Image: Flickr/Gates Foundation
Americans have grown accustomed to bad news about student performance in math and science. On a 2009 study administered by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 15-year-olds in the U.S. placed 23rd in science and 31st in math out of 65 countries. On last year's Nation's Report Card assessments, only one third of eighth graders qualified as proficient in math or science. Those general statistics tell only a piece of the story, however. There are pockets of excellence across the U.S. where student achievement is world-beating. Massachusetts eighth graders outscored their peers from every global region included, except Singapore and Taiwan, on an international science assessment in 2007. Eighth graders from Minnesota, the only other U.S. state tested, did almost as well.
What do Massachusetts and Minnesota have in common? They each have science standards that set a high bar for what students are expected to learn at each grade level. Such standards form the scaffolding on which educators write curricula and teachers plan lessons, and many experts believe them to be closely linked with student achievement.
Unfortunately, the quality of most state science standards is “mediocre to awful,” in the words of one recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank in Washington, D.C. Several states present evolution as unsettled science—“according to many scientists, biological evolution occurs through natural selection,” say New York State's standards. Wishy-washiness is also creeping into the way schools teach climate change, as some parents pressure teachers to “balance” the conclusions of the majority of scientists against the claims of a tiny but vocal clan of skeptics. We can't have a scientifically literate populace if schools are going to tap-dance around such fundamentals.
Now a group of 26 states has collaborated with several organizations on ambitious new standards, known as the Next Generation Science Standards, that all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, will be able to adopt starting early next year. The first draft, released in May, explicitly included evolution and climate change. A second draft will be available for comment this fall.
The standards are based on recommendations from the National Research Council and were funded in part by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. In addition to tackling shortcomings such as those mentioned above, they put new emphasis on engineering, which is crucial to our country's economic competitiveness, and stress the process of science as much as the content.
Any system of education standards has potential downsides. Mandate too much, and kids will grow bored or overwhelmed and teachers will lose autonomy. But these new standards have already won over important potential critics. Carolyn Wallace, a science education researcher at Indiana State University and a former high school science teacher who believes many standards systems are too “authoritarian,” says the Next Generation standards leave room for teachers to be more creative in how they present material to kids. She does worry that the standards impose more than can reasonably be taught in one school year. Hers is a serious concern that the standards developers should address.
There is little doubt that these standards will require more classroom time to be devoted to science—and that is good. Harold Pratt, a former president of the National Science Teachers Association, says that in elementary school, science has often been squeezed out entirely by the reading and math requirements of the No Child Left Behind law. Many states currently require only two years of science, and California governor Jerry Brown recently proposed cutting that to just one. Accommodating the Next Generation standards would probably require three.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentThe article implies that good science standards lead to good science learning. Certainly they are the first step, but it is a long way from the state capitol to the classroom. California, for instance, has the very best science standards of all, but the 35-year progressive starvation of the public school system has brought California schools very low. Conversely, there is more to the fine performance of Massachusetts students than the very good standards that underlie the complex processes of science education. For a detailed evaluation of state science standards, see http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-science-standards-2012.html; for an evaluation of the latest draft of the Next Generation Science Standards, see http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/20120625-NGSS-Draft-I/20120625-Commentary-and-Feedback-on-Draft-I-of-the-Next-Generation-Science-Standards.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI note that quasi-crystals with 10-fold symmetry made chemistry 'wishy-washy' to the Church of Mainstream Science when first presented by Schechtman. Ditto for the first discussions of Continental Drift, the Big Bang, and Heliocentricity. Science is not diluted by confronting what are 'truly fringe' ideas from vocal minorities, but rather strengthened by confronting them with facts, not a consensus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it may seem plausible, I know of no evidence that the quality
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisof a state's academic standards actually affects student achievment.
It's also unclear how anyone determined that these states' standards are
in any way superior to those of any other states. I'll admit that
various Minnesota state officials have, over several years, made various
claims about having "high standards", but actual evidence for this is
sparse. I know nothing of the Massachusetts standards, but I have read
the Minnesota Academic Standards for Science, which I'd guess, the
editors of Scientific American have not.
