TEEAP News

Submitted by: Len S. Litowitz, Professor & TE Program Coordinator, Millersville University

A Bit of History
In 1986 the Industrial Arts Association of Pennsylvania changed its name to the Technology Education Association of Pennsylvania (TEAP) following the lead of many other state associations and the membership of the American Industrial Arts Association who had voted to change to the International Technology Education Association a few years earlier. At that time the name change was driven in large part by the evolution of the American economy from that of an industrial nature toward a more technological nature.  To the extent that the name change served to challenge our profession to move away from our industrial roots toward more progressive technological content it was the correct thing to do. But those of us with long history in the profession know that the name change resulted in some negative impacts for the association as well.  Some members did not agree with the name change and this resulted in a decline in membership. Many agreed with the name change but would now acknowledge that the term technology and the subject title of technology education have been problematic in that they are frequently misunderstood in any number of ways that you are all likely familiar with. For whatever reasons it is my contention that the present title for our profession has failed to gain traction on a nationwide basis, although we have made considerably more progress throughout Pennsylvania than have many of our sister states. ITEA’s Standards for Technological Literacy (2000) and Pennsylvania Science & Technology Standards (2002) provided an increase in traction around the turn of the century, but eight to ten years later now those gains have been largely offset by budget concerns, A lack of cohesive curriculum, and legislation such as No Child Left Behind that is rapidly turning public education into a two subject curriculum – and I don’t need to tell you that we are not one of those two subjects!

Why Engineering?
So why consider a name change to include engineering? Because we need to rally around some things that will help to reverse these trends and provide us with the traction we have long sought as a profession but that has been so illusive. Will a change in focus toward engineering do the trick? In my opinion it sure couldn’t hurt. Why?

1. Because engineering is a term that people can relate to. Engineering has curb appeal. People are buying engineering. It has become a very marketable term.
2. Because people think they know what engineering is, even if they don’t. People think they know what technology is. Unfortunately, it is Not our definition of technology that they recognize.
3. Because we should be doing more to attract the top 20% of our high school classes when we have and continue to do so much for those on the lower end of the spectrum.
4. Because we should be doing more to offer courses and curricula that are more purposeful and more intentional with regard to math and science.
5. Because we need to start positioning ourselves to be the T&E in the heart of the STEM acronym.
6. Because our newly proposed Science & Technology Standards refer to us as Technology & Engineering as a way of more clearly defining our content.
7. Because, in the words of an association consultant that recently spent time with the ITEA executive board, engineering is sexy.
8. Because such a change has already done world of good for some tech programs that were on the ropes here in PA.
9. Because it will posture our profession to take advantage of all types of STEM legislation that is being proposed as you read this information.
10. Because if we don’t move toward engineering someone else will. The American Society of Engineering Educators (ASEE) has had little historical interest in K-12 education until the last decade. Their motives may be vocational in nature (those espousing engineering education for the purpose of creating more engineers in this country), but they are beginning to develop a following and have an impact on educational policy.

You may disagree with me but many others have already reached this conclusion. A case in point. At the time of the last name change of our parent organization from AIAA to ITEA in 1983 none of ITEA’s affiliate organizations (including TEAP) had changed their name to reflect technology prior to the name change of the parent organization. Could it be said that TEAP would be on the front edge of the curve if we were to contemplate a name change to address engineering in our title at this point in time? Not entirely. Several state technology education associations have already included the term engineering in the title of their association and others are considering such a change at the time of this writing. A handful have also maintained their titles but included engineering in their mission statement. Titles such as the Georgia Engineering & Technology Association or the Engineering/Technology Educators of Indiana are now becoming commonplace. Why? Because these states recognize that we already do as much with the engineering process as any other subject in the public schools. They recognize that the technological method and the engineering method are mutually compatible with one another. They recognize that the definition of engineering and the definition of technology can be quite similar. And they recognize that the term engineering allows them to market in ways they had never thought possible. Lastly, they recognize that it only makes sense to lay claim to both the T and the E in STEM before another subject does.

Questions for the TEAP Membership
Name change is a serious issue that should be debated rigorously, both pro and con. Here are a few questions to ponder if we were to change. If we did change, would it be just a change in name? What type of changes in curriculum would be necessary to support a true technology & engineering education curriculum? Can we bolster our math, science and research skills to deliver an effective T&E curriculum to high school students as a natural outgrowth of middle school technology education programs? Or, is a name change just a marketing gimmick? And if it is just marketing, is that necessarily a bad thing either?

UPDATE 02/26/2010: Comments have been closed for this thread, please feel free to continue the discussion on the Survey Results thread above.