Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 94
8
Achieving National Goals:
Dilemma and Resolution
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THREE DECADES OF
ATTEMPTED EDUCATIONAL REFORM?
By one estimate, more than 100 committees have met, promulgated solu-
tions, and disbanded since the publication in 1983 of A Nation at Risk-and
the failings of science education have not diminished to any measurable degree
(Hurd, 1989b). The specific suggestions tend to have a familiar ring, yet noth-
ing very much changes. Twenty years before, there had been some substantial
efforts to alter the teaching of science. Prompted by the USSR's launching of
Sputnik in 1957, the nation mounted massive and expensive efforts to improve
science curricula. Although some of the results were impressive, they were
always ephemeral. If reform is to be successful now, we must understand why
earlier attempts have been so ineffective.
The major project for the reform of biology education emerged in the late
1950s as the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), which was initially
part of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. At the outset, it sought
to be concerned with biology education in grades K-12; a parallel project, the
Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences, was to
deal with biology in the colleges and universities. That holistic approach was
abandoned, however, when the funding agency, the National Science Foundation
(NSF), restricted the BSCS's initial efforts to the tenth-grade high-school biology
course.
In a surprisingly short time, the BSCS produced and began to test three
versions of a high-school biology curriculum. After 2 years of testing and
revision, the three versions were produced by commercial publishers, and
they soon captured a major portion of the textbook market. Although each
94
OCR for page 95
ACHIEVING NATIONAL GOALS
95
version was different, the approach was the same: reduce memorization, make
inquiry the mode of teaching and learning, concentrate on themes and concepts,
emphasize hands-on laboratory and field work, and relate biology to human
problems.
The BSCS versions soon dominated biology education and were imitated
by many other textbooks. It was generally agreed that a major improvement in
biology education had emerged. But the movement was not sustained. In this
country, the BSCS programs slowly decreased in number, and today they are
used in only a small percentage of the schools.
Why did this effort to reform biological education dissipate? A principal
reason is that too few teachers are both skilled in inquiry-based teaching and
broadly knowledgeable in their discipline. A major failure of the BSCS was its
inability to continue to prepare teachers to use the BSCS programs effectively.
The original BSCS textbooks were far more demanding of both teachers and
students than were the prevailing textbooks, and essentially all teachers who
joined the BSCS program needed additional education. The BSCS was able
to give brief refresher courses only to teachers who were involved in testing
the experimental editions. NSF did not support the BSCS in offering inservice
summer institutes and refresher courses on a large scale at least in part because
of political sensitivities aroused by rival publishers- although for educational
reasons such offerings were required. Some individual biologists did offer
BSCS-like refresher courses, but they were not directed by the BSCS.
The failure of adequate inservice support might have been overcome in
time if the institutions training new teachers had taken the responsibility for
teaching how the BSCS materials could be used effectively. But almost no
institutions responsible for the education of teachers paid attention to the BSCS
or to any other national efforts to reform science curricula (Mayer, 1986~.
There are additional reasons for the decline of influence of the BSCS.
Despite the intention of the original BSCS team, the program really addressed
college-bound students and failed to deliver "science for all." Moreover, the
effort at reform failed to take into account many of the obstacles we have
discussed earlier in this report: the complexities of textbook adoption, the
ambiguous role of NSF and other federal agencies in an educational system
based on local control, and the roles of testing, college admissions, and school
administrators (Jackson, 19831.
A second major effort was the NSF-sponsored summer institutes, which
involved large numbers of concerned university scientists working with gifted
high-school teachers and administrators and costing hundreds of millions of
dollars in public funds. As noted earlier, many participants felt that they
were both effective and important, but others disagreed, and for a variety of
reasons the institutes were abandoned in the late 1970s. A subsequent review
(GAO, 1984) has claimed that they did not have a measurable effect on student
performance a result disputed by many others who state that this concern was
based on superficial analysis. Although there might be argument about their
effect on student outcomes, the institutes had a positive and lasting effect on
the morale and sense of professionalism of the teachers who participated.
OCR for page 96
96
FULFILLING THE PROMISE
THE NEED FOR NATIONAL LEADERSHIP
AND FEDERAL FUNDING
The picture we have painted throughout this report is daunting and de-
pressing in its complex relationships. Textbooks will not improve unless market
forces change. Market forces will not change unless professional educators and
the public accept new formulas for measuring the success of our school system.
New measures of success must be accompanied by different goals of teaching
and learning, which require not only different kinds of teaching materials, but
different styles of teaching. More imaginative and effective approaches to the
classroom require that teachers themselves learn differently in colleges and
universities, and that can happen only if the scientific community sees itself
both as part of the problem and as part of the solution. Changing the perspec-
tives of teachers now in service requires massive efforts of everyone: teachers,
scientists, test-makers, schools of education, publishers, school boards, teachers
unions, and parents. Some of the major relationships are depicted in Figure 1.
