In December 1892, 18 men met at the University of Chicago to advise the “Committee of Ten” on science preparation needed for college admission. The consultants were teachers from high schools and prep schools and faculty at public and private colleges and universities. Their consensus was that at least one year of biology, followed by one year of chemistry and one year of quantitative physics, would best prepare young people to grow up to be just like them (National Education Association 1894).
Recently, in December 1992, 600 men and women—mathematics and science teachers, supervisors, state coalition and systemic initiative directors, assessment reformers, governors' education aides, and others—gathered in Washington, D.C., to discuss preliminary working documents of the National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment (NCSESA). These materials address “Science for All,” a challenge that our nation is finally, 100 years later, ready to embrace.
The Legacy of the Committee of Ten
There's a lot to like about the 1892 reports to the 10 college and university presidents, including a recommendation “that the laboratory record should form part of the test for admission to college.” What's not easy to like is that the content recommendations set the high school curriculum that remains in place today for nearly all students. This has led to the current situation: some science for some students.
As the body of scientific knowledge has exploded, high school courses have become cluttered with so much new vocabulary—often exceeding that of foreign language courses—that terms can only be memorized rather than understood. To prepare students for this onslaught of disconnected facts, junior high courses have often imitated high school courses, with levels of abstraction and quantification that go beyond the intellectual capacity of young people. Junior high students, too, have learned to succeed by memorization. Since memorized work is easily forgotten, teachers at each level teach as if students' minds are empty. Thus, the expectations for elementary school children are usually minimal: “Keep their curiosity alive.”
The elementary curriculum depends largely on the interests of teachers, only a quarter of whom feel “well qualified” to teach science (Weiss 1989). Is it any surprise, then, that although 70 percent of elementary students say they are interested in science (Weiss 1989), by the time they reach high school, science enrollments drop by more than one half each year? Only 20 percent of high school students nationally take the final course in physics recommended in 1892 (Blank and Dalkilic 1990).
Challenges to the Status Quo
What's wrong with that? Since only 3 or 4 percent of the work force is engaged in science and engineering (U.S. Department of Labor 1992), why do all of our citizens need to learn science? Concerns about competitiveness in the global economy are fueling the renewal of science and mathematics education. The business community demands entry-level workers who are able to think and solve problems. Regardless of our relative international rank, informed citizenship in the year 2000 requires that all people have a substantially greater understanding of science. Recall this fall's ballot initiatives in several states, or consider the supermarket dilemma—“Paper or plastic?” Increasingly we are confronted with questions for which scientific information and ways of thinking are necessary for informed decision making.
Finally, a well-kept secret: science is one avenue through which humans can seek understanding of our place in the universe. The personal fulfillment and excitement that science has to offer benefit everyone. For these reasons, scientists and science educators are taking advantage of the current attention on national education goals to do a better job this time around.
Science for All Americans is not only the name of an influential book issued by Project 2061—the far-reaching effort of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)—but also its goal (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1989). Project 2061 was initiated in 1985, a year in which Halley's Comet came close to the earth, and named for the year in which the comet will return. The project delineates the science that people whose lives span those years will need to achieve scientific literacy. Taking the long view, it defines “science” broadly, to include the natural sciences, as well as the social sciences, mathematics, and technology. Project 2061 is taking a decade to produce curriculum models and blueprints for teacher education, assessment, and other systems that need to change to realize the vision. This slow, deliberate pace respects the premise that you cannot create an airplane by adding wings to an automobile.
In contrast, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) has crafted a more immediate solution. The 1892 Committee of Ten recommendation “that it is better to study one subject as well as possible during the whole year than to study two or more superficially during the same time” has led to the high school courses we have today. There is insufficient time for the introduction of concepts, starting with an experiential base and leading later to abstraction and formalization. The learning process has been compressed into too short a time frame for meaningful understanding to occur. To improve this situation, NSTA's Scope, Sequence, and Coordination Project (SSC) recommends that biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science (a significant omission of the Committee of Ten) be taught each year, starting in the 6th or 7th grade and continuing through 12th grade (Aldridge 1992). The SSC slogan, “Every Student, Every Science, Every Year,” is a short-term version of what Project 2061 envisions.
Why Standards?
With a far-reaching vision for the future and short-term solutions being implemented in schools today, why do we need national standards for science education? First, standards are criteria by which judgments can be made. They need to be based on a vision, to be sure. But they must also address characteristics of curriculum design so that local educators can select what they want their students to learn: one of Project 2061's curriculum models; a particular version of Scope, Sequence, and Coordination; or another option.
What is needed from the national level is guidance for making those decisions. To understand the need for direction from the national level, one need only watch a mathematics teacher arguing for a better system of assessment on the basis of Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 1989). Or talk with a textbook publisher who wants to make wise selections among the plethora of material in current K–12 science curriculums. The banner put forward by NCTM's Standards enables everyone to move in the same direction, assured that the risks they take to improve mathematics education will be supported by policies and practices throughout the system.
