NSTA Feedback to Achieve on Next Generation Science Standards First Public Draft: June 2012

(From NSTA Express)

As a partner in the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), NSTA recently conducted a comprehensive review of the first public draft when it was released for input in May and has provided feedback to Achieve. NSTA’s report highlights a number of critical issues regarding the structure and content of the NGSS and offers seven recommendations to the writers to consider as they begin work on the next draft.

The most critical of the issues is the omission of nature of science in the standards. Other issues cited in the report include the structure and intent of performance expectations, grade level appropriateness, time and resources needed to achieve the standards, and the survey mechanism used to solicit feedback from the science education community.

While NSTA supports the development of the NGSS, the issues identified in the report to Achieve are vital to the successful development of science standards that can be supported and used by science educators nationwide. To read the NSTA report and recommendations, click here. For NSTA updates and resources on NGSS, go to www.nsta.org/ngss.

To access this document in PDF format, please click here.

Introduction

NSTA fully supports the development of Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). These new standards have the ability to help science educators better connect the science that children will be learning across the K–12 grade spans and give all students the opportunity to learn and understand core ideas in science and engineering and key science practices.

NSTA is a committed partner in the process of developing new standards, and we want to ensure that the NGSS are the best they can be. We have provided feedback on early drafts of both A Framework for K–12 Science Education (Framework) and two private drafts of NGSS. The following feedback on the May 11 NGSS public draft is an outgrowth and continuation of our work. NSTA’s ongoing review of standards documents is led by an expert review team comprised of Susan Koba, Mike Padilla, Harold Pratt, Jim Rutherford, JoAnne Vasquez, and select NSTA staff. In addition, our feedback has been informed by hundreds of individuals, including groups of science educators brought together in dispersed geographical areas across the country for a one-day facilitated review of an early private draft of NGSS.

NSTA has raised numerous issues throughout the process of reviewing early drafts of NGSS, as well as the Framework. NSTA is pleased to see improvements in the current NGSS draft that have been made since our last review; however, we continue to have serious and extensive concerns about the current content and architecture of the NGSS. These issues are similar to the ones we voiced in our review in November 2011 and January 2012 and are outlined below. The level of our concern has intensified considerably as a result of an increased number of individuals who have seen and commented on the draft. As we inch closer to a final draft of the standards, the NSTA leadership is concerned that some of the issues we have raised have yet to be addressed and strongly recommends that these issues be addressed now so that they are reflected in the next draft. We offer the following seven recommendations to Achieve and strongly encourage its writers to edit the current NGSS draft to reflect these recommendations. NSTA welcomes the opportunity to work together with Achieve and its writers to address these concerns in the current draft.

Summary of NSTA Recommendations

NSTA Recommendation 1: The NGSS should include a section on Connections to the Nature and History of Science in a manner similar to the Connections to Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science.

NSTA Recommendation 2: The front matter of the NGSS should contain an overarching essay that explains the architecture of the standards, including the relationship between the individual performance expectations in a set and how each performance expectation relates to the practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts within the foundation box. The essay should also make clear how the performance expectations, practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts should be used in planning instruction and provide some examples for various topics and grade levels.

NSTA Recommendation 3: Each set of performance expectations in the NGSS should include an opening statement that explains why this set of performance expectations has been grouped together.

NSTA Recommendation 4: Every core idea should have at least two performance expectations that probe it. The first performance expectation should combine the core idea with the practice of modeling, explanation, or argumentation, and the second performance expectation should combine the core idea with one of the other five practices. The connection between these performance expectations and the core idea should be explicit.

NSTA Recommendation 5: The appropriate grade level for students to learn a particular science concept in the NGSS should not differ from the recommendations in the National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Science Literacy unless there is published research that provides evidence in favor of the move.

NSTA Recommendation 6: Any assumptions about the resources, time, and teacher expertise needed for students to achieve particular standards should be made explicit (Note: This is identical to Recommendation 11 on p. 305 of A Framework for K–12 Science Education.)

NSTA Recommendation 7: The survey mechanism used for the next public draft of the NGSS should be more user friendly than the mechanism that was used for this first public draft, and the timing of the release should be sensitive to the schedules of all educators, but particularly the schedules of classroom teachers.

Detailed Feedback and Recommendations

Nature of Science Must Be Included in NGSS

NSTA’s most serious and profound concern with the NGSS first public draft is the explicit omission of nature of science. NSTA feels strongly that nature of science must be included in the NGSS, and we have made this appeal in two earlier reports to Achieve following private reviews. This recommendation was also made to Achieve following the release of the final NRC Framework (see www.nsta.org/about/standardsupdate/recommendations.aspx).

NSTA recognizes that the NRC failed to include the nature of science in the Framework, which serves as the foundation for NGSS and charge to Achieve. We consider this omission to be a major weakness of the Framework. Regardless of the omission, we appeal to Achieve to include Connections to the Nature and History of Science in a manner similar to the Connections to Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science. NSTA is also appealing to the National Research Council to encourage them to support this inclusion in the standards.

Furthermore, there is a fundamental lack of understanding in the Framework on the nature and purpose of the practices. The practices in NGSS describe abilities, but there is also a critical need for an understanding of science as a human activity and how scientists work. In our recommendation following the release of the Framework, NSTA noted the need to clearly delineate between what students are to know and be able to do and how they should be taught those things. This distinction is still not clear in the draft NGSS. The Framework states on pages 42–43 that “Engaging in the practices of science helps students understand how scientific knowledge develops.” (Understanding how scientific knowledge develops is one aspect of the nature of science, i.e. what should be learned.) In the same paragraph the following text appears: “Participating in these practices also helps students form an understanding of the crosscutting concepts and disciplinary ideas of science and engineering.” (This is a teaching strategy of how core ideas should be learned.) This blurred distinction also exists in NGSS because there are no standards on the understanding of the nature of science. Incorporating practices within the performance expectations as learning outcomes (that are essentially abilities of the practices) does not clearly distinguish between the outcomes and the strategies used to achieve those outcomes.

We appreciate Achieve’s attempt to explain how the nature of science is addressed in the NGSS with the document, The Nature of Science in NGSS, which was posted online along with the NGSS draft. Unfortunately, this document does nothing to fix the omission of nature of science in the NGSS draft and simply offers weak excuses for not including it.

For example the claim that simply doing inquiry (engaging with scientific practices) will result in knowing about inquiry (a claim that knowledge about inquiry and nature of science would develop implicitly ) is refuted by 50 years of empirical research. Much of the earlier work is summarized in Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) but even more recent work by Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002), Howe and Rudge (2005), Peters and Kitsantas (2010), and Yacoubian and BouJaoude (2010) provide ample evidence to dispute that claim. Even strong proponents of practice-based approaches to science education such as Sandoval and Morrison (2003) found that while there are many benefits of such approaches, they do not lead to helping students develop ideas about the nature of science.

