Excellence and Equity: Mobilizing For Math and Science Learning

Discussion

Many Americans—business leaders and government officials, and also educators, parents, and even students—acknowledge the need for radical change in the way mathematics and science are taught and learned in most U.S. schools and colleges. Some calls for change have been motivated by a desire to restore American preeminence in technological innovation. The nation must act quickly, the argument goes, to increase the number of high-level U.S. science, math, and engineering graduates or forever be left behind.^{National Center on Education and the Economy (2006). Tough Choices or Tough Times, Jossey-Bass, p. 8. National Research Council (2005). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, p. 2.}

The Commission shares that concern and recognizes that the United States will always need top graduates in those fields, yet we are also persuaded by arguments that the new global economy demands higher levels of skill held by many more people.Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (2010). Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018. Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl, p. 9-11. Nearly every worker will need to be STEM-capable, or knowledgeable about science and math, even beyond the professions that require specialized science, technology, engineering, or mathematics training; more jobs at more levels in fields such as health, law, business, and education will require science- and math-related skills; and the level of skill and knowledge demanded will be higher.

This reality presents an unprecedented challenge to our current educational system, and also an opportunity: What if we were to use the objective “excellent math and science education for all” as a lever for widespread school reform at the scale that is needed? Could a national mobilization for math and science bring unity of purpose to school improvement and drive the system to generate new designs and methods?

1. On mobilizing for equity and excellence in mathematics and science education

The Commission believes that the United States must use its resources wisely to ensure that all young Americans, including but not limited to those who aspire to high-level math and science degrees and careers, are well prepared by our schools and colleges to participate and thrive in a global economy, and that science and math skills are essential to that preparation. Further, we have confidence that American students and families agree with that assessment and would welcome efforts to improve—in quality and relevance, not just in courses required—the science and math education received by all American students.

Colleges and universities must provide richer math and science learning to all and open wider avenues for students of all backgrounds to pursue advanced degrees.

As Commission member and Carnegie Corporation president Vartan Gregorian has noted, “the value of an education lies in its task to enhance men’s and women’s powers of rational analysis, intellectual precision and independent judgment, and in particular to encourage a mental adaptability, a characteristic which men and women sorely need, especially now, in an era of rapid change."^{Vartan Gregorian (1997). Convocation address, Brown University.} The emerging global marketplace is making those characteristics even more important, as shifts in the labor market indicate clearly. In 2007, for example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projected that 54.7 million American jobs would open during the decade from 2004 to 2014, of which well over half (29.4 million) will require a college degree.^{Bureau of Labor Employment Projections: stats.bls.gov/emp/emptabapp.htm.} Moreover, the only job categories for which both demand and wages are continuing to grow are “non-routine analytic” positions, requiring good judgment, an ability to solve problems, and strong communications, information management, and synthesizing skills.^{Richard Murnane and Frank Levy (2004). The New Division of Labor, Princeton University Press, chapter 3. Data presented by Andreas Schleicher of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the results of its Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study of 2006.}

Skills related to collaboration and systems integration are also growing in importance as the United States seeks to redefine its role as an incubator for innovation. As Hal Salzman, a labor analyst at the Urban Institute, explained to the Commission, economic productivity and growth depend on strong skills at many levels of the labor force. “Although innovating a better computer network server is important,” he noted, “it is the legions of network administrators and technicians that affect how much of the potential productivity gains are realized from the technology."^{Hal Salzman (2007). “Globalization Shifts in Human Capital and Innovation: Policy for Collaborative Advantage & Implications for Education.” Prepared for the Carnegie-IAS Commission on Mathematics and Science Education.} Salzman believes that the United States should aim to be a “strong node” in a collaboration-oriented global marketplace and that “the United States is currently the best positioned country… to do this because of its history of openness, diversity, and free flow of knowledge, and home to companies that are now the leading navigators in the new global systems.”

A common thread across these data is the increasingly determinative importance of educational attainment generally, and higher education specifically, to economic opportunity and national innovation. Labor economist Stephen Machin has observed that “the demand for education is still outstripping supply despite the rapid expansion of skill-biased technological change and globalization. So, the penalty for not having a good education level is rising."^{Presented at the Sutton Trust/Carnegie Corporation Summit on Social Mobility, June 2-3, 2008.} By 2004, wage declines among high school graduates with no postsecondary education placed this group for the first time below the middle 50 percent of family incomes in the United States, or below the middle class.^{National Center for Education and the Economy (2006). p. 6.}

The United States no longer leads the world in preparing young people through the attainment of college degrees. In 1995, the U.S. ranked second internationally in the percentage of college graduates in the population; by 2006, its relative position had declined.^{OECD, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2006. Data presented by Andreas Schleicher, “Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World: Seeing School Systems through the Prism of PISA,” January 25, 2008.} The absolute percentage of college educated within the U.S. population remained steady at approximately 34 percent, while the share in countries including New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Japan increased. Globally, China and India remain far below the United States in percentage of college-educated adults, yet their absolute numbers are growing rapidly because of their large youth populations.