At every point and on every issue discussed in this report, obstacles present
themselves. Someone will be inconvenienced, challenged, asked to sacrifice,
and forced to rethink what is being done and how. Furthermore, the incentives
for improvement, if any, are minimal, if only one or a few parties are willing
to change.
The kinds of changes called for in this report will occur only if major
federal funding is committed to make them happen. It is unreasonable to expect
local school districts, with their many competing priorities and lack of scientific
expertise, to finance all the actions required to effect the changes needed to
turn the country around on the important issues discussed in this report. The
problems we have been discussing are national ones that seriously affect the
future of the United States. Only a concerted and highly visible national program
can hope to mobilize the many different constituencies that must participate.
Major changes in direction will occur only if the states and local districts are
engaged through the availability of federal funds that are specifically targeted
to causing revolutionary improvements in K-12 science education.
What level of funding will be required? The committee developed a number
of different estimates of the magnitude of resources required (see Appendix G).
Although it did not analyze in depth the costs of its recommendations, it is
clear that any effective change will be expensive. The call for a much greater
financial commitment than currently exists is coupled to the recognition that
leadership in science education must be exerted by the scientific community
to ensure that the new resources are effectively spent. Moreover, successful
change will require sustained, coordinated actions by many groups, as well as
continuous monitoring and evaluation to guide the process.
It is important to note that the previous efforts to reform science education
were also expensive. For example, the NSF-sponsored summer institutes cost
hundreds of millions of dollars over two decades (GAO, 1984; Hooper, 19901.
At least this level of inservice activities is needed in the near term. Additional
funds will also be necessary to address simultaneously the other parts of the
OCR for page 97
ACHIEVING NATIONAL GOALS
/ District and
State Boards
~ ~ \
1 \
\
97
Colleges of
Education \
v Faculties of
Arts & Sciences
T _ 'l_ _ ~
State and
National Exams mu- - -I ~ ex~oooK
~ \\
/
Publishers
'\ ~ ~ i/
Students ~ Teachers
~ /\
\
~ /
~ _ Parents
Politicians ~
-
-
~` School
~~ ~ Administrators
FIGURE 1 Directions of strong and moderate influences at several nodes in the web of public
education. At the center of the network are the students, for whom the web exists, and the
teachers, on whom success depends. Note, however, that the influences on both are largely
beyond their control. When the influences on teachers are not supportive, this set of relationships
tends to reduce the role of teachers from knight to pawn. The arrangement also makes significant
educational change very difficult, as several other nodes in the network, each far removed from
direct involvement in the classroom, must be perturbed simultaneously. The response of each of
these nodes is in turn determined by this distinct set of influences impinging on it.
The position of the faculties of liberal-arts colleges and universities is of particular interest.
Well placed to see the results of educational failure in the schools, thus among the first to
criticize when failure ensues, and enjoying the greatest autonomy for corrective action, these
faculties have been among the last to recognize in any organized way the role they must play
if change is to be effective. Their influence on high-school teachers is strong (because at the
outset they teach the science to teachers), but this impact is neither as useful as it ought to be
nor sustained through subsequent contact, such as inservice activities. The influence of scientists
on high-school texts and tests is so feeble and indirect as to be virtually nonexistent, and support
for colleagues in schools of education is usually disdained.
From the styles of each, the influence of texts on tests and vice versa appears to be
strong and direct, but both may be responding to the same set of outside forces. In effect,
however, texts and tests have been mutually reinforcing. In a hopeful development, national
testing agencies have recently indicated plans to break from tradition and develop new forms of
examinations that will be better designed to assess the ability of students to reason (National
Governors' Association, 1990).
The diagram does not include all the important players; for example, teachers unions
and foundations interested in education are not shown. Furthermore, the strengths of interaction
may differ locally; for example, some schools have involved parents to a greater extent than
suggested here. And, finally, some important interactions are not depicted; for example, curricula
are often influenced by college admission requirements, and the behavior of teachers can be
strongly influenced, for better or worse, by the perceptions of colleagues.
OCR for page 98
98
FULFILLING THE PROMISE
complex system testing, preservice education, textbooks, other instructional
materials, laboratories, and research.