While the NGSS draft document notes that certain activities provide an opportunity for teaching about the nature of science, the failure to include them in the standards implies that it is not essential to address the nature of science. This does not match the importance that the science education community places on the nature of science.

The original draft of the Framework (released July 2010) included concepts about the nature of science in Topics in Science, Engineering, Technology, and Society as a crosscutting concept, so there is already some precedent for thinking of the nature of science as a crosscutting concept. The overall set included:

History and Cultural Roles of Science, Engineering, and Technology

Impacts of Science, Engineering, and Technology on Society

Impact of Societal Norms and Values on the Practices of Science and Engineering

Professional Responsibilities of Scientists and Engineers

Roles of Scientific and Technical Knowledge in Personal Decisions

Careers and Professions Related to Science and Engineering

In addition, since the NGSS draft includes Connections to Engineering, Technology, and the Applications of Science in the box where crosscutting concepts are listed, there is also a precedent for including that type of connection in this area.

NSTA Recommendation 1: The NGSS should include a section on Connections to the Nature and History of Science in a manner similar to the Connections to Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science.

Lack of Clarity and Coherence of Performance Expectations

The architecture of the NGSS is made up of performance expectations supported by foundation boxes and a connection box. A detailed explanation of these elements that make up the architecture is provided, but the relationship of the performance expectations to each other or to the foundation boxes is not explained. It appears as though the foundation boxes are designed to clarify or supplement the performance expectations, but they are not part of the expectation. A fundamental grounding is needed to give readers a big picture about the scope and interconnectedness of these elements and how they should be read, understood, and used. One person described it as the box of a jigsaw puzzle missing a clear picture on its cover.

Although the standards are not designed or obligated to specify the exact nature of instructional strategies and instructional materials that need to be created to help meet the expectations in the standards, it is important for the NGSS document to provide suggestions on how to use the document to accomplish these ends. These suggestions are essential because the vast majority of educators have little experience with or understanding of the nature and purpose of standards, and because the architecture of the NGSS is significantly more complex than existing standards. It will take a significant amount of effort for science educators to translate these new standards into practice and clear guidance is essential if we expect consistent implementation across the country. A front matter section that suggests how the standards can be used to design instruction and instructional material would enhance the reader’s understanding of the document itself.

NSTA Recommendation 2: The front matter of the NGSS should contain an overarching essay that explains the architecture of the standards, including the relationship between the individual performance expectations in a set and how each performance expectation relates to the practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts within the foundation box. The essay should also make clear how the performance expectations, practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts should be used in planning instruction and provide some examples for various topics and grade levels.

A related recommendation addresses the relationship among the grouping of performance expectations. Each set of performance expectations currently read as independent lists of expectations that lack cohesiveness or connection to one another. The reader is unable to get a sense of the overarching theme and scope of the “standard” without first having to read all of the performance expectations, make the necessary jumps to the foundation boxes, and then attempt to interpret what they have in common. In addition, the way that Achieve has promoted the possibility of regrouping performance expectations undercuts the idea that coherence has been a driving consideration in the writing of the performance expectations. While we understand that states may demand the freedom to reorganize the material in the standards, Achieve should make a case for the advantages of working with the sets of performance expectations it has put together.

NSTA Recommendation 3: Each set of performance expectations in the NGSS should include an opening statement that explains why this set of performance expectations has been grouped together.

Performance Expectations Fail to Determine Mastery of Core Idea

As NSTA highlighted in its winter review, there are serious problems and inconsistencies with the current performance expectations. The performance expectations give the impression that the practice included in the performance expectation and expanded in the foundation box is the only practice that needs to be addressed during instruction. Commercial sources will undoubtedly make claims in their products that “the standard has been met” by simply addressing the practice mentioned in the performance expectation. This interpretation distorts and limits the role of the practices in learning the disciplinary core ideas.

Furthermore, while each practice and crosscutting concept is addressed in multiple performance expectations, most core ideas are addressed in just one performance expectation. This creates a problem because it means that there is often only one check as to whether a particular core idea is understood. The result of specifying just one performance expectation with just one practice may be worse than not assigning any specific practices at all. Multiple performance expectations employing a variety of practices should be used to provide multiple opportunities for students to show their understanding. This is a serious flaw that should be addressed.

In addition, many of the performance expectations involve practices that allow them to be addressed successfully without understanding the knowledge described in the core idea. For example, a student can ask questions or carry out an investigation in some topic without understanding the core ideas in that topic.

It is important that there be performance expectations involving these practices to ensure that students have mastered all of the practices, but only three of the practices (Developing and Using Models, Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions, and Engaging in Argument from Evidence) require full comprehension of the core ideas. At least one performance expectation that carries the burden determining whether the core idea is understood (i.e., construct an explanation, create a model, or engage in an argument based on evidence) should be included for each core idea.

NSTA Recommendation 4: Every core idea should have at least two performance expectations that probe it. The first performance expectation should combine the core idea with the practice of modeling, explanation, or argumentation, and the second performance expectation should combine the core idea with one of the other five practices. The connection between these performance expectations and the core idea should be explicit.

Level of Difficulty and Achievability

The NGSS should be designed so that all students can be expected to attain them. As NSTA has noted before, simply moving a disciplinary core idea to a lower grade level from where it is taught in many schools is not the way to produce “higher” standards. Higher-level standards are produced by developing deeper understanding and more connections to other standards with the core ideas that are included. Expecting students to be able to engage with all of the practices on a particular core idea already “raises” the level of expectation, as it requires not just that students “know” that idea, but they need to be able to explain a model or make an argument for why it is the scientifically accepted idea.

There continue to be a number of performance expectations we think are higher than the grade level to which they were typically assigned. This is particularly true in the elementary grades. Even when the performance expectations were written at an acceptable level for elementary teachers, the disciplinary core ideas in the foundation box could intimidate them.

NSTA Recommendation 5: The appropriate grade level for students to learn a particular science concept in the NGSS should not differ from the recommendations in the National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Science Literacy unless there is published research that provides evidence in favor of the move.

Amount of Time and Resources Needed

The Carnegie report called for “fewer” standards in the next iteration of standards (The Opportunity Equation, p. 3). Determining the number of standards needed to produce a scientifically literate citizen is virtually meaningless, but determining the amount of time and other resources needed to produce educated citizen as defined by the NGSS is critical and called for in the Framework (Recommendation 11, p. 305). The cost in time and other resources to achieve the standards is difficult to determine because of the variable conditions that exist across the nation, but it cannot be ignored and avoided.

The results of following this recommendation may call for more resources than are typically provided in many states and schools. The recommendation to account for the needed resources does not preclude the need to increase the amount, but it does expect that the cost in time and other resources will be known.

