California Political Science Education
Lawrence Woolf, General Atomics
If you're
a curriculum developer and want your grade K-8 science instructional materials to be
adopted for use in California, you'd better not mention either the National Science
Education Standards (NSES) or the AAAS Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Because if you do, your materials can't be
adopted.
Welcome to
the strange world of state science education policy.
I've taken an active role in California science education policy for the past 7
years and in this article will share my story on how I got involved, what I've tried to
do, what I've actually accomplished (in conjunction with the efforts of many others),
and some lessons that are applicable to anyone interested in K-12 science education.
My
involvement in science education began in 1992 when my company, General Atomics, started
an education outreach program, in which scientists and teachers worked together to develop
a number of educational modules. I helped
develop and present a Materials Science module at a variety of science education
conferences, and later developed additional modules and materials. To further my understanding of science education,
I attended the 5-day 1997 Teacher Scientist Alliance program, headed by then APS education
and outreach director Ramon Lopez, the current FEd chairperson.
In about
1997, California began developing state science education standards. The final draft
version differed significantly from the NSES in both content and philosophy. As an example of the differences between the
California Science Standards (CSS) and NSES: according to the CSS, students in grade 3
should know that “Science experiments show that there are more than 100 different types
of atoms, which are presented on the periodic table of the elements.” In contrast, the NSES includes this topic in its
grade 5-8 standards: “There are more than 100 known elements that combine in a multitude
of ways to produce compounds, which account for the living and nonliving substances that
we encounter.”
California
is an adoption state (for grades K-8), one of 22. In
adoption states, the state determines the instructional materials that school districts
can purchase using state funds. In California, the state curriculum commission sets the
criteria for determining how these materials are selected.
Other committees then review and judge the science instructional materials that are
submitted for adoption. In 1998, new criteria
for adoption of K-8 science instructional materials stated that they must meet every
single grade level standard at a particular grade to be considered for adoption - if an
instructional material missed just one of the grade level standards, it couldn't be
adopted for use in California.
Once
developed, the final version of both the CSS and the criteria for adoption of K-8 science
instructional materials had to be approved by the State Board of Education (SBE) to become
state policy. In discussions with teachers
and science education leaders from around the state, I knew that many disagreed with parts
of both the CSS and the criteria for adoption. I
therefore took the initiative and wrote a science education petition summarizing the major
points of discontent, and distributed it via various email conduits. The result was a flood of responses from over 350
science educators and scientists from throughout the state who signed onto the petition
via email, many adding their personal opinions. I
manually collected these responses and organized them into a coherent document. I did this for two reasons: to document the
disagreement for historical reasons and to use this as a mechanism to try to influence the
SBE.
Next I
traveled to Sacramento to present this petition to the SBE at their public hearing on both
the CSS and the criteria. Individuals must
call the SBE ahead of time and notify them of your intention to testify. You have 2 minutes to make your case to the board,
which presents some problems. If you talk
about the general issues, you don't have time to justify your concerns with concrete
examples. On the other hand, if you
mention specific examples, you don't have time to speak to the overriding concerns. I
have found it useful to mention the main concern in one or two sentences followed by 3-4
one-line examples that provide rationale for the concern. In addition, you must carefully
practice your talk because, like at an APS meeting, you will be cut off after your 2
minute allotment.
Despite my
testimony and that of others, the CSS were approved.
The criteria for adoption of K-8 science materials were also approved, which
ultimately resulted in no inquiry-based or NSF-funded curricula being approved for
adoption, in large part because they did not meet every CSS at a particular grade level.
During the
discussion among SBE members following public testimony, I was quite surprised to find
that some members viewed hands-on science education as unstructured and unscripted playing
around with little or no rigorous learning occurring.
From my perspective, it appeared that SBE members had never been exposed to high
quality inquiry-based science education curricula, pedagogy, or research. This deficiency clearly needs to be addressed. So that policy makers at the state and district level can make
informed decisions, the science education community needs to communicate the rationale and
evidence for effective science education methodology to them. A recent article in the California School Boards
Association magazine (Ref. 1) on science education may help in this regard.
The next
major issue that arose a year or so later was the California Science Framework, a document
that is meant to show how the CSS should be implemented in the classroom. I disagreed with many parts of the Framework,
including:
- “science must be taught ‘for the
sake of science’” because it “disciplines the minds of students.”
- “Ohm's Law, one of the guiding
principles of physics...”
- “The life's work of many
scientists is replicating other scientists' experiments in order to test their
conclusion.”