Of course, good things are happening in science classrooms today, even without national standards—but they happen because of the heroes who do what needs to be done despite the norms. Many generous elementary teachers, for example, spend their own money on science supplies because they know that their students learn best by investigating. Middle schools often use science programs with relevance to their students' lives instead of being merely a practice for high school. And some high school teachers, ignoring the vocabulary-dense syllabus, encourage student inquiry into questions of their own.
We need national standards to highlight and promote the best practices of these heroes. We must make their curriculums the exemplars—the core of teacher preparation programs, the models for instructional materials and assessments, and the basis on which science programs are judged. We need to recognize and encourage the school principals who find money in their budgets for field trips, the parents whose bake sale proceeds purchase science equipment, the authors who write materials that cannot possibly satisfy the divergent criteria of 22 states and thousands of local districts, and the publishers who are pioneering in authentic assessments despite the lucrative market for multiple-choice tests. These leadership efforts must become the goal toward which others strive.
How Are Standards Being Developed?
The National Research Council—the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering— agreed to take the lead in developing standards for science education, at the request of the National Science Teachers Association and other professional societies, the Secretary of Education, the Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources of the National Science Foundation, and the Governors who co-chair the National Education Goals Panel.
While scientists and science teachers are prominent in the process, teachers are a plurality on all committees and working groups. Also involved are other educators, business representatives, and the public. To further rectify the sins of omission of the 1892 committee, women and members of other groups currently underrepresented in the sciences (people of African-American, Latino, and Native American origin) are participating directly in the process. In a further attempt to ensure that the views of 18, or even 180 people, do not set the agenda for standards intended for all students, a plan for broad critique and consensus has been built into the process.
Meeting for the first time in May 1992, the National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment approved a plan to produce science education standards by fall 1994. The committee's charge to its working groups on curriculum, teaching, and assessment is: ...to develop, in cooperation with the larger science, science education, and education communities, standards for school science.The standards, founded in exemplary practice and contemporary views of science, society, and schooling, will provide a vision of excellence to guide the science education system in productive and socially responsible ways. Standards for curriculum, teaching, and assessment will be integrated in a single document. The standards will specify criteria to judge the quality of school science and to guide the future development of the science education enterprise.
What Standards Are Being Developed?
- the nature of school science experiences that exemplary practice and learning research propose are effective in producing valued science learning;
- the scientific information (facts, concepts, laws, theories), modes of reasoning, and proficiency in conducting scientific investigations that all students are expected to attain as a result of the experiences;
- the attitudes and inclinations to apply scientific principles and ways of thinking outside the formal educational system that all students are expected to attain.
- the methods for assessing and analyzing student achievement and the opportunities that programs afford students to achieve the valued outcomes of science;
- the methods for achieving appropriate correspondence between assessment data and the purposes that the data will serve;
- the characteristics of valid, reliable science assessment data and appropriate methods for collecting them.
- the skills and knowledge teachers need to provide students with school experiences to achieve the valued science learning outcomes;
- the preparation and professional development teachers need to fulfill their roles;
- the necessary support systems and resources for effective science teaching.
The National Science Education Standards will be descriptive, not prescriptive, in order to support thoughtful consideration and application. The curriculum standards will not prescribe particular courses, programs of study, or textbooks; assessment standards will not be an examination; and teaching standards will not be certification or licensure specifications. In each case, examples will illustrate the broad range of what is possible, not define the one “best” approach.
While working groups in curriculum, teaching, and assessment convened separately in the summer of 1992, their overlapping membership and common goal will lead to a unified document that will move the system of science education forward in concert. The first discussion document, prepared in October, outlined guiding principles for the production of a complete draft by fall 1994. These principles delineate the territory of school science—somewhat broader than Scope, Sequence, and Coordination, but narrower than Project 2061.
Science for All
The first principle, Science for All, takes an unwavering stand that “the science standards will define the level of understanding that all students—regardless of background, future aspirations, or interest in science—should develop.” The text foreshadows what will appear in subsequent drafts: ...the commitment to “Science for All” implies inclusion not only of those who traditionally have received encouragement and opportunity to pursue science, but of women and girls, all racial and ethnic groups, the physically and educationally challenged, and those with limited English proficiency. Further, it implies attention to various styles of learning and differing sources of motivation. Every person must be brought into and given access to the ongoing conversation of science.Thus, the commitment to “Science for All” requires curriculum, teaching, and assessment standards that take into account student diversity vis-a-vis interests, motivation, experience, and ways of coming to understand science. The standards must define criteria for high-quality science experiences that include the engagement of all students in the full range of science content. These experiences must teach the nature and process of science as well as the subject matter and support the notion that men and women of diverse backgrounds engage and participate in science and that all have a claim on this common human heritage. The commitment to “Science for All” has implications for program design and resource allocation at local, state, and national levels.
