Science Testing for AYP

["S.A. Davidson" <sadavidson05@charter.net>]

<>NCLB will now require states to test students once a year in science 
within three grade spans -- 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 . 
<http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/10/10/07science.h27.html?tmp=119471313>  
Excerpts from Education Week article (10/5): 

       * The attention paid to science in classrooms, particularly in
         elementary and middle schools, has eroded over the nearly six
         years since the federal education law was enacted, critics
         say. They say schools were forced to cut back on science
         lessons in their attempts to raise achievement in reading and
         math...
       * The NSTA...and the...American Chemical Society...planned to
         send a letter this month to House education leaders in both
         parties, asking them to add science to the mandatory mix for
         judging annual progress.  That letter also has been signed by
         the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of
         Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable.   "Including
         science as a required component of the No Child Left Behind
         accountability system is a critical element in ensuring U.S.
         competitiveness," the letter says.
       * In addition to establishing science tests this year, states
         will be required to report publicly the results of those
         exams, as they now do in reading and math. So far, only five
         states have had their science tests approved by the U.S.
         Department of Education.

First, when one sees who has signed on to this letter and second, as one 
reads (yet again) the "global competitiveness" argument, we are boringly 
reminded of who is writing the same stanzas to the same songs of the 
NCLB musical.

Here are just some of the problems with this new testing regimen:

      1. If there is new test which must be taught, there will be even
         more de-emphasis on the remaining academic and
         extracurricular/elective subjects -- or even a disappearance
         of them?
      2. Science is not an hierarchical subject, such as math and
         reading.  What is taught in seventh grade is not dependent on
         what is taught in sixth grade, etc.
      3. Testing science in a typical testing format will not show
         science competency -- only what unrelated facts that some
         students have been able to memorize at whatever grade level a
         student is in based on whatever curriculum adopted by a
         particular state for a particular grade...
      4. Will the "important" subjects of reading/language and math
         (important because they were the first to be tested, I guess)
         have their teaching times reduced because of the new science
         testing?
      5. Are we ready to add more pressure to the classroom teachers
         whose jobs are tied to test scores?  And provide more
         opportunities for schools/systems to "fail?"

I understand the reason NSTA wanting science to be tested.  They don't 
want to be left out.  If it is tested, it must be important!  Are the 
fine arts not important, too?  How about social studies and history?  
Drafting?  Auto mechanics?  Electronics?  First grade?

Here we go again.  In a few years we are going to find a "less-learned" 
generation (I didn't say dumber or more stupid) because, nation-wide, 
teachers have been forced to teach what is tested.  One of the great 
memories as an elementary student was having teachers who taught us 
about the relevancy of our lives in the world of science and the 
influences of the science world upon our lives.  That has shaped my 
philosophy of education to "be relevant" in my teaching.  As a teacher 
of middle school science, I want my students to see the application of 
everything they learn as an integral part of their lives as young people 
and adults.

The only good I see from this is that now science will become one of the 
"big three" and be returned to schools' curricula.   I guess a foot wide 
(not even a mile) and an inch deep is still better than an inch wide and 
an inch deep!

~Steve