Woeful state of science instruction
Report calls for shift of priorities
California elementary school teachers feel unprepared, under-resourced, unsupported, and under pressure when it comes to teaching science. As a result, they spend scarcely any time on the subject, which is at odds with what the public says it expects from schools. And it’s hardly the way for a state that’s betting much of its economic future on high technology to prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers.
The survey data in “High Hopes – Few Opportunities: The Status of Elementary Science Education in California,” a report issued today from the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd, is not breaking news. But it does confirm on a statewide basis a survey from several years ago of Bay Area teachers, and it verifies anecdotal evidence that science continues to be largely ignored in the lower grades. (As writer Peter Schrag observes in an opinion piece today, the worry about shorting science education is hardly new.)
The exceptions are a small set of districts that provide high-quality science, usually in partnership with a science center or lab, like the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego or the Exploratorium in San Francisco, said Rena Dorph, director of the Center for Research Evaluation and Assessment at the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley, which, with SRI International, conducted the study.
Students receive more science instruction the closer they come to fifth grade, when they are tested. Click to enlarge. (Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning)
A few salient findings:
- More than 60 percent of districts surveyed have no district staff dedicated to elementary science, with 13 percent more having less than a half-time staff person devoted to early-grade science. Three-quarters of elementary schools do not have access to a science specialist or coach.
- Four out of 10 elementary teachers spend an hour or less on science each week; one out of eight spends less than half an hour on it.
- One out of five districts offer science-related professional development for elementary teachers. More than 85 percent of elementary teachers report no science-related training in the last three years. (Those who receive it often do so out of their own pockets.) A decade ago, the state budgeted $4 million for teacher training. That jumped to $9 million in 2002-03. This year, the funding is $1.2 million, including federal money.
Of all of the subjects they teach, teachers consider themselves least prepared to teach science. Click to enlarge. (Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning)
- So it’s no surprise, then, that a third of elementary teachers say they feel very prepared to teach science, compared with 90 percent who feel that way about math and English language arts.
- Notwithstanding time constraints, the percentage of fifth graders who tested proficient or advanced on the state standardized science test more than doubled in seven years, from 24 percent in 2004 to 58 percent this year. However, on a national science test, NAEP, given to fourth graders, California ranked with the bottom states of Arizona and Mississippi, with only 10 percent of Hispanic and African American children testing proficient.
Time and testing pressure
With near unanimity, science teachers say there is not enough time in the day for science instruction. More than four out of five say science is being squeezed out by math and English language arts – subjects that are tested every year for state and federal accountability, as opposed to science, which is tested in fifth and eighth grades only.
“It’s clear that accountability mandates leave little time for teaching science. And almost all schools are feeling the pressure” – not just those facing sanctions under the federal No Child Left Behind law, said Holly Jacobson, executive director of the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
One approach, on the rationale “what gets tested gets taught,” would be to call for more testing of science. But the report, while calling for “immediate action to restore a full and balanced curriculum in the state’s public schools,” does not do that. Until there is a better science assessment, adding more testing “would create a new set of problems,” said Dorph.
Dorph, Chris Roe, CEO of the California STEM Learning Network, and other science education advocates are hoping that the new Common Core standards in English and math, plus the Next Generation Science Standards, which are being developed nationally, will provide opportunities for better science instruction and higher-quality assessments. Last year, the State Board of Education adopted science literacy standards as part of Common Core. That won’t by itself change the quality of science instruction, but it will allow elementary teachers to introduce science concepts in the course of teaching math and English.
New models of instruction
Meanwhile, districts and schools are improvising, the report says. Teachers who integrate science into their day, typically in English language arts, report offering science 36 minutes more per week on average. Along with improving students’ expository writing skills, this “helps students realize that science permeates everything—they begin to see science in their everyday lives.”
For lack of professional development, teachers at some schools have been informally becoming the science expert, taking extra training. This has led to team-teaching in some cases, or swapping classes over the course of a week. In the Bay Area and in Sacramento, thousands of teachers are buying inexpensive materials and science kits through RAFT (Resource Area For Teachers), a non-profit that trains teachers and provides hands-on materials.
Meanwhile, the California State University, which trains most of the state’s K-12 teachers, is responding to criticism that new teachers lack knowledge or know-how in science. CSU East Bay has introduced a certificate in Foundational Level 1 Science, a four-course program for elementary and middle school science teachers. CSU Los Angeles, CSU Sacramento and San Francisco State are following suit. CSU Fullerton is integrating kit-based science resources into elementary pedagogy. And teachers earning their credential at CSU L.A. and nine other CSU campuses will teach low-income students hands-on science activities during after school programs – an effort funded by the Packard Foundation.
