Jack Hassard taught science teachers for many years at the Georgia State University. He now blogs frequently at The Art of Teaching Science. This post contains a fascinating perspective on teaching science. Hassard reviews a new book by a fellow science educator.
He writes:
The author of the book is Charles R. “Kip” Ault, Jr. Kip and I have collaborated over the Internet for several decades without actually meeting each other. Like many of you, the digital world of email and social media is the mode of communication that brings us together in personal and productive ways. Kip and I know each other from the science education research and writing we’ve done over the last 30 years. I’ve discovered that our career paths have crossed in several ways. We both taught high school and university courses in geology and the earth sciences, and designed science teacher education programs. Kip was professor of science education at Lewis and Clark University for 24 years. There he developed and directed the science teacher education program.
As Hassard explains, Ault wrote a book in 2015 criticizing the value of the national science standards.
In 2015, Kip published the book, Challenging Science Standards: A Skeptical Critique of the Quest for Unity. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which were developed in 1999, were uncritically endorsed and granted outright compliance by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), even though there has been a groundswell of teachers questioning these standards. And, very little criticism has been written from major research publications, until Kip Ault’s book Challenging Science Standards. If you haven’t read this book, you can use the link above to review it or read my review on my blog.
Kip’s New Book
So, now, in 2021, Dr. Ault has published a new bookgiving us an inside view of science teaching and learning. Instead of being about science teaching, this is a book for science teaching. If you are in a student in a science teacher education program, a practicing science teacher, or professor of science education, I think Kip’s book will augment your deep feelings about how students learn and why science teaching should be in the service of student’s lived experiences.
If you are science education researcher, this book will provide the theoretical rationale to design studies cutting across the spectrum of learning for all students. Kip’s four themes, Play, Art, Coherence, Community are big ideas from which studies can emerge.
If you are a classroom science teacher, I encourage you to apply any or all of Kip’s “stories” that form the substance of his book. He’s cast the stories into four themes: Play, Art, Coherence, and Community. You’ll find specific ideas that you can apply to your own classroom that I think you will find enthralling.
Hassard wrote the introduction to Ault’s new book. He wrote:
Kip’s book is a creative path to a new paradigm of science teaching and learning. His book is an amazing journey of stories and experiences in classrooms that will be familiar to you. The international science education community has embraced the importance of qualitative research. Descriptions of people, events and situations are hallmarks of qualitative methods. Kip has filled his book with playful, aesthetic, meaningful, and compelling stories about learning in which context and the needs of students reigns. Kip’s book is a qualitative treasure chest of new paradigm learning examples. His book is also fun to read. He names some of his stories Wavy Elephants, Binary Banjos, Skull Sockets and Crowned Molars, Hells Pig, Vivid Canyons, Flashy Plumage, Wicked Extinctions, and Caring Communities.
Ault connects his science thinking to that of Leonardo da Vinci:
When you read this book you are going to be immersed into the mind of a science education writer who’s thinking is drawn from the science of Leonardo da Vinci. Kip has created a new paradigm that is rooted in Leonardo’s mind. I wrote this in my forward about why I think there is a link between Leonardo and Kip Ault. I wrote:
On Beyond Science Standards describes a world view that is holistic and ecological which is, according to Fritjof Capra[1], not unlike Leonardo’s. Leonardo had developed a solid body of science. But his science could not be understood without his art, nor his art without science. Walter Isaacson[2] and Fritjof Capra wrote separate biographies of Leonardo. In their biographies, they explain that Leonardo’s scientific explorations informed his art. Capra says that for Leonardo “painting is both an art and a science—a science of natural forms, of qualities, quite different from the mechanistic science that would emerge two hundred years later.” For Kip Ault, paleontology cannot exist without illustration, and he shows how art can be the center of methodology. Art can be the center of learning science. And it doesn’t have to be only paleontology.
When I took science courses in high school and college, most of our time was spent memorizing facts about science. i didn’t get the point.But Ault has a different vision of science:
Kip Ault believes that the purpose of education is to:
prepare citizens for lives of social responsibility in a democratically governed polity. Kip reaches out to the science education community to claim that our present practices of teaching and routines of selecting what to teach will not help our students achieve that end. He concludes that immersing students in “scientific diversity” can be a journey uncovering aspects of ourselves and the universe promising immense pleasure and joy. Kip Ault has written the book that I’ve been waiting for.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Yeah, this is all well and good, except a major portion of our body politic seems to think that an education has only two goals: preparing people for jobs and turning immigrants into compliant citizens. As long as that attitude endures, I have little faith in any “reform” efforts that would make our schools “better.” (They have a different definition of “better.”)
