June 2011
COMMUNITIES: EDUCATION
BY JOHN R. HALL, P.E., F.NSPE
"We are not using the educational system to improve engineering; we are using engineering to improve the educational system." — The author
Disclaimer: I suppose that a K–12 rant might be called a tantrum. However, this rant is not borne of childish temper. The opinions expressed herein are mine. They are the result of a considerable amount of research and thoughtful deliberation and, therefore, obviously do not represent those of the National Academy of Engineering, its committees, or individual members.
We know that licensed professional engineers represent the cream-of-the-crop of society, and the members of the National Academy of Engineering represent the cream-of-the-crop of our profession. We have admired their accomplishments and aspired to join their ranks. Therefore, I am (not quite) dumbfounded at the conclusion reached by its Committee on Standards for K–12 Engineering Education: "The committee concluded that, although it is theoretically possible to develop standards for K–12 engineering education, it would be extremely difficult to ensure their usefulness and effective implementation."
I have read the 61-page NAE report. It is thorough, well-researched, and well-written. I agree with its statement of the problems, public perceptions, and the value of engineering in the K–12 curriculum. I agree with practically everything contained in the report, except its conclusion.
Fortunately for you, space does not permit a detailed rebuttal. Instead, I will posit some questions:
- How is "theoretically possible" different from "possible," and isn't "possible" the springboard for innovation?
- Changing the educational system may be "extremely difficult," but when did "difficult" become an impediment to engineering achievement?
- The committee was charged to "assess" the value and feasibility of content standards. Would the NAE ever be in a position to "ensure their…implementation"?
- The committee includes among its supporting findings that "there is relatively little experience with K–12 engineering education" and "there is not…a critical mass of teachers." How will we get the teachers, or the experience, without a standard that mandates both?
- The committee states that evidence regarding the impact of standards-based reforms is inconclusive, but standards-based reforms are being funded and implemented in all other critical subject areas. How else will engineering education be introduced?
- "The committee argues against the development of standards…at this time." If we don't start now, when? Is the status quo acceptable?
- The committee suggests "infusion" as an alternative strategy, that we embed engineering learning goals into standards for other subject areas. Unfortunately, common core standards for math have just been released, and science is following close behind. How many years will we have to wait for the next opportunity for the "infusion" alternative? Ten years? Fifteen?
- The committee suggests "mapping" as another alternative, which would use engineering concepts to address existing standards for other subjects. The educational system has well-established methods to address those standards. What will be the driver to replace those methods with engineering concepts?
NAE has championed "changing the conversation." In fact, the conversation is changing. A few years ago, no one knew what STEM was. It has now become common knowledge that STEM education is critical to our country's future. The president, in his State of the Union address, mentioned engineering specifically when he called for 100,000 new teachers in STEM fields in the next 10 years. There is no "STEM" without the "E," but there will be no "E" in our educational system without standards and accountability.
The case for standards for K–12 engineering education can be made using two excerpts from the NAE report:
Engineering in K–12 education is critical:
The "final word" states, "we can think of few areas of education as critical as engineering to building an informed, literate citizenry…and addressing the serious challenges facing…the world."
Standards are important:
"There are three generally accepted reasons for adopting educational standards: to ensure quality, to define goals, and to promote change."
We are undertaking to change an educational system that is ensconced in more than a century of tradition. This is no doubt an "extremely difficult" task, but it is also an extremely important task. We need every informed partner to be an active participant in the process. On its Web site, the NAE declares as its mission "to promote the technological welfare of the nation." Clearly, promotion of engineering standards is in the nation's best interest. Unfortunately, NAE chose to serve as an odds-maker, when we needed an advocate.
Postscript:
It is Earth Day, 2011, as I write this. The first Earth Day was in 1970, the year I completed my K–12 education—largely oblivious to engineering. Walt Kelly, the cartoonist, prepared a poster to commemorate that first Earth Day. It featured his daily comic-strip character Pogo, and was captioned, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
John Hall, P.E., F.NSPE, of Coral Gables, Florida, is a K–12 champion and provocateur.