Chris Roe’s STEM Learning Network is focusing its immediate attention on after-activities as well. The California Afterschool Network is piloting 30 to 60 hours of hands-on science activities at 300 after-school sites serving low-income students funded by Proposition 49. For many students, this will be their only applied science. If the pilot works, Bechtel and other foundations have been asked to kick in enough money to reach as many as 1 million young children within a year or two.
These partnerships, while immediate and important, will not substitute for what the report advocates: “a unified vision for science education, ensuring that every student receives high-quality science instruction from a well-prepared and knowledgeable teacher and has access to the materials and resources that enable him or her to fully engage in learning science.”
16 Comments
Trackbacks
- Woeful state of science instruction | Thoughts on Public Education | Technology News
- Woeful state of science instruction | Experium Science Academy
Talk about unintended consequences. The decline in elementary science has a domino effect. Kids that aren’t exposed to scientific language and thinking in elementary often don’t do well in middle school science – and that’s IF their school even offers comprehensive science. Many Program Improvement schools substitute all or part of middle school science with remediation in math and english.
That quest for the mighty API/AYP falls heavily on the student. If a student has not been prepared by their middle school program to take Biology in 9th grade, they will struggle mightily to complete A-G requirements. In effect, the school’s decision to prioritize math & english in grades 4-8 effectively slams the door to college on the student when they’re about 12 years old.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The NAEP/STAR test score dichotomy is presented here as conflicting data, but in real life, what is happening is that kids are getting a bit of science in 4th grade and then it is truly addressed in 5th grade, in preparation for the test. Thus, you can’t conclude that the STAR tests are inaccurate based on 4th grade NAEP results.
The 5th grade science STAR test is online, and it’s not easy. I have a STEM degree, but I had not had nearly enough science to pass the STAR test at that time, nor in fact was I taught all of the topics it covers in my whole K-12 education. The science standards we have now are significant and rigorous.
Last year, there was a conference of science educators in San Francisco, and our school sent a few teachers to it, who came back excited and full of ideas. Science can be fun and playful, and there are ample opportunities to wrap it in language arts, math, and even art and PE. You can go to donorschoose.com and see teachers all over the country with innovative and interesting science ideas looking for tiny amounts of funding.
It would be wonderful if every elementary school had a dedicated science specialist, or even someone half time and shared with a jr high or high school. It’s not that schools don’t know this – it’s just that people able to serve that function rarely volunteer, and the money is so far gone that it’s even beyond imagination today. I’d make it a top priority for our local school… but after the ELL specialist, the reading specialist, the math specialist, the librarian…
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I don’t want to say I told you so, but I did 6 mos ago on this very site.
http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/02/15/opportunity-gap-widens-when-schools-shortchange-science/
As well as on HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-schwartz/want-to-raise-test-scores_b_814473.html
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
This is, of course, the very narrowing of the curriculum described by both Diane Ravitch and the National Research Council that is the direct consequence of the standards, testing, and accountability movement untempered by direct influence of classroom professionals.
Putting on my Capt. Renault hat from Casablanca (he who was so shocked to find gambling at Ric’s Place as he counted the chips he’d just won): I’m shocked to find that science (and art, music, PE, social studies, et al) are not being given the attention they deserve in schools held “accountable” primarily for math and language arts test scores.
What did people reasonably expect to happen?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
In re the complaints that teachers are spending too much time teaching math to teach science: how is anyone supposed to do science without being fully capable in math and reading!!??? What people like Ravani and Bea are essentially saying is that the current public schools are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. They can’t teach math well enough to pass the low CA standards without devoting every waking minute in the schools to do it?? This is ridiculous. If we have to choose between math/reading proficiency and anything else then we must choose math and reading. You can’t survive without those basic skills. However, I notice all those countries that beat us in reading and math also beat us in science. Maybe we could look at what Korea and Japan do that makes their kids so proficient. They have the same (or higher) child poverty rates as the US so that is not an issue.
