Re: Science Testing for AYP

[monty@fairtest.org]

I have talked with Congressional staff who don't like the multiple  
indicators because they figure social sciences and sciences will be  
mangled by the tests if there are accountability consequences attached  
to them. The "choice" within NLCB reauth appears to be reducing  
schools to test prep on only two subjects vs reducing them to test  
prep in more than 2 subjects. Good assessments would help (without the  
mad accountability, as well) - but that is not what states have, and  
at best with a well-funded federal program to get states and districts  
to develop/use much better assessments, that will be years to get new  
systems functioning. Not good options.

Monty

Quoting "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