Identifying the time and resources needed to accomplish standards will help Achieve determine the amount of overall content that can be included in the document. It should be noted that this is a case where following this recommendation in the Framework should prompt Achieve to provide feedback to NRC that could require a modification of the Framework specifications regarding what and how much should be included in the NGSS.

Documentation should include the results of this recommendation so the states, districts, and schools are aware of the resources needed to achieve the standards. Furthermore, the results of this recommendation should be used by the NGSS writers in determining the amount of content to include in the next draft of NGSS. This recommendation does not suggest that the resources required should conform to those currently available in some states and districts, but it does recommend that if there is a need to increase them, that fact should be clear. In an era of greater accountability for students, teachers, and schools, it would be tremendously unfair to create a set of expectations that have no hope of being effectively achieved. The NGSS should not set up students, teachers, and schools for failure, but set them on a path toward greater and greater successes.

NSTA Recommendation 6: Any assumptions about the resources, time, and teacher expertise needed for students to achieve particular standards should be made explicit (Note: This is identical to Recommendation 11 on p. 305 of AFramework for K–12 Science Education.)

Survey Mechanism

Educators were asked to comment on the draft during a three-week window in May 2012, which was far from ideal in terms of giving science teachers the opportunity to comment on the draft. In addition, there were numerous complaints about the complexity of the survey mechanism, which left many teachers frustrated and led them to give up on sharing feedback. Achieve has reported that more than 8,000 people registered to complete the survey; however, far fewer actually completed it. When the NRC conducted a public review of the draft Framework, it received more than 2,000 public comments. It appears as though fewer individuals completed the NGSS Achieve survey than those who commented on the Framework, even though interest around standards has been growing.

NSTA Recommendation 7: The survey mechanism used for the next public draft of the NGSS should be more user friendly than the mechanism that was used for this first public draft, and the timing of the release should be sensitive to the schedules of all educators, but particularly the schedules of classroom teachers.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., and N. G. Lederman. 2000. Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

Howe, E. M., and D.W. Rudge. 2005. Recapitulating the history of sickle-cellanemia research: Improving students’ NOS views explicitly and reflectively. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 423–41.

Khishfe, R., and F. Abd-El-Khalick. 2002. Influence of explicit reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

Peters, E., and A. Kitsantas. 2010. The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science students’ content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self-regulatory efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 110(8), 382–396.

Sandoval, W. A., and K. Morrison. 2003. High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.

Yacoubian, H. A., and S. BouJaoude. 2010. The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1229–1252.

Posted in Commentary, News | No Comments »

New NAEP Report (from Education Week)

Published Online: June 19, 2012

NAEP Reveals Shallow Grasp of Science

By Nora Fleming

Elementary, middle, and high school students failed to demonstrate a deep understanding of science concepts when they performed activity-based science tasks and investigations, concludes a study released today from the first national assessment of both hands-on and interactive computer-based science activities.

The hands-on tasks, which required students to use materials and laboratory equipment to perform science experiments, and the new, interactive computer tasks, which simulated an environmental or laboratory setting and asked students to solve scientific problems, were administered as part of the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress in science for 4th, 8th, and 12th graders. The report follows on the heels of the 2011 traditional pencil-and-paper science NAEP results released last month.

Both the hands-on and computer tests asked students to predict what might happen in a particular scientific scenario, make observations about what occurred in the scenarios, and explain the findings of the experiments or investigations they launched. These questions examined how well students could conduct and reason through “real life” science situations and grasp the scientific concepts of what occurred in their investigations, according to the report from the National Center on Education Statistics, the U.S. Department of Education division that administers NAEP.

About 2,000 students at each grade level were given each test and asked to complete two, 40-minute hands-on tasks or three interactive computer tasks, 20 to 40 minutes in length. In an 8th grade interactive computer task, for example, students could have been asked to plan a new, simulated recreation area for a town using part of an existing wildlife area, evaluate the impact different locations for the recreation space could have on local wildlife, and determine which space would be best to build on.

“Increasingly, graduates are called on to do things in today’s world that require more than rote memory and how to follow instructions,” Alan J. Friedman, a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP, said during a conference call yesterday about the tests. “There was no way to memorize for this test and no amount of rote drill and practice that could prepare students for it; these tests test what students can do in more complex environments and the richness of what students can do with real stuff.”

On average, the students were able to accurately report what was happening in scenarios with limited data, but were challenged by manipulating multiple variables and making decisions as part of running an experiment, according to the findings. Additionally, the numbers of students able to draw the right conclusions in experiments was much higher than the the numbers of students who were able to provide an explanation or justification for their answer based on the findings.

Seventy-one percent of 4th graders could accurately select how volume changes when ice melts, for example, but only 15 percent could explain why that happened using evidence from the experiment.

The findings were fairly consistent across grade levels, other than 12th grade students’ scoring some 15 percent lower than the younger students on the interactive computer tasks. Differences in test results were more pronounced instead between race, class, and gender groups. Disadvantaged and minority students performed lower than white and Asian students on both tests, and females performed better than males on hands-on tasks, but lower on the pencil-and-paper 2009 tests.

“While I’m happy to see the vast majority of students [tested] were able to make straightforward observations, I’m not particularly happy to see a smaller number know what data to collect in an experiment,” Jack Buckley, the NCES commissioner, said during the briefing. “This points to something we need to work on in the future.”

In 2014, a technology and engineering-literacy NAEP is also expected to be administered.

New Standards

Last month, NAEP also released the results of its 2011 science tests, which found fewer than a third of 8th graders performing at “proficient” levels in science. Though there were small improvements in performance for all groups from the previous administration in 2009, on average, disadvantaged, black, and Latino students performed below basic level.

The new results from the interactive science tests and 2011 results arrive as state and other education leaders work on finalizing a set of voluntary, national science standards aimed at improving the quality of science education in the United States, with the goal of shifting from rote memorization of subject matter to building students’ deeper understanding of core science concepts, how they connect, and how they can be applied to the real world.

Just last month, a draft of the new standards, which are being developed by a cadre of 26 states and a team of writers led by Achieve, a Washington-based nonprofit, were released to the public for comment. Focused around scientific and engineering practices, cross-cutting concepts across science disciplines, and core subject matter in physical, life, earth, and space sciences, and engineering and technology, the standards are expected to be finalized by early next year.

According to Mr. Friedman, the findings of the science-activity NAEP are right in line with what the new standards aim to improve: depth versus breadth in the understanding and practical application of science.

“The new tests are tailor-made to the types of skills listed in the new [draft] science standards,” he said. “We’re in a really good position to be models for assessments and provide the kind of information called for by the new standards.”

