Academic Standards and Public Opinion Paul Block, Jr., Ph.D. Research Professor of Chemistry, University of Toledo, and Publisher, The Toledo Blade, Toledo, OH
I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this very significant symposium, and t o d o so from arather unorthodox perspective. I t is not the perspective of a full-time chemical educator, but one of a person involved full-time, for more years than can decently be enumerated, in print journalism. Nor is it the perspective of someone, who like other members of this panel, has done research on the problems of chemical education and made contrihutions to the Chem Ed literature. However, I had the personal satisfaction a few years ago of synthesizing the first compound with thyroid activity containing no halogens a t all. From that time on everything has been downhill. I offer you, instead, the perspective of someone who, like Walter Mitty, has managed to maintain a toe-hold in two different worlds. One is your world, the realm of chemistry and chemical research, a place that for me is littered with problems of the diphenyl ether bond, thyroid activity assays, ACS journals, and occasional encounters with undergraduate chemistry majors. The other is a place alien to most chemists and chemical engineers, a realm of newspaper city rooms, deadlines, new stories, editorials, high-speed presses, phototypesetting machines, cahle and commercial television. Here the problems are more ethereal than any to he found in a chemistry laboratory. They involve sometimes perplexing topics like the public's right to know, puhlic interest, social responsibility, and the vagaries of public opinion. I t is from this vantage point that I will try to make some contribution to our topic, academic standards. Let me begin by challenging one of the American education establishment's most treasured beliefs about the origin of academic standards. Academic standards do not originate in groups of educators, curriculum specialists, and educational theorists meeting sedately behind closed doors on a university campus, or in a conference ruom a t the U.S. Department of Education or the National Science Foundation. Academic standards in chemistry and other disciplines are not set today by academicians, and never have been. They originate, ultimately, from the knowledge, ignorance, aspirations, and fears of the public: 225 million people, most of whom have not set foot inside a university in years, whose only acquaintance with a scientist comes from a succession of movie and television "thrillers" that portray the results of science as evil, and scientists themselves inept and amoral. The true standard-setters are the American people. This point was emphasized several months ago in a presidential study ( 1 ) of science and engineering education in the 1980s and beyond. It is a study that has aroused deep concern in the science education community. Conducted by the National Science Foundation and the U S . Department of Education, the study warned that the public's commitment to excellence and international primacy in science, mathematics, and technology has declined sharply during the last 15 years. One of its conclusions provides an excellent summary of the This article has been taken from presentation at a symposium on Academic Standards, sponswed by me Division of Chemical Education. at the 181st National meeting of the American Chemical Society, Atlanta. GA. April 2 . 1981. ' EmDhasis added.
relationship hetween academic standards and public
r pinion:^ This lemening of commitment has not been the result of a conscious decision on anvone's oart. but it has nevertheless ~ervadedour societv. a cause of this condition as a result.
Thomas Jefferson put it another way more than 160 years ago in that famous letter to William dawis which stated that an enlightened citizenry exerts ultimate control over all processes of a free society.Herbert Spencer framed the matter more colorfully in an attempt to correlate the customs and amusements of a nation with the regulations of its penal code. Spencer said that just as men delight in battles, bullfights, and combats of gladiators, they will punish by hanging, burning, and the rack. Well, just as men and women fear chemicals, fail to eraso chemistrv's contrihutions to societv. and view chemist$ as vaguel; satanic creators of toxic wastes and carcinwens. thev will resoond with silence as academic standards in hrgb scho& decline. What Evldence Do We Have of a Decllne in Academic Standards In Amerlcan Schools? Declining scores on standardized tests are perhaps the most familiar indicator. But the oresidential science education study cited a number of even more disturbing factors:
..
1) " .more and mare students than ever befurearedrupping out of science and mathematics courses after the tenth grade, and this trend shows no sign of abating." 2) "The declining emphasis on science and mathematics in our xhwl systems is in marked contrast to other industrialiaed countries.