Paul E. Lingenfelter, president of State Higher Education Executive Officers, has argued that for the United States to be “second to none in degree attainment by 2025 requires 16 million more [bachelor’s] degrees."^{Paul E. Lingenfelter, “More Student Success: A Systemic Solution,” presented at the Carnegie Corporation-University of Minnesota Roundtable, January 9, 2009.} Lingenfelter observes that the United States will get to that objective only by achieving “equal college participation and success rates at every level of socio-economic status and academic ability” and increasing “educational expectations and attainment for average ability students.” The shifting demographics and economic realities of the nation mean that we must better educate a more diverse range of students than ever before.

The Commission shares President Obama’s conviction that “every American will need to get more than a high school diploma,” for their own futures and the future of the country, and echoes his call for “every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training [at] a community college or a four-year school, vocational training or an apprenticeship."^{President Barack Obama, Address to Joint Session of Congress, February 24th, 2009.} To build the skills and knowledge required by the 21st century global labor market, our educational system must produce many more students who are “college-ready” and well prepared to succeed in undergraduate education. Then, because of the importance of math and science to students’ futures as workers and citizens, colleges and universities must provide richer math and science learning to all and open wider avenues for students of all backgrounds with the interest and aptitude to pursue advanced degrees. In short, it is imperative that we raise educational attainment at both the bottom and the top, and close the gaps in opportunity that too often divide American students along lines of race, ethnicity, and socio-economic background.

Page 2

Discussion

In contemplating the implications of these trends and indicators for our country, the Commission takes encouragement from students’ own views on math and science, as well as those of their parents. In fall 2008, the Commission undertook a sizeable national survey to explore attitudes toward math and science among the two crucial constituencies: adolescents in grades 8–10 and their parents. Digging deeper, the study team conducted in-depth focus groups with 8th and 10th graders and their parents in two urban areas. In both the survey and focus groups, the researchers made special efforts to understand the views of African-American and Latino students and parents.^{The survey and focus groups were conducted by Widmeyer Research and Polling. The survey consisted of a 20-minute interview of 977 students (8th to 10th grade) and their parents, for a total of 1,954 interviews. The sample included oversamples of African-American households (185 pairs, or 370 total) and Latino households (140 pairs, or 280 total). The weighted N size—accounting for oversamples—is 904 pairs (1,808 total). The survey was fielded from October 22 to November 4, 2008. Ten focus groups were conducted in Denver and Nashville, with participants recruited from the urban school district and surrounding suburban/exurban districts. The Denver research included two paired urban groups (non-Latino students and their parents), two paired suburban/exurban groups (students and their parents), and one group of urban Latino students. The Nashville research included two paired urban groups (non-African-American students and their parents), two paired suburban/exurban groups (students and their parents), and one group of urban African-American students. For more information on study methods and complete findings, see Widmeyer Research and Polling (April 2009). Attitudes toward Math and Science Education among American Students and Parents, prepared for the Carnegie-IAS Commission on Mathematics and Science Education.}

Although the samples are too small to produce definitive national findings, the outcomes are intriguing, in part because they run counter to some conventional assumptions about how young people think about learning and achievement in mathematics and science. Overall, the results give strong reason to expect that students and parents will be receptive to calls for higher levels of math and science learning and to realistic proposals to improve math and science education for all students.

Substantial shares of both students and parents said that they understand the importance of math and science and see the need for stronger, more relevant math and science education. Overall, young people and their parents may be ahead of public perceptions in their openness to math and science learning and to improving the nation’s educational performance in those areas. The study uncovered findings in several key areas:

• High perceived importance of math and science. Students and parents recognize the importance of math for their futures. Majorities of students believe that algebra (69 percent) and geometry (59 percent) will be important for their careers—and parents agree. Many students identified “data analysis” as an important skill for their futures—second only to English. Majorities also believe that science classes are at least somewhat important: 62 percent for biology, 59 percent for chemistry, and 59 percent for physics. These findings hold with slight variation across racial and ethnic groups.

• Limited understanding of the connection between advanced courses and careers. When students discussed their career ambitions, many did not connect their aspirations with required high school math and science coursework, suggesting a need to help students see the relevance of upper-level math and science coursework in secondary school and beyond.