Nancy Butler Songer, a professor of science education and learning technologies at the University of Michigan and a longtime researcher on improving science education, said that while the NAEP results were disappointing, the future is not completely dismal.

Ms. Butler Songer, who is also one of many advisers providing feedback on the development of the new national science standards, said she finds it promising that NAEP and national organizations like Achieve are continuing to recognize the need to change science education and build “fused knowledge,” or content knowledge plus science practices. These current efforts are part of the necessary “pieces coming together” to improve science education, she said, which include professional development to help teachers teach science better, curriculum and standards to guide teaching, and tests to measure how well students are understanding these concepts.

“We’ve maintained a misconception in what it meant to know science,” she said. “While it’s taken awhile to uproot this idea, what we know now is that you can’t get to a deeper level of understanding in science without working in science in a sophisticated way. You have to use models or gather and apply evidence from experiments to that concept in order to really know science. It’s no longer enough to settle for memorizing facts.”

———————————

(Ed. Note: Oklahoma students score more or less in the middle of the pack on NAEP and the same or higher than all of the states who’s borders extend south of Kansas (except for 8th grade where we score just below Texas)  This includes California and Florida. Many of these state spend several thousands of dollars more to educate each student than do we.  Interestingly enough, Oklahoma also compares favorably with other states when it comes to PLAN, EXPLORE, and ACT, which also emphasize problem solving and process skill development. Again, about the middle of the pack overall, better than all the southern states, and at considerably less per-student expenditure.  Our PASS, (now known as the C3 Standards), can rightfully take credit for some of this despite-the-odds achievement as can the hard work and dedication of our professional teaching staff. The next logical step in Oklahoma’s Science Education improvement would be the adoption of the voluntary Next Generation Science Standards.  Will that occur?)

Posted in Commentary, News | No Comments »

What’s Your Grade (part 2)

In an earlier post I asked the question “What’s Your Grade”? in reference to what you think would be your school and school district grades under the newly developed A-F grading system recently released in draft form by the State Department of Education. A friend and colleague who has a bit of a nerdy inclination combined with an accountant’s attraction to Excel (which works well for him professionally) took the draft guidelines and built a matrix that computes all the possible combinations of point values that come to pass when you match “Whole School Improvement” with “Student Achievement Scores” as called for in the A-F system. As it turns out, there are 625 possible combinations that can be achieved in the matrix.  Of those 625 combinations, only 3 will result in a grade of A.  30 result in a  grade of F.  The vast majority result in grades of C or of D.

School Grades - Presents all 625 possible combinations of Student Achievement Scores (row 10), Annual Learning Gains (row 12), Whole School Improvement (column D), and Learning Gains, Bottom 25% (column F).  Index and you will find the raw score and a color code for grade.

I.E. Student Achievement Score grade of B

+ Annual Learning Gain grade of C

+ Whole School Improvement grade of B

+ and Bottom 25% grade of A

= Raw score of 300, School Grade of B as seen in Column N, Row 18.

Not satisfied with this effort, my friend then calculated the possible Student Achievement Scenarios of a 10 student sample (more than ten got waaay to messy).  In this matrix he worked all the possible combinations of Advanced and Proficient.  The gray areas represent students scoring Unsatisfactory or Limited Knowledge (which both earn 0 points).  The clear and colored squares represent the relative number of Advanced and Satisfactory scores and the resulting school grade that results with that particular ratio of A/P to U/LK.  In this scenario the combined total of B, C, and D grades is lower than the total number of F grades.

Student Achievement - Presents possible Student Achievement Score scenarios of a 10 student sample.  Row 8 identifies how many of the 10 are Unsatisfactory or Limited Knowledge.  Underneath that section, you can see all possible combinations of Advanced and Proficient and the corresponding grade.

Posted in Commentary, News | No Comments »

Report: State Science-Education Standards Jeopardize U.S. Competitiveness

Washington, D.C. (January 31, 2012)— A major Thomas B. Fordham Institute report released today finds that the K-12 science standards of most states remain mediocre to awful, placing America’s national competitiveness, technological prowess and scientific leadership in grave jeopardy. Since the Sputnik launch of 1957, Americans have regarded science education as crucial to our national security and economic competitiveness. Just recently, a National Science Board report found that the U.S. could soon be overtaken as global leader in supporting science and technology, and advocates educational improvement as crucial to America maintaining its role as the world’s engine of scientific innovation. But The State of State Science Standards, which reviews and analyzes the guidelines that inform K-12 science curriculum and instruction in every state and the District of Columbia, concludes that what states presently expect of their schools in this critical subject is woefully inadequate.

In this comprehensive appraisal, more than 75 percent of states received grades of C or lower, and a majority received D’s or F’s. California and the District of Columbia earned the only straight As—while Indiana, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Virginia received A-‘s for their excellent state science standards. But most states lack rigorous, content-rich standards. Seven of them received B-level grades; 11 states received Cs; 17 states received Ds; and 10 states received failing F grades.

“If America is to remain a prosperous, scientifically-advanced and economically competitive nation, then we must ensure that every school is teaching science to a very high standard,” said Chester E. Finn, Jr., Fordham’s president. “In this subject as in others reviewed by Fordham experts, the states set the bar, prescribing what schools should teach and students need to learn. They then develop assessments keyed to those standards. If our expectations are low and unclear, we’re guaranteeing the failure of our students and the weakening of our nation.”

Leading science education experts authored this analysis, evaluating state science standards for their clarity, content completeness, and scientific correctness. Science standards are the foundation upon which a state’s system of assessment, instruction, and accountability rests. Therefore, this review analyzes the standards themselves to ensure that they’re clear, thorough, and academically demanding. It does not investigate whether science standards are being properly assessed with state tests, effectively implemented in the schools, or whether they are driving improvements in student achievement.

Shortcomings were many and diverse but there turned out to be four areas, in particular, where state science standards were flawed.

1. While many states are handling evolution better today than during the last Fordham review in 2005, antievolutionary pressures continue to threaten and weaken science standards in many jurisdictions.

2. A great many standards are so vague for educators as to be completely meaningless. Only 7 states earned fullcredit scores for clarity and specificity while 29 earned a one or zero out of three.

3. Science educators, curriculum developers, and standards writers have focused excessive attention on “inquiry based learning”—attempting to help students learn through “discovery” instead of direct instruction of specific content. In too many states, these inquiry standards are vague to the point of uselessness—depriving students of an education based on substantive scientific content.

4. Mathematics is essential to science, yet few states make this link between math and science clear—and many seem to go to great lengths to avoid mathematical formulae and equations altogether. Students cannot adequately learn physics and chemistry without understanding mathematical concepts and mastering quantitative operations.

