Arizona, We Have A Problem: The State Of S.T.E.M. Education

Arizona, We Have A Problem: The State Of S.T.E.M. Education

by | Jul 10, 2023 | Opinion

By Diane Douglas and Dr. Peter Pingerelli |

Some remember the live broadcast of Apollo 8 orbiting the moon on Christmas Eve 1968. Over 1/4 of the world’s population listened in, as the crew read from the Book of Genesis. The United States of America led in space exploration, and we were another step closer to man stepping onto the moon’s surface: an achievement requiring education, dedication, courage, and perseverance of thousands of men and women.

And yet it was a simple analog device called a slide rule that helped us achieve this goal. With over 5 million parts in the Apollo Saturn V spacecraft, astronauts, engineers, scientists, and students routinely used slide rules to make the Apollo program a reality while also allowing users to develop and enhance mental skills when calculating an answer.

We certainly don’t advocate revitalizing this nostalgic masterpiece of technology with the advances of graphing calculators and computers, but there’s something remarkable and important about continuously exercising our mental capacities as we become seemingly more dependent upon our newfangled digital world. Today, we need to simply ask Google, Alexis, or Siri to answer a question as waves of artificial intelligence increasingly sweep into our culture and educational system. But can we still aspire to achieve these national aspirations of new frontiers when our country is failing to educate the upcoming generation of students desiring to become medical professionals, scientists, or engineers? How can our nation excel in these fields if our students no longer understand the math and science behind the tools?

In Arizona the results are sounding the warning bells. Of all students statewide, 60% are failing English and 67% are failing math according to the 2022 assessment. And yet all we hear from a system incapable of teaching our children basic academics are demands for more money. The Arizona state budget for 2023-24 is $17.8 billion of which $9.3 billion is allocated to K-12 education. When do we stop giving money to a system that can’t do what it is paid to do?

Results are also discouraging when it comes to statewide science assessments. In 2018 and 2019, 50% of students statewide were not successful at passing the AIMs science assessment, and the 2021 and 2022 results from the new assessment AzSCI are yet to be made public.

And what about the educational rigor and curricula developed for K-12? Are we truly preparing students to become not only critical thinkers but also future scientists and engineers? While every student may not aspire to be a doctor, scientist, or engineer, is it unreasonable to expect that a graduate leave with at least a high school level understanding of these subjects in order to be an informed member of our society? Have Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (S.T.E.M.) initiatives provided the needed reforms? Are our general educational and STEM dollars being directed to impactful programs or only those that merely mirror the political agenda? Comparing the two philosophies is like comparing the difference between environmental conservationists such as President Theodore Roosevelt versus environmental activists like Greta Thunberg.

We offer considerations that need to be coupled to reforms that don’t just nibble around the edges but take significant bites at improving our state’s educational system.

The following steps, we believe, offer a starting point.

