This issue (March, 2007) of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching had two articles that investigated the effects of science education reform in the United States. The first of the two studies, Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the national science foundation’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative by Eric R. Banilower, Daniel J. Heck, and Iris R. Weiss investigated the relationship between NSF teacher enhancement projects and standards-based reform. They did conclude that “this model for professional development has an impact on teachers and their classroom practices. In addition, the analyses found that teachers’ perception of principal support for Standards-based science instruction is an important predictor of these outcomes.” These researchers did find that professional development had a positive impact on the implementation of standards-based reform, but also added that teachers’ perceptions of support for the Standards was a key predictor in the outcomes that were investigated.

In an international view of reform, Science Education Research Internationally: Conceptions, Research Methods, Domains of Research by Reinders Duit in the Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education it was reported that “disappointing results of international monitoring studies such as TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study) and PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) have fueled another general debate on the need for a sufficient level of scientific literacy and the necessity to improve the quality of science instruction in school.”

Then last summer, in a report issued by the National Research Council, Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science, Grades K – 8 the authors recommend a new generation of standards, and these standards at the national and state levels should be structured to identify a few core ideas in a particular subject, and how these ideas can be cumulatively developed over time. The report also claims that current standards do not take into account what is now known about children’s thinking , especially the cognitive abilities of younger children. (You can read this report for free online at the National Academy Press.)

Reform in science education is an elusive thing. When I entered the teaching profession, the NSF was in the midst of its largest curriculum reform project effort. Many of these earlier projects still have their impact in schools today. In the 1990s the USA, and many other countries moved toward a “standards-based” approach to reform, and to this day, “standards-based” reform impacts schools. Yet I recall, when the leading entity in all of this in the US was the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) published its first reform tool, a book entitled Science for All Americans (1985), it was published within the framework of Project 2061. The year 1985 was when Halley’s Comet passed near the Earth, and 2061 will be the next encounter. Reform takes a long time.

It’s been more than 20 years since the publication of this book. Perhaps the authors of the Taking Science to School have it right in that it is prudent to look at the Standards with a critical eye, and formulate a new perspective. There is a new cadre of science educators—world-wide—and it will be from their perspective that future reforms in science education move forward.