Friday, December 14, 2007

Huckabee is a huckster disguised as a huckleberry..


Gov. Huckabee is a photogenic and sweet tongued fellow who will surely charm many people who are looking for an excuse not to engage in the tough work of observing and thinking about the world. I respect any person's right to believe what they wish. However, I do not think that belief in pseudoscience qualifies one to be in any sort of leadership role which touches on education. While a sitting president has little to do with educational policy, he/she sets the tone for discourse on the topic and can be a cheerleader for initiatives to improve what we are doing. We have had seven long years where decisions were not made using the data at hand. It has been said that the current president has relied largely on guidance based on his beliefs. The result is that we are reviled by over a billion muslims and laughed at by our EU peers. In science, we have let ourselves drop to the bottom third of the developed barrel. I would propose to Gov. Huckabee that if there ever is/was an intelligent designer, he/she/it used good old data driven scientific method to guide things to where they are. I also suspect that the designer might have already finished and is observing us to see if we have the intellect to be included in further experiments. The only candidate with an actual track record on education is Gov. Bill Richardson who helped pump 700Million$ into New Mexico's educational system. Money isn't the only answer, but you don't need to do an experiment to realize that lack of monetary support does not work at all. I am appalled that my own teacher's organization, NEA-NH has endorsed Huckabee. He is a populist candidate with nothing in his experience for science, education, or the combination of the two!

BTW: credit to the Charlotte Conservative News for the 'holy mike' image

Friday, December 7, 2007

2006 PISA Science Assessment Results


On December 4, the OECD released the 2006 PISA assessments which focused on science and math. Sadly, the summary results placed the US below the average for the 57 countries taking the test. At 29th overall, it doesn’t appear that we will be relinquishing our love for creationism and astrology any time soon. China and India were not included in the assessment, but they are the two countries which have benefited the most by the failure of our system to entice students into STEM careers. The complete OECD US briefing can be found at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf
and does have some important nuancing for policy makers. Apologists for the bad results are claiming that other countries ‘hide’ their poor students in vocational pools which aren’t included in the sampling. One valid point is the fact that high scoring countries tend to be small, homogeneous entities in the developed cadre of countries. Countering that fact is the idea that the US is really 50 such entities – why can’t we get our act together? New Mexico is one state which has pulled itself up some distance with a 700 million dollar educational investment pushed by former governor and presidential candidate Bill Richardson. It can be done. Here in New Hampshire, we still rely on the shrinking resources of property owners and lottery tickets to prop up the system. We do OK, primarily by being a great place to live and attracting good teachers willing to be paid poorly. Unfortunately, our higher ed system is languishing with the same number of full professors now as in the 1960s, but triple the student load. The University of New Hampshire has a nationally recognized athletic program which loses a million a year, but has a shrinking number of students enrolling in STEM fields which get grants and outside funding. Maybe we are counting on a quarterback to be able to throw a satellite into orbit?