  • Focus on fundamentals of reading, math, and science. Just as phonics is the gateway to a good reader, a solid foundation in arithmetic is quintessential. Students need to know multiplication tables, how to divide without using a calculator, percentages, and the difference between fractions and decimals. In 2018, 79 countries administered the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) to more than 600,000 students in public and private schools measuring 15-year-olds’ ability to use reading, mathematics, and science knowledge and skills to prepare them for workforce and educational challenges. The U.S. students ranked 8th in reading, 30th in math, and 11th in science. These scores have remained stagnant for decades with no foreseeable improvements. This concern is perhaps best summarized by the words of the Apollo 13 Commander James A. Lovell, “Ah, Houston, we’ve had a problem here” when the spacecraft service module’s oxygen tank ruptured.
  • Our big math problem with K-12. Competency in basic mathematics is not just the domain of students motivated to be scientists and engineers. Our society and individual freedoms function best and are protected when its members are educated. How many times have we visited a deli counter, and the worker does not know that 1/4 of a pound fractionally represents 0.25 on their digital scale. We fear the fundamentals of math are not being adequately practiced in too many of Arizona’s classrooms. Practicing and drilling mathematical concepts and calculations builds and strengthens the connections in our brains. Student athletes continuously practice skills of the game, pianists translate brain connections and movements into music. And while practicing math skills may seem boring and redundant it is nonetheless imperative for long-term learning. Perhaps a solution is to stop cramming in new curricula that may be interesting, but do not fortify long-term learning. Too often, incoming high school freshman lack the basic arithmetic skills to be successful in algebra. Like all endeavors requiring skills, math must be practiced over and over to ensure the necessary competencies.
  • STEM education MUST be more than STEM entertainment. Most people are intrigued by science and exploration. Early on in primary education (K-4), it is important to capture interest in young minds. But as students progress in their interest in science careers, there is a necessity in STEM programs to introduce the rigors of math and science into the program’s curriculum. It may be a load of fun to fly a drone or launch a model rocket, but it should be accompanied with the key scientific principles and the underlying math that is age appropriate.
  • Curriculums should NOT be reimagined from proven methods for science education. For example, as pointed out in a recent publication, “Science education needs to overcome its habitual biting reflex against ‘the’ Scientific Method and realize its potentials as well as its limitations….” The author continues, “Vetoing ‘the’ Scientific Method even from introductory science at the primary level might actually do harm…” (Science & Education (2021) 30:1037–1073). The article goes on to explain why scientific inquiry should not supplant the scientific method which provides a clear and easy to understand approach to scientific discovery in the natural world.
  • Qualified S.T.EM. Teachers. We believe an effective teacher needs three things – a passion for the subject they teach, good communication skills, and knowledge of the subject they teach “inside-out.” But too often many of our teachers, while possessing the first two criteria, are deemed “Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)” in areas that were not their college major. We believe this is the most troublesome for high school science courses but also affects seventh and eighth graders. Moreover, we assert non-SME teaching results in omissions of fundamental scientific concepts, and in our opinion, leads students into adopting an “emotional science” curriculum that is often ideologically driven. Shouldn’t students be well-versed in the carbon cycle and its stages before adapting scenarios that our planet faces imminent catastrophic consequences in five years? Students need critical information to intelligently support or reject such hypotheses. We understand the problem of teacher shortages in Arizona — particularly in math and the natural sciences — but asking a teacher to teach without the academic background results in poorer learning outcomes as demonstrated by state assessment scores.
  • Reinforce objective truth of science and emphasize academic excellence in Arizona K-12 classrooms. Our K-12 classroom curriculum needs to refocus on objective truths of scientific principles unfettered by personal beliefs or emotional activism. We are concerned that students are too often asked how they feel about a subject before teaching them the facts about the subject. If our students don’t understand basic underlying principles that are always true about the natural world, how can they engage in meaningful debate or constructive controversy on any topic when venturing into a complex world filled with YouTube experts. Let’s avoid spending our valuable educational dollars by putting the subjective activism cart before the horsepower of true knowledge. We need to better train teachers with the ability to deliver curriculum focused on the broader understanding of scientific principles and processes.

    It is our hope that policymakers and those responsible for curriculum development will examine these considerations. It is sad to witness a college freshman with aspirations to become a medical doctor that doesn’t possess the basic skills to pass general chemistry. A student retorts, “I don’t understand why I’m failing; I got an A in all my high school science classes.” Such gaping disconnects between the knowledge and skills needed to succeed and the curricula being taught must be resolved.

    The data is clear that our education system is not delivering for our students, and we should no longer abandon the scientific method of observing, hypothesizing, experimenting, and analyzing when it comes to our students. The predominate hypothesis has been that better education is achieved with accelerated funding and recently removing results-based metrics. The scholar Thomas Henry Huxley pointedly captures our concern, “The great tragedy of Science,” he wrote, is “the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

    Will our educational system allow us to reach the next adventure and witness new planetary horizons? It is interesting that when James Lovell was an astronaut for both the Apollo 8 and Apollo 13 missions, being part of the triumph and first to leave Earth’s orbit and then confronting the challenges that Apollo 13 faced, he used a slide rule.

    Diane Douglas is the former Arizona superintendent of public instruction; Peter Pingerelli is an associate adjunct in the College of Science, Engineering and Technology at Grand Canyon University. Ms. Douglas served on the Peoria U.S.D. governing board 2005-2012; president 2008 and 2009; Dr. Pingerelli serves on the West-MEC governing board 2017-present and is the current board chairman. Both are also on the Board of Directors for the Earth and Space Expedition Center in Phoenix, Arizona.

