Lowell and Salzman reveal eye opening data in their paper on science and engineering education, quality and the demands of the work force. I have held most of the assumptions that they refute in their paper. The prima fascia evidence that fuels workforce development and education policy apparently lacks a thorough analysis of the data interpretation.
Their convincing arguments of inadequate test interpretations are not widely distributed in the media or readily accessed by the general public. Perceptions of the work force needs, the health of our democracy, and the condition of math and science education in our country have been simply based on inaccurate information. The data presented in the paper does not support the popular claim that one of the greatest threat to our economy is the labor market shortage of engineers and scientists as well as the notion that high schools are producing fewer able students in math and science.
The whispering issue in the paper that resonated with me was the fact that as long as the US is not first in the world for addressing the needs of children living in poverty, it will be difficult to reach a number one position in educational attainment in all subjects. Math and science deficits are apparent in children from poverty when other social issues often interfere with learning. If the myths associated with US test scores continue, resulting in more attention directed to the science and math gaps that exist among student groups, then maybe this misguided path may result in policies that provide resources to support closing gaps in science and math. Success in these two areas are often the keys that provide access to post secondary education. Without adequate skills in math and science, student academic success beyond high school is threatened.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I also found their conclusions interesting. They answered a few of the questions raised by the CCSSO piece and TCTT about how TIMSS and PISA are constructed. If the end goal is to produce a more 'creative' work force then perhaps the focus on STEM should be expanded. How do we build on the systems apparent strength in Civics and Literacy? Building on the interaction of STEM and our current strengths seems more likely to produce 'creative' individuals, then merely panicking over our 'comparative' standing in Math and Science. It also raised the issue of structuring career ladders as a factor to college completion. What is the effect of off-shoring on degree completion? Is adequate skill prep enough to encourage degree completion?
This reminds me of what Uri was talking about in class yesterday--how data is misused so often that it becomes (incorrect) popular knowledge that just continues to grow. I think he was referencing this in terms of the homeless population. In any event, it's an interesting problem that is rampant, and it makes it hard to know which statistics to trust.
Post a Comment