California Science Framework - relatively long post

[kber <kber@EARTHLINK.NET>]

I have an electronic acquiantince from some other educationl fora who
has been involved in the writing of the California Science Framework,
about w3hich there were some recent posts.  I forwarded some of what I
had received thru ARN, and he sent this back to me.  I have his
permission to post it.  I thought fellow ARN'ers would find it of
interest.

Ken Bernstein


Ken

I have taken an active role in the development of the recently adopted
California Science Framework ever since the committee was first formed
to
write it (actually, my participation goes back farther than that -- I
was a
member of the committee that wrote the 1990 science framework, remained
active in the fist efforts to write standards in California ... back in
the
days when "standards" were aligned with the National Science Education
Standards and were designed to provide an understanding of science [what
we
called 'scientific literacy'] for ALL students ... and even agreed to
serve
on the 'compromise' committee that was formed in 1997 to write the
content
standards now governing science education in California), but my
participation has been largely that of a black sheep allowed to be a
part
of the herd but clearly ostracized from any meaningful contribution.
Actually, the entire science education community (including
nationally-based science professional organizations, including the
American
Geophysical Institute) has been excluded from the process of developing
both Standards and Frameworks in the current regime.

Anyway ... the earth sciences dilemma is well-known here in California.
Besides the disputes over ideology and honesty that characterized the
writing of the Calif Science Content Standards (ethical behavior in
science, incidentally, is NOT a part of the current -- and official --
standards; the battle over whether such a notion should have been
included
in the standards ... and who fell out on which side of that battle ...
goes
a long ways to explaining what has transpired in our once progressive
state; suffice it to say that the Hoover Institute did not think
"ethics"
was a scientific issue, and what the Hoover Institute says is so must be

so), the sequence of high school science instruction was a hot-pitched
battle (one of MANY, I might add).  In the end, a bone was thrown to
those
who favored teaching science to all students (as opposed to those who
think
that to "teach it to" all students is the same as teaching all
students),
and the 9-12 grade standards were not presented as a proscribed SEQUENCE

(as the K-8 standards were) that must be grade-level specific.  This may

sound a bit pedantic, but these small points help to clarify HUGE
differences in approach -- the group of folks with whom I am associated
favor standards and benchmarks through 8th grade described in grade
level
spans (between these years -- traditionally K-2, 3-5, 6-8 -- students
will
have learned the concepts identified for that span), then a sequence
proscribed for grades 9-12 (physics, chemistry, biology and earth
science
-- our thinking being that the Earth Sciences are the place where all
the
other disciplines of science are actually SEEN, and where kids would be
able to synthesize the abstractions of their learning in earlier grades
--
that is, we advocated a very RIGOROUS course of study that culminated
in,
and held kids accountable for, an application of everything they had
learned -- earth science would not be an elective, but would BE the exit

exam!).  On the other side of the well-controlled coin were those who
wanted grade specified content standards K-8 (whether the kids were
academically prepared to understand atoms in 3rd grade, or not!) and a
traditional sequence in high school ("kids cannot do physics without
advanced math" they argued, so physics must come last).

The so-called "compromise" solution was to identify the four content
areas
of science in grades 9-12 by discipline, not grade level (biology/life
science, chemistry, physics, and earth science), and to not specify a
sequence by which schools should offer the courses.  Additonally, the
contentious approach of teaching the high school content in an
integrated
program (scornfully labeled "integrated science" by its opponents) was
"allowed" to continue.

The basis for that "choice" -- in both sequence and whether to use an
integrated approach or not -- was quickly removed when the testing
sequence
(determined behind closed doors) was announced.  Students in grades 9
and
11 would be tested, but only in the content areas that they had taken.
Since Integrated Science was not "outlawed" by the Standards, and since
they also did not mandate a sequence by which the different courses were
to
be taken, this meant the Curriculum Commission had to design 8 (EIGHT)
standards-based tests for each of the two grade levels (since a 9th
grader
taking a biology test would be significantly different from an 11th
grader
taking the same test) -- one at each grade level for the four main
disciplines, and one at each grade level for the four different foci
that
an integrated approach might take.  Well ... designing a test for
science
(that is truly going to measure science) is more complicated than
designing
a similar test for mathematics, and the issues regarding performance-
based
testing are even more heated than they are in the other content areas
(especially when you start adding in the cost of providing lab materials
to
adminster a performance based test), so the initial plan got scrapped
immediately -- the only tests that were designed and field-tested two
years
ago were for biology, chemistry and physics (we were told the others
would
be "coming soon", but they have just stopped talking about them
altogether,
so we know they are dead in the water).  Interesting how they were able
to
KILL integrated science as an approach to instructional design without
ever
having to actually say that is what they were doing?  Same with
empowering,
or enabling, or encouraging (all those "soft", "fuzzy" words that the
mathematicians and phonetics folks find so displeasing) schools to offer

Earth Science as the year-long assessment of science understanding.