“The brave souls, expert scientists and veteran educators currently struggling to develop a draft of ‘common’ science standards under the aegis of Achieve, Inc., have a weighty burden,” Finn remarked. “Can they develop a K-12 product that is suitably content-rich, rigorous, clear and usable across America? Will such a product replace the mediocre standards that most states have in place today? But the authors don’t have to start from scratch. Besides a commendable science-education “framework” from the National Research Council, they can look to the excellent standards already in use in several states as models. It’s no secret what good science standards look like. It’s a blight upon the United States, however, that such standards are guiding the schools and teachers in so few places today.”

——————

The Oklahoma grade is the same as the last “State of the States” Fordham report issued in 2005.  That report gave Oklahoma a grade of “F” notably because of the treatment of evolution in PASS – “The word “evolution” is never used. The Oklahoma Standards may represent the result of taking too literally the idea that in science education, “less is more.”“In-depth understanding” is not evident in this document. Grade: Dropped from “D” to “F” due to avoidance of the word “evolution,”with no mitigating treatment of the scientific evidence for descent with modification.”

This year’s report covers much the same ground, but in much harsher terms:

“The Oklahoma science standards are simply not OK. Woefully little science content appears, and what is present is often flat out wrong, oddly worded, or not up to grade level. It is difficult to see how any curriculum that emerged from these standards (assuming that one could accomplish that task on such a basis) would not be fatally flawed. Oklahoma’s motto is Labor omnia vincit —labor conquers all things—but this document would sorely test that maxim.” (ouch!)

“The treatment of evolution—the central principle of life science—is essentially absent. Biological evolution is reduced to “diversity of species”; the term “natural selection” appears once in the standards (in high school biology), while the term “evolution” cannot be found at all. The closest Oklahoma comes to teaching evolution is this fourth-grade standard, which appears in earth science, not life science: Fossils provide evidence about the plants and animals that lived long ago. (grade 4)“

The fatal flaw seems to lie in Oklahoma’s (and the majority of state’s) pursuit of inquiry and science process skills.  The states with a heavy emphasis on clearly defined science and mathematics facts score high, those that emphasize science concepts and process skills score low.  So California and Washington DC score an A while Oklahoma is rated F.

However this does not mean Oklahoma schools and students score an F.  Oklahoma science students outperform or equal the performance of students in all other states in the southern half of the country on NAEP, and California is one of the states that Oklahoma students significantly outperform!  Oklahoma students also outshine the performance of students in the Southern region of the ACT.  Only Virginia and Texas have  higher average ACT scores, and both states test a much smaller percentage of their students. – Bob

Read the Oklahoma portion of the Fordham Foundation State of States report 2012-State-Science-Standards-Oklahoma.

Download the entire Fordham report 2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards-FINAL.

Posted in Commentary, News | No Comments »

ACT Releases College and Career Readiness Report for the Class of 2011

A new report from ACT using its College Readiness Benchmarks and ACT test scores provides a series of graphical pictures highlighting the college-and-career readiness of the ACT-tested high school class of 2011. The report found that just 25 percent of 2011 high school graduates were college-ready in all four ACT subject tests (English, reading, math, and science), a single percentage point increase from 2010 and a 4 percentage point increase from 2006.

Breaking the total down, just 4 percent of black students and 11 percent of Hispanic students reached all four ACT college readiness benchmarks, compared to 31 percent of white students. The percent of students who scored at or above the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks increased from 43 percent to 45 percent in math and from 28 percent to 29 percent in science between 2010 and 2011. There was no change in the percentage of students who were college-ready in English (66 percent) and reading (52 percent).

Minnesota was the only state where at least 50 percent of students met at least three of the four College Readiness Benchmarks. In eleven states, between 40 and 49 percent of students met three out of four benchmarks. Nationally, 40 percent of 2011 graduates met three out of four benchmarks.

Oklahoma’s average ACT composite score ranks highest in the Southern region among states that test more than 40% of their students:

However, we still lag behind in terms of percentage of students ready to be successful in college level coursework:

The take home message for science actually revolves around the number AND TYPE of classes students are taking in High School.  The illustration below is the Oklahoma data for the science reasoning sub-test.  The Course Value Added column compares the average ACT score change for a particular science course sequence  compared with students who took less than 3 years of science.  Not surprising is that students who take the sequence of Biology, Chemistry, and Physics score higher in the science reasoning subject area than do students who take any other combination.  But what may surprising is that they also score higher than those who take a fourth course in General, Physical, or Earth Sciences.  One may assume this is not including Advanced Placement courses, which is probably the fourth coarse that the Biology, Chemistry, and Physics sequence students are taking and AP is not named specifically on the student questionnaire.  But those General, Physical, and Earth Science courses ARE the classes the “Other combination of 3 years of Natural Science” students are taking and in the example of female students, the result is a LOWER average ACT score than had they taken less than 3 courses.

So not only does the number of science classes affect the ultimate college and career readiness score, but so does the rigor of those classes.  Chemistry adds value to the  experiences from Biology class, and Physics adds more still.  Students who take this sequence often achieve the college readiness score of 24 in Science Reasoning.  Those that do not take that sequence most often do not.

There is much more to explore in the reports.  Download the National ACT Profile Report here.  Download the Oklahoma ACT Profile report here.

ACT has a very interesting national report, “The Condition of College & Career Readiness 2011″ , which you can download here.  The companion report on College and Career Readiness in Oklahoma can be downloaded here. Check with your school administrator to find out about the ACT data from your school district’s 2011 graduates.

Posted in Commentary, News | No Comments »

The Art of Teaching

The Art of Teaching

Dr. Jeff Goldstein, Center Director
National Center for Earth and Space Science Education

Originally published April 15, 2009.

Revised August 27, 2011, in support of the release of We’ve Got to be That Light

It’s a new school year and teachers are now back in classrooms across America. During these tough times I wanted to write something that might help inspire the new teacher, reaffirm to the seasoned professional why we went into teaching in the first place, and recognize the remarkable gift that teachers in our lives give to us all.

My thinking actually began with a question that appeared one day on LinkedIn in the “Education and Schools” category:

What early-school teacher do you remember most vividly? Why?

It’s a question that got me thinking about not just my early school teachers, but teachers that affected me throughout my education, from Little Red Train Nursery School, to my Ph.D. classwork in astrophysics.

Good teachers in our lives are not characterized by the grade level at which you encounter them but by the learning environment they foster. The teachers that made a difference in my life, and helped me empower myself to blaze a trail, had something in common. They recognized that it was MY journey, and they were there to help guide the way. Through a love of teaching, and a passion for exploration, they did not impose their authority, or credentials, or ego. They gently, patiently guided my interactions with a brave new world, whether it was the world of reading, or an understanding of the very laws of nature that govern the universe.