The other guiding principles in the October discussion document delineate the territory of school science, distinguishing it from technology and engineering and from other ways of knowing. The position taken is that the national science education standards should be limited to the fundamental understandings and should offer selection criteria that states, localities, teachers, and students can use to determine additional subject matter to be studied. Such criteria will include: developmental appropriateness, experiential connections, contribution to students' ability to investigate and to make decisions, and being worth the instructional time and student effort to achieve understanding.
These positions are elaborated in a December discussion document, which provides one or more prototype standards illustrating the interweaving of curriculum, teaching, and assessment. This document also characterizes the domain of science education standards, indicating the inclusion not only of the subject matter (ecology, energy, space, and so on) but also inquiry, decision making, and content (social, ethical, and historical).
Prototype Activity: Matter (1st Grade Level)
The following is an example of how content standards can be taught and evaluated. This passage is excerpted from: National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, (December 1992), National Science Education Standards: A Sampler (Washington, D.C.: National Research Council), pp. 30–33.
...Today, the teacher had planned to take the class for a walk around the block ... [to] collect rocks for study .... The teacher told the students about the purpose of the walk and asked them what they thought they might find and where they might find them. Divided into pairs and equipped with a map of the block ... and a bag, the children circled the block, stopping to collect stones as they went. Back in the classroom, the students, in groups of four, examined their rocks closely, using hand-held magnifying lenses. They were asked to think about how they might describe their rocks, making drawings if they wished, and then to sort their rocks into groups that made sense to them.
Within their groups, the students discussed their observations and agreed and disagreed about categories. The teacher moved from group to group, listening to the discussions, asking for descriptions, pointing out interesting features, and querying the reasons for the groupings....
The next day, the teacher [asked] each group ... to explain the basis for the grouping of their rocks. Other students were asked to comment. The teacher picked up a new rock and asked that it be placed in the proper pile. After each group of four had completed its explanation, the teacher and the class constructed a list of all the characteristics ... used in sorting the rocks. They discussed the relative usefulness of some versus others and talked about other tools that might be useful....
... This unit will continue. The students will pursue the study of rocks as well as other parts of the environment. In the process, they will continue to study the properties and characteristics of objects and materials and apply their abilities to observe, describe, and classify....
... As a result of [many] activities [like these ] students should be able to demonstrate their understanding of fundamental ideas about objects and materials; namely, that:
Common objects have observable properties (size, shape, volume, and weight) that can be compared and measured ... [and] used to describe, group, and classify objects. In demonstrating their understanding of these ideas, students should be able to classify or order a set of objects according to a specified property, such as weight or volume.... and to devise one or more ways to classify or order a set of objects and ... to explain their classification scheme.
Objects are made up of different kinds of materials. Materials have observable properties (color, texture, magnetic characteristics, and different behaviors when heated or cooled) that can be compared and measured. Such properties are useful in describing, grouping, and classifying materials.... Students should be able to group a set of objects according to the materials from which the objects were made (wood, metal, glass, and clay).... [and] describe differences in the observable properties of such materials.
Materials can exist in different states (solid, liquid, gaseous). Each state has characteristic properties....Students should be able to describe observable properties that given materials have in common or that distinguish them from one another.
Some properties of a material may change when it experiences external change; others do not. In particular, if the temperature of a sample of materials is changed, the material may change from one state to another (liquid to solid, liquid to gas, and so on). However, the weight of an object remains unchanged when it is broken into smaller parts....Students should be able to predict and describe the effects of temperature changes on water or ice.... [and] to provide evidence that the weight of a sample of material remains the same even though its shape, location, or appearance may change.
Critique and Consensus
Parallel to the development of science education standards is a broad-based critique and consensus process. By working with the several science and science education communities (biology, chemistry, physics, earth and space sciences), we hope to overcome the fragmentation and territoriality that have characterized much of science education in the past. By involving those who have been left out—females (Association for Women in Science); members of racial and ethnic groups (American Indian Science and Engineering Society, Hispanic Secretariat, National Association of Black School Educators); and the physically challenged (Foundation for Science and the Handicapped)—we will work to enlarge the mainstream of the science and science education community.
We distributed the December draft to a wider audience than the October document. The overwhelming sentiment among the more than 5,000 scientists, science educators, and educators with whom we have talked is concern that the public will not support the changes the standards will call for. The publishers and producers of instructional materials and tests, with whom we have had two meetings each already, are also eager to see public support for hands-on, “minds-on” science programs. Similarly, the corporate community is willing to work for standards-based systemic change—and is poised to assist with expertise and funding. The National Governors' Association has put standards-based, systemic reform at the top of its 1992–93 agenda, with mathematics and science leading the way. Other policy groups have given us similar endorsements.
By extending the discussion to include the broader education, business, parent, and policy communities, we hope to create a context of wide support for the science education goals. And by working with the public and private funders of education, we hope to provide the support that teachers will need to meet the standards.
In other words, after 100 years of observation and experimentation, this time we hope to get it right!
