A Critical Review of the New Framework for Science Education

August 5th, 2011

Two weeks ago, the National Research Council released its Framework for K-12 Science Education. The nonprofit organization, Achieve, will use the framework to draft new science standards that would serve as a model for states. While we haven’t reviewed the final framework closely, we found the draft framework, released over a year ago, to be overly broad and without key specifics.

Yesterday, Ze’ev Wurmam, a technology expert and former Department of Education advisor, offered an in-depth review of the 280-page framework. While Wurman welcomed the release of a science framework and its inclusion of engineering, he had much to criticize.

“This framework does not expect our students to be able to do any science, or to be able to solve any science problem. This framework simply teaches our students science appreciation, rather than science. It expects our students to become good consumers of science and technology, rather than prepare them to be the discoverers of science and creators of technology.”

According to Wurman, the framework all-but removes analytical mathematics—essential knowledge for future scientists and engineers—from the study of science. He writes:

“Before Lavoisier’s quantitative approach there was no chemistry, only Alchemy. Before Newton’s invention of calculus, physics was more a craft than a science. Mathematics has been inseparable from science for the last 300 years, and has been largely responsible for the world we live in. Yet here we have a ’21st century’ science framework for our students that effectively ignores mathematics.”

Wurman found only one equation in the entire framework. Read more, here.

Meagan Estep

Posted in Math and Science, Standards | No Comments »

NAEP Results: Flat Again

July 20th, 2011

Yesterday, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) released the Nation’s Report Card: Geography 2010, the last of the social studies “triumvirate.” We’ve blogged on the others (history and civics). And, unfortunately, we’re bound to repeat past analysis: Scores are flat, again.

Only a quarter of students performed at the Proficient level on the assessment. And only a small percentage — 2 percent of 4th graders, 3% of 8thgraders, and 1% of 12th graders — achieved an Advanced designation. The math is simple: Most students are scoring at Basic or below, an “F” as we see it.

NAEP tests students’ knowledge of space and place, environment and society, and spatial dynamics and connections. As David Driscoll, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board said, “Geography … is a rich and varied discipline that, now more than ever, is vital to understanding the connections between our global economy, environment and diverse cultures.” Students require more than the cursory knowledge of geography present in most curricula to understand history and civics in context.

Can we expect future improvement? Our guess is no — not as, in the words of a Penn State geography professor, “geography’s role in the curriculum [remains] limited and, at best, static.”

Update: While scores have remained flat overall, poor and minority kids have made gains on NAEP. Fordham’s, Mike Petrilli has an interesting take on the gains, and their cost, here.

Stephanie Porowski

Posted in Assessment, History/Social Studies, NAEP | No Comments »

What We’re Reading

July 15th, 2011

Must-reads, in our opinion, from this week’s education news.

Framework for New Science Standards Coming Next Week, Curriculum Matters

Read Lynne’s take on the last draft, here.

Tough Calculus as Technical Schools Face Deep Cuts, New York Times

Our question: Do students at career and technical schools receive a “well-rounded” education?

Gatsby without greatness, Chicago Sun-Times

Roger Ebert makes a powerful case against giving struggling students dumbed-down versions of classic literature: “There is no purpose in ‘reading’ The Great Gatsby unless you actually read it. Fitzgerald’s novel is not about a story. It is about how the story is told. Its poetry, its message, its evocation of Gatsby’s lost American dream … .”

What Did Harry Potter Learn at Hogwarts? The Answer Sheet

Harry Potter fans, take note: The wizarding world does not suffer from a narrow curriculum!

Happy Friday.

 

Posted in What We're Reading | No Comments »

Still “Broad and Full of Holes”?

July 14th, 2011

That’s how we described the National Research Council’s first attempt at drafting a new “conceptual framework” for K-12 science standards. A year ago.

Since that time the 18 experts who comprise the NRC’s panel have been hard at work refining their original draft. According to Ed Week, their final product will be released next Tuesday. We’re glad they’ve taken their time and will be reading carefully to see if they have filled gaps in the initial draft and taken the entire framework down to a grain size that will allow it to be a meaningful guide for states and for Achieve, which will create a set of national science standards based on the framework. Our bet:  Achieve is going to have its hands full.

Lynne Munson

 

Posted in Math and Science, Standards | 1 Comment »

Another Misstep from AP

July 13th, 2011

A transcript loaded with course titles boasting “AP” or its equivalent is your student’s ticket into a name-brand college or university. Or is it? According to College Board, last year more than 1.8 million students participated in the program, often at the urging at parents and administrators.

Unfortunately for these students, College Board’s Advanced Placement Program (AP) seems determined to water down its curriculum. To this end, College Board Vice President Trevor Packer, who oversees the AP program, recently announced its membership in the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21):

“The Partnership for 21st Century Skills has been a guiding light for the AP Program as we have thought about the knowledge and skills the AP program should consciously strive to promote. … We are thrilled to formally join this partnership as we roll out a major redesign of the AP science and history programs.”

For those of you new to the debate, P21 falls heavy on skills-promotion and light on content knowledge. With passing reference to the liberal arts, the core of P21’s message is the importance of a set of skills necessary for a 21st century world: critical thinking, problem solving, communication and collaboration, and creativity and innovation. Important skills, yes. But students develop these skills while they acquire knowledge. Cognitive science has proven that skills such as those P21 promotes cannot effectively be learned in isolation.

Even AP’s toughest critics have long lauded the program for its commitment to rich content.  But AP recently revamped its curriculum considerably at the behest of those like P21—who would strip science and history of content and progression in favor of poorly organized and often-trite themes.

