Dayton PBS stations repeatedly show 60 second ads praising local efforts in STEM education. I get a kick out of the fervency projected by the teachers on these videos. Why is “Science, Technology, Engineering and Math” education so crucial? One teacher explains: “Our challenge is to create a vast body of talent so that the Dayton region can become an economic power.”

The notion that the aim of American public education is “economic power” seems never challenged, regardless that such an aim is more appropriate for a totalitarian state than for a democracy. Alfie Kohn notes, “Those who talk about 21st-century schools invariably follow that phrase with a reference to ‘the need to compete in a global economy.’ The goal isn’t excellence, in other words; it’s victory. Education is first and foremost about being first and foremost.”

The idea that American education should be dedicated to making America first and foremost should be an idea that is challenged. We need an in-depth discussion about how to define the aim of American education. One of the STEM videos, shown below, shows an earnest sounding teacher proclaiming this aim for education: “Employers in our region need a knowledgeable and high tech work force and that’s what we plan to deliver.” I could imagine the Education Minister of North Korea making the same sort of declarations and promises, but, since when has that been considered the aim of American schools?

President Obama sounds like he wants an system of public education that will make America first and foremost. He is on record as supporting STEM education via comments such as this: “Our success as a nation depends on strengthening America’s role as the world’s engine of discovery and innovation. But, “our success as a nation” is not measured by the degree we dominate other nations, but, rather, by the degree we reach the goal of liberty and justice for all in our own nation.

As it is, the amount of liberty and justice an individual enjoys in our society is directly related to the amount of money he or she has, and, the problem is, many Americans simply don’t have enough money. Yes, ginning up more discovery and more innovation, via science and technology, will bring in a flood of new wealth. But, since our society is not wisely distributing the wealth it already has, it seems a safe bet that this new wealth, however large, “trickling down,” will not bring liberty and justice to all, any more than the vast wealth generated in the last twenty years succeeded in accomplishing such a goal.

We are far from enjoying a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” The injustice and lack of liberty in our society will not be solved via new wealth, our only hope to achieve our national goal, frequently reaffirmed in our pledge to the flag, is to vitalize our democracy. Such a vitalization will require an educated and involved citizenry.

Suppose we agree that the aim of our system of public education is to prepare citizens to have the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to fully develop their individual potentials and to fully participate in and contribute to our democracy. Interestingly, in-depth STEM education would have a big part to play in such a system of education. STEM seeks to develop the whole individual, seeks to develop holistic thinking, seeks to develop the capacity to see the big picture, think independently, and to problem solve — all traits valuable for citizens in a democracy. Here is one list of goals for STEM education, from “Attributes of the STEM educated student,” by Janice Morrison:

Students should be:

• Problem-solvers — able to frame problems as puzzles and then able to apply understanding and learning to these novel situations (argument and evidence) !
• Innovators — “power to pursue independent and original investigation”
• Inventors — recognize the needs of the world and creatively design and implement solutions !
• Self-reliant — able to set own agendas, develop and gain self-confidence and work within time specified time frames !
• Logical thinkers — using the logic offered by calculus and found in 60% of all professions world-wide; able to make the kinds of connections to affect an understanding of natural phenomena
• Technologically literate — understand the nature of the technology, master the skills needed and apply it appropriately (Knowledge, Ways of Thinking and Acting, and Capabilities as specified by ITEA in Technically Speaking)
• Participants in the STEM lexicon that supports the bridge between STEM education in school and the workplace
• Able to relate their own culture and history to their education

STEM education overlaps with those very skills needed for effective citizenry. But developing effective and prepared citizens should be the first emphasis, not a second thought. We need an acronym for education that prepares citizens to be full participants in their democracy. How about calling it CITIZEN education — Character, Independent, Thoughtful, Intelligent, Zestful, Enterprising, Notable — where the aim of our system of public education is to prepare citizens with the knowledge and skills needed to be fully participating and effective citizens and where the fact they may also be prepared to participate in a “knowledgeable and high tech work force” is a very secondary goal.

It is a nice thought that at sometime in the near future there might be 60 second videos on PBS with fervent sounding teachers telling about how PBS is helping with CITIZEN education.

Watch A Partnership for STEM Education on PBS. See more from STEM.

Watch The Thinkers of Tomorrow on PBS. See more from STEM.

The push of Ohio House Bill 136 to transfer public tax money from public schools to private religious schools is sufficiently outrageous that it may well incite closer public scrutiny of how tax money, in general, is used to support churches and the propagation of religion.

