Wiseman, A. W. (2013, May). The Global “Crisis” in Education and the US Policy Response. Presentation to the Comparative and International Education Department, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
•
1 recomendación•912 vistas
Please visit my website for more information: http://www.comparative-education.com/. To cite this presentation, please use the following: Wiseman, A. W. (2013, May). The Global “Crisis” in Education and the US Policy Response. Presentation to the Comparative and International Education Department, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a Wiseman, A. W. (2013, May). The Global “Crisis” in Education and the US Policy Response. Presentation to the Comparative and International Education Department, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Similar a Wiseman, A. W. (2013, May). The Global “Crisis” in Education and the US Policy Response. Presentation to the Comparative and International Education Department, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China. (15)
Más de Alexander Wiseman
Más de Alexander Wiseman (14)
Último
Último (20)
Wiseman, A. W. (2013, May). The Global “Crisis” in Education and the US Policy Response. Presentation to the Comparative and International Education Department, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
- 1. The Global “Crisis” in STEM Education Alexander W. Wiseman Comparative & International Education aww207@lehigh.edu
- 2. The Global “Crisis” in STEM Education Alexander W. Wiseman Comparative & International Education aww207@lehigh.edu
- 4. National “Crisis” A Nation at Risk (1983) “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.”
- 5. National “Crisis” No Child Left Behind “It starts with this concept: Every child can learn. We believe that it is important to have a high quality education if one is going to succeed in the 21st century. It's no longer acceptable to be cranking people out of the school system and saying, okay, just go -- you know, you can make a living just through manual labor alone. That's going to happen for some, but it's not the future of America, if we want to be a competitive nation as we head into the 21st century.” President George W. Bush General Philip Kearny School Philadelphia, Pennsylvania January 8, 2009
- 6. National “Crisis” “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment… … we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea - the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That’s why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?” We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.” President Barak Obama The State of the Union Address January 25, 2011
- 7. The Media Weighs In • “U.S. Still Trails Asia in Student Test Scores,” The Washington Post, 11 Dec 2012 • “Why Does U.S. Fail in Science Education?,” Pittsburgh Post- Gazette, 20 March 2011 • ‘Says John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “America needs a world-class STEM workforce to address the grand challenges of the 21st century, such as developing clean sources of energy that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and discovering a cure for cancer.”’ – “Education 101: Focusing on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math,” Philadelphia Examiner, 26 Jan 2010
- 8. Significantly above international mean Significantly below international mean Not significantly different
- 9. Significantly above international mean Significantly below international mean Not significantly different Singapore Korea Finland
- 10. STEM Best Practices Worldwide STEM Teacher preparation • Singapore • Finland Teacher status • Singapore • Korea Curriculum focus • Singapore, Korea, Finland Equity-based • Finland
- 14. School vs. Non-school Factors Korea Singapore Finland United States
- 15. Aligning School + Non-school Factors •Support- oriented •Local voice •Shifts Baseline •Institutionalizes Change •Needs-based •School + Non- School •Extensive Data System •Professional Standards 1. Build on National Strengths 2. Compare Strategic- ally 3. Context- ualize Reform 4. Best Policy builds Culture
- 16. The Global “Crisis” in STEM Education Alexander W. Wiseman Comparative & International Education aww207@lehigh.edu
Notas del editor
- The number 1 question I get asked at events like these is: “How can we fix our failing education system?I think the people who ask me really expect to hear a 5-step plan for making it all better, and it would probably be a lot easier if I could just list 5 things to change that will make immediate improvement, but after 20 years working in education, I (like many of you perhaps) know that there are perhaps better questions to ask.MY first question is always to wonder why people ask this question? Why is the baseline expectation that American education – and STEM in particular – is failing? How do we move beyond the rhetoric of “crisis” and really make changes that matter?I began my career as an educator almost 20 years ago.First as a teacher in Japanese junior high schools and then as a high school teacher in Aztec, NM. That was a great way to start, I think, because in the 1990s, Americans still thought that Japanese schools and students had an advantage.The Japanese economy was still growing faster than the US’s, and their students and schools were outperforming Americans by significant margins on internationally comparative tests.
