Can science as inquiry continue to be a primary goal of science teaching in the burgeoning culture of common standards, and high-stakes testing?

This is a question that I raised about a year and half ago. I am returning to the question now since the National Research Council released its report entitled A Framework for K-12 Science Education. The question is not “should we have standards.” Instead, the question and concern is that the development of standards appears to be driven by high-stakes assessments, resulting in an educational system monitored by test makers and data analysts.

We live in a liberal democracy, and as such, education is a fundamental aspect of helping citizens become literate in not only language and reading, but in mathematics, social studies, art, music, and science. Our society is a diverse, and multicultural, and the recent movement to move American education toward a one-size-fits-all system seems to be the antithesis of education in a democracy.

In a liberal democracy we need an educational system that is decentralized, and that puts into the hands of educators at the local level the responsibility to choose and develop curriculum and methods of teaching by able professional teachers. One of the hallmarks of liberal democracy has been the freedom accorded citizens to develop and express widely varying ideas and inventions. At the heart of this is creativity, and the development of life long aspirations for inquiry.

Admit or not, we have a real problem here.  Science teaching should encourage messing about, handling equipment and materials, measuring and estimating, wondering and hypothesizing, and asking all sorts of questions.   Could these attribute eventually be lost to science teaching because of the collateral effect of high stakes testing in which teachers are almost forced to teach to the test?

Tweakers and Tinkerers 

In a recent article in the New Yorker, entitled The Tweaker: The Real Genius of Steve Jobs, Malcomb Gladwell explores whether Steve Jobs was large-scale visionary and inventor, or a tweaker.  According Walter Isaacson’s biography, Steve Jobs was more of tweaker, although he clearly created a large-scale visionary company.  He was a tweaker in the sense that Malcolm says that Jobs tweaked technologies that existed, like the mouse and icons on the screen, and created the Macintosh Computer.  His genius, according to Malcolm and Isaacson was his editorial ability, not inventive ability.  He worked with what was in front of him, critiqued it, played with it, and refined it.

Science teachers have historically tried to provide opportunities for students to be “tweakers.”  Years ago teachers referred to this as messing about in science class. Students were given materials and equipment-things-and were encouraged to construct, test, probe, and experiment without superimposed questions or instructions. In today’s constructivist model of science learning, “messing about” is integrated across several phases of learning.

In his article, Gladwell asks why the industrial revolution began in England rather than in other countries such as France or Germany. He suggests that in 18th Century Britain there was a large population of skilled engineers and artisans, resourceful and creative persons:

who took the signature inventions of the industrial age and tweaked them—refined and perfected them, and made them work (Gladwell, 2011).

In Britain, during this time, the culture supported the kind of thinking and doing that led to inventions and modifications that improved upon existing technologies. A kind of tinkering, or messing about in attempts to improve upon existing technologies.

Steve Jobs created an environment in Apple in which tinkering was his way of making new products that changed people’s lives.  This kind of thinking was not done in isolation, but was done in teams who had responsibility for solving problems and creating new devices.

In the same way, science teachers believe that hands-on and inquiry teaching are crucial in helping students understand the nature of science.  Hands-on activities provide the opportunity for students to work together in small teams to explore, invent, construct, and yes, learn to be tweakers and tinkerers.

Is the high-stakes testing environment being fostered in America’s schools today conducive to students and teacherswho might be tweakers and tinkerers?

The New Science Standards

I know you realize that nearly all of the states have embraced and adopted the Common Core State Standards in English/language arts and mathematics. These standards also include specific Literacy Standards in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.  The Common Core Standards were written by Achieve, a company that was created by the National Governors Conference, and funded by private benefactors such as the Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Broad Foundations.

Last year the Carnegie Foundation provided funds to the National Research Council to create a new framework for K-12 science education. The framework was published last summer, and it is being used to write a new set of science standards for American schools, K-12. Guess who will write these standards? You’re correct–Achieve!

You are probably thinking that I am a conspiracy theorist. Actually, I am not, but it seems to me that the fact that one not-for-profit company has such power in developing standards for American schools has to make you wonder.

The Next Generation of Science Standards have not been written. But the process has begun. Achieve announced that they have already recruited writers, and are going to work with the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). NSTA appears to be working hand-in-hand with Achieve, and their website provides updates on the new framework, and summary of the key ideas of the new framework. There is no evidence suggesting that NSTA has questions about the new framework.

Can Inquiry Flourish?

Can inquiry flourish in an environment in which singular sets of standards in the content areas will be written and then adopted by every state? Will the various states adopt the standards as they have in English/literacy and mathematics? Most likely they will. They will because not only is there pressure from groups like Achieve, and the National Governors Association, but the U.S. Department of Education. You probably know that when the Race to the Top  Request for Proposals was released, states were encouraged to adopt the Common Core State Standards. If they didn’t their proposal would not fare as well—they would lose points on the evaluation of their proposal.

The problem with a single set of standards in a diverse culture such as ours, is the eminent development of a common set of high-stakes science assessments that will be created. Funds are already available for the development of national assessment high-stakes tests.

And this is the problem.

Some educators think that the standards movement is part of the assessment movement in which student achievement scores will be used to evaluate not just the students, but more dangerously the effectiveness of teachers and schools. Data analysts have convinced corporate and government leaders that they can indeed measure teacher effectiveness using the so called “value added” approach in which they can nail down how much student achievement progress from beginning to end of year can be attributed to their teacher.

[Science] teachers will have to continue to navigate through this maize of new standards and assessments. They will have to prepare their students for bubble tests, but they will also want to instill in their students a sense of wonder, and help their students understand how science can influence their lives.

Science teaching needs to focus on the lived experiences of students, and engage them in inquiry and experimental ways of knowing that relate to their personal lives. Allowing common standards to determine what is taught, and how, is quite the opposite of a liberalizing and democratic approach to education.

References:

Gladwell, Malcolm, The Tweaker: The Real Genius of Steve Jobs, The New Yorker, November 14, 2011.