Now, those making the decisions and mandating from on high what it is
that
we will do will tell you that you shouldn't "teach to the test" (how
they
can say this with a straight face continues to amaze me), so therefore
there is nothing in the documents or the testing program that should
discourage the teaching of Earth Science to high school students, but
hey
....

They will also tell you that Earth Science IS the focus of all
instruction
in 6th grade (which is true), but let me tell you a little story on that

one.  This one has to do with the Framework that your attached article
is
talking about, and a little more about the testing that will drive what
gets taught.

Theoretically, earth sciences are taught -- according to the Calfornia
Science Content Standards -- in grades K-5.  Despite some glaring
weaknesses in the way the content is threaded (heat transfer, see below,

being just one of them), some extremely inappropriate concepts held up
for
mastery at the wrong grade levels (the entire content was pushed down
about
two years from what traditionally had been taught), and the overall
bull-headedness that just because you are ten years old you should
demonstrate mastery of atomic theory (etc in terms of the arbitrary
assignment of concepts to specific grade levels) -- there IS some earth
science in every grade.  Sixth grade instruction is organized around
Earth
Science (with a little bit of life and physical science thrown in
whereever
a natural match takes place -- so, when discussing heating of the
atmosphere and issues related to currents (even though nothing about
convection or conduction or radiation has ever been addressed in grades
K-5), there is some physics thrown into the sixth grade curriculum.  The

7th grade similarly focuses on Life Science, and 8th grade on physical
sciences.

However, the State Board of Education recently settled on the testing
sequence for science (the key piece that has been missing from the
structure they are imposing on us).  The ideal situation, of course,
would
be to test science at every grade level (as math and language are
tested),
because if -- as is often said -- "what gets tested is what gets
taught",
then science would indeed rise to the status of a core subject if
teachers
at every grade level were to be "held accountable" for teaching a set
number of science concepts each year.  Well, those who speak out of both

sides of their mouths quickly decided that this was impractical -- it
was
taking them too long to just design the all important math and langauge
tests at each grade level to throw in science (and social science, for
that
matter), as well; it would be cost prohibitive to have any kind of
performance based assessment at all the grade levels, and who would be
able
to train all the teachers to do all the scoring when they can't even
kill
that demon with the fourth and seventh grade "essay" that is now
required
-- so they put forward the dictum that science would be assessed at a
state
level in either/or grades 4&5/8.

This announcement created the illusion that another "discussion" would
take
place, and created yet another area for contention -- should the test be

only of the standards taught at the grade level being assessed (easier
to
develop, easier to score, somewhat parallel to the high school tests,
BUT
almost guaranteeing that, since no other standards from previous grades
were being tested, there would be little reason to "waste" time to teach

them, unless one was extremely conscientious and honestly didn't care
about
the time needed to teach to the math and reading standards that WERE
being
tested, printed in the paper, and used to determine the level of funding

your school recieved), or should it be a cumulative test of the
standards
taught TO that grade level (one that would ensure that science be taught
in
all previous grade levels).  In its INFINITE WISDOM, the SBE decided to
give the test ONLY in fifth grade (not even in 5th AND 8th), and ONLY of

grade level standards taught in fourth and fifth grade.

This decision has many (scary) implications:
(1) Because science does NOT have to be taught in grades K-3, principals

who are worried about test scores in math and english can now use this
fact
as a hammer on those who want to still teach science.  Incidentally, I
might add that science never really was taught (often or well) in the
primary grades ... this, of course, is one of the chief reasons we have
had
poor scores on national and international science tests, anyway ... and
is
one of the prime reasons that educators sought to break from the myth
that
traditional approaches to science instruction were effective -- that is,

when the 'hands-on/inquiry' folk began to actually provide lots of
training
for elementary teachers with little background in science, and high
quality
materials -- not text-based materials, I might add -- were developed to
support the approach, then we saw fourth grade scores on TIMSS put us in

the top three of all countries on the planet --

(2) Teachers of fifth (and possibly fourth) grade students will not only

have the same pressures for language and math scores that their primary
counterparts face, but now must teach ALL of the K-3 standards while
also
trying to cover about the year and a ahalf bunch of facts described in
their own standards (since that is how overstuffed the fourth and fifth
grade standards are)

(3) ALL significant, adult-literacy type of instruction in the major
disciplines of science will have to take place between the fifth grade
and
any two years of high school that kids elect to take their lab sciences
(at
ages when kids, incidentally, are least prepared to absorb and learn
"relevant" things that will shape their future understandings; do you
have
any idea how many seventh graders "love" science, recognize the fact
that
what they are learning may be the ONLY time they will ever get to learn
it
..."HAVE" to learn it, they would tell you ... or who find reading about
it
out of a book is the same as actually doing science?