Churches and church schools are nonprofit organizations that are exempt from many laws that regulate other non-profits; they are given big advantages via special IRS tax laws that other non-profits do not enjoy.

The court documents from the bankruptcy of Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral revealed that eight church employees received over $832,000 worth of income, each year, that was completely tax free — via a “housing allowance” law that applies only to churches, not to other non-profits.

According to bankruptcy court filings in California:

• Robert A. Schuller, the megachurch founder, received a $98,861 tax-free housing allowance annually.
• A son and daughter of Schuller received tax-free housing allowances that totaled $236,768 annually.
• Three of Schuller’s sons-in-law received tax-free housing allowances that totaled $306,093 annually.
• Fred Southard, chief financial officer of Crystal Cathedral Ministries and who owns a home in Newport Beach, California, worth $2.3 million, received a tax-free housing allowance of $132,000 annually, and his son-in-law, a part-time pastor at the megachurch, received a tax-free housing allowance of $58,747 annually.

Since the “housing allowance” is tax free money, preachers often receive more in “housing allowance” than in salary. Fred Southard at Crystal Cathedral received $132,000 in “housing allowance,” but only $12,242 in salary.

TV evangelists and other ministers of the “prosperity gospel” live in multimillion dollar homes and receive hundreds of thousands of dollars each year tax free to pay for those homes.  And the law allows these preachers to own multiple vacation homes and receive the same tax advantage on each home.

Huge tax advantages given to churches and preachers is one explanation why there has been such a boom in the proliferation of new church startups. The “housing allowance” is one big advantage, but not the only one.

A 2006 article in The New York Times — In God’s Name: Religion-Based Tax Breaks: Housing to Paychecks to Books — shows that the cost of this “housing allowance” for churches each year is over $500 million in lost tax revenue.  And, of course, we all are paying more taxes to make up for this lost revenue, so we are being indirectly taxed to pay to support churches and support the propagation of specific religious doctrines

The nation needs a huge in-depth discussion about tax fairness, tax purpose.  Proponents of HB136 — pushing for the use of public tax money for private religious education — may succeed in stirring up public interest in the whole question of why tax money, in general, should be used to finance churches and the promotion of specific religious doctrines.

From the Secular Coalition For America:

Thomas Friedman’s recent NYT column about public education, “How About Better Parents,” cites the conclusions of recent studies that the quality of parental involvement is a key factor in a child’s academic success. Hardly big news, Friedman’s said in his conclusion:  “To be sure, there is no substitute for a good teacher. There is nothing more valuable than great classroom instruction. But let’s stop putting the whole burden on teachers. We also need better parents. Better parents can make every teacher more effective.”

It would be nice to have better parents in our society, but, the big question that Friedman does not address is: What are the public policies that will help parents and our educational system to be better?

Many comments responding to Friedman’s article point out that parents who are struggling financially  — parents in poverty — have huge challenges. Some teachers wrote comments about students who come to school hungry. One reader wrote, “What about the millions of kids whose parents are addicted to drugs and alcohol, who are suffering mental illness, and who cannot feed their children?” Some comments said Friedman was blaming the victim.

We have a system of public education, spending $10,000, or more, on each student, each year, yet, showing miserable results: big percentages of students never graduating from high school, and many of those graduating unprepared to function as productive and responsible citizens in a democracy.

It’s fair to say, “Isn’t it awful that there are so many awful parents.” It’s fair to say, “Education has huge problems with no easy solutions.” But it seems unconscionable to conclude, “As a society we can do nothing.”  It seems unreasonable to argue, “We are doing the best we can. Our system cannot be improved.”

A question needs to be framed in such a way that a solution to the question is possible. Friedman reveals the constricted space of how conventional thinking currently frames the discussion when he writes, “There is nothing more valuable than great classroom instruction.” That phrase deserves to be reread, several times. If a “teacher” is defined as as disseminator of curriculum and “education” is defined in terms of classroom instruction, then, to bring more success to the system, there are only narrow solutions possible.

Debating how to get better classroom instruction, or how to get more parental support for current school practices, in the big picture, amounts to arguing over how to best arrange the deck chairs on the Titantic. We need a bigger POV:  What is the purpose of the $150,000, or more, spent on a K-12 education, and how should this resource best be spent?

Bad parents and poverty are huge problems. Friedman’s article should remind us, for public education, what is needed is an in-depth investigation of the total system. We need to arrive at wise public policies.  What is needed is a focus on the big picture, beginning with defining the purpose / aim of the system.

See:

• If The Aim Of Public Education Is To Provide Opportunity — How Should $150,000 Per Student Be Spent?, By Mike Bock, on November 22nd, 2010.