- The Japanese economy was still growing faster than the US’s, and their students and schools were outperforming Americans by significant margins on internationally comparative tests.But, coming from Japanese schools back to Amercan schools gave me some insights into what some significant differences were between the two systems.More importantly, I quickly found that my experience in the Japanese educational system lost value as the Japanese economy declined in the 1990s. In other words, STEM education is vital, but the crisis was as much a figment of political and economic agenda as it was of educational reality.Several, in particular, stood out: (1) Japanese classrooms were student-stable, meaning that students stayed in the same classroom all day and teachers moved around (the opposite of what we do with American students/teachers; (2) students were organized within their classrooms by groups, and did most of their assignments working as groups cooperatively (as opposed to the individually-focused approach of American educators), and (3) Japanese students were excellent at repeating the facts, but struggled with unscripted situations and problems (as opposed to American students who seemed to prefer the unscripted problems to the standardized testing that required knowledge of even basic facts).My point is this the Japanese way worked for the Japanese, but it wasn’t the American way. The key to learning from international comparisons is understanding which school and non-school factors align to make good things happen. This is where I want to take us in the next few minutes.And, as we begin our discussion this morning about transforming STEM, I want to begin by talking about how STEM education is characterized in our national discourse, in other words – what is the STEM education culture in the US?, and then what the importance of school and non-school factors are in transforming it.
- Although the history of “crisis” in US education is long and storied, there are a few moments that usually get highlighted.One is the Sputnik crisis of the 1950s. The fact that the Soviets were beating us in the space race was enough to push national attention and a lot of funding for STEM education, but the rhetoric of STEM education crisis really took hold in our national conversation in the early 1980s with the Reagan administration’s publication A Nation at Risk.The language of “crisis” was not subtle. READ: A Nation at Risk says, and I quote: “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war…[but the blame and shame gets shifted to our own education system – and ultimately our educators and teachers. A Nation at Risk goes on to say that …“We have in effect been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.”This is how education gets silo-ed, and then blamed and shamed for perceived national underperformance, and every presidential administration since Reagan has made education both a focal point for political and economic crisis statements, but also a platform for further political and economic agendas. For example…
- President Bush’s No Child Left Behind suggests that American educators are “just cranking people out of the school system” saying okay just go.
- Even President Obama has some skin in the game.He has said point blank that this is our generation’s Sputnik moment, and that we need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. And, the emphasis both implied and overt from all of these national agenda examples is not on the arts, or humanities…it is squarely placed on the shoulders of STEM education and the implication – over and over – is that America’s schools and teachers are failing to prepare generations of American youth who are qualified and competent enough to take up the reins and be the next great generation to propel science, technology, engineering and mathematics forward in the US – for the sake of the country and the economy.
- The media has been more than happy to sell this story as well. You’ve no doubt heard the journalism maxim that “if it bleeds, it leads” – and the same is true for education stories as well. Crisis trumps contentment.But, if we are going to be truly excellent educators and a country that aspires to greatness in politics and the economy, we do indeed need to push forward and improve our STEM education. As President Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren, has said: “America needs a world-class STEM workforce to address the grand challenges of the 21st century.”Whatever those challenges are, Mr. Holdren is correct, we do need an excellent STEM education system in the US.The problem is trying to decide what that looks like and how we know when we see it.Remember that the US is the largest decentralized system in the world. Unlike most other countries, the US Constitution provides no mandate for educational provision or opportunity. That is left almost entirely up to the individual states, whose own state constitutions provide the right to and responsibility for education in the US. Yet, when we think about the quality and provision of STEM education nationwide, we often ignore state variations and concentrate instead on national averages in student performance.And, when we do so, we do it on a grand scale…