(4) Sixth grade will be the only time a student in the public school
system
of California will ever formally study the earth sciences.

After much discussion, the Framework now places "earth sciences" as a
non-laboratory elective, one requiring biology, chemistry or physics as
a
prerequisite, and which will not be a part of the college-bound core of
courses.  People graduating from high school in California will have --
at
best -- a sixth grade level of understanding of the Earth Sciences!

The previous discussion represents only the TIP OF THE ICEBERG regarding
my
objections to the process used in developing this Framework.  Here are a

couple of others, in a nutshell.  The duly selected Framework Committee
was
comprised of spokesmen for the two major "sides" in this ideologic
battle.
To get its work done, the committee made quite a few compromises ...
some
what I would consider good, some bad, and some largely harmless.  But
the
duly selected committee, meeting in public and answerable to the
educational community as a whole, did its work.  It submitted its draft
to
the state of California for a six-week public review/testimony period,
and
then took the draft to the Curriculum Commission for adoption (actually,

for "acceptance", because the SBE actually "adopts" the documents).  The

Curriculum Commission decided that there were still many problems with
the
document, and could not recommend forwarding it to the SBE -- many of
these
were issues related to accuracy and other issues (discussed, above); but

another major issue was that it was "too long", and it was not "parallel

to" the Language Arts and the Mathematics frameworks.  The document was
then given to a subcommittee of the Curriculum Commission for
"refinement"
and "revision".     No one knows who, exactly, was on this subcommittee
(though, apparently, the physics professor who testified on Feb 6 was
one
of the members -- see below).  It did not meet publicly, and it worked
in
secret.  Its work was so secret that, when it finally submitted a draft
for
review (November 2001), only one person even knew enough about it to
attend
the one public meeting that was held to consider it.  That person was
Dr.
Rollie Otto (Lawerence Berkeley Laboratories, co-chair of the State
Content
Standards Committee, member of the Framework Committee, and primary
author
of the first draft of the Framework) -- and he BLASTED it at the
hearing.
The secret committee was ordered to go back to work, and it printed its
next version on the SBE website on December 19 -- right at the beginning
of
the Christmas vacation (when EVERYONE has lots of time to review
important
documents, and, in fact, many are away from their computers).  This was
the
ONLY place where the document was available for "public" viewing, and it

was available for viewing (and comment) for only TWO WEEKS (the hearing
was
scheduled Jan 8 -- in Sacramento, on a school day).  Eleven people made
it
to that hearing -- two who favored the document (as presented), and nine

who spoke against it.  The nine represented state wide science teacher's

organizations, the California Science Project, university professors --
and
not just science ed instructors, but content area professors, as well --

and so on), and tore the document to shreds.  It is faulty in the
content
it presents, it makes no provision for professional development, it
endorses a policy that only 25% of all instruction be "hands-on" (a
ridiculously low number, considering the content area), and it even goes
so
far as to advocate for NOT teaching science in the primary grades (since

"reading" is so important, teachers in the primary grades are encouraged
to
use 5-10 minute blocks of time in which to address questions that
interest
children -- such as "why does the moon looks different over a period of
time" is the example given in the document, a question that cannot
possibly
be answered in five minutes, especially to a six year old).  The SBE was
a
bit taken aback by this outpouring of anger and rejection, so did not
approve the document.  Instead, it asked for another revision.

So ... on February 6th, the SBE of California "unanimously" adopted this

flawed document proscribing how science is to be taught in the state for

the next seven years (at least).  Eleven state and national science
education professional organizations plead with SBE on that date to
reconsider adoption, offered (once again) to assist in necessary
revisions,
but they were -- once again -- ignored.  Five individuals testified in
favor of the document (it is difficult to get witnesses when the
"public"
process is restricted to electronic versions for public review, and the
hearings are held only in Sacramento on a Tuesday during work days); one
of
them the chief proponent of the entire standards movement, one the wife
of
the primary author of the document, two parents and one physics
professor.

All I can say is that other states better be prepared.  Fight the
battle,
early.  These folk have an agenda, and nothing will sway them from it.
They are ruthless, and have no ethics.  They will gladly promise to
include
you in the process, then pull all the strings they own to exclude your
work
-- diminishing your credibility and overwhelming you with fatigue in the

process, both of which also support their agenda.  Be proactive ...
before
they can organize themselves in your community, get some standards or
frameworks written that recognize all kids learn at a different pace,
that
all kids are capable of learning (but just may not do it when you tell
them
they must), that encourage kids to enjoy the learning process and to
become
experts in applying its processes.  Don't sit back and wait for them to
come in and start the battle.

And believe me, they are coming!  With luck, there will be some sort of
(disasterous) concrete evidence from California illustrating the
looniness
of this approach, and you may be spared its absolute depravity.  That
will
be our loss; but your gain


  (s.....)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.