• Strong influence of teachers on student attitudes. Students who rate their teachers highly are more likely to see math and science in their futures. Students and parents gave high marks to teachers who use engaging instructional practices: for example, in science, holding labs more than once a week and having students report findings to the class; in math, promoting multiple approaches to problem solving and helping students apply lessons to the real world.

• Positive student views of math and science achievers. Students do not, in general, hold negative stereotypes of peers who are good at math or science. They are much more likely to associate positive descriptors than negative ones to successful math and science students. For example, 42 percent said a successful math student is “hardworking,” and 32 percent said “smart.” Just 12 percent associate the word “nerdy” with a good science student.

• Clear recognition that math and science can be learned by all—although one in four hold doubts. Most parents and students understand that math and science skills can be learned and developed, and that doing well is not simply a matter of innate ability. Among students, 70 percent said that math ability is something people can learn and develop, versus 25 percent who said math ability is primarily innate.^{Carol S. Dweck (2008). “Mindsets and Math/Science Achievement.” Prepared for the Carnegie-IAS Commission on Mathematics and Science Education. Dweck demonstrates that student performance is influenced positively by students’ belief that they have the capacity to learn science or math, and that teachers can support that mindset through instructional practice.}

In short, young people and their parents recognize the importance of mathematics and science and see the value of high-quality instruction. A national mobilization for mathematics and science learning would make the need for change plain to all Americans and bring resources and commitment to the effort.

Page 3

Discussion

2. On placing mathematics and science at the center of education innovation, improvement, and accountability

With excellent, equitable mathematics and science at the center, schooling itself would look and feel different for nearly all American students. What is too often missing today for students at all levels is a focus on acquiring the reasoning and procedural skills of mathematicians and scientists, as well as a clear understanding of math and science as distinct types of human endeavor. Learning math and science from textbooks is not enough: students must also learn by struggling with real-world problems, theorizing possible answers, and testing solutions. Of central importance, the Commission is calling for a dramatic redefinition of science instruction, away from the current system in which students are generally being told about science and asked to remember facts, to one where students, beginning in the very early grades, learn how to think scientifically and become proficient in science—including acquiring its crucial problem-solving and inquiry skills.

Placing mathematics and science more squarely at the center of learning has the potential to transform schooling from the elementary grades through university. Schools and universities would feature an enhanced curriculum and instruction with active learning at its core, a more vital learning culture and leadership, new partnerships and resources, and higher expectations and pathways for students. A coordinated national effort would encourage wider adoption of successful practices, inspire new initiatives, and provide a framework for measuring their impact. It would also let us improve upon existing methods for replicating successful designs and practices to reach more states, districts, schools, educators, and students more rapidly.

Practically, a coordinated effort is challenging to carry off in an educational system as decentralized as ours. Yet several factors today are working in our favor—most notably, the keen interest of the federal Department of Education in linking education to national economic recovery and recent work by governors and state departments of education to strengthen the nation’s education infrastructure by creating systems of academically rigorous common standards and assessments across many or all states.

The nation’s schools are also benefiting from fresh influences that bode well for innovation and coordinated improvement. Over the past decade, education entrepreneurs have altered the marketplace for teacher recruitment, data management, professional development, and other services, changing the way many school districts do business and advancing the notion that old ways of carrying out core operations are not good enough. A resurgence in interest in teaching among young adults and career changers has brought an infusion of new talent, including new teachers with strong educational and career-related background in science, math, and technology, into our schools. Meanwhile, a wave of innovation has taken hold among leading museums and other “science-rich” and cultural institutions, some of which are actively redefining themselves as full partners in the education enterprise.^{American Museum of Natural History (May 2009). “Emboldened Capacity: Science Education and the Infrastructure of Science-Rich Cultural Institutions.” Prepared for the Carnegie-IAS Commission on Mathematics and Science Education.} Public–private partnerships involving businesses and professional organizations have grown up around the country to improve science and math education and workforce development.

