Report Says States Aim Low in Science Classes (NYT)

[Up2Late]

(Boy oh boy, it this "No child left behind" thing working great, or what?)

Report Says States Aim Low in Science Classes

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
Published: December 8, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 - Nearly half the states are doing a poor job of setting high academic standards for science in public schools, according to a new report that examined science in anticipation of 2007, when states will be required to administer tests in the subject under President Bush's signature education law.

The report, released Wednesday by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, suggests that the focus on reading and math as required subjects for testing under the federal law, No Child Left Behind, has turned attention away from science, contributing to a failure of American children to stay competitive in science with their counterparts abroad.

(clip)

Ms. Spellings said she favors using testing for additional subjects, like science, to assess progress. The authors of the report analyzed each state and awarded a numerical score that translated to a grade. Only seven states, including New York and California, got an A, with 12 receiving a B, and 8 plus the District of Columbia receiving a C. Seven states got a D, and 15 got an F. Iowa was not included in the report because it does not set standards for any subject.

In a separate assessment of how states are currently teaching evolution, the authors awarded 22 states a D or F, with Kansas winning a special distinction, F minus, for its recent decision to redefine science so that it would not be explicitly limited to natural explanations, and allow for the teaching of alternative theories, an opening to consideration of intelligent design. The report cited mounting "religious and political pressures" over the last five years as undermining the teaching of evolution. But Paul R. Gross, its chief author, said in an interview that a willingness by schools in Kansas and elsewhere to consider alternative theories to evolution was only a small part of a "larger cultural problem."

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/08/education/08schools.html?ex=1291698000&en=d8d0ab67207e43bc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>
(more at link above)

[Erika]

1. Kansas don't need no science book learning

They got the Bible. It was good enough for their granddaddies, it's good enough for them. And Fred Phelps will back it up.

(Sorry, good DU Kansas people)

[Kindigger]

2. I got an actual F- in 9th grade

biology class. I refused to dissect the frog. I still remember my rant about cruelty to animals. They didn't even give me "do-overs"; they gave me a semester of speed-reading, which has served me well in my life.

[Erika]

3. I was sick on dissection day

and the make-up day. Glad my uncle was a doctor with those excuses.

[Erika]

4. Seriously, does the state realize how bad this makes Kansas

look? Can you imagine anyone with pride saying they will send their kids to college in Kansas?

Kansas better wake up.

[Up2Late]

5. kick n/t

:kick:

[redqueen]

6. I'm not sure that more testing is the answer.

But I do agree that our performance in science and math is embarassing.

[WindRavenX]

7. testing isn't the answer

Particularly for sciences like biology, learning concept is much more important before you can starting "learning" facts. Usually state tests skip the first part, and just have students puke up whatever they've memorized during the class.

It makes kids stupid and frustrated, and it turns them away from science :(

[redqueen]

8. Too true.

Concepts should come first, but for some reason many teachers don't bother with it. To much time required just for teaching to the test, perhaps? As a parent I pick up the slack in that area... but it would be nice if instructors were given more time / encouraged to teach concepts first.

[WindRavenX]

9. I think that it's hard to teach concepts well

Anyone can teach facts. Why those facts are relievant takes a good teacher with a background in the sciences.

Why, for example, did it take so long for organisms to be able to utilize oxygen for cellular respiration?

Such a question takes knowledge in:

How life develops
What the conditions of early earth were
What is cellular respiration?

ETC.

Hopefully, I'll be a good biology teacher and help kids love science. It hurts me to see so many people hate science...

[Toots]

11. Are you "testing" our knowledge?

Aren't questions like your nothing more than a test to see if the person has studied and learned the required material?

[WindRavenX]

14. Not necessarily

Certainly understanding of the material is needed, but the questions that should be asked require more than just facts--you have to connect the dots. That's something that isn't just in the material. You have to think about it. This part is called "critical thinking" and it's something that Republicans and anti-education morons leave out in all aspects of benchmark testings; they focus only on facts that DO just come out of required material--no thinking required.
I hope that clarifies my position.

[redqueen]

12. True, but it's so essential.

Perhaps conveying concepts to students should be a bigger part of the curricula in graduate programs for teachers.

I'm sure you'll be a great teacher. :)

[Toots]

10. How would you suggest a person demonstrate their knowledge

If you don't like testing how do you evaluate a person's knowledge of the subject?

[redqueen]

13. I didn't say I didn't like testing.

The article seems to imply that it's the lack of testing that is the reason for the lag in progress in our math & science courses. I don't necessarily think that follows.

Testing is necessary. Teaching to the test, however, seems to be part and parcel of this "no child left behind" mess. THAT I disagree with vehemently.

[Jim__]

16. By using it in the environment it will actually be used in.

If you put a lot of emphasis on tests, then people will teach and/or learn mostly for the test. I have a technical job. But there's all kinds of knowledge about my job that I don't have at my fingertips. I'm sure most college kids who've just had a class in the subject have more of that knowledge at hand than I do. But, I doubt any of them could outperform me because of that knowledge. I can acquire the knowledge as required by referring to the literature - a half hour of research will tell me what I need to know. But, my bet is that I can apply that knowledge better than those college kids - because I have years of experience in applying this type of knowledge.

In my experience, tests are on these, mostly, trivial facts. Let the students work on a project and explain to the teacher what they're doing in a non-pressure situation. I think they'll learn better, retain more, and learn what it is they really enjoy doing. School should mimic the working environment as much as possible. Now, I think the school environment is extremely different from the work environment.

[Orsino]

What's that giant sucking sound? n/t

[VegasWolf]

15. Testing is not the answer! It's just that we don't place emphasis on

Science and Mathematics the way 1st World countries do.