I have several degrees in different sciences and math and after looking at the science my kids got in grade school I would just as soon they skip science entirely until middle school. I don’t know whether the standards for K-8 are abysmally low, or whether something else is going on but the K-8 science curriculum is so wordy and low-ball that I think it probably turned more kids off of science than if they had just skipped it entirely.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
After spending 27+ years in the elementary classroom, I can tell you that the languages of science and math are often the springboards to increasing reading and math achievement. The youngest children LOVE science and math when it is presented in a developmentally appropriate environment…lots of concrete, hands-on, time for exploration and observation…drawing what you see; sharing what you think. Math that is connected to a child’s world of meaning can produce amazing results in the long run.
We need to stop insulting the intelligence of our children and their elementary teachers. No science or history in K-6, kill and drill worksheets with no relation to a child’s real world; fill in the bubbles; and you get kids with no number sense, spatial awareness, problem-solving abilities or awareness of their connection to our nation or the world.
Keep business out of our classrooms!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
You don’t need a lot of math to enjoy the basics of science – wondering why, documenting what is, and establishing problem-solving rules to compare various scenarios.
The true basis of science isn’t math, it’s the scientific method.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Search on “maker movement” to see how some people are engaging in the stuff of technology and science.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
My teaching buddy, Teacher Dan, and I have developed and send FREE to any teacher who signs up a 1 class period elementary science lab that are easy for the teacher to teach and exciting for the students to do. Big government programs cannot compete with small, hands on, practical teachers and what they develop for their students. http://FreeScienceLabs.com
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@Michael G says “They can’t teach math well enough to pass the low CA standards without devoting every waking minute in the schools to do it?? ”
There are instructional minutes requirements that come with Program Improvement status that impinge on other course options. First to go are electives, then social studies and science take hits. It’s not a question of “walking and chewing gum” it’s a matter of unintended consequences resulting from overly prescriptive mandates.
These issues are particularly onerous on middle schools where sanctions are imposed for student performance that have more to do with the feeder schools or with a student’s recent arrival in the country than with that particular school’s ability to teach Math and English well.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
While I agree that our science teaching in elementary grades could be improved, I’d like to make a few observations.
First, at least on the national level, the average number of instructional minutes in grades 1-5 has been essentially steady over the last decade at about 2.3 hours per week. So the lamentations about math and reading displacing science seem a bit premature. The fact that this study’s results diverge so sharply from national findings make the whole report questionable and requires explanation.
Second, I don’t know what to make of the chart showing that elementary teachers don’t feel prepared for teaching science as, at the same time, it shows that their overwhelming majority feels “well prepared” for teaching math. Yet my own experience, anecdotal reports of mathematicians participating in PD, as well as careful studies, show that that majority of our elementary teachers are not well prepared to teach mathematics either. So I would not attach much value to that self-reported data.
Finally, I am with Michael G. when it comes to teaching science in elementary grade and, in the hopefully very few cases that triage is called for, reading and math certainly take precedence over science. I disagree with el — there is little science learning beyond science appreciation without some level of math. That includes the scientific method.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Ze’ev, I know you and I disagree on this. To me, it is science that drives math rather than math driving science. It is science, and the observation of phenomena around, that shows the power and relevance of math. I suspect there are some students who benefit from each approach.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The really sad part is that this is the second survey with the same news. http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/rea/bayareastudy/ This isn’t the first time they did this survey, but the results are just as disappointing as before. Students might be getting some science because there is a 5th grade science test, but teachers are finding it just as hard to find time with so many required blocks for other things. And there’s a big difference in learning science content, esp from a book, and the skills needed to DO science as a career. And isn’t that what we’re really concerned about as a society? Throwing science content at students as “facts,” as something to memorize like a piece of history, isn’t the inquiry we need in our entrepreneurial society. Inquiry is messy, and takes time, and students “get it” at very different rates, which is increasingly unattractive in our “pass the test or race penalties” education system.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Looking at OECD figures Korea runs around 10% child poverty, Japan around 12%, and the USA at 26+%.
Must be all those science degrees blocking access to the data. Are they hanging in front of the computer monitor by chance?
OECD shows the highest scoring nations in the world as the usual Nordic social democracies who, coincidently, have the lowest level of child poverty. The US is way down the bottom of the misery list just ahead of Israel, Mexico, et al.
Analysis of international test scores shows US school children in schools with less than 10% poverty (F&RL) outscore the rest of the world in most subjects. The solution is simple, deal with poverty so that there aren’t any schools in the US with more that 10% free and reduced lunch qualified students.
CA has the highest number of 2nd language students in the nation. Might explain why, when schools are required to test students in English after a year or so of instruction, the kids struggle. The lack, demanded by shortsighted a initiative not to mention a trained teacher corps, of bilingual instruction in the content areas explains the rest.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity