, is that we hope for innovation that probably comes from kids that get a “All STEM for Some” approach (magnet schools, high school summer research experiences) – those programs get funding from federal agencies, often – but that the real crisis in America is the lack of “Some STEM for All” in public schools – that is, the level of rigor, and the level of scientific problem-solving that kids do in school is not up to par. I see this mostly as a direct consequence of not having teachers actually trained in the discipline, but because lab/inquiry based STEM education will always be more expensive than other classes (other than art classes) in material costs. And students are almost never required to take as many math courses, and never as may science courses, as they are language/literature courses. I know there’s no perfect % of each that should be required, I’m just saying there isn’t parity, and STEM doesn’t have a long history of privilege in terms of instructional hours.
I know that no one’s highlighting anything but STEM these days and it’s sad – to me, it’s clear that an understanding of history and civics could probably do a lot to help income disparity and keep the smart math kids from letting Mammon spirit them away from Wall Street. At the same time, current government STEM positivity is pushing back against real negativity.
I would never say that non-STEM professionals are not essential to American society. But what skills do American students lack that other kids abroad have that make them generally more appealing to employers? On average, they have STEM training and they’re willing to work for less money. I don’t really think you can do anything about the latter. I personally have no interest in working for a huge company, but I still know that it’s incredibly important to keep them interested in Americans as employees, and especially employees who know how to make, improve, and repair things. Which is why (and some STEM-policy people are on this) dormant technical/shop classes that build spatial awareness and grab students who are kinesthetic learners should come back. But again… those classes are expensive!
As for the question “If you’re not going STEM, are you going nowhere?” the answer is of course no. But if you’re going nowhere because you never had a decent STEM teacher, and a good one could have made you feel like you could “go STEM” or at least “do STEM and other stuff too” or at least “do a little STEM and have a mentor who was a STEM person who helped you understand what types of jobs STEM people do” well, that’s worth fixing. It’s not a zero-sum game – getting a better teacher in one of your STEM classes doesn’t make any of your other teachers affect you any less (hmmm unless your school pays STEM teachers more – which no school does yet, but might soon – but that’s a story for another day!)
rebecca
Jan 27, 2011 -
Chelsea, this post was basically written with you lurking in the back of my mind; now I almost think that I should ask you to do a guest post (speak up if interested). Hold on, I need to go to the PCL and do my promised three hours of microfilm research for the day; I’m going to write a better, longer, more considerate response, one equivalent to your awesomely considered comment, when I get back.
Anne
Jan 30, 2011 -
This fits qutie well into my theory of the need for “dynamic tension” throughout life (yet to be fully voiced…a retirement project!) In this case, we’ll most definitely be in trouble if we don’t counter a greater emphasis on STEM with the humanities and the arts and everything furthers our growth in understanding and communicating with one another well. A technically state of the art internet or phone does nothing to insure quality communication- anyone living in a current high school knows that for sure!
There is a fascinating chapter in Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers about plane crashes- it turns out that the answer to reducing crashes is not in science or technology, but in psychology and understanding cultural differences, among other things. Also, I immediately think of Greg Mortenson’s Three Cups of Tea- his work towards peace and understanding is not an outgrowth of STEM. Then there is the issue of the proliferation of technological and scientific solutions to a variety of medical issues, which will get us into increasing ethical and moral dilemmas which cannot be solved by the STEM world. In fact the whole political mess we’re in can’t be solved by STEM….. Oh, there are so many examples, it’s crazy to even start down the road.
The problem is that the results of STEM are potentially quantifiable, whereas how do you quantify (or monetize) the growth of empathy or appreciation of beauty, or the ability to face death????
However, I don’t truly think Obama believes we don’t need the rest, it is only too bad that he didn’t use his bully pulpit to say so. But, the longer I live, the more I see that the simple message is what sells ( to wit, the last election…), and the more nouanced and complex the message, the less it gets across…. I want someone to tell me that’s not true… but…..
Anyway, I was in 5th grade when sputnik was launched, and it was a very big deal. But it didn’t keep me from majoring in American Literature, then studying American Studies (can you believe it?) and finally going into counseling. Hopefully the innate instincts to connect and to improve that connection will out!