- There are several international assessments of math and science education. worldwideThe best known and most referenced are either the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment or the TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). I’m focusing on TIMSS.Approximately 70 different countries and educational systems participate in the TIMSS nowadays, including the US, and the TIMSS has become one of the most recognized markers of internationally comparative educational excellence that there is. CLICK---You may have seen or heard about how well the US is (or isn’t) doing relative to other countries educational system either in the news or at a meeting. And, rankings like this one are often analyzed in detail by those who put a lot of stock in ranking achievement scores.CLICK---But, the fact of the matter is that there really are 3 groups of countries based on student achievement. Those that are significant above the international mean, those that are below the international mean, and then the rest of us. It’s the same in both math and science…
- Those countries that appear at the top of the rankings generally get the most attention from concerned policymakers and others – these are the so-called “model” systems.For example, at the top of the TIMSS science achievement rankings are Singapore, Korea, and Finland. And, in our search for evidence-based, best-practices information @ STEM education, the teacher preparation, curriculum and classroom teaching methods in these countries are often examined in great detail by researchers in the hopes that it will influence American educational policy and practice.Each of these three national education systems have become “famous” for particular characteristics of their educational systems that Americans seem to admire:The Singaporean and Finnish teachers have gotten a lot of attention because of the rigorous and standards-driven way that they are trained and certified. The emphasis being on experts’ content area and pedagogy, and there are numerous studies and programs that have been developed using examples from these countries to strengthen (purportedly) American teachers as well.Singapore and Korea are highlighted for the culture of respect that education and teachers command in these communities, with the status of teachers being relatively higher in Singapore and Korea than in the US.Third, each of these model systems have had their curriculum scrutinized, and it’s been shown that there is more focus and less repetition in STEM classrooms there than in the US – in other words, the US science and math curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep, whereas the curriculum in Singapore, Korea and Finland is more focused and consecutive.Finally, the Finnish culture of education has been identified as largely equity based. The point is that after the Finnish started doing so well on internationally comparative tests like TIMSS and PISA, the reforms that Finns promoted have been carefully examined, and they have been shown to promote equitable educational access and opportunity rather than a tracking and ability streamed system of internal competition.
- So, if I was simply going to tell you what Singapore, Korea, and Finland do right in STEM education, I would tell you that all of our problems can be solved by:Preparing STEM teachers who are better experts in their content and pedagogical techniques – through highly-selective, standards-driven, apprenticeship-oriented national teacher preparation programs.Raising the status of STEM teachers through standards-based preparation, PLUS shifting salary and other professional status indicators up.I might say that focusing on and aligning curriculum to classroom practice is the key because STEM performance seems highest when students focus on a few science or math topics deeply rather than many topics superficially and repetitively.Finally, solving equity issues by leveling the educational playing field will improve STEM education because it values both the context and the individual.Yes, all of these approaches have been shown using TIMSS and other international STEM education evidence to work in Singapore, Korea and Finland. – but they aren’t all good fits all of the time for US education.Let me explain why…
- The question is NOT whether the US can learn anything about how to improve in STEM education from these high performing countries – the question IS whether external comparisons are as helpful as internal comparisons. The research I conduct suggests that taking policies and programs from other high performing countries is not a remedy for STEM education in the US, but that instead those systems that focus on internal comparisons across content and cognitive domains are the fastest improving.The key is balance across domains. Those national educational systems where there is the least variation across content and cognitive domains tend to have the highest performing or most rapidly gaining systems.Consider this example of 8th grade science cognitive domain scale scores from TIMSS 2011. If we introduce a comparison line representing the overall scale score in science, we can see how national average student performance in each of the cognitive domains compares to the country’s own average overall score. Focusing on strengths and weaknesses can be more targeted this way. For example, in the US (on the far right), evidence shows that students perform at relatively consistent levels across the cognitive domains in science. They are stronger in “knowing” relatively stable in “reasoning”, but slightly weaker in “applying” science.
- Variation in science content domains shows much less balance in all comparison countries. In the US there seems to be strength in “biology” and “earth science”, and weaker teaching and learning in “chemistry” and especially “physics”.
