
          Ethics and Equations
          By Paddock, PollyPolly Paddock
          Vol. 5, No. 2, 1983, p. 7
          
          I was never much of a math or science student. During high_school
and college, I went to great lengths to avoid taking any courses in
those fields beyond what was absolutely required. Why dissect a fetal
pig or struggle with calculus, I figured, when you could be reading
Greek tragedy or studying U.S. history?
          I'm not defending my admittedly narrow point of view. Students
should get just as solid a foundation in math and science as in
language and the humanities, I believe.
          And today, as we plunge into an industrial and technological
revolution that's fast outstripping our production of skilled workers,
the need is greater than ever.
          Still, I'm troubled by the sudden burst of attention math and
science are receiving. There's too much talk about using the public
schools to train workers--and too little discussion of injecting
values and ethics into math and science instruction.
          North_Carolina Governor Jim Hunt, as chairman of the Education
Commission of the States, recently appointed a thirty-four-member task
force to reassess the nation's educational goals.
          ". . . The most important thing we can do to increase economic
growth and provide more high-paying jobs," Gov. Hunt said, "is to
provide an excellent education that in strong in areas like math and
science."
          The public_schools, he added, must begin to "provide education for
economic growth, not just for citizenship, not just because education
is a nice thing to have . . . "
          Well, OK--nobody can quarrel with the need for economic growth. And
it's logical to assume that beefing up math and science instruction
will help provide that. Students today get too little classroom time
in those fields; the shortage of math and science teachers is
alarming. And the lack of skilled workers in such areas as
electronics, engineering and telecommunications is a hindrance to the
kind of economic_development we so desperately need.
          But one of the reasons that education IS a "nice thing to have" is
because it gives you context. The lessons of history, literature,
religion, philosophy and ethics are critical to all fields, especially
science and technology. Without them, we would have highly
trained--but possibly valueless--automatons making vital decisions
about creating and destroying life, altering the environment, defying
what were once considered the immutable laws of nature.
          Surely that's not what we want. Yet educators and public officials
are scrambling so hard to find quick solutions to the math and science
lag that they aren't always looking at the long-range implications of
their actions.
          Pay math and science teachers more than those in other fields, some
suggest; give them a wide range of incentives to stick with teaching
rather than be lured into lucrative industry jobs. Increase the number
of classroom hours devoted to math and science, many argue.
          But what is the effect on underpaid teachers of English, say, or
history? What subject areas begin to get less teaching time? What
statement does our society want to make about how we assess the
relative importance of technology and the humanities?
          Both U.S. Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell and N.C. State
University Chancellor Bruce R. Poulton have, in recent speeches,
spoken admiringly about the rigorous math and science requirements in
the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe communist bloc
nations. U.S. attention to these disciplines has been far too lax,
both men said; it's hardly a coincidence, they implied, that the
Soviets are beating us in the race to produce engineers and other
scientific experts.
          That may be true, as far as it goes. But the Soviet Union is not
exactly famous for its devotion to the humanities, or for the
encouragement of creative, independent thinking among students. Those
are qualities we claim to value highly in this country, attributes we
deem essential to an enlightened citizenry. We must not lose sight of
that in the mad race to turn out a new generation of science and math
whiz kids.
          In a recent editorial bemoaning the "deterioration" of our math and
science capability. The Washington Post asserted that a "romantic bias
against technology (has) inflicted real damage on the schools and
their students." While I'm not convinced that such a bias has ever
existed, I can't see how substituting a pragmatic bias against the
humanities can possibly serve us well.
          What we need at this point, I think, is a national reassessment of
how much attention our schools are giving to ALL academic
disciplines--and how much in the way of resources we as a society are
willing to provide the schools to do their job. We may indeed need to
beef up our math and science curricula, but ONLY as one part of a
rigorous, total education that focuses on ethics as well as
equations.
          Governor Hunt's task force on educational goals has said it hopes
to involve parents and other interested citizens in its assessment. I
suggest that those of us troubled by simplistic rhetoric about the
math and science lag make ourselves heard; letters should be addressed
to the Task Force on Education for Economic Growth, c/o Gov. James
Hunt, Capitol Building, Raleigh, N.C. 27611.
          
            Polly Paddock is an editorial page writer for the
Charlotte Observer.
          
        