Japan. Germany, and the Soviet Union all provide rigomus training in science and mathematics for all their citizens." :3) "Since about 1970, there has been a nationwide trend toward reduction of hieh school eraduatiun reauirements. Onlv one-third of the Nation's l?,000school districts require graduatedto take mare than one year of mathematics or science. At the same time-and we are not sure which came first-colleges and universities have reduced the amount of mathematics and science required for admission. These two trends are undoubtedly interrelated, and they are disturbing." There is evidence from elsewhere, (2) as well. In 1979, the National Science Foundation completed a wide-ranginn inauirv into the condition of ore-colleee science education i;thd~nited States, focusing on a groupof representative school districts around the nation. With the exception of a few science courses tailored for a small number of superior students, academic standards had not improved substantially from the pre-Sputnik days of the 1950s. NSF found that the back-to-basics movement-perhaps the most powerful and pervasive influence on elementary-and secondary education today-"had largely pushed the teaching of science into the background, if indeed it had ever really left." NSF researchers found no high school superintendents who were outspoken advocates of science education. Virtually everybody they encountered wanted a strong high school science program, hut most felt that other student skillsreading ability, writing ahility, and computational ahilityneeded improving first. Teachers encouraged the notionVolume 60 Number 9
September 1983
753
almost hevond comnrehension in a societv where science and technology have such a pervasive influence on so many aspects of life-that science is not important for everybody because it is something most people donot need in everyday life! Most elementary teachers lacked the time and resources to teach science, and most felt uncomfortable with the topic, anyway. In hieh schools where students could decide whether to take science or not, enrollment in science courses was declining. The NSF group found examples of both very good and very bad teaching. And it emphasized that the individual teacher is the key to quality education. Here is how one high school principal described an all-too-typical situation: If you have a person teaching science who really loves it, these kids really have a good science program. On the other hand, I've had to almost force someone to put the science kit in their classes. No one wanted to have anything to do with it. You know how science was treated? They got their minimum time allotments in (and that's all). This crucial role of the individual science teacher was emphasized elsewhere in the same study. Listen again: What science education will he for any one year is most dependent on what that child's teacher believes, knows, and does-and doesn't believe doesn't know. and doesn't do. For essentially all of the science learned in schoals the teacher is the enabler, the inspiration, and the constraint. Relatively little is known about the criteria for optimal teaching of high school chemistry (3).But there is agreement that the teacher's ahdity to inspire students, to rommunicnte a love and fascination with the subject matter, is one of the most important criteria for effectivr trilching. A sohering, months-long controversy mcurred in the puhlic schools in northwest Ohio last autumn in a way that may illuminate some of the constraints on high school chemistry teaching. It also illustrates the public's deeply entrenched fears of chemicals and raises questions about other matters that mav influence the oualitv of science education. The cbntroversy was over Ghich chemicals are too hazardous for use in high school chemistry lahoratories. One high school chemistry laboratory was closed outright after a fire denartment "hazardous materials" sauad seized all kinds of chemicals. A few were undeniably dangerous, and did not helone in a hieh school lab. Most. however. were relativelv innoc;ous in supervised laboratory setting. After fire dLnartment officials heean discussine the ~ossibleneed to detonate some of the chemicals, and disposk of others in dumps designed for the most toxic kinds of waste, a minor panic ensued. Students, parents, school officials, and even science teachers were frightened. There were good indications that this kind of panic atmosphere could result in the elimination of meaningful laboratory instruction in chemistry. So several members of the ACS Toledo Section, a mix of academic and industrial chemists, formed what was called the Committee to Preserve the Future of High School Chemistry. The committee met with school administrators and chemistry teachers to help plan and implement appropriate procedures to solve the problem. It also had a stabilizing effect on what fast became a very adverse climate of publicopinion about chemistry laboratory courses. The Toledo situation was by no means unique; similar controversies over laboratory safety have occurred elsewhere (.4.) . Teachers in the nuhlic schools essentiallv inherited a safety problem in which chemicals-unused, outdated, deteriorated. in bottles with no lahel or illeeihle labels-eathered dust in &rage locken or stockrooms foqyears. The day finally came when one teacher, who had not taught chemistry for years, looked at this accumulation of chemicals and became alarmed. As a result, the fire department swooped down on school laboratories around the city, seizing a number of inherently dangerous chemicals, hut mostly compounds that were essentially harmless if handled properly. There was one
a
754
Journal of Chemical Education
memorable moment when five members of the chemistry committee were inspecting more than 300 containers of supposedly hazardous chemicals seized from the schools. Dr. Leonard Brady, chairman of the chemistry department a t the University of Toledo and amember of the committee, held one container at arm's length, silently reading the lahel with furrowed brows and a very sour scowl on on his face. "Ahhh," Brady exclaimed, triumphantly point a finger, "it's deadly Vaseline." The container was labeled "petroleum jelly." About 80 percent of the chemicals were found safe, and returned to high school laboratories. Many of the rest were discarded because of water contamination or other deterioration. The committee tried to obtain some indication of why inventory control and plain old-fashion housekeeping was so poor in the puhlic schools. Let me emphasize that the problem was restricted primarily to the puhlic schools. Several situations with a hearing on academic standards came to light. First, the position of science curriculum director for the entire public school system had been vacant since 1977 due to a retirement. There was no one to organize in-service training programs or otherwise help teachers concerned about