Well, once
again, my testimony (and that of others) to the SBE to reject the Framework was ignored
and the Framework was approved.
My most
recent interaction with state science education policy concerned an issue that garnered
national attention in 2004, including articles in the Washington Post and the San Jose
Mercury News. Every seven years in
California, the state adopts new science instructional materials for grades K-8, and
sufficient time had passed since the last adoption that the state curriculum commission
was tasked to develop new criteria for the adoption of K-8 science instructional
materials. Among other things, these new
criteria stated:
- “The only standards that may
be referenced are the California Science Standards. There should be no reference to
national standards or benchmarks or to any standards other than the California Science
Standards.”
- Curricula must show “A table
of evidence in the teacher edition, demonstrating that the California Science Standards
can be comprehensively taught from the submitted materials with hands-on activities
composing no more than 20 to 25 percent of science instructional time...”
Since research-based
hands-on science instructional materials generally use more than 25% of time for hands-on
activities, this ruled out their ever being approved for adoption. And just to confuse the issue further, the new
criteria also encouraged “publishers to select research-based pedagogical approaches.”
Well, needless to say, this riled up
more than a few folks in the science education community and spurred two major efforts. First, 3 different groups, consisting of science
educators, university professors, and members of the business community, independently
started emailing each other to try to formulate a strategy about how to deal with this
issue. I brought these 3 groups together electronically so that we could present a united
and cohesive front. Second, I worked closely
with Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, to develop a position
paper on this issue that could be widely distributed; this culminated in a letter to the
SBE opposing the new criteria that was signed by the chancellors of the University of
California, Stanford, and the California Institute of Technology, and the CEOs of Intel,
Bechtel, Adobe Systems, Genentech, and Pixar, and George Lucas. I had the privilege of reading this letter to the
SBE at public testimony about this issue. The
net result of these efforts and that of many others was that some of the most egregious
issues in the criteria were modified. The
most significant was that the revised criteria now read, in a major reversal of policy,
that instructional materials must “include hands-on activities composing at least 20 to
25 percent of the science instructional program.”
But you still can't mention any standards but the California standards.
How do these things happen? State committees and commissions are often greatly
influenced by just a few people in positions of power or influence. In California, an influential member of various
commissions has stated (Ref. 2): “What has
been left unsaid is that real scientists don't actually spend very much of their day
"observing" and "measuring." They read! Reading for
understanding of content is the core process skill of science, and there is no substitute
for practice at an early age.… Hands-on investigative activities ought to be sprinkled
into a science program like a ‘spice’ they cannot substitute for a ‘main dish’.
The best ‘hands-on’ program would be one in which students can get their
“hands on” an informative textbook!”
So what enduring lessons
can be gleaned from these experiences?
I have found that testifying at the
meeting where the SBE must make their decision to approve or reject the policy issue in
front of them to be only marginally effective. There
are 2 reasons. First, most SBE members have
thought about the issue, are at least somewhat aware of both sides of the issue, and
generally seem to have their minds made up prior to the meeting. Therefore it is prudent
to send comments to SBE members well in advance of their meeting to educate them on the
upcoming topic. Second, the state has a
strict timetable that the SBE is not inclined to disrupt.
For example, the timetable for textbook adoptions requires approved adoption
criteria by a certain date.
On the other
hand, getting involved can make a major difference, as in the case noted above where the
criteria were altered from “no more than” to “at least” 25% hands-on science. This change will presumably result in hands-on
science programs being adopted for use in California in the near future, ending a 7-year
drought.
I'd
recommend that scientists interested in improving K-12 science education take a critical
look at their state's standards, framework, criteria for adoption of instructional
materials, and the materials actually adopted. These are real constraints that affect
every classroom teacher and student. If you
determine that changes are in order, find out when or if the state has scheduled a review
or revision of the item and become involved in that process. It takes significant effort to navigate the
complexity of state science education policy, but the payoff is certainly worthwhile.
References:
1. http://www.csba.org/csmag/Spring05/csMagStoryTemplate.cfm?id=65
2. http://www.usc.edu/hsc/dental/ccmb/usc-csp/Metzebergdiscussion.pdf
For more information about
the activities discussed in this article, go to:
http://www.sci-ed-ga.org and click on “K-12 education.”
For additional information
about California instructional materials adoptions, go to: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/imagen.asp
Lawrence Woolf is a research physicist and program manager at
General Atomics. As part of his voluntary education efforts, he has written numerous
education modules, developed a variety of education materials, performed curriculum
reviews for NSF-funded middle and high school science programs, and participated in many
NSF education review panels. |