    Ducey Acted Maliciously With Veto Of Sex Ed Bill

    Ducey Acted Maliciously With Veto Of Sex Ed Bill

    by | Apr 22, 2021 | Opinion

    By Diane Douglas, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 2015-2018 |

    When it came to SB1456 (sex ed instruction, parental rights), IF I were a bettin’ woman, I would have been betting Governor Doug Ducey would take the cowardly way out and have allowed the bill to pass into law without his signature.

    Instead Ducey took the malicious way out – on so many levels. He vetoed SB1456 and replaced it with yet another worthless Lord Ducey decree – Executive Order 2021-11. One can’t help but wonder if this veto isn’t a bone Ducey threw to Kathy “no promo homo” Hoffman as it came just one day after he rescinded the school mask mandate she loved so much. But I digress.

    Ducey’s statement in the veto letter that sex education in Arizona is “Opt-In” is disingenuous at best; if for no other reason than the conflicts and loopholes in statute – none of which were addressed in his executive order.

    ARS 15-102(A) (4) reads: If a school district offers any sex education curricula pursuant to section 15-711 or 15-716 or pursuant to any rules adopted by the state board of education, procedures to prohibit a school district from providing sex education instruction to a pupil unless the pupil’s parent provides written permission for the child to participate in the sex education curricula. (All emphasis mine)

    OPT-IN

    Except ARS 15-716(E), which defines requirements for HIV/AIDS instruction, reads: At the request of a parent, a pupil shall be excused from instruction on the acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the human immunodeficiency virus as provided in subsection A of this section. The school district shall provide a description of the course curriculum to all parents and notify all parents of their ability to withdraw their child from the instruction.

    OPT-OUT

    ARS 15-102 (A)(5) reads: Procedures by which parents will be notified in advance of and given the opportunity to withdraw their children from any instruction or presentations regarding sexuality in courses other than formal sex education curricula.

    OPT-OUT

    And I would remind parents that when the Genderbread Person was taught in a Flagstaff school it was brought into an elementary English Language Arts class. And while technically the teacher notified parents “in advance” the actual subject of the lesson and content of the instruction was not disclosed to parents.

    So which is it – opt-in or opt-out? As any good attorney will no doubt tell you the answer is – it depends. But I can virtually assure parents under current law it will be whichever is most expedient for the district, which is opt-out.

    SB1456 would have corrected these contradictions in statute and made Arizona truly an opt-in state.

    But most importantly what SB1456 would have prohibited is the sexualization of children in Kindergarten through 4th grade.

    Ducey’s “rationalization” for his veto of this vital protection for our youngest students is that SB1456 will stand “in the way of important child abuse prevention education in the early grades for at risk and vulnerable children.” It would be laughable if the subject was not so serious and his veto not more threatening to susceptible children.  Exposing these young children to comprehensive sex education can for some children have the effect of desensitizing them and making them MORE vulnerable and, in the wrong hands, potentially groom them for sexual abuse.

    Child abuse and comprehensive sex education are NOT one and the same and should NEVER be put under the same umbrella. Isn’t child abuse protection services one of the reasons Ducey added $20 million to the $15 million in grant funding for school counselors and social workers?

    Any parents who has ever tried to get a school district to provide them access to instruction materials – before or after the fact – knows Arizona is NOT the land of parental rights that Ducey paints in his veto letter. Parental rights statutes in Arizona are about as effective as an old, toothless guard dog. There are no consequences for districts, schools or teachers that don’t comply with statute and fulfill the parent’s request for instructional materials.

    As for Ducey’s self-congratulatory back slapping about encompassing what he deems the “heart of the bill” – parent “involvement” and online availability of sex ed curriculum – could have just as easily and effectively been expanded through State Board of Education rules which already set requirement for public meetings to review and adopt sex ed curricula. But whether by executive order or SBE rulemaking neither have stability nor durability of Arizona Revised Statutes. It has become very apparent over the past 13 months that our governor no longer respects a representative form of government for Arizona and continues to rule by decree rather than govern. But, again, I digress.

    But no, Governor Ducey, the true heart of SB1456 was protecting the innocence of our youngest, students, ages 5 to 9 years old. Nothing is more important that safeguarding our precious children at the earliest ages, actually all ages, from the evil of Alfred C. Kinsey, Siecus and Planned Parenthood’s comprehensive sexual instruction and indoctrination. Well, nothing other than teaching our children to read, write and do arithmetic something else at which our system fails.

    I’m sure glad that I am not a bettin’ woman because betting on Doug Ducey to protect parental rights and children’s innocence is a losing proposition – big time.

