The Fog of Education

(Note: The views expressed in this article are not representative of any particular group or institution.)

"Anyone from the president on down will tell you that a focus on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education is not just good for kids but for the nation." - Cliff Ransom

September's issue of Popular Science opened with emphasis on changing how we educate today's youth. Additionally, the publisher is partnering with a DIY electronics company to make Arduino boards more fiscally friendly to the nation's educational infrastructure. Other initiatives highlighted in this issue include using games as a teaching tool (SimCity EDU and LEGO EV3 robotics being the primary examples), and a contract between Red Bluff High School and NASA to run geological simulations at Lassen Volcanic National Park (which, for those of you who know me, is only an hour and a half to the west of where I'm from).

Speaking of, Lassen High School in Susanville, CA has some rather unique technological programs of its own. For those who are unaware, this is the high school I went to for four years, eventually to return to as a part-time faculty member for the past eight months and counting. That is to say that I have not only seen great changes in that time frame, but that I have also had the opportunity to help cultivate those changes. Though that last part is neither here nor there.
As of August 2014, if you were to be enrolled in this institution, or to be taken on a tour of it, these are the things you would be shown:

• A fully-stocked graphics design lab containing: over twenty iMac computers with Wacom drawing tablets, a Color Laser printer capable of printing on cardboard/card stock, a plotter which supports paper rolls up to 48" wide, a MakerBot 3D printer, digital cameras, studio lighting equipment, and boasting an articulation agreement with the local college (this means completing the high school course grants you college credit automatically, after other requirements have been met).
• A secondary computer operations lab containing: thirty-two desktops with lower-level graphics design software, a standard color laser printer, and the full Microsoft Office suite of software. This one is also in articulation with the local college.
• An advanced computer operations lab containing thirty desktops with programming software in various languages, as well as testing software for Math and English.
• Five additional computer labs loaded with testing software for Math and English, in addition to the standard internet access and Office software.
• An agriculturally-focused computer lab with additional Math and English testing software.
• A set of eight computers set aside for the Scholastic READ 180 program.
• Additional student computers set aside in various classrooms.
• Two sets of thirty laptops, to be used by the English and Science departments when approved.

Of course, that is far from the entirety of the list, and to cover it all would keep us here all day. The bottom line is that the campus has an absolute armada of resources at its disposal, compiled over the years and maintained with the utmost diligence. It's all very impressive, but is it truly effective?

Well, to answer that, I am going to present two perspectives to you guys. The first perspective is that of a recent college graduate (I'll be getting my Associate's Degree this month), while the second will be that of a Paraeducator (having worked one-on-one with various students).

Case 1: When I attended high school, I was a part of their Graphics Design program and their Future Business Leaders of America chapter. I took AP English (2 years), AP Calculus, and AP Chemistry. I graduated #9 in my class, got a 1910 on the SAT (this was after they started including the writing section), and enrolled in a 4-year university following my graduation. You can say that I exemplified the model STEM student.

Since then, the jobs I have had include being a Resident Advisor (human services), an insurance sales representative (business), and a paraeducator (human services). My degree will be in Social Science, which is a soft science and technically does not fall under the STEM category. In fact, when I attempted to do civil engineering as a major, I dropped it out of sheer distaste.

In many ways, I have grown to reject STEM because of the way it has been sensationalized, though I will acknowledge the reason for the glamour. In 2008, the unemployment rate for engineers was 3.3%, half of the national average, and that has failed to change much in the past six years. Furthermore, starting salaries hovered from $50,000 to $75,000 for someone with a 4-year engineering degree (Source: 978-0-19-976780-9). Go back to that Popular Science article, and sure enough, job security is the primary argument for getting educated.

But whatever happened to that job satisfaction thing, anyway? Getting back to that dropped civil engineering major, the reason I gave it up had to do with time spent as a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Once I'd spent some time doing the hands-on work, I was subjected to all of the deliberation and essentially all of the roadblocks which a civil engineer generally experiences. It left a rather awful taste in my mouth, while human services (what I ultimately changed to) provided a greater sense of fulfillment for me.

Unfortunately, having made that decision, I have received considerable backlash from people who expected me to utilize the STEM background I had been conditioned to expand upon. As STEM becomes more of a social obligation, society will continue to look down on people who reject it. It's no surprise that the term "useless degree" gets thrown around a lot these days.

My natural defense mechanism is to respond negatively to these accusations, and that forces me to respond with bitterness toward STEM in general. I do not want my value as an individual to be derived from how much money I make, or even from my capacity to hold a job. Morally, that isn't how society is supposed to work.

Case 2: My job has tasked me with asking one question: "why do students underperform?" While providing tutoring to students classified as struggling, I needed to monitor all sorts of external and internal factors which could impact student performance.

Popular Science argues that a major factor is disinterest among the students, and they would be right. However, the reasons for this disinterest have surprisingly little to do with the material itself, but rather with the confidence of the student in their ability to apply concepts, or even to be considered a "worthy" learner.

One female student at the sophomore level seemed to enjoy obtaining new facts, but she struggled with applying those facts in new ways (a form of divergent thinking). In the real world, such a struggle would not be noticeable; we often need only concern ourselves with what is and isn't, rarely why it is/isn't so, or how it can be changed. However, calling for change requires argument, which requires a fundamental standing of models for argument, which calls for divergent thinking, something she may continue to have trouble with since rhetorical argument is a component of the STEM curriculum. Therefore, the more STEM pushes her into this responsibility to use divergent thinking (something which she struggles with), the more STEM is going to alienate her entirely.

Meanwhile, a male student in that very same class was a rather adept divergent thinker. One might consider him a perfect candidate for the STEM curriculum, until getting a look at his transcript. His reason for failure stemmed entirely from a refusal to do the work, even though the work did not present as much of a challenge for him. I can't say for certain the reasons for his refusal, though part of it was a distrust of the people around him, and the feeling of being singled out as a problem student.

A third student, a female in her junior year, struggled in her English and math courses. Her reading comprehension was below average, but there was a time where she did attempt to do the work. That is to say she copied down the required information in lecture, and then completed the assignments in her other periods on borrowed time. She fell behind when circumstances led to her missing her afternoon English course. As for her math course, lack of organization led to work being lost, while the nature of the environment led to her overall distraction and inability to focus. As her grades continued to drop, she remarked that education in its entirety was a futile endeavor for her, and that was that.

All of these examples, and others like them, are derived from the notion that the STEM curriculum betrays the student, or does not care about the student. Using the proverbial carrot-on-a-stick will not help when the sting of the whip or the sting of neglect leave their lasting impressions. In a world where more and more students are subjected to conflict in their lives (for all sorts of reasons), we'll see students who would rather disregard these augments to the curriculum, which leads to money being spent, yet bearing no fruit.

How to Fix It: I'm not going to on the record saying I know more than credentialed staff or the administrators above them and myself. I'm still very new to the game, but I share the perspective of the students I am tasked with helping. A system which prioritizes success in the most superficial of ways is not one that will help the next generation of students.

We may be giving students more opportunities to learn, but we still haven't solved the issue of giving students more chances to identify with what they're learning. There is no meaning without joy, and students would likely perform much better if they felt confident enough to push for more challenging materials in the first place.