Chemical Education Today
Editorial
Science Literacy and Science Standards Those who carefully evaluate science literacy report that it has doubled over the past two decades, but nevertheless fewer than a quarter of Americans are currently what expert Jon D. Miller calls, “scientifically savvy and alert” (1). Fewer than one-third of Americans can identify DNA as a key to heredity, only about 10% know what radiation is, one in five thinks the Sun revolves around Earth, and most do not understand what a molecule is (though they can say that it is really small). Miller emphasizes that science literacy is a necessity if one is to participate fully in a democratic society and attributes much of the lack of science literacy to the educational system, particularly pre-college education. Therefore it is disturbing to read a recent report, The State of State Science Standards 2005, which gives poor grades to nearly half of the states for the quality of their state science standards (2). The State of State Science Standards 2005 applied several criteria to state standards. Were their expectations clear and fair at each grade level? Were the standards organized sensibly and were they understandable for teachers, parents, and the public? Were the content and pedagogy standards appropriate? Were expectations explicit and adequate to equip students for college-level work? Did standards incorporate pseudo-science? For states that received low grades there were common problems. According to the report, poor standards were too long; were difficult to follow, even for scientists; left out facts and concepts integral to physics, chemistry, and biology; were too heavily focused on discovery learning at the expense of other means of sharing scientific knowledge; and watered down the treatment of evolution. The report suggests that the current focus on reading and mathematics testing as a result of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has decreased emphasis on science in school curricula. Perhaps that problem will not continue. Testing students for science progress will begin in the 2007–2008 academic year. This may help restore needed emphasis on science teaching, even though the results of science tests will not be used to measure the “adequate yearly progress” required by NCLB regulations. Lack of demonstrated adequate progress can result in sanctions against poorly performing schools. The wide variation in quality of our current 50 different sets of state standards and assessments has led several educators and legislators to call for mandatory national science education standards (3). National standards and tests would make it more difficult for states to set low standards in hopes of avoiding standards-based sanctions. High national standards would also likely improve student performance throughout the country, helping ameliorate the current poor performance of U.S. students when compared with other countries and improving our competitiveness in a world that is increasingly small (4). But national standards and tests are a double-edged sword. Suppose that at the national level political decisions were made like the recent one in Kansas that no longer restricts scientific explanations to those that avoid reference to
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
the supernatural. …major improvements are Political redefinition of science on needed in our approach to the a national scale could pose a seriteaching of science. ous risk to all science in the U.S. And how would the dichotomy between standards that specify what all citizens should know about science and standards that define knowledge needed by those who aspire to scientific and technical careers be dealt with? The former relate to science literacy and the latter to the background required by those likely to become scientists—two quite different groups. Another issue is timeliness. If standards are not continually updated, new subjects such as nanoscience or the latest advances in evolutionary biology may be omitted entirely. If standards were handled badly at the national level, then the entire country would suffer. In the current system some states, such as California and New York, have been lauded for high quality standards toward which other states can aspire (2). Both assessments of science literacy and evaluations of state science standards lead me to conclude that major improvements are needed in our approach to the teaching of science. This conclusion applies at the college and university level as well as at the pre-college level and we should not leave it to any separate group to lead the way toward improved learning and understanding of science. Those of us at the college level need to work with our colleagues at the pre-college level to share ideas about methods and content. Teachers at the precollege level need to connect with others, individually and through organizations such as ACS and NSTA, to make known their opinions and the problems they face. All of us need to advocate as strongly as possible for better standards, improved budgets, better training of teachers, and a more scientific approach to science instruction. We are all part of the solution to this problem, and the harder we work on it the more likely we are to succeed. Literature Cited 1. Dean, Cornelia. Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much. New York Times, August 30, 2005; see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/ 08/30/science/30profile.html (accessed Jan 2006). 2. Gross, Paul R.; Goodenough, Ursula; Lerner, Lawrence S.; Haack, Susan; Schwartz, Martha; Schwartz, Richard; Finn, Chester. E., Jr. The State of State Science Standards 2005; Thomas B. Fordham Institute: Washington, DC, 2005; a free PDF file of the entire report is available at http://www.edexcellence. net/doc/Science%20Standards.FinalFinal.pdf (accessed Jan 2006). 3. Olson, Lynn. Education Week 2005, 25 (14) 1, 24. 4. Moore, John W. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 7.
Vol. 83 No. 3 March 2006
•
Journal of Chemical Education
343