In fact, the Minnesota science standards were developed by a group
of people with poor organizational skills, a weak command of English
grammar, generally low writing talent, and an amazingly poor grasp on
many fundamentals of science. If the result is widely considered to be
an example of "high standards", then we may be doomed as a nation.
The standards document in question should be available on the Web
site of the Minnesota Department of Education (although, due to frequent
reorganization, links to any actual documents there tend to break
frequently), but to see its development, including the even more
dreadful early drafts, I recommend starting here:
http://antinode.info/complaints/mas.html
As if the poor science content of this document were not bad enough,
part way through its creation, "STEM" became a popular buzz-acronym, and
so a group of people who knew even less about engineering than they did
about science tried to cram some engineering content into it, with
predictable results.
Perhaps the children of Minnesota (widely reputed to be "above
average") really do excel at science. If they do, and if the Minnesota
Academic Standards contributed in any significant way to that
excellence, then we have a mystery on our hands which makes finding the
origin of "dark energy" look like child's play.
[...] the idea that our kids deserve a world-class science
education should be one we can all agree on.
Agreeing on the goal is one thing. Agreeing on the path to that goal
is another thing. Perhaps adopting the proposed Next Generation Science
Standards (or some other common standard) would help. Perhaps not. Of
one thing I am sure: Citing the Minnesota science standards as a model
of "high standards", or of success, is a sure sign of a weak analysis of
the problem.
"It's also unclear how anyone determined that these states' standards are in any way superior to those of any other states." While there is no set of criteria that one might deem canonical, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation has for more than a decade used consistent sets of criteria to make across-the-board evaluations of all available state standards, including those of Minnesota. For their evaluation of the Minnesota science standards, see http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards/2012-State-Science-Standards-Minnesota.pdf. I chaired the group of working scientists and educators who made the evaluations in 2011, and we agree with you that they are nothing to cheer about; we gave them the grade C.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I wrote in my note above, standards are not the be-all and end-all of quality science teaching. But they are an important first step; working curricula, examinations, and textbooks are written on the basis of standards. Good standards don't guarantee good classroom outcomes, but bad ones impede them.
Of course the U.S. can return to an A+ rating. However, apropos of your excellent article on page 61, it takes a lot more than mere improvements in pedagogy and STEM. Students need to learn why the study of science and math is worth the effort, even if they never pursue it as a career. In my experience as a school board member, I have observed that there is a lot of low self-esteem among students and they are too self-absorbed. Playing with their electronic toys doesn't enrich them, it promotes social isolation. Let's uplift these kids, then put these new teaching tools into practice. Do we need another Sputnik Moment to motivate us?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course the U.S. can return to an A+ rating. However, apropos of your excellent article on page 61, it takes a lot more than mere improvements in pedagogy and STEM. Students need to learn why the study of science and math is worth the effort, even if they never pursue it as a career. In my experience as a school board member, I have observed that there is a lot of low self-esteem among students and they are too self-absorbed. Playing with their electronic toys doesn't enrich them, it promotes social isolation. Let's uplift these kids, then put these new teaching tools into practice. Do we need another Sputnik Moment to motivate us?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course the U.S. can return to an A+ rating. However, apropos of your excellent article on page 61, it takes a lot more than mere improvements in pedagogy and STEM. Students need to learn why the study of science and math is worth the effort, even if they never pursue it as a career. In my experience as a school board member, I have observed that there is a lot of low self-esteem among students and they are too self-absorbed. Playing with their electronic toys doesn't enrich them, it promotes social isolation. Let's uplift these kids, then put these new teaching tools into practice. Do we need another Sputnik Moment to motivate us?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2 things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. It's not a case of should but a case of MUST. I agree to raise the level but for ALL education standards. Which there's a spinoff of #2
1. ELIMINATE these zero tolerance for bs. It kills the use of common sense of administrators and making innocence of kids become criminalized. A 6 year old being arrested for sexual assault? Come on, they barely know there's a difference between males and females much less what the differences are for. Arresting kids parents because their kid drew a gun on a whiteboard and say their daddy kills the bad guys. Administrators and education officials are lacking in common sense and zero tolerance is the crutch behind it and it MUST be eliminated. If they still cling to it, administering decisions based on a book, then they require a drop in their salary scale to a clerk level. That changes their minds pretty fast.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's absolutely true that standards are only good intentions, if we are not willing to truly invest in public education. Sitting around in grad school in the 70's with a crew of physics, microbiology, math, engineering & medical students it became obvious how much our individual success was made possible by the massive public sector investment in STEM (to use the current buzz) brought about in the post-sputnik environment of the 60's. Not only standards, but investment in actually training teachers how to teach the new curriculum. Large funding of public colleges & scholarship programs to make it possible for working parents to send their kids to college & grad school without massive debt. Funding schools for laboratories & early computer facilities.