the accumulation of unused and outdated chemicals. The prevailing climate of puhlic opinion permitted the science director's job to remain unfilled for years. Imagine the outcry, the outrage, if the system's athletic director retired, and the school hoard decided no money could he found to hire a replacement. Science teachers also were being given greater teaching loads-again the result of puhlic policy decisions on how limited financial resources should be spent-and had little time for laboratory maintenance. More disturbing, however, is the fact that some science teachers wanted to perfonn inventory control and stockroom maintenance before the start of school or after school, the traditional way used in academic settings. But some puhlic school science teachers, represented by the Toledo Federation of Teachers, expressed concern that their union contract forbade such activity. Indeed, there was concern that teachers who devoted extra time and effort would be condemned as "scahs." In effect, academic standards were being influenced in an important way not he academicians or puhlic opinion, hut by a union contract. Other teachers did find time for stockroom inventory control. But they opened storage lockers, or looked at stockroom shelves, and saw only a maze of bottles hearing unfamiliar and even scary names. Their response was to turn away in fright, worried that toxic chemicals might be lurking nearby. How could any trained chemist, conversant with chemical terminology, react in such a way? The high school chemistry controversy brought to light another matter with crucial hearing on academic standards. The people teaching high school chemistry in our area, and much of the rest of the nation, are not trained as chemists, if the term is defined as anyone with an undergraduate degree. Indeed, chemistry, biology, physics, and other sciences are being taught on the secondary school level by persons with only a limited number of courses in science. They have no major in the science they teach. Most of their courses are in education. Can a person without an undergraduate degree in chemistry-something that confers the ability to read the chemical literature and perhaps even participate in some form of original research, demonstrate the excitement, the enthusiasm-even the love--for chemicals and chemistry so vital for inspiring students? I simply pose the question of whether higher standards of chemical education would he possible with teachers with degrees in chemistry, and a few courses in educational theory and technique-the exact opposite of current practice. I have no data to even attempt an answer. But the reliance on teachers with weak academic credentials in science, less interest in subject matter, and perhaps a lesser ability to inspire certainly is a matter that warrants further examination. The training of secondary school science teachers is dif-
ferent in Europe. . . where in some countries chemistw teachers in the top secondary schools have university degrees in chemistrv. and onlv a few education courses (5). Likewise, there is greater imphasis on high school science in the countries that pose the greatest technological challenges for the United States. Japanese high school graduates, for example, must take a t least two years of math and two years of sci&e-compared to one ye& of each required in the typical California school district (6). College-hound Japanese students take math every year in high school, attaining sophistication beyond trigonometry. Only five out of every 100 California high school students take trig. The University of California requires only one year of high school sciences and two of math. The top-ranked Japanese universities require every student to take physics, chemistry, biology, and earth sciences. The overall achievement scores of Japanese students in math and science are the highest in the non-Communist world. Ironicallv. the new nhvsics. chemistrv. and hioloav teaching materi& being usei by the'~apanesewere developed by the U.S.'s National Science Foundation. T h e Toledo hazardous chemical situation also provided another one of those all-too-familiar demonstrations of the extent to which the public fears chemicals. People overreacted because the situation involved chemicals. Parents spoke of keeping their children out of chemistry classes hecause the lahoratorv work might involve contact with toxic chemicals. student; were frightened. Teachers were frightened; puhlic officials were frightened. Anyone who accepts the contention that academic standards ultimately depend upon the public's perceptions, fears, and aspirations cannot fail to woriy about the continuing epidemic of chemophohia sweepina the nation. ~ m o n the i vast majority of Americans, there is only the most marginal appreciation of chemistry's critically important role in so many different areas of society. Mere mention of the word "chemical" triggers the most irrational of fears-of explosions, fires belching poisonous fumes, disaster evacuations, toxic waste spills, mutagenic vapors fuming from abandoned toxic waste dumps, water and air pollution, chemical warfare, nuclear wastes, carcinogenic food additives, teratogens, nanalm. and other horrors seeminelv .. . without end. There is precioui l ~ t t l eappreciati~mthat evervthing in the world. inrludinr the humall hod\ itself. is made from I hrrnicals. Life itself is nothing more &an a delicately tuned series of chemical reactions. The s i m ~ l eact of clenchina one's fist-in the direction of a chemist's nose, n o d o u b t i s possible because of the transport of chemical materials, ions, acrms cell membranes. Likewise, how many people appreciate chemistry's central role in the Green Revolution that has helped to feed the world, or in the identification and synthesis of medicines that have expanded the human lifespan, or in clinical laboratories that diagnose disease, or in c o u d e s s other areas of modern life? Like all science and technology, chemistry produces henefits for mankind-but a t a cost. The societal costs of chemical endeavor are emphasized, indeed, they are over-emphasized. almost daily. But who proclaims the henefits? Who reminds society that without chemistry-warts and all-we all would be plunged hack into the Dark Ages? The puhlic fears chemistry and other areas of science and technology partly, I am convinced, because science means change-change that often is sudden, unexpected, with potential side-effects that seemingly dwarf the actual henefits. The closest most Americans have ever come to knowing a scientist is a passing acquaintance with a high school science teacher, and the image portrayed in movies and on television. Public opinion about science is determined largely by the interaction between these two factors: Public fear of the unpredictable consequences of science, on the one hand, and the public's image of scientists on the other. Thomas A. Maugh,
a
.