Any omission in your comment, Steve?
Some among the “body politic” think schools should indoctrinate students with the “legacy of Christian” patriarchy (which I interpret as racism and sexism). For context, read The Hill’s story about Starkweather school system in N.D. The superintendent’s view was praised by a current state legislator and former N.D. Speaker of the House.
and “a major portion” could also be written “a major portion of the wealthy corporate interests which run our body politic”
I would counter that teaching is BOTH an art and a science (yes, even in teaching science it can be a science). I also think that this blog post misses a point that you can do BOTH – creativity AND have standards. It’s more about how it is done. For exampe, I’ve seen this program (https://www.fcps.edu/Global%20STEM%20Challenges) in Fairfax county in person and was BLOWN away. It’s truly integrated STEM education. But in the work that is being done, teachers can show how standards are being met. Without any type of standards, then teachers can end up teaching whatever they want (which could mean it’s WAY below what students should now)
I look forward to seeing frequest poster Duane S tell me how standards aren’t necessary, and then I will say “What about teachers who are poor and don’t teach grade level” And then Duane will say, “Admanimals (I may be wrong here on his term, but it’s a derrogatory term for administrators) should do their job with poor teachers” And tnen I wil say, “Administrators are doing so much more”….See our conversation in the post about edTPA that summarizes our conversation. Just saving both of us time on this.
DuaneS is correct. Standards are NOT necessary and standards are harmful and what is wrong with education today. Objectives and teacher autonomy are what’s needed for a healthy school environment for all children.
Lisa – So then, what happens if a teacher doesn’t do thing that are beneficial for students. What if they keep doing those things over and over (And cannot be removed quickly due to union rules, etc). Then what?? As I said to Duane – with great power comes great responsibility. And I have seen way too many teachers NOT take that responsibility seriously.
Here’s my resposne to Duane many times – a teacher wants the autonomy – then the teaecher needs to demonstrate success from students performance (not just in grades, but in other measures – NOT necessialry test scores),
“I would counter” that self-appointed policy drivers and instructors funded with billionaire authoritarian dollars don’t exhibit the traits of teachers. Teachers focus beyond their paychecks when serving the public and progress.
If I saw more of those in the artificially-generated sector (Gates’ network) stand up against threats to American democracy, say for example, the danger from conservative religion, there might be a reason to consider respecting them and their input.
Since state Catholic Conferences tout the fact that school choice legislation is their accomplishment, how, specifically, is the Gates’ artificially-generated segment responding to that political shift away from the pluralism advocated by Jefferson?
And, about those standards, read the public letter allegedly written by the mother of the Michigan school murderer, in which she addresses Common Core while not knowing the specific name of the elite conservative/libertarian Bill Gates who imposed it throughout the nation.
Linda” First of all, let’s be clear. Bill Gates did not sit down and write the Common Core State Standards. Yes, he did fund some of this work. But it was teachers and educators that actually created these standards, NOT Bill Gates. Also, can anyone list a state that does not have any type of standards in what is taught.
Many of you here want equality (I will assume). Well, without any sort of national curriculum (thanks to the writers of our Constitution that left education to the states), each state set its own expectations on what kids should learn. Guess what – that leads to inequality across the states. NCLB, despite it’s flaws, addressed “the soft bigotry of low expectations” – which many states across the country had for all students. I have seen many teachers who, when given autonomy – consistently maintain low expectations of their children of color and higher expectations of children not of color. IS that what you want? Is that a good thing? Because it was happening without any set standards.
And the fact that you are taking the words of a mom who supposedly stated that she had to pay for a tutor because of the school standards are evidence we shouldn’t have stanarsd at all – really? Is that where we are going to go?
One small correction: Bill Gates funded everything about the Common Core, and he collaborated with Arne Duncan to make “adoption of common national standards” a prerequisite for states to be eligible to receive part of the $4.35 billion in Race to the Top funding.
Second, there is no evidence that CCCS has led to greater equality or even to rising scores. When asserting that common standards reduce inequality, offer evidence.
