By Christopher Moore
A while back I briefly discussed some of the problems I had teaching in the public school system here. I’d like to broaden the focus today and talk about how the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) not only hurt me, but is hurting science.
Here’s what the blogsphere has to say about NCLB:
The Unreasonable Man has this to say:
My biggest problem is not the fact that it is under-funded, because throwing money at a problem doesn’t always fix it. My biggest problem with it is that NCLB, by its very design, will not fix the education system. I have very strong doubts that it will even accomplish one of its main goals, which is to identify the system’s problems3.
Communists hate NCLB. Here’s a quote from the Communist Party Platform:
The Bush administration eliminated $8 billion in funding to public education after creating new, costly mandates in the “No Child Left Behind” act, which undermines public education in favor of vouchers for some children to attend private or religious schools. Every child should have the best possible public education.
Lisa Snell, director of the Education and Child Welfare Program at the Reason Foundation, wrote a wonderful article about NCLB for the October issue of Reason:
Like every junior high school student in Camden, New Jersey, 12-year-old Ashley Fernandez attends a school that has been designated as failing under state and federal standards for more than three years. But low expectations were the least of this seventh-grader’s problems. In 2004 Ashley’s gym teacher became irritated by his unruly class and punished all the girls by putting them in the boys’ locker room. Two boys dragged Ashley into the shower room. One held her arms and the other held her legs while they fondled her for more than 10 minutes. The teacher was not present, and no one helped Ashley.
Ashley’s principal, who has refused to acknowledge the assault, denied her a transfer out of Morgan Village Middle School. Since the gym incident, Ashley has received numerous threats, including repeated confrontations with male students who grab her and then run away. When Ashley’s mother began keeping her home from school, she got a court summons for allowing truancy …
This situation is exactly the sort of problem that George W. Bush’s much-ballyhooed No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was supposed to address. As the president said in a January 2001 press conference introducing the law, “American children must not be left in persistently dangerous or failing schools. When schools do not teach and will not change, parents and students must have other meaningful options. And when children or teenagers go to school afraid of being threatened or attacked or worse, our society must make it clear it’s the ultimate betrayal of adult responsibility.” …
Since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed, less than 2 percent of parents nationwide have transferred their children to other public schools. Teachers unions, school administrators, and journalists have argued that the low transfer rates prove parents do not want more choices and that they prefer their local schools. But while parents have more information than ever about the quality of their children’s schools, in most cases they still have no way out of a failing institution.
Here’s how NCLB is supposed to work: If your child’s school is failing, then you can send him/her to another school in the district. Here’s the problem: The federal dollars do not follow the student and good schools are already full.
As Snell points out “better-performing schools have no financial incentive to admit low-performing children.”
In practice, children are offered transfers only to other Title I schools. Since most Title I schools are mediocre performers at best, parents have a choice of schools that are only marginally better. Furthermore, the school districts decide which schools parents will be allowed to “choose”; often they offer only one or two alternatives.
Now the Communists I talked about above got it wrong. NCLB is FAR from being a voucher program. All it does is shuffle kids from one failing school to another that is farther away.
Real school choice would allow parents the option of sending their kids to any public or private school that will take them, and their tax money should follow.
Now our friend the Unreasonable Man has another gripe about how NCLB is unfair to teachers. And in a sense he is right. But the real problem is that the entire program is a huge waste of money that accomplishes absolutely nothing.
Higher standards? Most states had adopted some form of standardized testing long before NCLB.
School Choice? Hah!
Teacher Accountability? I assure you, if the students don’t pass, they’ll just make the test easier. So why bother.
Now how does all of this effect science? When our schools are failing how can we expect to groom good scientists?
By Christopher Moore
I just finished watching an episode of the West Wing. The ending reminded me of why I love science and why I love spreading that love via teaching. It reminded me of how much courage it takes to try, even when you will probably fail.
In the beginning of the episode, the President is practicing for a telecast that he will be participating in with NASA scientists on the following day. They will be sharing with young students the first images transmitted by a Mars rover called Galileo 5. There’s talk of adding a bigger theme, something more than just a couple of pictures from a barren planet. Something about exploration.
Sometime in the middle of the episode the signal from Galileo 5 is lost. NASA is trying to regain it, but it becomes evident that the landing was unsuccessful and that the mission was lost. They plan to cancel the telecast.
At the end of the episode, the President’s spokesperson suggests to the president that maybe they should go ahead with the telecast. “We have a captive audience of thousands of young minds, some of which are afraid to go to the blackboard or raise their hand because they might be wrong. Let’s say to them that even the big boys get it wrong. And then tell them that we’re going to build Galileo 6.”
That’s a bigger theme.
Being wrong takes courage. Because any time we explore beyond what is known, we take a risk. We take the risk that we may fail. But if we never try, if we never pursue new knowledge, we have already failed.
Raise your hand. Go to the blackboard. Have the courage to be wrong. The only time we ever truly learn is when we fail first.
By Christopher Moore
The successful flight of Burt Rutan’s SpaceShipOne not only won the Ansari X-prize, but it also set off a flurry of activity in the fledgling space tourism industy. As I reported here, Richard Branson already has paying customers lined up to be the first space tourists hitching a ride on a non-governmental rocket.
That’s exciting news.
But as Alan Boyle reports on MSNBC, the government is “riding to the rescue” to save poor, innocent people from the dangers of space flight. God bless them for once again attempting to stifle a young (nearly non-existent) industry. Here’s how Boyle descibes a bill before Congress:
In its original as well as its amended form, the bill lays out the process for licensing suborbital space vehicles so that they could carry paying passengers — something that SpaceShipOne, for example, is not allowed to do. The Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation already issues suborbital launch licenses, but the new legislation would have put the FAA’s procedures on firmer footing.
The law also would have allowed customers to fly on those space vehicles, provided that they were fully informed about the risks and signed a consent form.
The House approved the original version by a 402-1 vote, but when it went over to the Senate side, it became caught up in negotiations — at first, over the definitions of space vehicle, then over the bill’s safety priorities.
In the amended version, the FAA is repeatedly charged with looking after the “safety of crew and spaceflight participants” as well as public health and safety. The original bill notes that “space transportation is inherently risky,” while the amended version adds this phrase: “but the industry should be held to the highest standards of safety when transporting humans.”
Let’s forget for a second that the single most dangerous activity one could participate in is driving to work. Nevermind for a short while that people “jump out of perfectly good airplanes” daily with very little government involvement. Don’t consider the thousands of people who hang from steep, tall rocks or those silly folks who get a kick out of swimming in deep, cold water.
People do dangerous, stupid stuff. But the government doesn’t even bother to hold theme parks to “the highest standards of safety.” When I got SCUBA certified, a private citizen representing a private organization taught me and certified me. I taught myself how to rock climb. I used to do it all the time, and I never asked or told the government what I ws doing. I do really stupid stuff in my garage all the time, and I’ve never had a government agent stop by. I’m still alive, too.
But this legislation is different. We’re talking about GOING INTO SPACE. So of course government must get involved, right? Here’s what Glenn Reynolds has to say about this:
Regulation of commercial space passengers should be based on ensuring the highest standards of safety for third parties — nobody consents, as part of everyday life, to the risk of having a rocket come down on top of him. But where passengers are concerned, it’s another story. We ought to let people consent to the risks, both the known risks and the “known and unknown unknowns” regarding problems we can’t really anticipate in detail.
Sure. I conceed that it would be a bad idea to allow just anyone to light up a huge rocket anywhere they please. I’d be a little miffed if I woke up to find my neighbor’s rocket sitting in my kitchen. I feel the same way about my neighbor’s kids, dogs, and bullets. That’s why there are laws against trespass, for fences, and against shooting at my windows.
But as Reynolds points out, people understand risk. And so long as they understand the risk, and don’t harm anyone else, let ‘em fly. I think my neighbor’s German Shepard is a big, dangerous dog. I wouldn’t own one. I’d be afraid it would eat my kids. But he knows and understands the risks and has a nice, tall fence.