11, in a report in Science, (7) points out how negative this image is, and refers to some of the potential consequences: The press, the movies, and, especially, television convey the image t h n t scientific onxress is hazardous and that scientists are freauentlv
enough to appreciate the joys and wonder of science, Carl Sagan has warned (8)that television and the movies are leaving children and many adults with the impression that science i s always dangerous and never heneficial. He had specific criticism of the image of scientists presented to children, especially the millions who gather around television sets for Saturday morning cartoon programs. Scientists, he says, are portrayed as "moral cripples driven by a lust for power or gifted with a spectacular insensitivity for the feelings of others-and the message conveyed to the moppet audience is that sciences is dangerous." One of these cartoon characters, for examnle. was a "Dr. Nerdnik." who wanted to shrink all the penpie of earth to a height of three inches-his solution to the no~ulationboom and the shortage of aaricultural land. Anbther is an awful scoundrel who ;s always trying to melt the polar ice caps. ~
~
Brlnglng About Change What can he done to change this adverse puhlic image of science and scientists, to mold puhlic opinion into a powerful force that can have such a heneficial influence on academic standards, funding, and so many other aspects of science and technology? It would he difficult to understate the role that secondarv schools could play in this process. For the vast majority i f Americans. the hieh school experience is crucial in shaping . future attitudes toward science-a point that I will return to in a few moments. We could, for example, encourage professional journals read hv educators to present balanced, factual accounts of current c&.roversies in.which chemistry is the central element. An excellent prototype for such a continuing series appeared reOF CHEMICALEDUCATION (9).In it cently in the JOURNAL Dr. Elizabeth K. Weisburger, of the National Cancer Institute, punctured the widespread puhlic belief that natural "organic" materials are nontoxic, and that only chemists-and never Mother Nature-produce toxic materials. What results is a beautiful exposition on natural carcinogens, mutagens, and other powerful poisons that exist in the world with no intervention from the chemist's hand. Such reports could dispel1 misconceptions of teachers, as well as students. Similar articles also should appear in the journals of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the National School Boards Association. Relatively little is known about how the composition and method of selection of America's 16,000 school hoards affects academic standards. About 94 percent of these hoards are elected, often after large numbers of aspiring candidates have been screened by political parties, which pick "the best" individual. We need to know whether "the best" individuals selected by political parties also are the most capable, ahle to make informed and enlightened decisions. And we need to examine alternative processes for selecting school hoard candidates, mechanisms that do not a t least give the appearance of a politicization of local school hoards. I, personally, would like the American Chemical Society to investigate the possibility of such an informational campaign, directed not just a t science teachers, but a t local school officials, legislators, and the puhlic in general. Call it Chemistry in Controversy, White Papers on Chemistry, or use some more appropriate title. Each installment would he essentially a background report, written in easily understandable hut penetrating fashion, that examines chemistry's role in topics ~
Volume 60 Number 9
September 1983
~
755
of current controversv-topics where oreviouslv onlv the negative has been prkknted: food ad&tives, toxic wastes, environmental pollution, and a range of others. Examine the issue in detail.acknowledge the adverse consequences, the uncertaintiesof chemistry. But giveequal time to the henefirn, the contributions chemistry makes in each area, and point out the ease with which mhny of chemistry's side effects can be eliminated or a t least controlled: Individual chemical firms such as Monsanto, with it's "Chemical Facts of Life" series, have made hoteworthv contrihtltions in this area. with oaid advertisements. Rut thkir motives and veracity sometimes are auestioned bvaskeotiral nuhlic. The usenf television in such program oipublif education should not be ignored. There are National Geoeraohic Societv that attract . "Soecials" . millions of viewe;. w h y not American Chemical Society Specials, using equally slick cinematography to chart the role of chemistry in the modern world? In the schools, a varietv of other aporoaches are oossible. Most high school c h e m i s b curriculaieave students with no idea of how chemists work in an industrial setting-the olaces where high-visibility problems like toxic wastesand cakinogens originate. A new high school chemistrv course dealing k i t h the application o f chemical principies to industriai oroblems has been develooed bv the Weizmann Institute of Science (10).I t includes ~llustr&ionsof chemical concepts such as oxidation-reduction, heat of reaction, rates of reaction, and chemical equilibrium. It explores the