Chemical Education Today
Editorial: It’s a Matter of Money. Or Is It? At the recent Biennial Conference on Chemical Education Alex Johnstone of the University of Glasgow gave an excellent presentation as the Robert C. Brasted Lecturer. Johnstone’s work has for some time exemplified the best that can be done in the area of chemical education research, and his lectures are invariably sources of insight and inspiration. (We expect to be able to publish this address soon in Chemical Education Today.) One thing that came up in discussion after the talk was an explanation of lack of action in a particular area: “It’s a matter of money.” I jotted down a quick note and a question. Many of us lack money for one project or another—I certainly did during the seventies and still do for some kinds of ideas. But does that really need to be the sticking point? There are lots of examples where, despite lack of money, teachers have provided high quality education for their students. The problem is much more often lack of confidence, will, imagination, energy, or persistence. Most high school and two-year college teachers, for example, have minuscule budgets for equipment, chemicals, software, multimedia, or anything else. And precious little support staff for laboratory preparation or other labor-intensive, less-than-edifying tasks. Yet there are a great many chemists who credit a high school or two-year college teacher with enticing them into the profession. Just look The purpose of the conference was to bring at the comments of former students quoted together a broad range in the annual awards booklet published by the of chemical educators Chemical Manufacturers who have made silk Association. If lack of purses out of sows’ ears money or support were the determining factor, by devising creative how could high school or ways to build scientific two-year college teachers be so lionized by their equipment or carry out former students? chemical reactions This past August without significant there was an International Conference on inputs of money. Cost-Effective Science Education here in Madison. It was sponsored by NSF and hosted by the Institute for Chemical Education. (A report on the conference appeared in Chemical Education Today in the October issue.) The purpose of the conference was to bring together a broad range of chemical educators who have made silk purses out of sows’ ears by devising creative ways to build scientific equipment or carry out chemical reactions without significant inputs of money. Microscale experimentation, kitchen chemistry, home-
built low-cost instruments, and imaginative combinations of these were in evidence from all around the globe. It was clear that students of conference attendees, impecunious though they, their teachers, and their schools might be, were beneficiaries …in Scotland…all of exemplary science education—perhaps better than if chemistry teachers a lot of money had been must have degrees available. in chemistry. A corollary to the argument that lack of money is If Scotland can afford our problem is contentions it, why can’t we? from outside our community that good science education is too expensive and therefore should not be done. At the aforementioned conference, for example, we were told that a World Bank sector review of May 1995 had recommended abolition of hands-on science education at the pre-high-school level because it was too expensive. Clearly the World Bank has something to learn from the conference participants, who were able to do excellent science education that obviously was not too expensive. Lack of funding is definitely not desirable, but it is not the major impediment to good education. That dubious honor, I think, goes to a dearth of will and initiative on the parts of all of us in chemical education at one time or another. Alex Johnstone pointed out that in Scotland, which is not as rich a country as the U.S., all chemistry teachers must have degrees in chemistry. If Scotland can afford it, why can’t we? Of course we can, but we aren’t doing it. And we aren’t encouraging our legislators and administrators to make it happen nearly as strongly as we ought to be. The next time we are tempted to say “It’s a matter of money,” let’s stop to think whether it really is. Or is this just a way to avoid trying to find a more creative solution to a problem? One of my favorite philosophers of the fifties, Pogo, put it well: “There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve, then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blasts on tiny trumpets, we may meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us” (1). Let’s hope that in our battles within ourselves we may emerge victorious!
Literature Cited 1. Kelly, W. Ten Ever-Lovin’ Blue-Eyed Years with Pogo. Simon and Schuster: New York, 1972; p 287.
Vol. 73 No. 11 November 1996 • Journal of Chemical Education
A257
