STEM the Tide: Reforming Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education in America

Conclusion

Conclusion Full many a gem of purest ray serene The dark unfathom’d cave of ocean bear: Full many a flower is born to flush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air. Thomas Gray, “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard” Ultimately, this is a book about power in U.S. society. Better educational opportunities—especially in the STEM fields—give students more power over their own lives. The inequality in our economy is staggering. Throughout history, people with power have controlled the means for the weak and disenfranchised to improve their positions. In the emerging global economy, upward social mobility will require technical skills and knowledge. Our young people can acquire those skills only through STEM education. Women, poor people, and disadvantaged minority students are consistently discouraged from studying science and mathematics, the very subjects that would give them access to power, influence, and wealth. Sometimes this discouragement takes the form of overt racism or sexism. More frequently, good intentions (combined with pernicious expectations) suggest that disenfranchised groups cannot master mathematics and science. The cycle continues when students themselves incorporate this false expectation, lower their own self-assessments, and limit their aspirations. The mentoring insights, evaluation techniques, teaching strategies, and other reforms outlined in this book represent substantial potential improvement in STEM education. But the most critical change involves raising expectations . Teachers must realize that virtually every student—regardless of gender, ethnicity, or economic status—can master mathematics and science. Parents must realize this. Most importantly, students themselves must understand this. 196 s t e m t h e t i d e Examples I have given underscore how negative expectations about a group’s mental capabilities can limit that group’s access to quality education. Other examples show how some individuals’ extraordinary achievements have forced the elite group to reconsider these prejudices. The towering mathematical achievements of Ramanujan silenced those who believed that East Indians possessed limited intellectual capabilities. Karl Pearson’s wrong-headed views on the intelligence of Jews were eventually refuted. Still, theses about limitations imposed by innate intelligence were taken seriously at one time. The damage done when such ideas are embraced cannot easily be undone. Aptitude is a limited concept, at best. Moreover, aptitude has been just as destructive through its misuse as it has been helpful through its use. Measurement of a person’s aptitude (for example, by an intelligence test, which gives us only an approximate measure of aptitude) tells us very little about what that person will learn or achieve in the workforce. Aptitude is not a pure, inherited set of traits that exist in a vacuum; rather, intelligence and ability occur in a context. For this reason, modern psychometricians, led by Howard Gardner, have developed the notion of “multiple intelligences,” such as linguistic, musical , spatial, and interpersonal intelligence. The circumstances in which aptitude is the overriding factor are rare. The unquestioned genius of Mozart, or Ramanujan, or Einstein transcends normal boundaries. At the other extreme, there are profoundly handicapped children and adults whose ability to learn is severely limited. But for the great majority of the human population, intelligence is only one small factor affecting what they learn and achieve. Hard work is also a factor. Effective teaching is, too. So is structuring effective environments for learning. It is time we stop excluding students from educational opportunities because of outmoded ideas about aptitude and who can learn. A student should not be denied the opportunity to study higher mathematics and science solely because his or her parents are poor. Nor should teachers, parents, or other persons of authority write off the learning potential of young women or minority students. We must end the cycle of negative expectations and wasted talent in this country. We should expect virtually all students to be able to learn and master science and mathematics. In fact, we should expect students to excel in these subjects. In order to succeed, students may have to work harder, but the benefits will be incalculable. We can no longer afford to write off these students on the assumption that only exceptional individuals can do mathematics and science. This assumption is empirically unjustified, unfair to the students, and a danger to the future of our economy. c o n c l u s i o n 197 In attempts to diagnose why so many avoid or are discouraged from pursuing...