In a recent edweek.org newsletter there was a No Child Left Behind Alert that I found interesting, and provided the starting point for this post.  The forum discussion (a question is posed, and you can submit a response joining you to the discussion) for the day was:  What’s the most important thing President-to-be-Obama could do improve standardized testing?  Many assumptions form the basis for this question, but my immediate response is that he (our new President) should suspend any further use of standardized tests until there is evidence that high-stakes testing provides a real measure of student learning and school accountability.

I read many of the replies to the question, and there were thoughtful comments about the misuse of testing, and the call for alternatives.  One responder did agree with me, and recommended that the President put an end of these high stakes testing.

You might ask, isn’t this a little far fetched.  Schooling as we know it would collapse.  How would we know if students really did learn the fundamental concepts of science or mathematics, or any other subject you might want to teach?  Most teachers know the answer to this question.  But I won’t deal with that here.  

You might also ask, wasn’t there evidence from research to make policy decisions such as the wide-spread use of high stakes testing, the implementation of charter schools, the use of vouchers, and other key educational decisions.  According to an article by Eric Schaps, (Missing in Action: The Non-Role of Research in Policy and Practice) published in Education Week Research Center, research has not been used to make important policy decisions. In each of these cases, policy makers did not use research to support their decisions. 

For example, most schools use high-stakes, test-based accountability systems.  According to Schaps, high stakes testing began in Texas and Kentucky and “morphed into” the No Child Left Behind Act after George Bush became President.  NCLB now dominates the educational landscape of every state, yet, it was largely a politically driven (supported by both sides of the isle, however) policy decision without evidence on which to base this crucial decision which now is the law of the land.  NCLB is up for reauthorization in the Congress.  Most likely it will be reauthorized with some tweaks put forth by the new Congress.  And this is unfortunate.  What is needed a paradigm shift.

A paradigm shift?  One example in science teaching is to move from a teacher centered approach to teaching to a student-centered approach.  This paradigm has been with us for many years, first put forth by John Dewey, and later supported by the Progressive Education Movement.   Glen Aikenhead describes this paradigm when he calls for a science education that is evidence-based, and is a science education for everyday life.  In his book, Science Education for Everyday Life, Aikenhead gives a clear overview of the humanistic science paradigm that differs from the paradigm that characterizes school science today.  The humanistic science paradigm gives priority to student-oriented point of view aimed at citizens who can employ science and technology in their everyday lives.  What is powerful about Aikenhead’s proposal is that it is evidence-based.  That is, the various components of this paradigm, the nature of the curriculum, the content of science, teacher pedagogy are based on research studies conducted by researchers around the world.  This clear connection of research to policy change has been missing, not only at the state level, but especially at the federal level, and in particular the NCLB Act.

What are your thoughts on trying to instill new thinking, a paradigm shift in science teaching?