Things pick up after that, with a more formalized and steady diet of science ed beginning in 3d and 4th grade. But that seems awfully late in the going. It appears perfectly possible that a kid here can get to 3d grade without introduction to even the 10 greatest hits of science (choose your own). An important window of opportunity is being missed.

No idea how common this is elsewhere. But if we’re wondering how we end up with grown-ups who don’t understand empirical principles, here’s one possible explanation.

And yes, we do spend more here in the US on education than most other developed countries of even remotely similar economic strength — and get poorer outcomes than most. In that way (and several others, such as a lack of standards and record-keeping that would allow us to see what works and what doesn’t), US education is much like the US health care system: There’s isn’t really any system, and because of that and a lack of data that allows evalution of comparative effectiveness, our systems are driven by entrenched interests, flashy but unproven supposedly novel ideas, tired ideology, and dead-weight inertia.

I also think that it’s a sad truth that the students that are interested in science are being educated so poorly. This is reflected in the lack of basic scientific understanding in University students and highschool educators.

There is a great summary of the misunderstanding evolutionary topics here:
Gregory (2009)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2331741806807×22/fulltext.pdf
In particular, check out:
Table 2 Summary of studies showing the high degree of misunderstanding of natural selection and adaptation among various groups of subjects

Unfortunately I don’t have a solution, but I am very glad that there has been so much research done on this topic. I personally hope that this general discussion will continue and develop many creative solutions.

Shouldn’t we start earlier than high school? What is the optimal age to start developing critical thinking skills?

But most graduates of Bronx Science and Stuyvesant do not go on to careers in science, but rather many, often quite different, professions (For example both Bronx Science and Stuyvesant have as notable alumni, several very well known – and quite distinguished – writers of American fiction and nonfiction.). And yet, even from those who aren’t scientists, I often hear how much they enjoyed taking their science courses. Fundamentally I think it’s difficult to separate between the two (Though even at Bronx Science and Stuyvesant – and several others – there is a division in the sense that there are special courses in scientific research whose goal is to submit presentable science research projects in the Intel Science Talent Search and International Science and Engineering Fair.).

I should (will?) read “A class apart”.

My main point was that the two goals of science education should be kept distinctly in mind. Bronx Science, Stuyvesant, etc, clearly have the mission of training science professions in the early stages. Seems like they do a good job.

Perhaps the other end of the spectrum are the “science for poets” courses taught in colleges. From what I’ve heard, these are stimulating and very good courses. They seem to teach science literacy, do it well, and are popular. What’s missing is the equivalent of “Science for Poets” taught in K-12.

I respectfully have to disagree. You can do both, beginning in middle school (or earlier), and especially, in high school, by emphasizing both the creative and rational aspects of scientific research. This doesn’t mean that every student will be so interested in science that they’ll want to pursue careers in it, but it will ensure that they will be scientifically literate before they enter college. But also, as I noted before, one important means of doing it will be to expect a lot – in other words insist upon high academic standards emphasizing demanding curricula – from students, and Klein, in recounting the experiences of students he studied for one semester at his high school alma mater, one of the elite New York City specialized science-oriented public schools (incidentally mine as well), ends on a rather optimistic note expressing how he thinks American secondary school education could be changed for the better, to allow as many students as possible throughout the country to have the same experiences as those he’s written about.

Arguably, to be science literate, you don’t need any scientific problem-solving aptitude or creativity. Activities like FIRST may be irrelevant. Science literate means, roughly, that you understand a fair amount of current scientific theory, you understand the basics of experimental approaches (and relevant technology) in branches of science and that you can understand how an experiment can test or add to theory.

Training a scientist requires a whole lot of technical and cognitive skills that are separate from science literacy. Here is where problem solving skills and, perhaps, rigorous standards of academic excellence play critical roles.

Perhaps one of the problems with K-12 science is that the goals aren’t clear.