During the thirties Earnest Lawrence and a few others invented big science. Really big, government funded science. Science on a scale larger than organizations like Bell Labs or Universities could muster. Most of this was in the form of applied science and research engineering that bore fruit in WWII. It was recognized that pure research was a serendipity machine, so that was supported at unprecedented levels. The fly in the ointment was not having enough scientists, engineers and mathematicians...
The solution was to create a science and math pipeline not unlike the pipelines for the NFL and NBA. Beginning around the fifth grade and continuing through grad school the focus was on the small percentage of kids who would become scientists and engineers. MIT and Stanford were responsible for creating high school physics curriculum - my high school used the MIT flavor. Math buckled down taking a leap beyond its traditional 19th century K12 calculation focus. Teachers and parents revolted against the math curriculum restoring 'old' math, but the science path was successful. A secure physics Ph.D. pipeline was built and coming up to speed. Pipelines had been created for most of science and engineering. They continue to accomplish their goal (sort of). America still produces world class scientists. At the same time we have a society with disturbingly low science and math literacy. What gives?
My belief, and I stress that I'm not an educator, is that there is far to much focus on the pre-professional pipeline. Science and math classes are boring to the majority of students. Advanced classes are designed to equal first year college courses, but many beginning science courses have to be remedial. This, at a time when science and technology issues are taking central stage. Citizens should know how to judge claims of all types. They should have enough logic and critical analysis to grapple with change. We need to tie together learnings from several backgrounds. We need a different direction.
slöjd (sloyd education in America)
There are those times when you're having a conversation and a word eludes only reappearing at some useless time. Last week I was having a fine discussion with Gregg Vesonder and couldn't remember slöjd. As is often the case it showed up much later when I was thinking about something else. Just a few minutes ago, in fact.
A few weeks ago I met with the local school system about their STEM program. While I'm a fan of science and math, I worry about the current obsession with STEM über alles. A student should learn how to learn, how to apply learning to the real work, how and why to be skeptical, how to be creative and so on. Much of the STEM programs I've seen aren't terribly different from those that have existed since the fifties and Sputnik - aimed at keeping a pipeline working, this time for businesses that need these skills. It has become a 21st century vo-tec.
I asked about their once wonderful shop facility. It turns out shop and home economics disappeared two decades ago. Oddly one of the problems physics grad schools have is many students don't know how to build anything now. An experimentalist is expected to have excellent experience with any number of engineering fields plus an ability to make. At the time I brought up slöjd - part of the Scandinavian education program since the mid 1800s. It is usually described as crafting. In American system part of it was brought over and morphed into a vocational system. A system that has largely disappeared.
A student is to learn how to design and create products and art out of different materials. In Denmark and some of the other Nordics that means proficiency in wood, metal and textiles. Learning how to use tools and increase making and designing capabilities as the student matures. A goal is to build an appreciation for good design and culture. Art is connected to history to design to materials and engineering - not on every project, but a groundwork is created to appreciate the art of dot-connection. It is telling that Iceland, in the wake of their banking collapse, saw the creation of about two dozen small fashion labels - a few of them good. The average Icelander knows a bit about design, craft and textiles.
I'd love to see schools teach design and making. Perhaps the objects aren't immediately useful, but the lessons may prove much more useful. I still find lessons from my 8th grade art class valuable - perhaps more than any other class I had in junior high (middle) school.
My public education was good in the sense that I wasn't over scheduled and had enough time to think. There wasn't too much homework and I had found side projects and mentors that made an enormous difference. In high school I had two wonderful teachers - Joe Wolff and Beverly Boe. Mr Wolff taught world history and the history of religion. Ms Boe taught American history. Neither of them gave much credence to teaching dates and 'facts', but taught context and how to ask questions. Two of the finest teachers I've ever had - I was lucky.
Beyond bringing back some form of making and design I have a few ideas for science, math and computing. I won't dwell on math or programming now, but a few notes on science.1
I'd like to see the Cold War pre-professional science pipeline broken up. We have more than enough scientists and it happens many of us found our own way in. Instilling an interest is much more important than 'learning' how to do it. In fact you really don't learn how to do science until you are in grad school and it is possible for a curious kid with zero background to start off in a good science program and do just as well as those who have had all of the AP classes - sometimes better. It's possible that early specialization leaves students at a disadvantage - there's certainly evidence for that in sport.