Dr. Ravitch – thanks for the clarification. Yes, funding was inlcuded with Race to the Top because there is no national curriculum. As for evidence of CCSS, I understand your point, and that’s a fair one. However, when there were NO standards (or limited standards across states), was equity improved? You point something out – there is a swing – from NO standards to a set of standards. Should we go back to NO STANDARDS at all? That’s where I have concerns.
The CCSS is flawed – I will agree. One can find flaws with nearly everything and anything. Rarely is ANYTHING perfect. But in my opinion, I see the CCSS as a step in the right direction. Could the process be improved – of course. But having some sense of what students in all states should be doing or able to do is a step in the right direction for equity. Otherwise, the bigotry of low expectations will continue.
You misunderstood my comment. By federal law, no one in the federal government is allowed to fund or require a national curriculum. That’s why Gates funded everything, from writing the standards to reviewing and evaluating them. He also paid organizations of all kinds to endorse them.
To say there were NO standards before CCCS is untrue. Every state has curriculum standards. States borrowed from one another. Some districts taught to state standards more faithfully than others. The textbooks and the tests are the de facto standards.
CCCS was implemented a decade ago. There is not a scintilla of evidence that they made a difference.
Read Tom Loveless’s recent book about CCCS.
Dr. Ravitch – I will read his book and I understand that the CCSS has not has the impact that Gates (or Obama or others) had hoped it would have. But the real question is why – as you noted in your post: “Some districts taught to state standards more faithfully than others” The implementation gap in ANY policy is real.
Also, you misunderstood what I said – yes there were state standards prior to CCSS. And while yes, some states borrowed from one another, others kept the expectations low in what students needs to learn in different subjects. One state’s expectations for a course like Algebra 1 would vary from another state. How is THAT fair to students?
And yes, I understand that CCSS has not been as successful. Well, as I am sure you know, historically education policy makers and policies have had one thing in common – they constantly change. We give something 4-5 years and then we move onto something else. In terms of curriclum changes, studies have shown it take 3-5 years for a curriculum to be implemented well. In addition, one cannot just change the curriculum – one must improve how kids are taught (the pedagogy) and the assessments they are given. It’s a multi-decade process. And yet, our political cycles are every four years – and education is such a hot topics, there is a rush to make an improvement. Until we are willing to accept graduatl change, education will not improve.
I’d say that CCSS has had 10 years’ trial. I don’t expect different results in another 10 years
Perhaps so. But in order to have it work you would need many aspects a including funding. Yes even though RTT provided grants they required the use of CCSS the funding did not have to be used directly on implementing CCSS. As with many Ed policies they become unfunded mandates
About your first two paragraphs jlsteach- the standards at this blog are indicated by the content of the posts and comments. It is rare to see regurgitated or automaton-generated garbage in, garbage out from commenters. For that reason, if I was host of the blog, I would make it rarer still and delete the first two paragraphs you wrote.
We can agree that your 3rd paragraph says nothing. The takeaway from the Michigan story is that the legal theft of main street’s assets by tech tyrants and Wall Street i.e. the local tax-funded public schools, has consequences. When the teachers told the mother that their hands were tied, it was a message that confirmed the mother’s sense of powerless. Own your part in rendering people powerless in the dynamic against the authoritarianism of brothers, Bill Gates and Charles Koch.
Does powerlessness warrant murder, certainly not of innocents.
Does excessive, concentrated wealth, the outcome of Koch and Gates’ policies, warrant violence, historically, it has. Does the fight for democracy demand a call to arms?
Linda – you say this, “When the teachers told the mother that their hands were tied, it was a message that confirmed the mother’s sense of powerless”
What about the students of color that have felt powerless because of the low expectations of teachers for their students? What if THAT mother went to the principal and the principal said, “My hands are tied – it’s up to the teacher what to teach” Then would you look at this differently?
Not to mention – Duane S and so many others will say that administrators are doing poor jobs if there is a poor teacher. Perhaps the teacher in the letter should have given a better response to the parent. But it seems that you place blame on the standards themselves
jls
When does the group that is made up of people selected through a representative democratic process, meet to define the mission and goals they want you to achieve? And, when do they set the criteria and standards for your performance?