For a glimpse of what excellent, equitable mathematics and science education might look like in a transformed American educational system, the Commission sought out initiatives that exemplify the principles of excellence and equity and that are already using math and science to accelerate school improvement. We found evidence of several potentially powerful emerging practices:

• Designing for equity—using math, science, and technology to motivate student engagement. Math-and-science-themed schools have often been highly selective, but a new generation of schools with STEM themes are accepting students regardless of past academic achievement and preparing them for the challenges of the 21st century workplace. New Tech High School, in Napa, California, and the network of schools based on the New Tech model are examples.^{Information on the New Tech High School model is available at www.newtechnetwork.org; cell.uindy.edu/NTHS/index.php.}
• Infusing math and science across the curriculum to deepen student learning. Cultivating science skills within literacy development can be a powerful way to build reading students’ skills and learn science content at the same time. Programs that are pioneering this approach include the Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading program at the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Maryland’s Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction.^{For descriptions of Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading and Concept-oriented Reading Instruction, including curricular materials, videos, and research reports, see seedsofscience.org. For information on CORI, see cori.umd.edu}
• Expanding the repertoire of classroom strategies with hands-on math and science activities. Duke University’s Engineering K-PhD Program, led by engineer and Commission member Gary Ybarra, strengthens math and science learning in school and after-school programs through an engineering curriculum that emphasizes real-world problem-solving. Students work on projects involving energy sources, architecture, biotechnology, digital imaging, transportation, wireless communication, and other topics.^{Duke’s Engineering K-PhD Program is described at k-phd.duke.edu.}
• Increasing the rigor of youth development and out-of-school time programs with math and science learning. Youth Exploring Science (YES) program at St. Louis Science Center serves 250 teens each year, recruited through more than 20 community organizations, and engages them in inquiry-based learning in science, mathematics, and technology using a youth development approach.^{For information on YES, see Youthexploringscience.com.} Kinetic City, one of many out-of-school-time resources developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), is an after-school “club” program developed with an interactive online component. Kinetic City has been shown not only to build students’ science knowledge but to increase their ability to comprehend and write about complex text.^{Edumetrics (2007). Summative Assessment of Kinetic City Omega/Sigma Afterschool; see kcmtv.com/about.htm.}
• Realizing the potential of cyberlearning through integrated math and science instructional programs. Innovative programs developed by Agile Mind^{Agile Mind is a commercial partner of the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin; see utdanacenter.org. Uri Treisman, founder and director of the Charles A. Dana Center, is a member of the Commission on Mathematics and Science Education.}, Teachscape^{TeachScape is a commercial teacher development program, cofounded in 1999 by Roy Pea, director of the Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning; see teachscape.com.}, and Wireless Generation^{Wireless Generation, Inc., was cofounded by Commission member Larry Berger; see wgen.net.} provide online teaching, assessment, and professional learning tools and have advanced thinking in the field about how face-to-face and online learning work most effectively together. These interactive programs are also finding new ways to draw on teachers’ classroom experiences to refine curricular material and pedagogical approaches.

Page 4

Discussion

• Building community assets into schools through intensive partnerships with math and science institutions. “Science-rich” institutions like the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), led by Commission member Ellen Futter, San Francisco’s Exploratorium,^{Commission member and science educator Katherine Ward is a member of the faculty of the Exploratorium’s summer teacher education institute.} and the Museum of Science in Boston are leaders in a growing universe of museums that are developing new curricula and professional learning resources. Programs like these are giving hundreds of thousands of students and teachers access to museum collections and staff expertise—along with powerful insights into what people find most fascinating about science.

• Supporting college success and advanced study by underrepresented minority students. The Meyerhoff Scholars Program at the University of Maryland Baltimore County offers special supports to incoming students, mainly African-American, who aspire to careers in science and engineering. Students start with a summer program prior to freshman year featuring intensive credit-bearing courses in calculus and African-American studies and a range of noncredit courses. The program continues through graduation and includes academic advising and support in preparing graduate and professional school applications^{For the Meyerhoff Scholars Program, see umbc.edu/Meyerhoff/.}

• Emphasizing the need for rigorous, relevant postsecondary learning as a basis for careers and civic life. Princeton University recently redesigned introductory engineering courses to teach engineering as a liberal art to students preparing for careers in medicine, law, public policy, and visual arts. The revamped curriculum stresses design and analytic methods.

• Coordinating resources from other sectors to raise math and science outcomes. To increase the number of STEM students in higher education, especially those from minority and low-income backgrounds, the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is coordinating a “progressive dialogue” with leaders across New York State from business, government, education, and other sectors and developing a plan to coordinate their resources.^{To learn more about RPI’s progressive dialogue on STEM education see rpi.edu}

A national mobilization would strengthen schools’ ability to tap valuable resources and strategies, increase demand for further innovation, and allow the best approaches to be combined more strategically and implemented in more places.

Excellent, equitable math and science education is a powerful, timely, and unifying goal, one toward which many individuals and institutions could contribute and where the potential payoffs are immense. Success would mean genuinely improved outcomes for a rising generation of American students and radically different elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education.