There are ways of looking at the world that can be learned qualitatively and semi-quantitatively. This leaves the non-pre-professional student with a much deeper appreciation rather than worrying about memorizing the right formula and trying to guess when it is applicable. It is not unlike teaching a love of physical activity in high school rather than concentrating on building a great football team. I'd start with the most basic and simple of the sciences - physics - in the eighth or ninth grade. For starters imagine answering a few questions curious kids might have that are rich in science. A few of my teenage questions:
why does sound seem to travel further on a cold day?
why is the space between double rainbows dark and why is the color order mirrored?
why is water a liquid at room temperature when other simple light molecules are gases? (this one turns out to be central to sorting out the quackery of homeopathy)
Water turns out to be a rich area - why do ponds freeze at the top and not at the bottom?
why are trains so efficient?
how do trains stay on the rails and go around curves?
why isn't the sky as bright as the Sun at night if there are so many stars in the Universe?
why do rivers meander?
how do the tides work?
why did pirates wear an eye patch? (there is some basic biochemistry in this one too)
why do mirrors flip from left to right, but not up to down?
should you run or walk in the rain?
how do ice skates work? (ok - this one is still unsettled)
does hot water freeze more quickly than cold water? (still a difficult question)
what does it really mean to say a pot of water is boiling?
...
A good deal of very interesting 20th physics can be explained at a very general level. Learning a bit about the different types and risks of radiation is much more useful to the average citizen than calculating the period of a pendulum over and over. Even quantum mechanics and some of the wonderful discoveries about the universe are accessible at a public level and become dots for future connection for those who learn about them.
All of this could be taught in the context of today's understanding as well as the history and culture discoveries were made. It is much better to focus on a few small stories rather than to attempt a broad perspective. The point is to make it interesting and connected.
Chemistry is the next level of complexity and approaching it after a year of qualitative physics seems like a good approach. At this point some simple calculations can enter. Learning how to make and understand measurements would be a focus - particularly as sensor festooned smartphones and other personal devices become more common. We need to understand the environment we're measuring.
Biology is the most complex of the basic sciences and would come in the 11th grade. Understanding systems in context is critically important. Grocking the basics like natural selection rather than mindlessly memorizing the Krebs cycle. Perhaps learning about our own bodies and the impact of nutrition, exercise, sleep, and so on. A historical approach is useful as much of the country still doesn't understand evolution and we're at a point where the public meets CRISPR. (yikes!)
For the senior year there might be cross disciplinary courses with a focus on critical thinking, connecting the dots and creativity in general. Perhaps focusing on two or three major topics. I'd nominate global warming, the ethics of technology and critically evaluating medical and advertising claims. The focus is not the pipeline, but rather the educated student.
Lots of bad things to say about the quantified student, using 'big data' to create individual education programs, high frequency and rote testing, over scheduling, etc. etc. Lots of good things about lean forward rather than backward learning.
Of course what I say and three dollars won't get you a good cup of coffee... All of us have ideas about education - feel free to comment or chat about yours and what you like/dislike about mine.
__________
1 I'm impressed with the mechanics of the Kahn Academy, but they're barking up the wrong 19th century tree. We need to teach real math. Much more to say, but later ... A friend who has taught many entry level programming courses notes that a very large number of kids come in with bad habits. There are some more interesting approaches than the current defaults - again, not aiming at the pipeline.
__________
Recipe corner
A very simple way to create a lot of caramelized onions that will store and be useful in many recipes The amounts and exact ratios are very non-critical.
Caramelized onions
Ingredients
° about 6 pounds of yellow thinly sliced onions'
° 1/2 cup of olive oil - a real olive oil, but you don't need your expensive extra virgin finishing oil...
° salt
Technique
° heat the oil at a low heat in a big dutch oven. Add the onions and salt
° cook and stir every now and again until they're darkly caramelized and soft - 5 or 6 hours(!)
° scrape 'em into a bowl, let them cool a bit and use or put in a container and refrigerate. They're good for about a week.