The great teachers knew when to first lead and guide—to get you walking in a new direction, and then … knew when to get out of the way. Conversely my worst teachers were those that treated learning as a one way flow of information from them to us, did not get emotionally involved in the experience, and sometimes in college, were professors who felt they could come down from the mountain of knowledge and we would bow before them. Now that I’m older and wiser (hah) I wish I could take some of those classes over again, and let the great teachers know how much they truly meant to me in that very moment of learning, and let the bad teachers know they were doing damage to their students, creating misconceptions about science, exploration, and the teaching profession that could last a lifetime.

Teaching is wonderfully human, and for lack of a better word, pure. It is important to preserve this noble profession, with good paying jobs, treatment of teachers—at all grade levels—as the professionals they are, and ensuring there is a system of rewards that recognizes the great teacher, encourages the good to become great, and removes the bad teacher from the classroom they do not deserve.

This is actually pretty serious stuff. We are talking about a profession that nurtures our children, the next generation, so that they may take their rightful place at the helm of the human race, and steer it in the right direction.

So, to answer the original question (but with my own twist), and recognizing that teachers are meant to arrive on the scene long before you first experience a classroom, here are just a handful of moments that stand out…

710 Tower Court, Uniondale Long Island—A Place Called Home, 1964

Thank you mom and dad for making my life an adventure. You taught me so much, It would take a book to do justice to your gifts to me. So let me say that I still have the book you gave to me when I was 7, Horton Hears a Who by Dr. Seuss. It taught me a person’s a person no matter how small, even the Whos in Whoville. That book opened for me a profound understanding of Earth’s place—MY PLACE—in a greater universe. Please know that I’ve shared that book with tens of thousands of children, parents, and teachers. You threw a stone in a pond that day and the ripple seems destined to go on forever.

Smith Street Elementary School, Uniondale Long Island, 1966

Thank you Mrs. Peterson for what you did for me in 4^th grade. I remember that special moment when you were teaching us about maps of the world. You pointed to a river and said it flowed north, and then moved on to other things on the map. Everyone else seemed to get it, but I didn’t. How could a river flow ‘up’? Don’t rivers only flow ‘down’? In frustration I raised my hand. You didn’t dismiss me. You didn’t tell me I’ll talk to you later. You embraced my question and worked me through it with the rest of the class in tow. You helped me see in three dimensions. You made my problem a teachable moment for the class. I hope the smile on my face gave you joy. I became an astrophysicist … and a teacher. Please know that long after that special moment back in 1966, a piece of you lives on in me.

Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY 1974

Thank you Ms. Strauss. In 10^th grade you showed me the world of geometry and gave me an understanding of the framework of the universe. I LOVED your class. You also gave me an “E/N” on my quarterly report card. ‘E” for excellence in academics, but “N” for needs improvement in behavior. To this day it seems like one is in conflict with the other. How can poor behavior go hand-in-hand with excellence in academics? I know I was a handful. But you recognized it was just me pushing for ownership in learning. Everything you said took my mind in different directions, each path screaming to be explored. You did your thing with the grade, and then embraced my spirit and my uniqueness just like you did with everyone else in the class. I know it was like herding cats, and it took a great deal of energy, but I can only imagine the profound effects you’ve had on thousands of students. So for all of them … thank you.

Queens College, City University of New York, Queens, NY, 1979

Thank you Professor Hoffmann. Your class in Theoretical Mechanics when I was a college senior meant the world to me. I hung on your every word. You spoke of Einstein as if you knew him, because … you worked with him at Princeton. And the way that you embraced your students—gently guiding us through a brave new world—allowed us to feel we knew Einstein too. At the end of class I made sure to shake your hand to thank you for the great adventure, and through that touch, I felt connected to a legacy of exploration.

To my parents, and my teachers—thank you for showing me the way. As my gift to you, please know that I’ve tried to continue your legacy.

P.S.

I emailed Bronx Science to see if I could contact Ms. Strauss. I wanted to make sure it was okay to use her name for this post. Turns out she is still teaching at this national treasure of a high school. So I wrote her, and asked if she remembered me. After all, it’s been 37 years. She wrote back:

Dear Jeff,
 Of course I remember you…row 4 seat 5.

I read that and I got pretty teary-eyed. That’s exactly where I sat. Teachers like her are a national treasure. So here’s a thought. Track down an old teacher that meant the world to you and tell them just that.

Posted in Commentary | No Comments »

SB 554 BY JOSH BRECHEEN- ANALYSIS OF WHY THIS IS A BAD BILL

(Ed. note: This analysis is reprinted from the Oklahomans For Excellence in Science Education listserve.  The OESE website is linked  in the menu to the left.  On the website you can subscribe to their listserv as well as join this organization of scientists, educators, religious leaders, and laypersons who are working to preserve the integrity of science and promote quality science education in this state.)

Sen. Josh Brecheen claimed in the Durant Daily Democrat that he was going to introduce a bill to place creationism into public schools.  His argument was that ‘science is a religion’ and thus should allow other religious views in science courses. His words clearly show his religious intent. “I have introduced legislation requiring every publically funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution using the known science, even that which conflicts with Darwin’s religion.”

• This is a slick bill, in some ways, the first of its type we have seen, and is clearly unconstitutional.
• It actually requires for the teaching of evolution, including a list of topics to be included.  This may lure a quick reader to conclude that this is not a bad bill.  This is obfuscation.  The bill is full of usual creation buzz words that clearly show the intent. Some parts are directly copied from the Discovery Institutes model ‘Academic Freedom Act.”
• Section C.1.:  “..Know the definition of science and understand that it has limitations” Intended to disparage science.
• Section C.2.:  ‘brings up ‘encourage critical thinking by the student.’ Creationists have used this phrase in other bills and they really mean it in the negative sense – criticism of evolution.
• Section 3.:  Calls for students to use “scientific information extracted from current events, science journals, news reports and market materials.”
• Section D.1:  “Analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.”  This is just an opening for Intelligent Design’s arguments about complexity. “A cell is too complex to have arisen by evolution – God did it.
• Section D. 9.:  Requires analysis of ‘transitional fossils’ something creationists claim do not exist, despite overwhelming fossil evidence, and often claim that supposed transitional forms are frauds.
• Section B.:  The use of requiring the teaching of ‘strengths and weaknesses’ of evolution comes from the DI buzz word that really means to stress unfounded weaknesses of evolutionary facts and creationist teachers will know that.
• Section 10.G:  “Students may be held accountable for knowing and understanding material taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula [FINE], but they shall not be penalized in any way for subscribing a particular position of a scientific debate.”  WOULD ALLOW RELIGIOUS ANSWERS TO COUNT ON TESTS AND IN PAPERS.
• Section 10.E. : “No teacher shall be reassigned, terminated, disciplined or otherwise discriminated against for providing scientific information being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula.’ This would protect an instructor teaching creationism, since the bill includes controversies in the definition of scientific information. For example, a teacher shows the creationist film ‘Icons of Evolution’ in class and when someone complains, simply claims that she/he is protected by this section.
• The bill requires the State Board of Education to adopt “standards and curricula” that echo the very flawed Texas teaching standards adopted in Texas two years ago by a creationist Board.  Sections  D1, D2, D9 and D 10 of Brecheen’s bill is directly copied from sections 7A, 7B,  8A and 8B of the Texas standards (TEKS).  FIFTY FOUR scientific and educational organizations are opposed these Texas revisions.