The magnitude of the task should be seen in perspective. The nation
spends an estimated $350 billion on education each year (U.S. Department of
Education, 1989), significantly less than the reported $500 billion for industrial
capital investment (New York Times, April 11, 1990~. The estimated $94 million
per year (in average 1989 dollars) for inservice programs for biology teachers
(Appendix G) is only 0.027% of the nation's education budget. Given the
magnitude of the education enterprise, this figure represents a very modest
commitment to meaningful change. Similarly, the government spent about $124
million in 1987 on educational research (GAO, 1988~. Considering the central
importance of education to our future economic prospects as a nation and the
consensus that our educational system is in trouble, this is a very meager
investment. No industry would expect to compete, let alone retool, with such a
token investment in the future; we need the equivalent of extensive retooling if
we are to succeed in changing how our children learn.
A ROLE FOR THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
THROUGH THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
AND THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
How can our massive decentralized educational system be perturbed in
ways that will lead to more effective teaching and learning of science? All
the needs for change enumerated in this report have been identified in previous
studies; the trumpet of reform has been sounded many times in the recent past.
The lesson of history is that nothing short of a concerted effort on all fronts,
sustained by visible and effective leadership, will be successful. What can be
done to encourage, if not ensure, a broad attack?
The presence of an overarching body capable of focusing the attention and
galvanizing the interest of all concerned on science education seems essential.
To play a leadership role, such a body should fit several criteria:
· It should be composed of scientists, science educators, and teachers
and should be capable of mobilizing expertise of the highest quality in both
science and education.
· It must have sufficient prestige for its studies, analyses, and recom-
mendations to command wide respect on a national scale.
· It should not be associated exclusively with any particular group of
.
vested interests, such as schools of education, teachers unions, or scientific
societies with focused concerns, yet it should be able to invite their participation.
· It should remain independent of the federal government, immune to
political pressures, and therefore able to assess, diagnose, and recommend
freely.
We are skeptical that such a body could be created de nova, for it would
lack the necessary intellectual authority and prestige. Its voice might be heard,
but, like the voices of so many others, to little effect. Few existing institutions
meet the criteria. Perhaps the one that comes closest is the National Academy
OCR for page 99
ACHIEVING NATIONAL GOALS
99
of Sciences (NAS). Under the aegis of NAS, the National Research Council
(NRC) already has a board devoted to the state of education in mathematics. The
growing recognition and concern within the scientific community, the education
community, and the general public about science education make it critical that
the scientific community act now to improve science education in the United
States. It would be both precedented and appropriate for the National Academy
of Sciences to create in the National Research Council a Commission or Board
on Science Education to monitor and to provide advice on the status of teaching
and learning in science.
How could such a body help? First, through continuity of attention. As
we have described, after the USSR's launching of Sputnik, the United States
undertook to reform the teaching of science in the schools, but little remains
of that effort. In our country, political enthusiasms have short lives. No
organization today has a continuing involvement in the analysis and evaluation of
science education nationally, serves as a catalyst for dialogue among the various
constituencies concerned with science education, and can provide appropriate
advice to Congress, the administration, the states, universities, and the general
public on science education. The changes that must be made in our educational
system will take years to effect, and they will not occur unless they are
monitored and encouraged throughout the process. NRC can play a role in
those activities.
Second, research scientists must become more engaged on a continuing
basis in actively fostering ways of improving the preparation of teachers in
the sciences, in helping to identify needs for research in science education,
and in providing criteria and guidelines for the evaluation of texts and other
instructional materials. By virtue of its stature in the scientific community, NAS,
through NRC, can effectively call on scientists to become actively involved in
collaboration with teachers and science educators.
Third, the scientific community, through ARC, can provide advice about
the distribution of funds to the various areas that need to be addressed to
improve science education. Through a continuing collaboration among scien-
tists, teachers, and science educators, such a board would constitute a unique
forum for identifying the areas needing the most immediate intervention and
for recommending and evaluating activities responsive to those needs.
Creating a board that will be able to operate effectively will not be a
simple task. Unlike the mathematics community, the scientific community is
fragmented into many disciplines that rarely discuss with each other questions
of either instruction or curriculum. Furthermore, as we have pointed out
in several places in the report, the ties between the primary and secondary
education communities and the science faculties in colleges and universities
are weak and in need of repair. Reaching agreement on what issues should
be addressed in the classroom, how these issues should be approached, and
how we are to measure progress will require sustained effort and cooperation.
Overcoming these manifold difficulties, however, is central to the challenge
confronting science education in the United States. While stressing the urgent
need for action, we do not underestimate the obstacles. But we see a board
within NRC offering an especially promising opportunity for building bridges
OCR for page 100
100
FULFILLING THE PROMISE
between the science and education communities bridges that will facilitate the
kind of broad consensus that is essential if we are to achieve quality education
. .
in science.
Throughout this report, we have pointed to instances of questionable
educational practices that contribute to poor learning. Let us reconsider some
of them here, exploring how a board of the National Research Council-or
some equivalent body-could contribute to effective change in how science is
learned.
