Though it's been decades since I've been in HS, I have participated in many astronomy education events for all age groups and visited many of these schools and interacted with lots of kids & their parents over the years. Furthermore, my background is in engineering so I can speak from there.
Young kids interests are easy to attract. You show them something new, interesting, dynamic, a model, an experiment, help them with something hands on, etc. They get very exicited, exclaim it's 'cool' and want to share it with their friends and tell their parents. It is the 'spark' of interest.
As they age, they learn more, see more, but school becomes boring compared to it. I remember this even in the 70's before the 'digital revolution'. I chose science because it had labs, did experiments, was investigative and hands on. I wasn't always sitting at a desk for an hour, nor listening to a lecture. There was more interaction both with students and the teachers. Oceanography had several big aquariums with lots of intersting fish and objects in them. There was also the pumps, filters, tubing, buzzing...something was moving, going on. To a kid like me this was all fascinating.
I also realized that in the science classes, there weren't the jerks, the disrupters, etc. They were in the 'easy' art classes & book-keeping where there was little discipline. Plus science was tougher, required study, and thinking. They weren't into that. Also, I don't think science was required at the time. I took it because things always happened. I even found my math classes boring. It was just lecture.
So fast-forward to today....I wonder how many schools still have chemistry and physics LABS, biology classrooms with baby chickens studying genetics, wood & metal shop, regular demonstrations of experiments where something dynamic happens. In chemistry this means color changes, bangs, smoke, like a true erupting volcano with sparks & fire instead of baking soda & vinegar, reactions that stink, setting off the fire alarm every so often, experiments with dry ice, etc.
In physics this means physical demonstrations & experiments of electricity, magnetism, light, optics, construction, why bridges are built the way they are, Tesla coils, Van de Graaf generators, tennis ball canons, ballistics, airplanes & rockets. Give kids a chance to work with their hands, with tools, with chemicals and with close supervision and rules that must be obeyed.
A huge neglected part is audio. What kid, particularly male, isn't interested in bass? Loud music? A great stereo? What they need is someone to teach them, guide them. So you like deep bass, right "yeah, yeah". You want to learn how to make it? "yeah, yeah" Want to learn how to build your own cabinets? "Yeah, yea!" Want to learn how to hook all this up? "You bet". OK with that in mind, we'll study math, trig, electicity, magnetism, physics, acoustics, the science of sound, the properties of a bass driver, why some are better than others, why the box construction, dimensions of the cabinet, size of the cabinet are important. There is A LOT to it. They'll have to learn about resistance, inductance, capacitance, current, voltage, power, wavelengths, the audio spectrum and a LOT more.
But they'll be interested, they'll understand WHY you have to learn the math, the trig, the science, etc. because it's all a part of designing and building a great subwoofer and loudspeaker. Everytime they ask "Why do I have to learn all this?" You turn on the well-designed sub and rattle the walls, then you play the mis-aligned one in comparison.
But you can't teach science like you do english, multiculturism, government, diversity, ethnic studies, or even math. It won't work. It takes money to buy this stuff and experienced people who enjoy teaching to do it. Further you need a 'true believer' in this method to plow the road through the beaucrats, unions, paperwork, government, school board, etc. to set something like this up.
When they gripe there's no room in the curiculum (sp?) for this, then perhaps that's part of the problem! Remember, kids now have the internet, video & on-line games, music & video players, laptops, big-screen TV's, social media on various platforms, and a culture that emphasizes all of it. They use technology like this everyday, but it's transparent to them, they don't understand how it works, and most don't care. They don't appreciate it. Neither do most adults. As Dire Straits sang long ago "I want my MTV."
So the schools are competing with this. Talk about a wide gulf. Most education is stuck in a really, old paradigm. Fossilized. I was bored with it in the 70's, save for the science. Now, much of the experimental part of science has been removed along with the labs, auto-shop, wood & metal shop, etc., AND kids now have hand-held computers connected to the WWW and their friends FB pages. That's A LOT to compete with.
Certainly there ARE innovative schools who do a good job of educating kids, keeping them interested, and show them some of these things, but I'll bet most don't because they're run by people who are clueless, ignorant and perhaps fearful of it. After all, they set up the 'every kid should go to college' system now in place. Which is highly flawed in my opinion. But they've implemented that system and ignored much of what I've mentioned above and the results are all around us.
Many minority kids have been spoon-fed the wrong food during these years, passed onto college only to find they can't get in, it's unaffordable, or they get creamed by the amount of work because they're unable to function at the level required. They're now in a jr. college taking a remedial reading or math class, which is now very expensive. It's akin to taking drivers ed on a 5-lane freeway at 70mph in heavy traffic. Or throwing them into deep water when they're barely able to stay afloat, much less swim.
If you did that to many adults, they'd panic. Yet it's being done to 18yr olds. And the adults are actually surprised at the outcome of this?
I'll finish with a quick story. I had an older, rather gruff man I knew for a long time growing up as a kid. He was the 'throw them in the water to learn to swim" type. Was a royal PITA sometimes. So I took him out on my sailboat one time, a catamaran. You're much closer to the water, there ARE no brakes and no power save the wind. I asked him if he'd like to take the sheets & the tiller. "No, no, no...I'm fine..." So I challenged him "Come on..I'm here...I'm not going to let you do anything to harm us or my boat, give it a try" "No, no, no..." So I just let go of the rudder & the sheets. He nearly panicked. "What are you doing???" "Letting Mother Nature take over...watch" The boat slowly turned into the wind and stopped.
I realized then he was too afraid to try something new, to learn how to sail, that if he was ever 'thrown into the water to learn to swim', he would panic and drown. So much for braggadocio and old-fartism. You can't use that to float, swim, sail...or have success in college.