This bill will damage science education and harm the attraction of scientists and science based businesses to the State.  If the leadership of the Senate is concerned about raising the teaching standards in public schools and improving the state’s economy, they will not allow this bill to get a hearing.

SB 554: By Senator Josh Brecheen, “School curriculum – adopting standards and requiring relevant scientific information taught” has been assigned to the Senate Education Committee.  The committee meets on Mondays and may take up the bill next week.

Senate Education Committee:

Chair: District 29 Senator John Ford, (405) 521-5634 fordj@oksenate.gov

Vice Chair: District 35 Senator Gary Stanislawski (405) 521-5624 stanislawski@oksenate.gov

District 21 Senator Jim Halligan, (405) 521-5572 halligan@oksenate.gov

District 42 Senator Cliff Aldridge, (405) 521-5584 aldridge@oksenate.gov

District 6 Senator Josh Brecheen,(405) 521-5586 brecheen@oksenate.gov

District 34 Senator Rick Brinkley, (405) 521-5566 brinkley@oksenate.gov

District 11 Senator Judy Eason McIntrye, (405) 521-5598 easonmcintyre@oksenate.gov

District 9 Senator Earl Garrison, (405) 521-5533 whitep@oksenate.gov

District 25 Senator Mike Mazzei, (405) 521-5675 mazzei@oksenate.gov

District 13 Senator Susan Paddack, (405) 521-5541 paddack@oksenate.gov

District 14 Senator Frank Simpson, (405) 521-5607 simpson@oksenate.gov

District 16 Senator John Sparks, (405) 521-5553 sparks@oksenate.gov

Posted in Commentary, News | No Comments »

Return of a Bad Idea

Back in 2008 we wrote in this space about HB 1001, “The Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act” as it was filed by Representative Sally Kern (R- Oklahoma City).  That bill was itself a reintroduced edition of HB 2211, which had failed the previous year. Nothing if not persistent, Rep. Kern has refiled the act this year as HB 1551, the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act”. The name and number of the bill may have changed, but the reasoning behind it is still bad.  It not only singles out specific areas of scientific study as controversial, it specifies that students may not he held accountable for embracing explanations in opposition to those derived through the scientific process.  Recognizing the folly of the original Kern bills, the Board of Directors of the Oklahoma Science Teachers Association issued the following statement when HB 2211 was making it’s way through the Legislature.  The statement is no less valid this time either:

“The Board of Directors of the Oklahoma Science Teachers Association has issued the following statement concerning HB 2211, “The Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act”, by Representative Sally Kern, which is under consideration by the Legislature.“The Oklahoma Science Teachers Association (OSTA) is dedicated to the promotion and development of high quality science education for all students in Oklahoma. The development of a scientifically literate citizenry, conversant in principles and processes of science, is essential for any state or nation to be competitive in a global economy. The effort to grow 21st century industry and agriculture, including Oklahoma’s burgeoning research in nanotechnology and biotechnology, depends on the availability of a scientifically literate workforce that understands the process of posing and testing hypotheses, logically evaluating the results, and expanding our understanding of the natural world. OSTA believes the provisions of HB 2211 hold great potential for harm to the development of scientifically literate citizens in this state. Teachers will be shackled in their efforts to guide students to explore scientific data and explanation and will be forced to give full credence and course credit to viewpoints that have no scientific data or basis. The damage to the credibility of an Oklahoma high school diploma cannot be overstated. While some might posit that examination and exploration of alternative viewpoints is appropriate in a classroom, those ideas that are not scientific and cannot be tested have no place in a science classroom. Under the provisions of this bill, teachers will be required to give full forum to non-scientific viewpoints and will be prevented from explaining that such ideas have no scientific support. Provisions currently in law and expressed in the Constitution give ample protection for religious expression within schools. The Oklahoma Science Teachers Association believes the late Harvard Paleontologist Steven J. Gould’s concept of “Nonoverlapping Magisteria” accurately reflects the interaction of science and religion; both having important, but non-interacting roles in helping us make sense of our place in the physical and spiritual world. HB 2211 actively violates that concept in a direct effort to inject religious viewpoints into public school classrooms and should not be enacted.”

The text of HB 1551 follows (emphasis added)

HOUSE BILL 1551 By: Kern
AS INTRODUCED

An Act relating to schools; creating the Scientific Education and
Academic Freedom Act; providing short title; stating legislative
findings; directing State Board of Education, district boards of
education, and certain administrators to create certain environment
within schools; permitting teachers to help students understand certain
information about scientific theories; disallowing State Board of
Education, district boards of education, and certain administrators from
prohibiting teachers from helping students understand certain
information about scientific theories; providing for evaluation of
students based on understanding of course materials; prohibiting
penalizing of students for holding certain position on scientific
theories; prohibiting certain construction; directing State Department
of Education to provide certain notification; directing superintendents
to disseminate certain information; providing for codification;
providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma
Statutes as Section 11-121 of Title 70, unless there is created a
duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Scientific Education
and Academic Freedom Act”.
SECTION 2. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma
Statutes as Section 11-122 of Title 70, unless there is created a
duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. The Oklahoma Legislature finds that an important purpose of science
education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help
students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become
intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens. The
Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific subjects,
such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global
warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some
teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should
present information on such subjects.
B. The State Board of Education, district boards of education, district
superintendents and administrators, and public school principals and
administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public
elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore
scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical
thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to
differences of opinion about controversial issues. Educational
authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find
more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses
scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted
to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an
objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of
existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.
C. The State Board of Education, a district board of education, district
superintendent or administrator, or public school principal or
administrator shall not prohibit any teacher in a school district in
this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and
review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific
weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being
taught.
D. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course
materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be
penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular
position on scientific theories.
E. The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act
shall only protect the teaching of scientific information, and shall not
be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote
discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or
nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or
nonreligion. The intent of the provisions of the act is to create an
environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and
objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the
assumptions that underlie their interpretation.
F. By no later than the start of the 2011-2012 school year, the State
Department Education shall notify all district superintendents of the
provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act. Each
superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within the
district a copy of the provisions of the act.
SECTION 3. This act shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 4. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the
public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to
exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force
from and after its passage and approval.