    Ducey Acted Maliciously With Veto Of Sex Ed Bill

    Arizonans Deserve Better Than Legislators Trying To Triple Their Own Compensation

    by | Apr 5, 2021 | Opinion

    By Diane Douglas, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 2015-2018 |

    In the words of the famed NY Yankee catcher, Yogi Berra, “it’s like déjà vu all over again!”

    In 2019, during the very last, wee hours of the legislative session the legislators passed SB1558 attempting to TRIPLE their per diem compensation.

    This year’s attempt, by virtue of an eleventh hour “strike everything” amendment to HB2053, is to give themselves a very significant increase in their per diem because a salary increase must be passed by the voters. It’s probably safe to assume that such shenanigans would have been attempted last year as well had the session not been prematurely preempted thanks to the Covid “crisis.”

    This session the legislators propose to increase Maricopa County legislators per diem from $35 to $56 for meals each day of the session. Legislators outside Maricopa County per diem increases from $60 to $207 – $56 for meals and $151 for lodging for every day in session.

    Legislators are paid a salary of $24,000. This may not seem like a lot however consider that this is for a 100 day session (which includes in that count Saturdays, Sundays and Fridays when committee meetings or floor sessions are virtually never conducted and most have already left for home). Prorate that 100 days to the 260 days full time Arizonans work it equates to $62,400 per annum. Not bad, especially when considering that for many the legislature is a second job. Many of them have another career or are collecting at least one if not more, oft times government, retirements or own very successful businesses or charter schools for which they write the laws or all of the above.

    But I digress, back to the per diem.

    If nothing else, legislators should treat themselves by the same rules and standards which they impose on state employees.

    But wait, state employees are not entitled to meal allowances unless they are traveling on state business and then, if I’m not mistaken, must be outside a 50 miles radius to qualify for meal or travel allowances. They are not given a meal allowance to buy their daily lunch at their assigned work site (nor are they frequently, if ever, the guests of lobbyists) so neither should Maricopa legislators.

    For those legislators outside Maricopa County, in addition to the meal allowance, they will all receive the same travel per diem, $151, regardless of how close or far they are from the Capitol. Whether they travel the 190 or so miles from Kingman in Mohave County or Sierra Vista in Cochise County and stay in Phoenix Monday through Thursday; or travel the 40 miles home nightly to Apache Junction in Pinal County or Black Canyon City in Yavapai County the per diem is the same.

    A benefit, by the way, that is not provided to a Maricopa County legislator should he/she live in Gila Bend almost 70 miles from the Capitol.  In my opinion the same 50 mile radius that applies to state employees should likewise apply to legislators regardless of their county of residence.

    Finally, the per diem will be tied to the annual federal per diem rate for Maricopa County as determined by the United States General Services Administration and adjusted annually without future legislative action.

    But let’s put all that aside. The real issue not just the “how much” – some will argue too much, others not enough.  It is the “how” that matters most.

    In 2019 it was a bill slammed through at the last moments before the legislators voted to Sine Die at 12:58am. This session it is done through a “strike everything” amendment to HB2053. If that were not bad enough, allegedly part of the “deal”, to get Maricopa legislators to support this strike everything amendment, is to raise the Maricopa legislators’ lunch money as well. 30 pieces of silver this Easter Week, well, okay 21.

    HB2053 originally entitled “superior court clerk; salary”, now titled “salary; superior court clerk” but nothing to indicate the true legislative intent of the amendment. – giving themselves an extra $2,100 for those in Maricopa and $14,700 for those outside.

    (I’ve written about this legislative game of strike-all shenanigans in the past here.)

    Legislators’ salary increases are supposed to be referred to the voters for approval however their “per diem” is defined in statute which takes no more than a majority and signature to increase. Effectively giving themselves what the voters will not – increased compensation.

    If per diem is really just a backdoor way for legislators to do an end run around the taxpayers and give themselves a substantial increase in their compensation that the voters have not or are not otherwise willing to approve then, at the very least, legislators should be transparent and honest about it. Drop an appropriately titled bill at the beginning of the session. Do not do it through late night bills on the way out the door or late session “strike everything” amendments.

    Especially after a year when untold numbers of Arizonans have lost their jobs and countless small business have had to close their doors Arizonans deserve better from their elected officials than the same old games. Deja vu Yogi, deja vu.