Why has Bill Gates placed himself between the people funding local education and those who steer the ship for them? If you see one of the Bill Gates’ lackeys who has access to Bill, demand he or she give him a message. “Pay your damn taxes- don’t hide out in a state with the most regressive tax system in the nation.”
Linda – I am sure you don’t think thank our current govt is democratic enough – that we need every single person to participate in every single decision – do you realize then that NOTHING would get done. I can’t speak for every situation where state standards (or even the CCSS) were created, but I can attest that most likely any standard is vetted by multiple stakeholders that include as many perspectives as possible. Is the process perfect – NO – and it can never be perfect. But why let perfect be the enemy of the good? Why insist that things have to be perfect.
As for Gates’ involvement in education – I have read that one of the reasons he has invested in education is because he sees problems that exist. He wanted to provide opportunities for Black and Latino children. I know that you and some others here think that his reason is only to make more money, but perhaps there was some other resaon why he has chosen to give away millions of dollars to causes. You say that he should just pay more taxes – well, I would agree with you on paying more taxes. But even if he paid more taxes, he would still have billions of dollars left that he earned – most likely from money made because of the computer you will write your reponse to me on.
jls
Who do you think is worse, you or the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown that Diane posted about on Nov. 17? The Lab’s funded by Gates and John Arnold of Enron and anti-pension infamy.
When I look at Gates’ efforts, I conclude his goals are (1) to drive down costs so that libertarians can skip out on the obligation to pay taxes (2) opportunities for monopolists in the tech sector to impoverish the 90% and (3) to make obedient workers to match the plan for a colonialist society.
Did you choke when you wrote the word equality? Report back to us about the Cristo Rey chain of schools which received funding from Gates and Walton heirs. Tell us how it differs from suburban Catholic schools.
Like the Gates network I’ve decided to set standards. The following are my initial standards. First, for families in poverty to (a) have enough to eat (b) have adequate and secure housing (c) have medical care including dental and vision and, (d) have the family breadwinners experience the same access to jobs that the Gates’ kids have through connections. Secondly, my standard for the Center for American Progress, including its funders like Gates and its board including Tom Daschle who lobbies for K-12 (new name, Strive), is to position it as persona non grata in the Democratic Party.
Wow, I see a very strong anti-Catholic bias. you keep mentioning Catholic schools. Let’s be clear – those are privately funded schools…AND btw, they have no academic standards like Common Core.
BTW, your initial question makes no sense – am I worse than a lab at Georgetown? Hands down I would take the lab..
Gates has acknowledged publically that one of the challenges with education is there is no consesus on what really does work. And he’s correct on that front. Just look at this conversation – you have said that what works is that teachers have complete autonomy and no standards. You have seen examples of that work. While I have seen examples of the exact opposite – that it doesn’t work.
As for your list of standards, I live in the real world, not a fantasy world. Sure, I would love all of that to happen as well. I also would love a world where immigrant families that come to the US have decent housing and are welcome (currently my house is stacked with household items for an Afghani family of seven that is moving into an apartment on Wed). I would love lots of other things to happen.
BUT. and here’s the big BUT – as you noted, we live in a democracy, right? Not a socialist dictatorship, but a democracy. And the tricky thing about a democracy is that it is possible for someone to not end up with what they want…So your list of standards – how do you propose doing this – do you just TAKE all of Mr. Gates (or Mr. Bezos, or Mr. Buffett’s) Or does some just declare – like a dictator – that the tax laws will be take half the wealth of someone?
Now, I am sure your comeback will talk about how I am so elitist and how dare I stand by the sides of Gates, etc. But here’s the thing – do I agree that billionares should pay more taxes – yes. The difference between you and I (it seems) is that I would work through the democratic process of getting there. And that’s not so easy to do.
Fordham Institute’s power over education policy in Ohio refutes your conclusion. NonPartisan Education Review (Michael Phelps) posted a chronology describing Fordham’s rise to power. Report back if you find anything democratic in that history. Ohio’s neighbor to the west, has the Eli Lily Foundation ( religious grants are their usual thing) working for the school choice agenda in Ind.
If getting rid of Gates requires retroactively getting rid of his tech “invention”, that’s a deal the country should make immediately. Gates technology morphed into monopoly business and plutocracy.
Good to know that the poster boy for democracy, Bill Gates, wouldn’t contribute with his wealthy friends to defeat the re-election of state judges who had rendered verdicts favorable to public schools… wait….