EOR.
Young kids interests are easy to attract. You show them something new, interesting, dynamic, a model, an experiment, help them with something hands on, etc. They get very exicited, exclaim it's 'cool' and want to share it with their friends and tell their parents. It is the 'spark' of interest.
As they age, they learn more, see more, but school becomes boring compared to it. I remember this even in the 70's before the 'digital revolution'. I chose science because it had labs, did experiments, was investigative and hands on. I wasn't always sitting at a desk for an hour, nor listening to a lecture. There was more interaction both with students and the teachers. Oceanography had several big aquariums with lots of intersting fish and objects in them. There was also the pumps, filters, tubing, buzzing...something was moving, going on. To a kid like me this was all fascinating.
I also realized that in the science classes, there weren't the jerks, the disrupters, etc. They were in the 'easy' art classes & book-keeping where there was little discipline. Plus science was tougher, required study, and thinking. They weren't into that. Also, I don't think science was required at the time. I took it because things always happened. I even found my math classes boring. It was just lecture.
So fast-forward to today....I wonder how many schools still have chemistry and physics LABS, biology classrooms with baby chickens studying genetics, wood & metal shop, regular demonstrations of experiments where something dynamic happens. In chemistry this means color changes, bangs, smoke, like a true erupting volcano with sparks & fire instead of baking soda & vinegar, reactions that stink, setting off the fire alarm every so often, experiments with dry ice, etc.
In physics this means physical demonstrations & experiments of electricity, magnetism, light, optics, construction, why bridges are built the way they are, Tesla coils, Van de Graaf generators, tennis ball canons, ballistics, airplanes & rockets. Give kids a chance to work with their hands, with tools, with chemicals and with close supervision and rules that must be obeyed.
A huge neglected part is audio. What kid, particularly male, isn't interested in bass? Loud music? A great stereo? What they need is someone to teach them, guide them. So you like deep bass, right "yeah, yeah". You want to learn how to make it? "yeah, yeah" Want to learn how to build your own cabinets? "Yeah, yea!" Want to learn how to hook all this up? "You bet". OK with that in mind, we'll study math, trig, electicity, magnetism, physics, acoustics, the science of sound, the properties of a bass driver, why some are better than others, why the box construction, dimensions of the cabinet, size of the cabinet are important. There is A LOT to it. They'll have to learn about resistance, inductance, capacitance, current, voltage, power, wavelengths, the audio spectrum and a LOT more.
But they'll be interested, they'll understand WHY you have to learn the math, the trig, the science, etc. because it's all a part of designing and building a great subwoofer and loudspeaker. Everytime they ask "Why do I have to learn all this?" You turn on the well-designed sub and rattle the walls, then you play the mis-aligned one in comparison.
But you can't teach science like you do english, multiculturism, government, diversity, ethnic studies, or even math. It won't work. It takes money to buy this stuff and experienced people who enjoy teaching to do it. Further you need a 'true believer' in this method to plow the road through the beaucrats, unions, paperwork, government, school board, etc. to set something like this up.
When they gripe there's no room in the curiculum (sp?) for this, then perhaps that's part of the problem! Remember, kids now have the internet, video & on-line games, music & video players, laptops, big-screen TV's, social media on various platforms, and a culture that emphasizes all of it. They use technology like this everyday, but it's transparent to them, they don't understand how it works, and most don't care. They don't appreciate it. Neither do most adults. As Dire Straits sang long ago "I want my MTV."
So the schools are competing with this. Talk about a wide gulf. Most education is stuck in a really, old paradigm. Fossilized. I was bored with it in the 70's, save for the science. Now, much of the experimental part of science has been removed along with the labs, auto-shop, wood & metal shop, etc., AND kids now have hand-held computers connected to the WWW and their friends FB pages. That's A LOT to compete with.
Certainly there ARE innovative schools who do a good job of educating kids, keeping them interested, and show them some of these things, but I'll bet most don't because they're run by people who are clueless, ignorant and perhaps fearful of it. After all, they set up the 'every kid should go to college' system now in place. Which is highly flawed in my opinion. But they've implemented that system and ignored much of what I've mentioned above and the results are all around us.
Many minority kids have been spoon-fed the wrong food during these years, passed onto college only to find they can't get in, it's unaffordable, or they get creamed by the amount of work because they're unable to function at the level required. They're now in a jr. college taking a remedial reading or math class, which is now very expensive. It's akin to taking drivers ed on a 5-lane freeway at 70mph in heavy traffic. Or throwing them into deep water when they're barely able to stay afloat, much less swim.
If you did that to many adults, they'd panic. Yet it's being done to 18yr olds. And the adults are actually surprised at the outcome of this?
I'll finish with a quick story. I had an older, rather gruff man I knew for a long time growing up as a kid. He was the 'throw them in the water to learn to swim" type. Was a royal PITA sometimes. So I took him out on my sailboat one time, a catamaran. You're much closer to the water, there ARE no brakes and no power save the wind. I asked him if he'd like to take the sheets & the tiller. "No, no, no...I'm fine..." So I challenged him "Come on..I'm here...I'm not going to let you do anything to harm us or my boat, give it a try" "No, no, no..." So I just let go of the rudder & the sheets. He nearly panicked. "What are you doing???" "Letting Mother Nature take over...watch" The boat slowly turned into the wind and stopped.
I realized then he was too afraid to try something new, to learn how to sail, that if he was ever 'thrown into the water to learn to swim', he would panic and drown. So much for braggadocio and old-fartism. You can't use that to float, swim, sail...or have success in college.
EOR.