.
There are no common standards or established criteria based on edu-
cational research to guide the creation of new inservice programs. But, as we
saw in an earlier section, extensive inservice experience is essential in the near
future for most teachers now in the classroom. There are clear needs for the
development and testing of pilot programs, for analysis and evaluation of the
effectiveness of current programs, and for the wide dissemination of information
about successful models. Those are all activities that NRC, with the support of
foundations and industry, can help to promote.
· Another role of a new body would be the creation of criteria for
evaluating the effectiveness of preservice programs for teacher education. The
current preservice instruction of teachers does not convey knowledge of science
in a manner that is helpful to future teachers of children. The mode of instruction
is devoid of "content pedagogy"; it does not assist teachers in relating scientific
concepts to the knowledge that a child brings to the subject. On the other
side of the instructional coin, preservice experiences in pedagogy are largely
divorced from the content of the science. NRC can explore the barriers that
now prevent scientists and science educators from working together in training
student teachers.
· There are no generally agreed-on standards for textbooks, state and
national tests, and curricular content. Some texts, tests, and curricula might be
good, but there is little third-party effort to examine their appropriateness and
success in meeting basic goals in science education. We are not suggesting that
a body like that proposed prescribe the content of textbooks. Quite the contrary.
In a truly excellent educational system, teachers would have great freedom to
use the books and techniques that suited them. At a minimum, however, such a
body might develop criteria and standards for the quality of textbooks and even
provide a periodical "consumer's guide" to the books on the market. These
books would be examined thoroughly and critically for accuracy, readability,
coherence, and effectiveness in conveying science as a process and as a way
of knowing. It could also give guidance to persons responsible for selecting
textbooks for states and school districts. Such information should consist not of
individually written and potentially idiosyncratic book reviews, but of broadly
based input from both teachers and scientists, presented against a backdrop of
educational goals that are themselves subject to review and discussion. We see
such an effort as valuable to teachers and publishers alike. If it helps to steer
the market and thereby the production of higher-quality books, it will improve
the education of students.
The possible agenda of an NRC board or commission with responsibility
for monitoring the health of science education nationally is so large as to be
OCR for page 101
ACHIEVING NATIONAL GOALS
101
overwhelming; but that speaks to the importance of the task. Other potential
functions and projects include the following:
Evaluation of the role of national and state examinations.
· Analysis of models for integrated science curricula that start in the
early grades and build in a coherent way through high school and into college.
· Promotion of interdisciplinary cooperation in the preparation of teach
ers.
· Creation and enhancement of mechanisms for the collection and dis-
semination of information on all aspects of science education, perhaps including
computer-based networks or even a series of regional centers that teachers could
visit to acquire hands-on experience with new materials and laboratories.
· Evaluation of advanced-placement curricula and examinations.
· Identification of research needs in science education.
· Identification of new ways to promote professionalism in the community
of teachers.
· Identification of new ways to interest students from various ethnic
backgrounds in science and teaching as career options and assessment of more
elective ways to teach them.
Stimulation of wider appreciation for the role of science in society.
The present lack of leadership and unity of purpose in science education is
illustrated by the fact that the important explorations of educational reform now
in operation are not yet well coordinated. Perhaps the most ambitious is Project
2061 of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS,
1989), which seeks to reform the teaching of all the sciences and technology
throughout grades K-12. It has formulated general recommendations and is now
designing courses. The AAAS Project on Liberal Education and the Sciences
is targeting the college and university courses intended for nonmajors. A group
at Stanford University is developing a 2-year biology sequence for middle
schools based on its undergraduate human-biology program. The Science as
a Way of Knowing project, sponsored by the American Society of Zoologists
and 10 other societies and organizations, is producing materials for teachers of
college introductory biology courses. The Scope, Sequence, and Coordination
project, recently developed by the National Science Teachers Association, is
an attempt to offer more science in grades 7-12 (Aldridge, 1989~. And many
other organizations, such as the BSCS and the Education Development Center,
continue to develop new curricular materials for various levels.
In summary, the reform of science education will require national leadership
from the scientific community and a major investment at the federal level.
National leadership is needed to develop a national consensus that will press
~ , ~ ~ .~ _ _ 1 ~
for the production of well-educateo teachers, to Insist on One exams u~c
supplies, to identify outstanding model curricula and inservice programs and
make them available to all schools, to mobilize the universities so that support
for precollege science teachers becomes one of their major goals, to encourage
the professionalization of teachers, and to encourage cooperation of parents and
other adults in the education process. National leadership must offer a vision
of science education that enables our system to produce students prepared to
face the challenges of the twenty-first century.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
achieving national