Funny how Western European democracies manage to take care of their people while the U.S. manages to top the list in terms of gun deaths for adolescents and children, manages to have wide disparity in income, manages to pay more for health care than other nations while achieving worse outcomes, etc.
You didn’t report back about the equality reflected in Cristo Rey schools and suburban Catholic schools. I guess you’ve never heard of education vouchers i.e. taxpayer-funded religious schools or, about the Espinosa v. Montana SCOTUS case. You should try to be better informed.
Would you be interested in some swampland in Fla. if I deceived you and called it resort property? Bloomberg, Arnold, Koch and Walton heirs are just warm hearted people sacrificing to do good for the world. Got it Now, about that land purchase.
Linda – do you use no electricity at all? Or drive a car at all? Do you use anything that would have made an inventor money?
As for the Western Euorpean Socialist Democracys that you refer to – riddle me this – how large are those countries (in population). How diverse are they in relation to the United States. To answer your question – “Funny how Western European democracies manage to take care of their people while the U.S. manages to top the list in terms of gun deaths for adolescents and children, manages to have wide disparity in income, manages to pay more for health care than other nations while achieving worse outcomes, etc” – do you THINK any of that has to do with the size of the country. The larger the democracy, the more likley for divergent views. Or perhaps those democracies aren’t really as democratic as one would think – whenc onsidering the population…Just look at Finland or Norway as examples here.
Yes, I have heard of vouchers – what’s your point there?
As for continuing to destroy my point of view – I will say this – sure there are concerns about all business owners (but then again, perhaps no one should try and be a business person at all). BUT most of all, I ask you this – how is the alternative (no standards, no expectations, the continued soft bigotry across school) any better?
jls-
Teachers and school systems HAD standards. Teachers and school systems HAD expectations.
Anticipate and consider the outcome in Ohio, when the reformers raised standards so that “low performing” schools could be taken over by the state which coincidentally robbed the community of their local democracy. When Gates assigns himself the role of Bwana, he assumes he has the right to run rough shod over people of color and whites without power, people like your neighbors.
Predictably in Ohio, higher standards result in fewer students receiving diplomas, making it harder for them to get jobs. Fewer businesses are willing to locate in certain areas of the state or the state as a whole because the state’s contrived statistics made Ohio appear to have a less educated workforce.
As I’ve watched Ohio, which at one time had an enviable public university system (subsidized by tax dollars) force students into paying more to get an education, making it more difficult for them to succeed, I know the Gates/Koch plan worked. The state of Ohio now votes in men like Donald Trump, which it hadn’t before.
Linda,
You’re right states and schools had standards and expectations. But here’s the reality – some states or schools had lower standards than others. They kept the standards low because they didn’t believe students of color could rise up to higher expectations – the soft bigotry of low expectations.
So it’s all the standards fault about lack of graduation. It has nothing to do with teacher training or teacher pedagogy? When I taught in DC public schools at a city wide STEM school where many kids scored basic on state tests, my principal stated all should take precalculus. He believed the students could succeed. And guess what – they did. And many of them went to post secondary school and didn’t have to take math OR at least didn’t have to take remedial math classes.
I mean in the 1950s education was separate but equal – so you think that was okay?
jls
Why don’t you read between the lines of Melinda Gates’ comments and deduce what opinion Bill holds about equality for women. Bill is likely similar to Peter Thiel and the overwhelming majority of men in tech and men associated with Jeffrey Epstein.
Views about equality for people of color is usually not far distant from attitudes about equality for women.
Linda – As often is the case on this blog, when an idea is raised counter to what one thinks, the move is to instead deflect attention. This isn’t about Bill Gates or his behavior of women. It’s not even about his behavior in general. Let’s take Gates out of the equation. If he didn’t find the standards movement I doubt you would suddenly be in favor of it. It’s not about Gates – it’s about (at least to me), the soft bigotry of low expectations. Notice I’ve repeated that phrase multiple times and yet you have yet to address that this could be a reality
George W. Bush used that phrase about “the soft bigotry of low expectations” to build bipartisan support for NCLB. No one wanted to be in favor of low expectations. How did that work out?
Dr. Ravitch – was George W. Bush wong about the soft bigotry of low expectations? Do they still exist across the country? How is that working?