- We can also look at internal comparisons of science content domains across TIMSS cycles. This table shows the science content domain scores in every cycle since 1999.As the evidence here suggests, American students have consistently scored above the national mean in “biology”, and have improved in the 2000s to score above the national average in “earth science”, too, but performance in “chemistry” and “physics” has consistently lagged behind the national average, although steadily improving.If we look at the variation indicators, we can also see that variance overall is lower in 2011 than it was in previous cycles. This is a strong indicator of improved performance relative to the national mean, and is accompanied by a slight upward trend in overall science scale scores.If we were to look at data like this and try to make policy and practice recommendations, we could say that the evidence shows that either curriculum, teaching, or both in “chemistry” and “physics” are weaker for 8th graders than “biology” and “earth science”, and potential reforms would suggest that improved STEM teacher preparation and expertise in the areas of “chemistry” and “physics” could improve student learning and performance in these areas. We might also suggest that more focused curriculum emphasis on “chemistry” and “physics” lessons could improve student learning and performance. Finally, we could suggest that efforts to equalize opportunities for advanced “chemistry” and “physics “ teaching and learning would also improve demonstrated student performance.In other words, we can take evidence about what the highest performing educational systems do, match it to unique information about the needs, context, and characteristics of education in the US, and make general policy and practice recommendations based on that information. But we are still short of making specific policy and practice recommendations at the local level because the specific context and culture of education at the school and classroom level is necessary to understand and align to these general recommendations.
- The culture of “crisis” that I described earlier, puts us at a disadvantage when it comes to using internationally comparative education information because crisis cultures panic, and panic leads to reform and change for the sake of reform and change – not targeted and real reform aimed at improvement.What I mean by that is that in each of the countries examined so far, including the US, is influence by both school and non-school factors. We spend a lot of time trying to manipulate the school factors – those factors that have to do with curriculum and resources, teachers and teaching methods. But we spend far less time thinking about how the factors that contextualize school in these countries work to influence teaching and learning.Study after study has shown that socioeconomic status (SES) is one of the strongest predictors of student learning and performance, but we still ignore the impact of culture and community context on education in much of our policy and reform initiatives. For example, in Singaporean and Korean schools, there is an emphasis on rote learning and solving static problems. Why? Because these are high-stakes testing systems where advancement through the educational system depends on test performance. In addition, there are social norms and cultural mores regarding education that elevate the status and importance of formal education in the families and communities that contextualize education there. This is not an environmental condition that can be replicated in the US. We simply don’t have the same cultural and institutional contexts for education here that they do there, which isn’t a good or bad thing – it is simply a fact.Likewise, the social welfare context of the Finnish system supports equity reform in schools at the national level to a degree simply not possible in a highly decentralized and individually-oriented educational system and culture in the US.
- At the end of the day, the educational success of Singapore, Korea and Finland shouldn’t be devalued, but the specificity of their educational culture and context should be recognized. This is the lesson for US STEM education: comparison is valuable, but internal comparison should take priority over comparisons with high performing national education systems simply for the sake of their high performances.Instead, matching STEM education to culture and context has the best return for learning, labor market productivity, and innovation.Consider these 4 recommendations:Build on national strengthsExtensive data system – Schools and Staffing Survey, CCDProfessional standards – National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, National Science Education & Teaching StandardsCompare strategicallyNeeds-based: Don’t solve problems that don’t exist or aren’t recognizedSchool + non-school: Only shift school factors in conjunction with non-school supportContextualize reformSupport-oriented: Support rather than punish/penalize, working positively has many more benefits that does institutionalizing consequencesLocal voice: Decentralized systems change more quickly when change comes from local decision-makersBest policy builds cultureShifts baseline: Standards are not about goals, they are about achievable minimumsInstitutionalizes change: The status quo is not static, it changes every year.
- The STEM education culture in the US – broadly speaking – is one of “crisis”, but our response doesn’t have to be. So, the next time someone asks you how we can fix our failing American education system, remind the person asking that the US education system performs competitively against other educational systems worldwide, and that while there is always room for improvement – reducing the variation in teaching and learning across the US by aligning school factors with non-school factors really is the key.Remember, we know that strong cross-national evidence suggests that a focus on rigorous and standards driven teacher preparation and professional status coupled with focused and equitable opportunities to learn are how the best performing systems in the world do it. And, we know that building on the strengths of a strong and extensive data system, plus a rigorous standards and accountability system in the US gives us the tools necessary to provide needs-based and support-oriented change in STEM education in the US.My colleagues are here to give you the details about how STEM education is working in the US, so I’ll close by saying confidently to you that while international comparisons and global policy imperatives feed a crisis agenda….but don’t believe all of the hype. There may not be a silver bullet to magically eliminate all of our problems with STEM education, but we know that real change and real progress in STEM education is possible when we align school factors and community needs and expectations at the local level.Thank you.