Posted in Commentary, News | No Comments »

Making Science Labs a Priority

Commentary from Education Week, May 5, 2010, by NSTA Executive Director Francis Eberle

In January, an article in The Washington Post told the story of a group of Maryland science teachers who are learning how to replicate their DNA. Their school system’s DNA Resource Center, funded by six-figure annual grants from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, has developed nine lab experiments that teach biotechnology concepts, according to the Post. The whole enterprise, it said, is “managed by a handful of part-time staff members and housed at Thomas S. Wootton High School in a supply room filled with pipettes and flasks. … The center staff trains teachers to use the lab activities in their classrooms and delivers all of the equipment and consumable materials that the exercises require.”

Last year, the center trained 70 teachers and provided more than 13,000 lab kits. School officials anticipate the budget for the center—about $280,000 in grant funds last year—will rise to about $350,000 this year, when the program expands to middle schools.

Kudos to the Montgomery County, Md., school system for implementing this initiative. But we have to ask: Why is this news? It shouldn’t be. Lab experiences and centers like this one should be commonplace in every high school building nationwide. Yet far too many school science labs are dismal at best. In fact, many students are selecting not to participate in science after high school because of the subpar facilities and instruction.

A few years ago, the National Research Council conducted a survey to assess the state of the nation’s high school science laboratories. Its conclusions were distressing. There was no consensus in the field on what, exactly, the high school lab experience should be. The survey also disclosed that most laboratory exercises do not have clear learning outcomes, do not integrate the learning of science content with processes of science, and tend to be isolated from the classroom science instruction.

Shortly after the NRC report was issued, the organization I direct, the National Science Teachers Association, surveyed its members and asked teachers about the lab experiences at their schools. These responses reflect what many teachers told us:

“In my urban inner-city school, I teach a lab science in an old business room. There are no tables, benches, water or gas service, sinks, fire extinguishers, eyewash stations, fire blankets, or other equipment. In addition, while there is a high rate of attrition towards the end of the year, each September starts with 50 students in each class.”

“I have no specific, safe area in which to conduct labs. My yearly budget is the same as it was 12 years ago. I must purchase all my own equipment and supplies. I have no safety equipment other than a portable eyewash station and a fire extinguisher. My district claims labs are ‘extracurricular.’”

“While I do not teach high school science currently, but do teach in a two-year community college, I see many students entering with virtually no lab experience. While some students come quite prepared, it’s very frustrating for me to have students coming into a college biology class with no knowledge of basic lab equipment and techniques, such as using beakers, graduated cylinders, pipettes, or even basic microscopy skills.”

“I have not learned how to facilitate real thinking and essential planning for authentic lab experiences. I don’t know what students really need in an introductory chemistry experience at the high school level, and I cannot figure out how to teach logical thinking and sequencing to 20-plus students in lab at the same time.”

“Many teachers in my district, which is well-funded and well-equipped, lack the confidence to conduct lab experiences. They most often have poor classroom management, and therefore believe that the students would not practice safety, and that someone could be injured.”

These survey results tell us that many schools do not see science facilities as a necessary part of science instruction, and many teachers simply cannot conduct high-quality science labs. Administrators need to be adequately trained to recognize high-quality science and technology education and must work with their science departments and teacher leaders to support educators to maintain the high-level programs that are needed. Each school needs a lab budget, and should not be dependent on the pockets of the struggling teacher.

One of the most important and powerful tools in science education is providing students with the opportunity to interact directly with natural phenomena or with data collected by others. Good teachers know that high-quality laboratory and field experiences are an essential part of inquiry—the process of observing, asking questions, and forming hypotheses. They also know that for science to be taught well, labs must be an integral part of the science curriculum. This is why thousands of science educators nationwide have embraced National Lab Day.

National Lab Day, scheduled for the first week of May 2010, is more than just a day—it’s a new five-year, nationwide initiative to support science, technology, engineering, and math, or STEM, education in schools by connecting teachers with professionals in these fields (think Match.com), to bring more hands-on, inquiry-based lab experiences to students.

National Lab Day is one of the public-private partnerships that make up President Barack Obama’s “Educate to Innovate” initiative. More than 200 scientific societies and associations, representing six million STEM professionals, have pledged to support National Lab Day, or NLD. At the NLD website, teachers can post projects or request funding for equipment and other resources, ask for expert help with hands-on projects or lesson plans, and much more. The teachers are matched with STEM professionals, college students, or volunteers who have also registered on the site, and can assist with the expertise, resources, and/or funding needed. Projects can also center on computer labs or outdoor labs—anywhere students can observe, explore, record, and experiment, and get their hands dirty and their minds engaged, and where projects and lessons in the STEM subjects can come alive.

Is National Lab Day a silver bullet for STEM education? Probably not. But this movement can address a problem that has long been ignored by far too many schools. Building ongoing, long-term collaborations between STEM professionals and schools and teachers will help improve school facilities and provide discovery-based science experiences for all students.

If America is serious about educating its children in science, then all of us need to help provide better-quality lab experiences and equipment. Montgomery County’s DNA Resource Center is a model effort designed to bring together community experts, facilities, training, and equipment. And it should be replicated in every district in the country. National Lab Day can and should be an ongoing part of providing teachers everywhere with the tools and community resources that will give their students a high-quality lab experience.

Francis Eberle is the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, in Arlington, Va. The NSTA is a co-sponsor of National Lab

Posted in Commentary, News | No Comments »

Evolution Denial and Climate Change Denial Linked?

EVOLUTION AND GLOBAL WARMING REDUX (from NCSE’s Evolution Education Update)

“Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools,” reported The New York Times (March 3, 2010). “Wherever there is a battle over evolution now,” Lawrence M. Krauss told the Times, “there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”

The article suggested that the linkage of evolution and global warming was in part due to legal considerations. NCSE’s Joshua Rosenau told the Times that he began to notice the linkage after the 2005 decision in Selman v. Cobb County. At issue was a disclaimer about evolution affixed to textbooks; although the text of the disclaimer was not religious, it was held to be unconstitutional because it endorsed the creationist view that evolution is a problematic theory lacking an adequate foundation. “By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.”

Reporting the scientific consensus, the Times explained, “For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it.” Nevertheless, it seems clear that around the country, attempts to undermine the integrity of science education are increasingly likely to include global warming as well as evolution.

(Ed. Note: Those who live in the OKC area may recognize this linkage as the wife of a local  member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives recently penned a letter to the Oklahoma Gazette, a weekly publication found on-line and in many area restaurants, in which she called Evolution and Global Climate Change as two hoaxes the teaching of which was illustrative of the failure of Oklahoma public schools.  Needless to say, there were many responses in rebuttal to her letter from scientists and educators.)

For the story in The New York Times, visit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html

Posted in Commentary, News | No Comments »