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

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 just 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 has been 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.

I know you realize that nearly all of the states have embraced and adopted the Common Core State Standards in language arts and mathematics. These standards also include specific science standards has it relates to language and literacy. The Common Core Standards were written by Achieve, a company that was created by the National Governors Conference, and is funding by private benefactors such as the Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and the Broad Family Fund.

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 week, and it will be 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 new 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 under a common approach to developing science standards for each state to adopt? Will the various states adopt the standards as they have in language/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 Funds 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 simply part of the assessment movement in which student achievement scores will be used to evaluate not simply the students, but more dangerously the effectiveness of teachers and schools. Data analysts have convinced corporate and government types that they can indeed measure teacher effective 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.

Further investigation
Read original post on this topic here.
NSTA
Race to the Top