Raising standards for kids who can’t pass low standards is cruel. I used to believe as you do. Over time, I realized that standards are no replacement for food, medical care, and stability in one’s living conditions. If a child has a disability, is homeless, or can’t speak English, how do higher standards address his needs?
I have become a supporter of community schools, where children and families are treated with concern for their lives, not test scores.
Oh, since you asked, NCLB was a disaster. It met none of its goals. Not a single school district could report by 2014 that 100% of their students were proficient. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of schools were closed because of low test scores. In many schools, Recess and play, music and art were reduced or dropped to make time for test prep. The nation’s schools wasted billions on test prep. The only beneficiaries of NCLB were standardized testing companies, consultants, data analysts, charter schools, and edu-preneurs.
No other nation did this to its schools. NCLB was the very worst education law ever passed. It punished schools, educators, and students. It destroyed communities. NCLB was the Death Star of American education.
By the way, I met with George W. Bush in 1998 with other conservative educators. He was then Governor of Texas. When he spoke of “the bigotry of low expectations,” it was political propaganda, like the mythical “Texas Miracle.” Bush explained to us that he had a gift for words that sounded good. Such as, “the bigotry of low expectations.” Or, he said, if a reporter asks whether teacher should be paid more, he responds, “Teachers are so valuable that we can never pay them enough.” But he makes no commitment to pay them more. Clever.
Dr Ravitch – why can’t you have high standards and community schools? Why does. one have to be a replacement for another? You’re realization, in my mind, is what is wrong right now in the education discussion. Many see things as one or the other – you said it yourself – as you support community schools but don’t believe in the need for standards.
Let’s break things down a little bit. Regarding NCLB – yes it was a disaster in how it was written. Any educator knew that claiming all students would be proficient in reading and math by 2020 (NCLB was written in 2000 so that is 20 years) was insane. But that’s part of my point about education policy – people set things because they sound good.
As for George Bush’s words – I can’t speak for the man if he agreed with them or just said them at the time to help get elected. But I will ask you again Dr Ravitch – so you believe there are places across the nation that do have low expectations of some demographics of students? Saying “they can’t do this on that” Note I am not saying that all students, including those who are special Ed, students who are brand new to the country, should meet high standards. Yes we need to be realistic. But I’ve seen teachers claim the same students can’t do math because they are newcomers. Teachers make assumptions about what students can and cannot do – and have low expectations of what they can do. One time I coached a teacher who had many ELL leaners. I offered to co-teach. She often lectured to her students and they were bored. She thought they didn’t care about learning. The day I co-taught I had students engaged in the material. They were taking to one another about the problems (sometimes in their native language). The teacher was shocked at how things could be different.
My point with this story isn’t to tap myself on the back. It’s to show how we can keep reasonable high expectations. NCLB and CCSS didn’t fail or don’t work because at the core their ideas about equity are good. They failed because of unreasonable expectations and poor implementation.
jls
My point about vouchers is that you were wrong (12:24 comment) when you said Catholic schools are privately funded. Catholic schools in states like Ohio receive the bulk of the voucher money.
It’s apparent that you listen or read right wing spin. “A revealing map of the world’s most and least ethically diverse nations”, would show you that countries like Canada (more diverse), India, Spain and Indonesia (similar diversity to the U.S.) don’t have authoritarian regimes.
Canada and Spain have smaller populations than the U.S. India has about 3 times the population of the U.S. and like the U.S., it is a “deficient democracy”. Indonesia is controlled by an oligarchy as is the U.S.
The U.S.’s recent history shows a starting point of representative democracy built on the economic policies in the 1950’s. As a result, the U.S. should have a sizable advantage relative to democratic governance. No coup was necessary to throw out overlords. The other substantial advantage the U.S. has is its relatively high GDP per capita (similar to western democracies).
The quote, “you can have wealth in the hands of a few or, you can have democracy but, you can’t have both”, applies to the U.S.
It’s the oligarchs’ spin, which we should reject, that claims the US is too large and too diverse to be a representative democracy.
White supremacists also use the “too diverse, too large” argument.
The discussion that follows the map referenced above explains the manipulation of us vs. them that is used to undermine quality of government.
Ah Linda – you are so incorrect on what I listen to. Just because I provide another perspective. But since you went there, I will chime in and comment back. At least for a little while longer.