We can have all consultants in the world draw up to most perfect standards, but if the GOP led attacks on public investment in schools & teachers is left unaddressed then the standards are just a waste of money.
I'm starting to view the education 'system' as more and more a hindrance to learning in 2012.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe line between formal education and learning skills is getting fuzzier. One can 'log in' and have the world at one's finger tips.
Standards are fine in theory but they are largely irrelevent and less relevent with each passing year.
The way we teach is as important as what we teach folks. Here in Virginia teachers are encouraged to 'teach to the test'. In the short term this can have some rather remarkable, almost miraculous, results. Across the board improvement in tests that measure what students are learning. The problem is this method doesn't actually teach anything but the standardized test. When folks tested the kids actual comprehension of the material it pretty much dropped across the board as a result of the inflexible "Results" oriented teaching policy. I suppose if the result you want is a nice looking metric that doesn't measure anything meaningful they are successful. It's a bit like an accounting trick to make a company look like it's turning a profit when it isn't. Federal, State, and Local government need to stop playing politics with education and actually listen to educators (Many of whom actually know what they are doing). It needs funding, it needs diversity of curriculum, it needs flexibility, and it needs quality teachers, and yes tax payers will foot the bill. You get what you pay for. Right now we have crap, because that's what we've funded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBobVS: We can only assume you're trying to defend Intelligent Design, truly the Alamo of the Science V Religion debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe difference between Plate Tectonics and Intelligent Design is this: one is demonstrably scientific, while the other is demonstrably not.
Sure, nobody believed Wegener we he first posited his plate tectonics theory, but eventually the theory was tested scientifically and found to be true. There was no credible doubt that Wegener's theory could not be tested scientifically, it just was not widely supported until the evidence was delivered.
There is no evidence for Intelligent Design, and until the Almighty himself appears in the sky and says "I created life thusly" there won't be. That's why ID (or Creationism as it is more truthfully named) is NOT science - it can't be tested. Anything that can't be tested and which must be taken on faith is by definition religion and not science.
And no - irreducible complexity is not evidence of ID, it's evidence of the lack of imagination among ID supporters. Every example I've seen of supposedly "irreducible complexity"(e.g. the flagella and the eye) have been disproved, shown to have evolved from an earlier and simpler mechanism (generally of a different purpose).
Keep the churchy stuff in the church and out of our science classrooms. It has no place there.
Public education, when it began was never intended to make intelligent people. Only to teach enough to reduce damage to factory machinery in the early 20th century. They had to teach the masses how to read enough to reduce the risks and today, this really has not changed much. Or at least the influence of its beginnings has permeated all education.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are too many people who are successful, such as Bill Gates who clearly did not need it and there are 10s of thousands of other successful people who did not need or use the education they have to obtain their success.
Politicians, bureaucrats, the socialist left, the religious right, the scientists who live entirely off government grants, global warmists(or deniers I suppose) to have a well educated population, especially in science. Politicians can't tax the hell out of people who can think for themselves. WIth everyone successful, there is no excuse left to tax so much. Socialists and Theocrats cant indoctrinate people who can think. Warmists already run around claiming only the government sponsored climatologists are legitimate sources of thought on the environment. They wont even accept the fact many other people can think and reason more than well enough to understand their junk science. Or from their perspective, they would say the same about deniers.