What would the revised version of this congrssional bill do for space tourism? It would kill it. You can’t insure the “safety of crew and spaceflight participants.” This Space.com article suggests that the FAA understands the issue:
Our first concern will be the safety of the uninvolved public, making sure that as this grows and develops that we’re doing everything we can to protect the folks on the ground, to make sure that the people who go into space understand the risks,” she said. “It will be a risky business for many years to come, no doubt.
Why can’t the congress listen? I still have hope that I will one day leave Earth atmosphere. The market always seems to survive, even while being held beneath the fluffy pillow of government regulation. I’d rather it thrived. And that’s why I’m voting for this man on November 2. And if the media would pay him some notice, I’m sure many more would follow suit.
By Christopher Moore
I used to teach high school physics in a public school. I was pretty good at it too. During my tenure I sent more students into college physics programs than any teacher before me. My students chalked up higher scores on standardized physics tests (such as Advanced Placement) than any previous. I began an online venture called ilovephysics.com that connected my classes to technology unheard of before. I loved my job and my employers liked me.
So of course I left the public school system. Not because of unruly students. The students were great. I had no problem with parents. I had plenty of funding for equipment. I made plenty of money ($39,000 for 9 months work isn’t bad at all!)
I left because otherwise, the school system was going to fire me!
I wasn’t qualified to teach. I never got a degree in education. I’d never even taken a course in education. I was a little busy finishing an M.S. degree in Applied Physics. I also never took a linear algebra course as an undergraduate. Apparently, that is required to be qualified to teach physics in Virginia. Nevermind the graduate linear algebra course I took (in which I got an A). My advanced degree and high GRE scores (both regular and physics subject) don’t cut it.
Did it matter that I was qualified to teach both physics and chemistry at the university level? Was my actual previous experience teaching at the university level considered? Nope.
This isn’t just a problem in Virgina. It’s a problem in all fifty states as well as other countries.
Here’s a story about a professor in the UK:
Dr Wolfe has been teaching at the school for two years. The rules are that he should have “qualified teacher status” (QTS). Part of that is a requirement to have at least a grade C in a maths GCSE … There can be no compromise on the need for the QTS …
David Wolfe is emeritus professor of physics at the University of New Mexico, where he used to run the physics department. He has a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania.
He said it would be easy for him to pass a maths GCSE - a qualification for 15 year olds - but, at 65, he was too old for that sort of thing.
“If there’s one thing that a person who becomes a professor has done, we may not be the cleverest but we’ve passed a lot of exams and I’ve taken enough in my life,” he told BBC News.
He accepts there need to be standards for teachers.
“But there also need to be exceptions made in special circumstances, especially given the situation where there is a great lack of teachers in a given subject like physics or maths.”
You bet. Requirments for “qualified” status need to be flexible. As the article discusses, the UK has added flexibility to its system, so Dr. Wolfe can continue to teach. But the UK’s counterparts in the US have not been so quick to recognize a solution to a problem.
The No Child Left Behind act has actually hampered a states ability to be flexible. Virginia does offer an alternative route to licensure. I initially got a job via this route. The problem is, that No Child Left Behind places a cap on the amount of “unqualified” teachers that a school can have before being labeled “failing”. Schools don’t like the “failing” label, so they avoid “unqualified” teachers at all costs. Virginia’s alternative route has its problems, but No Child Left Behind makes schools less likely to hire teachers that follow it, anyway. So a well intentioned and fairly effective state law has been trumped by federal bueracrats who know nothing of Viginia’s situation.
This is why I was facing a pink slip. In order to be a “qualified” teacher, I would have had to take five education courses, sit for three seperate exams (called PRAXIS), and go take that undergraduate linear algebra course. The school system was willing to pay for some of it, but I would have had to chip in over $1000. Before No Child Left Behind, I wasn’t worried, because the school system didn’t fire good teachers, even if they didn’t jump through all the hoops.
Post No Child Left Behind, I had two years to get it all done or I’d be pointed towards the door.
So I did what any self-respecting person with a graduate degree, cum laude honors, published research, a list of scholarship awards, and multiple private sector job offers would have done. I quit.