First, do you know of ANY Catholic school that is 100% funded by vouchers? Do you? My guess is the answer is NO. That means that the majority of Catholic (and even private schools) are funded by tuition. Or, to be honest, many of the ones that I know of. are running huge deficiits as their focus is on education as oposed to raisiing money – so families pay whatever they can. Now I’m sure you are going to say to me that such families run to private schools because they want to avoid Common Core standards – that’s not uusually true in my experiences…
Now, to the countires you mentioned. Population of Canada: 38.01 Million. Population of California: 39.5 million. So…Canada’s entire national policies impact fewer people than one state.. You only chose to mention diversity, but since you also mentioned population, I am wondering how one makes an a national policy when the population is so much different.
I love how you just threw in white supremicits too diverse and too large – REALLY? Linda – did you even read what I said. I said that the popluations of the European countires (which you referred to in terms of democracies) were less diverse. I never said anything about not appreciating the diversity of our country. PLEASE – just stop it.
As with Duane earlier, you see the world in ONE SIDE or ANOTHER – there is no way taht someone can actually have mixed views or see things from another side. If you are questioned about something, you get defensive and jump to conclusions about me, without even considering another side. That is why education today cannot be solved – becuase as with everything else in politics, people just go to their extremes, and assume the worst of someone else instead of considering another side. That’s just sad.
“To me it is about” an imposed notion that is absurd on the face of it. The plan was only implemented because money was showered on despicable individuals. The ulterior motives are very important which explains why Gates’ motivations are on the table.
I think I’ll raise my expectations for Bill Gates and his family. I will tell them exactly what score they need to measure up in my scheme. I will create an evaluation system and give the 5 family members “F’s.”
(It will make them want to try harder.) And, if that works, I’ll keep raising the threshold, citing the need for continuous improvement.
I’ll make their financial situation precarious with food, housing and medical care a crap shoot. I won’t listen to explanations/excuses about why they don’t meet the goals that I demand. When they tell me the prior system enabled GDP growth at so high a rate that it compensated for Wall Street’s 2% drag on the economy, I’ll tell them to shut up and get the fu– out of my way. I’ll tell them, If they don’t like the system, drop out. I’ll tell them with snark, “good luck finding a job.” And, I will penalize all of those associated with them and their inability to meet my benchmarks. I will take away the Gates’ families’ personal authority and right to affect any change to the system. I will take the taxes that the Gates pay (assuming they don’t have a CPA to rig the system) and make sure their money ends up in the hands of men like Reed Hastings and Peter Thiel. I devised a Machiavellian plot. I’ve paid lackeys to help me and people like the Gates family can eat sh__.
Linda – you seem to have some anger issues. I hope that you are able to address those. You also think that every single plan is about money, and that perhaps because I see some value in the plan, then I too much be rolling in $$ and be drinking champagne with Bill and Melinda and many others. Heck, I happen to graduate from one of the schools Melinda went to so clearly we are BFFs!
Please. As I have said earlier, my points are made becuase of what I have witnessed first hand when there are NO standards for teachers. When teachers abuse this and students are hurt the most. I do understand your point, and yes, I do think it’s rather sad that companies immediately conned many schools systems by slapping a CCSS approved label onto practically the same book. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that some type of standards could help wth children.
thanks for listening.
And, there it is… Melinda’s education… self-ordained superiority … an instrument of the deity … Thomas Aquinas’ monarchy of benevolence.
jls
“love it or leave it”, the U.S. is a democracy with separation of church and state. You want a royal state inextricably tied to authoritarian and discriminatory religion, go to that country.
btw- research in U.S. prisons showed atheists commit fewer crimes than the religious.
Linda – let’s be clear. YOU are the only one here that has mention religion at all. Not me. I am sorry that you have had a poor experience with relgiion that has made you so angry and against it. However, to believe that someone can be religious and also not believe in some of the same causes you may be believe in is straight out wrong. The Catholic Church, for example, can be grounded in service to the poor – look at Dorothy Day as a perfect example of this.
I hope that you get some help for your anger issues. I am sorry for whatever ills you have had in your past as clearly they were painful ones.
jls’ tribal response was 100% predictable
Linda – Tribal? Would you like to clarify that? Or perhaps you have decided to not even try and understand someone else’s point of view? Either way. I wish you no ill will.
jls
Criticize the Gates’ anger and provide a rationale for it. My comment at 7:54 describes what they ACTUALLY DO to harm families.