Either way, the people, groups and institution who live off government money and power or depend on religions or Marxist manifestos and who absolutely must project restrictions on life and confiscation of money must have a majority of people to plunder and those people can't be too smart.
There is no way the education industry is going to change this. When they do, their students will realize it doesn't take nearly as much time or money to learn how to think or to be intelligent and the fact that once you have the basics down, the rest of learning and success comes from the individual, not any kind of teacher.
Please, for all our sakes, just take your meds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe then your fantasy that if the government just ceases to exist we will all be living lives of unparalleled luxury will pass.
It would be wrong to say that I was amused by your critique of the Minnesota standards, accurate but still wrong. The situation is too grim for humor. I attribute my laughter to the same nervous reaction which attended the funeral of Chuckles the Clown.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would wager that you are not often invited to Department of Education picnics.
In Bangladesh, graduate level fundamental science (e.g. physics,chemistry, mathematics, botany, zoology ) education is unable to attract students.The main reason behind this is that the job market is business oriented.The jobs providers want to recruit business students to run their business smoothly.So, I request the relevant authorities of every country to adopt such an education system that can provide jobs to every students of arts/science/business feculties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTougher standards will lead to higher pressure on children to comprehend what they already do not understand. The students will simply cease to care about the subject, and the teachers will bear the burden without results. The students' capacity must first increase, and then the standards may follow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are two ways to do this. First and foremost, math needs to be made fun. It is presented in a way that most often destroys appreciation for it in young students. Second, rather than hold students to an educational structure based on a Gaussian distribution, the system must be broadened to better encourage talent and remedy difficulty.
Science must then become two-pronged: qualitative for those who lack an affinity for mathematics, and quantitative for those who excel AND those who aspire to excel (major emphasis on the "AND"). This way, an aversion to mathematics does not become an aversion to science while those with talent are nurtured.
This kind of reform will not happen because the people with the authority to codify it benefit from our nation's intellectual deficiency. We are discussing the wrong problem. We need to first reach the adults, and only then may we begin to improve educational opportunities for children.
We need a polite, religion-friendly, culturally relevant, easily understood promotion of scientific thought as a massive cultural pressure for layperson adults who promote a culture of anti-intellectualism due to values instilled in them by poorly designed math curriculum that alienated them culturally as children.
The problem is not the politics. It's the culture.
I am a high school science teacher and am lucky to work in a school that grants me great autonomy. I worry about homogeneous standards across states, across schools within a state, and even across classrooms within a school. When young people get together they share ideas and knowledge. When we homogenize education, we reduce the opportunities for young people to share knowledge with their peers and learn from their peers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read the Next Generation Science Standards. Some parts make very little sense. Genetic engineering is taught in 8th grade. I work with some of the highest achieving students in the nation and they would not have been ready to learn about genetic engineering in 8th grade at any level that was not totally superficial. Anatomy and physiology is dropped from the high school curriculum. We all have bodies that we need to take care of and understand. How can an element of the curriculum that would have such a great impact on so many lives be removed? These are just examples.
The writers of the Next Generation Science Standards need to slow down and speak with more teachers. They also need to make sure that their comment periods are long enough for teachers to give thoughtful feedback (the last comment period was open for a month at the end of the school year when most of us are very busy).
You are never going to get it through by making your platform "evolution" and "global warming". Is the intent to push those ideas or to increase the standards? They do not have to be mutually exclusive. Adding politics to this is a messy war that will take years to win if it ever can be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant to reach these kids? Take away the cellphones, social media, garbage television, and then you might have a stronger base to teach them critical thinking with positive, healthy emotional rewards that they appreciate more than instant pleasure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverybody's ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience proficiency in this country will continue to decline until educators grow a pair and tell the bible beaters to get the hell out of the classroom with their religious pseudo-"scientific" gobbledygook.
As Citizens and Parents, we need to start keeping a close eye on our school boards, because these bible beaters are getting themselves elected to the board and then they start to destroy our public schools with their insistence that "Creation Science" be taught with the usual disastrous and financially devastating results to the school system via the inevitable lawsuits (think Dover).
Then they stand back and go "Well. Public schools don't work, which is why we need VOUCHERS so parents can send their kids to private (church) schools."...