impact of the chemical industry on society and the economy, and deals in a forthright fashion with the environmentalconsequencesof industrial activity.. Less ambitious and time-consuming courses also have been developed ( I 1 ). One, for example, allows chemistry students to substitute some classroom time for work with chemisrn in an industrial setting. Excellence in science teaching must be rewarded financially. Some of our most nroficient chemistrv teachers now are k i n e lured to higher job8 in indust&. There must be a clear recognition by local school W d s of the need to retain science and mathematics teachers with. the demonstrated ability to inspire students. This can be done only by recognizing accomplishments of individual teachers, and doing so in dollars and cents. The presidential report on science and engineering education confers a distant sense of urgency on completing measures such as these. But it is not because America's future scientists are being educated poorly. Indeed, the report maintains that, in general, the education provided high school students who plan a career in science or engineering is "adequate." But it points to a trend toward "virtual scientific and technologic illiteracy" among students planning careers in nonscience areas. One of the oldest and most fundamental goals of high school chemistry has been to provide a sound background for stu. dents destmed for college-level chemistry courses. Yet only a fraction of the students in most hieh sch~mlswill ever rake even one chemistry course a t the college level. Often included in this group are America's future attorneys, legislators, businessmen, government regulators, newspaper and television news renorters. movie directors. television scriot writers. military pernonnel-all, incidentall'y, voters who in the dec: ades ahead w~lldetermme the level of fundine for the national scientific and technological enterprise. The presidential study said of this group:
a
They are indirectly involved through their influence on the governmental and industrial sources of funding for scientific and technological endeavors. They are involved in the regulatory and policy decisions that set directions for scientific inquiry and technological development. They reap the benefits of science and technology. Many
758
Journal of Chemical Education
need some knowledge of science and technology to do their jobs well. However, the current trend toward virtual scientificand technological illiteracv. unless reversed. means that imoortant national decisions Too many decisions on academic standards for secondary school science alreadv have been made on the basis of ienorance and misunderstanding in the manifestation of a selfperpetuating cycle of mediocrity. Adverse public opinion about science and scientists fosters low academic standards. The standards produce high school graduates who misuncontrihkions, an;d relevance of science. derstand the They, in turn, stand by in silence as academic standards decline still further, a n d t h e cycle repeats with an awful regularity. But make no mistake. It is a cycle that can he broken. T h e back to basics movement originated in public concern and outrage with an educational system that produced high school graduates unable to read and use basic mathematics. We need similar climate of concern-even outrage-over the condition of science education in American secondary schools. There must be a realization that a sound. basic education in science is as vital for the functioning of a technological society as the abilitv to read. A back-ti-basics spirit is needed to revitalize high school science. It must be directed orimarilv a t the millions of voune . people who will never take an ad;anced college course in science-the future lawyers, legislators, government officials, and voters who outnumber scientists 400 to 1. For by sheer weight of numbers, these are the people who will determine the future course of the national scientific and technological enterprise. ~ u i u r decisions e on the funding and direction of chemistry and the other sciences can rest in the hands of the scientificallv informed, or the scientifically ignorant. We can, in effect, open one of two doors to the future. By doing nothing, we continue in a blissful self-deception that educators can set and implement academic standards without the support of those who control purse strings for local school disthits around the nation. Or we can work together to open the other door, striving to improve public appreciation of the contributions made by chemistry and the other sciences-in spite of their risks. We can insure that all high school graduates have the technical backeround necessarv to become literate members of a technological society. We can expose secondary students to science teachers who radiate a love. aooreciation. and fascination with science-realizing that the 'ciosest most will ever come to knowine a scientist will be that hieh school chemistrv or biolo&or physics teacher. It will l a k e time to correct a orohlem that has been develooine . - for 15 vears. But it can he done, and science will prosper as never bkfore.
a
-
Literature Clted i l l Huistedler, S. M..and Lenpenherg, D.N.Scienco andEngineering Education in the 1980P and Rsvond: Summary and Anslyria. US Department oiEdueafion and N a ~ Liunnl seiene* F"undati
