Chemical Education Today
Editorial
Standards Standards-based science curricula are currently in vogue. Many organizations, such as the California Science Teachers There is no doubt that the National Science Education StanAssociation and the National Academy of Sciences, lent strong support to changing the criteria to favor hands-on dards (1) and state standards derived from them are playing an important role in improving science education and will science, and, happily, their advice was heeded. The California criteria are crucial, because publishers of continue to do so for many years. However, national and state instructional materials who cannot meet them cannot sell their standards are not a panacea. If misused or misinterpreted, materials in the nation’s most populous state, which constithey can produce the exact opposite of what was intended tutes their largest market. Thus publishers by those who framed them and have encourwould have moved quickly to change textaged their use. That criteria approved in books so that no more than 25% of instrucAttempts to amend state science curricula tion would have involved hands-on to mandate equal time for “creation science”, one or two states might materials. Given that hands-on activities in to delete the word evolution, or to prohibit any discussion of evolution and natural selec- limit choices in the rest of excess of the 25% limit would have had to “be clearly marked as optional”, few if any tion have occurred recently in Kansas and Georgia, to name two examples. There will the country is disturbing. publishers would have put more than 25% hands-on activities in their materials. As a surely be other efforts to define science difconsequence, teachers and students in other ferently from what is arrived at by consensus states would probably have been deprived of the option of a among its practitioners, and it will require vigilance and effully hands-on curriculum, since very few publishers would fort to maintain appropriate scientific content in curricula. have provided support materials. That criteria approved in one However, pedagogy as well as content has become an issue. or two states might limit choices in the rest of the country is On March 10, the California State Board of Education apdisturbing. It implies that those of us in the other states must proved Criteria for Evaluating Science Instructional Materikeep a watchful eye on states like California and Texas that als for Kindergarten through Grade Eight that will apply to have large populations and statewide adoption criteria. adoptions of materials and textbooks that will be submitted The power of standards is disturbing in another way. in the fall of 2006 (2). One section of these approved criteUnless standards are regularly examined and updated, they ria states that, to be considered for adoption, an instructional may become a major impediment to change. Another secmaterials submission must provide, tion of the criteria approved in California requires publishA table of evidence in the teacher edition, demonstraters to provide that, “Extraneous lessons or topics that are not ing that the California Science Standards can be comdirectly focused on the standards are minimal, certainly comprehensively taught from the submitted materials with posing no more than 10 percent of the science instructional hands-on activities composing at least 20 to 25 percent time.” Chemistry and other sciences are changing rapidly, of the science instructional program (as specified in the with new, exciting developments every week and new fields California Science Framework). Hands-on activities must coalescing every year. With tests and instructional materials be cohesive, connected and build on each other to lead tightly tied to standards and curricula written a few years ago, students to a comprehensive understanding of the Calihow will students find out about the new, exciting science? fornia Science Content Standards. Will teachers whose evaluations depend on their students’ This statement is in accord with evidence from science doing well on tests take time to introduce new ideas? Major education research and with scientists’ intuition that students efforts will need to be made to insure that national standards learn science more effectively when they base their concluare re-examined and, if necessary, updated every couple of sions on hands-on, experimental evidence. The pathway to years, and criteria for instructional materials in every state this statement was somewhat rocky, however. A January 16 are also suitably altered. Otherwise the inertia inherent in draft of the same paragraph was quite different. It said standards may ultimately become a target of yet another phase of educational reform. 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 (as specified in the California Science Framework). Additional hands-on activities may be included, but must not be essential for complete coverage of the California Science Standards for the intended grade level(s), must be clearly marked as optional, and must meet all other evaluation criteria.
This almost complete turnaround in favor of hands-on, inquiry-oriented science did not happen of its own accord. www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Literature Cited 1. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996; http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/ (accessed Apr 2004). 2. California State Board of Education, Criteria for Evaluating Science Instructional Materials for Kindergarten through Grade Eight, 2004; http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science/ (accessed Apr 2004).
Vol. 81 No. 6 June 2004
•
Journal of Chemical Education
775