So why is there a teacher shortage in math and physics? Hmmmm.
By Christopher Moore
The rover Opportunity discovered more evidence of a watery past for the Marsian surface. For more see this article.
Data sent back by Opportunity suggests an area known as the Meridiani Planum, was drenched with water a second time, after an impact excavated a huge crater.
The rover project’s main mission has been to discover evidence that water may have flowed on Mars. If there was water, there was the possibility for life.
The big questions on most people’s minds, though, is: Who cares? How does life on Mars affect me?
Many scientists believe that Mars used to be teaming with life, much like an early, premordial Earth. For some reason, Mars became a barren ice planet and Earth became what we all sit atop today. Why?
Why did Mars fall victim to a cold death while Earth thrived? Could Earth be facing the same fate? If so, can we stop it?
These are the questions being addressed by our probing of the Marsian surface. The science behind these missions may well save our collective lives one day.
It may even be possible for us to “jump start” Mars and bring her back to life. Another habitable planet next door could accomodate our growing population and depleting resources. The resources offered by Mars could make our very existence more long-lived.
For those who consider the human race a virus and have no concern for the survival of the species … well you don’t care anyway. I, on the other hand, am ready to hop aboard a Rubicon rocket, enjoy my layover on the moon, and set-up camp on Mars.
By Christopher Moore
Check this out:
I’ll have this ready to go on the forums in no time!
UPDATE: The forums on ilovephysics.com now support LaTeX. Just slip whatever LaTeX code you want between [tex] … [/tex] tags.
By Christopher Moore
If you’ve been watching, then you have noticed how ilovephysics.com is changing. Here is an update on what I am doing and what has been done.
Forums: The forums are completely operational, so begin posting. I have chosen a simple PHP forum that uses a MySQL database. I decided against phpBB do to its bloat and confusing code. I’m using punBB because it is not loaded down with unnecesary features, and I understand the code, so when there are bugs, I can fix them. I have already coded in an image upload feature and a private message system, so we have all of the features we had before. After the site is completely up and running I will begin work on integrating LaTeX support for the forums.
Blog: You are reading a blog entry now, so obviously it is working. The blog is powered by WordPress, and I am more than happy with it so far. When I finish with the main features of the site, I will begin updating the blog with physics news daily. I also plan on contributing a weekly column of misconceptions in physics, to be posted every Saturday. Anyone who is interested in contributing articles or anyone who would like a weekly column, please email me.
Community: I haven’t even started yet, but it is next on my list. Once I am done, anyone will be able to post there own free website. My main motivation for this is as a service for physics teachers, but students will be welcome as well.
Store: I will be offering t-shirts and bumperstickers at drastically reduced prices soon. Also, I will be giving away t-shirt and bumperstickers to members regularly. I’m thinking about having regular contests with ilovephysics.com gear and other physics items as prizes.
Keep coming back. And remember, the first 10 users to reach 20 relevant posts in the forum receive a free t-shirt and bumpersticker.
By Christopher Moore
The recipients of the 2004 Nobel prize in physics have been announced. Read the AP report here.
Americans David J. Gross, H. David Politzer and Frank Wilczeck won the 2004 Nobel Prize in physics on Tuesday for their exploration of the force that binds particles inside the atomic nucleus.
So what did these guys do? Well they described a nucleus’ color! In english, they made theoretical discoveries concerning the strong force, which physicists call the “color force”.
The strong force is the dominant force inside the nucleus that acts between the quarks inside the proton and the neutron.
Protons and neutrons are made up of tiny little bits called quarks. In order to make a proton or a neutron I have to stick three quarks together. The strong force is the glue that binds these quarks. The model that explains this “glue” force is called the theory of quantum chromodynamics, or QCD.
Richard Feynmann recieved a Nobel prize in the 80’s for his work on quantum eletrodynamics, or QED. QED looks at what makes the electrons stick to the atom.
I just finished reading an article in this months Physics Today written by Frank Wilczek. Its an excellent article that touches on the concept of “force”. What is a force? You can read it here.
« Previous Entries