It hardly helps science education when the "Science" TV channels carry shows about ancient aliens, ghost hunting, monsters, and that ludicrous pseudo-documentary on Discovery about scientific proof for mermaids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen ever we discuss science education curriculum and assessment, it is worth keeping this quote from Diane Ravitch: http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/09/my-view-rhee-is-wrong-and-misinformed/?hpt=hp_c2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are our international rankings low? Our test scores are dragged down by poverty. On the latest international test, called PISA, our schools with low poverty had scores higher than those of Japan, Finland, and other high-scoring nations. American schools in which as many as 25% of the students are poor had scores equivalent to the top-scoring nations. As the poverty level in the school rises, the scores fall.
Rhee ignores the one statistic where the United States is number one. We have the highest child poverty rate of any advanced nation in the world. Nearly 25% of our children live in poverty.
budoinbatu, Agree with you 100% and would add (1)require school uniforms and (2)same sex classes or even same sex schools. If they are not trying to dress cool to impress the opposite sex, they have time to learn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor me the elephant in the room is that no-one distinguishes between the education wished for for every child and for those who have the competence/motivation to move on to higher levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere could be a conflict here.
Politicians, including "Teachers", should have no business setting standards; such "standards ALWAYS wind up too expensive, too politically correct, being "taught" by P.E. instructors and others having zero science teaching skills, and short-change students, parents, and all taxpayers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my Connecticut school district students are routinely given social promotion regardless of whether or not they have mastered any sort of standards. Students enter the sixth grade with virtually no measurable improvement over their performance on state testing the year before. 40% of students in my high school are reading at the fifth grade level or below, yet Connecticut has jumped on every standards bandwagon ever invented. Endorse whatever science standards you think are appropriate, but let us not have any illusions about their leading to increased achievement. Think instead about what sort of rewards await students who meet them and what consequences, if any, await those who do not. Personally, I have more confidence in the current movement to retain students in third grade until they are actually able to read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot only in science but also in math, English, social studies and all the rest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one closely studies the history of the US National Education Association one will discover their goal is to only educate children enough to become good factory workers and not more. Their plan has worked.
I am horrified that SciAm would promote such lousy science education. Ive been teaching Chemistry at the University level for years but started teaching in high school.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the Fordham Institute review of the NGSS curriculum just for chemistry quoted below. (Would you want your child to know nothing about acids & bases, etc.)
http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/20120625-NGSS-Draft-I/20120625-Commentary-and-Feedback-on-Draft-I-of-the-Next-Generation-Science-Standards.pdf
"Chemistry (within Physical Science)
The NGSS drafters sought to address fewer topics but at greater depth and to build a thorough content base from grade to grade. But this draft achieves only the first part of the first goal—fewer topics. It accomplishes this by radical reduction of the content found in a typical high school chemistry class. The drafters also avoid using appropriate grade-level vocabulary and almost completely omit mathematical problem solving. When the document was searched for the word “calculate,” not a single reference was found. We find nothing resembling a sufficient basis for a high school chemistry course, nor any discussion of organic chemistry or biochemistry. A word search was conducted to verify what seemed to be a lack of chemistry content.
The following key chemistry terms and concepts are absent from the document:
Chemical equilibrium; Le Châtelier’s Principle; covalent; metallic; hydrogen bonds; bond angles; molecular shapes; ions; electrolysis; precipitate; stoichiometry; and molecular formulas; bases and the pH scale; balancing chemical equations; the mole concept; gas laws; and electron configuration.
There is a reference for “acid rain” in earth science and “nucleic acid” in life science, but nothing on “acids” in physical"
In the New World Order education will be significantly more streamlined and adapted to the skills and needs of individual students. Already there is too much standardization. People are individuals, each one with unique learning abilities and interests, and that needs to be addressed by the teaching system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter we get all these children educated in science what will they do? Use the science of thermodynamics to heat the McD's french fryer? Jobs in science are dwindling by a government who doesn't think science is a good investment. If our leaders don't see the economy is driven by invention then teaching science is a mute point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this