An organization calling P21 its “guiding light” begs our doubt.

Lynne Munson and Stephanie Porowski

Posted in 21st Century Skills, Curriculum | 1 Comment »

What We’re Reading

July 1st, 2011

Must-reads, in our opinion, from this week’s education news.

Smells Like School Spirit, The New York Times

David Brooks on education’s biggest rift. Read our take, here.

Educators Don’t Understand Common Core Standards, Boards Told, Curriculum Matters

For those of you in the classroom: Has your state adopted the CCSS? And, will it impact your teaching?

Fog of Common Core (Lessons From Arizona’s Adoption), ASCD Community Blog

According to this blogger, states must better-communicate their plans for implementation of the new standards.

Even for Cashiers, College Pays Off, The New York Times

So maybe all students do benefit from a college-prep education? We think so.

Enjoy your holiday weekend.

 

Posted in What We're Reading | No Comments »

What’s Your Mission?

July 1st, 2011

In today’s New York Times, David Brooks opines on the rift between education historian Diane Ravitch and many in the education reform movement she once championed. While Brooks finds faults with much of Ravitch’s message, the truth he finds in it is solid gold:

“Most important, she is right that teaching is a humane art built upon loving relationships between teachers and students. If you orient the system exclusively around a series of multiple choice accountability assessments, you distort it.

“If you make tests all-important, you give schools an incentive to drop the subjects that don’t show up on the exams but that help students become fully rounded individuals — like history, poetry, art and sports. You may end up with schools that emphasize test-taking, not genuine learning. You may create incentives for schools to game the system by easing out kids who might bring the average scores down, for example.”

School leaders: Rather than rallying around tests, unite your schools around a clear and vibrant mission. And, we would add, make it about exposing your students—whatever their demographic backgrounds—to the best in the arts, history, foreign languages, sciences, mathematics, and literature.

Stephanie Porowski

Posted in Arts, English/Language Arts, Foreign Language, History/Social Studies, Math and Science | 1 Comment »

What We’re Reading

June 24th, 2011

Must-reads, in our opinion, from this week’s education news.

Sciences, Arts, Humanities Fight for Status of Math and Reading, Curriculum Matters

With a great quote from George Lucas.

NRC Wants Science Put on Par with Math, Reading, Education Week

The National Research Council recommends that “science learning be tested as frequently and taught as rigorously as math and reading.”

Ignorance of History Permeates All Levels, Walt Gardner’s Reality Check

Just one more article about how much we don’t know about history.

Don’t Know Much About History, The Wall Street Journal

Ok, we lied: Another history article. This one’s an interview with historian David McCullough. If you read only one “must read,” make it this one.

Happy Friday.

Posted in What We're Reading | 1 Comment »

Training Great Teachers

June 24th, 2011

We’ve written often on teacher preparation programs’ lack of emphasis on the content knowledge of future teachers. The debate over the relative importance of subject matter and pedagogical methods in teacher preparation programs has hung over the education field for well over a century. And, unfortunately, the balance has all-too-regularly shifted in favor of methods.

The gap between professors of education and their liberal arts colleagues has been called the “widest street in the world.” (Read the latest issue of AFT’s American Educator for a history of this divide.) Teacher preparation programs assume their students know and love the content they will teach. But, even in alternative certification programs, which attract exemplary candidates, content is simply not addressed.

The business world is increasingly looking for employees who are inspired by creativity and a drive to find patterns in their work and world. This kind of person is inquisitive, with deep knowledge of his/her field.

Sounds like a great teacher.

Content knowledge and pedagogical practices go hand in hand. Particularly in elementary school, as teachers help students construct foundations for learning. To teach in innovative and exciting ways, teachers must understand their subject matter deeply. To encourage their students to ask big questions ably and productively, teachers need knowledge of the answers.

There are a number of initiatives in the works to redeem teacher preparation. But, as these initiatives seek to make teacher preparation programs more selective and practical, too few of them attempt to bridge the wide, wide street between pedagogy and the liberal arts.

This is a mistake. Good teachers know and care deeply about what their students should learn. Their preparation should not only focus on how to teach, but also on what to teach and why it matters.

Stephanie Porowski

 

Posted in Teacher Preparation | 1 Comment »

Relax, We’ve Never Known Our History

June 21st, 2011

Last week’s release of the Nation’s Report Card in history brought worrisome, if unsurprising, news. Unsurprising, because students have never scored well in history. From The New Yorker:

“And yet it may be that, while kids aren’t getting better, they’re not getting worse. The history of history-education evaluation is littered with voguish pedagogy, statistical funny business, ideological arm wrestling, a disproportionate emphasis on trivia, and a protocol that insures that each generation of kids looks dim to its elders. ‘We haven’t ever known our past,’ Sam Wineburg, a professor of education and history at Stanford, said last week. ‘Your kids are no stupider than their grandparents.’ He pointed out that the first large-scale proficiency study—of Texas students, in 1915-16—demonstrated that many couldn’t tell Thomas Jefferson from Jefferson Davis or 1492 from 1776. A 1943 survey of seven thousand college freshmen found that, among other things, only six per cent of them could name the original thirteen colonies. ‘Appallingly ignorant,’ the Times harrumphed, as it would again in the face of another dismal showing, in 1976. (And it’s not just Americans: an infamous 2004 survey revealed that a small percentage of Britons aged sixteen to twenty-four believed that the Spanish Armada was vanquished by Gandalf.)”

Read more, here.

Posted in History/Social Studies, NAEP | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »