Small Steps in California

[Scott Hays <shays@telis.org>]

On March 10, the Calfornia State Board of Education (SBE) approved a new set of
Criteria for Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional Materials in Preparation for
the 2006 Adoption. The Criteria, as adopted, strikes a small blow against those
on the SBE (and its Curriculum Commission members) who have exercised strict
control over policy related to instructional materials and methodologies for most
of the last decade. In particular, the draft adopted by the SBE reduces the
emphasis given to requirements that publishers reduce the amount of hands-on
materials included in the materials they submit for adoption, as well as
softening language designed to emphasize direct-instruction and the use of
textbook reading as the preferred methods of instruction. Significant revisions
were made to the draft Criteria that had been previously been approved by the
Curriculum Commission at a series of contentious public meetings.

The revisions were made at a last minute meeting called by the Executive Director
of SBE. That meeting was attended by representatives of the K-12 science
education community (teachers and administrators), professional science
organizations, scientists, leaders of science-related industry, representatives
from the UC and the CSUC systems, bipartisan representatives of the State Senate
and Assembly, and the California Department of Education. No members of the
Curriculum Commission were invited.

As stated above, some language in the proposed draft was deleted and other
passages were inserted in order to soften the apparent tone that
direct-instruction was the preferred method of delivery. For example, a passage
that originally stated that publishers must provide a table of evidence in the
teacher edition demonstrating how the California Standards could be
"comprehensively taught from the submitted materials with hands-on activities
comprising no more than 20 to 25 percent of science instructional program time"
was changed to state, "... with hands-on activities comprising at least 20 to 25
percent of the instructional program." A passage stricken suggested that "more"
hands-on activities could be added, but they had to be nonessential for coverage
of the standards and clearly marked as "optional". Other passages requiring
publishers to provide "a teachers edition that describes what to teach, how to
teach, and when to teach", and "suggestions for how to adopt each hands-on
activity provided to direct-instruction methods of teaching" were deleted.

The revised Criteria was adopted unanimously by the SBE. CEO's from Bechtel,
Intel, Pixar, Genentech, LucasFilms, Adobe and Boeing testified in favor of the
revised version. Representatives of the Chancellor and the 10 Presidents of the
UC System testified. The Presidents of Stanford and CalTech testified.
Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg spoke on behalf of a long list of Democratic and
Republican Senators and Assembymen who favored the revisions.

Though a small victory over direct-instruction and the voices of top-down
control, it is nevertheless a victory. The first in a very long time. Up until
last Friday, any opposition to the dictates of the Curriculum Commission and the
SBE were addressed with scorn and arrogance (or else they just ignored those who
opposed them). But, at least in the world of science instruction -- where
hands-on and inquiry is such a demonstrably important component of learning the
content -- everyone could work together to put a stop to the nonsense. The next
step is to get the high quality inquiry-based programs back into the schools, and
then to demonstrate how an inquiry approach indeed does help children better
understand the content they are mandated to learn.

Scott Hays