At 7:54, I wrote not what I actually do but, what I WOULD LIKE TO DO in response to Gates’ colonialism.
Referring to my loathing for Americans who threaten the U.S.’s democracy, it should be categorized in far stronger terms than “ill will”.
I understand your viewpoints and I find them reprehensible and antithetical to the Republic of the United States of America, a representative democracy founded after the American Revolution. When Americans act on their musings about my country as “too diverse and too large” to be a democracy, it’s treason.
Linda you say you understand my viewpoint – so do you think it’s okay that some students are provided less by teachers? Because that is what I have seen. What I have seen from this conversation is you have a very limited and narrow viewpoint and are not willing to consider anyone else’s point of view
jls: It strikes me that you are creating an argument where there really is not one. Everyone agrees that learning new stuff is good. We all think that allowing students to sit unmoved is a bad idea. We also agree that promotion of negative behavior with regard to learning is bad.
The question is, to what extent does it help to write down what students need to know? I assume all here were educated about Dr. Bloom and his behavioral objectives. Most teachers have some idea of the behaviors they would like to see from their students.
The problem with the idea of standards is not so much that they are good or bad, but how we decide how restrictive they should be. Some teachers think that those who decide what should be taught are decidedly divorced from the experience of getting the material to the students: It is appropriate to teach Physics to students who do not have any background in Algebra?
In addition to whether teaching something is appropriate for the students you see, a teacher has to decide whether certain knowledge pertains to a student’s personal experience. Local understanding is important. A study of soil in the Flint Hills of Kansas (documented in Prarie Earth, by William Least Heat Moon) would make sense in that region, but not so much in my own Central Tennessee. Of course, all students need to know certain things that pertain to the development of governmental systems, the operations of chemistry, the important phyla, and the ability to self-express and generally think.
Most teachers who decry the modern use of standards do so with an eye on their generally restrictive nature. If you make a few ideas the only thing a student learns, they will not learn very much. Many of us recall a day when a teacher would go through a subject, and the test would include about 10% of the material covered. Modern testing tends to be at least 80% coverage of the material, which means that there is a much smaller amount of material the student experiences.
Roy – sorry I missed this response…I will say this. I’m not trying to create an argument – it is others on this post that have said they are against standards (any stanadrds at all)
And yet at the end, you mentioned that teachers are against standards beacuse they view them as being so restrictive. This to me isn’t a standards issue, but rather an implementation issue. I’ll give an example in another context. Our county started a new curriculum and were told time and again to implement it “with fideltiy” – the reason is to see if the curriculum was really working or not. Some teachers took fidelity to mean they had to do every single activity, and if it took two days for one lesson, then so be it. Our office explained that no, that was not fidelty, but rather the manner in which it was taught. There was (and still is) a lot of confusion around the word fidelty, and how it is done.
that is the same thing with the CCSS. In fact, if you look carefully at the math standards (I cannnot speak for the English standards as well), there is nothing that is specific about context or specific content. So, if one wanted to use a scenario local to their area to discuss quadratics, that is perfectly fine!
As I have mentioend before – it’s not the policy but the implementation of the policy.
jls
“your office” – provide the details about the chain of command, funding source, appointment path, the staff’s credentials
Linda – I will share what I shared with Duane earlier – and honeslty the way that you have attacked me in this blog post – if I felt comfortable that you and I could have a reasonable conversation and not have something used against me, I’d be more than willing to share the information that you wanted – in fact, I’d even be willing to discuss some of the flaws of those in charge of the process. But honestly, as you don’t seem to trust anyone else, I don’t trust you to use this information against me. So sorry, I will not share that here. And that’s quite sad to say.
jls
If “anyone else” is limited in definition to barbarians and their lackeys…o.k.
btw- I don’t think it’s “sad” that you want to hide damaging info about yourself, collected by you and others. “Sad”/tragic is those who get paychecks for exploiting POC under the guise of ed reform.
Linda – all you do is insult people, is that the case? Is that what you do with anyone who may share an alternative point of view from you? Wow. That is sad. And yes, I think it is tragic the way people are attacked as opposed to partaking in civil conversation. I look forward to your immediate response which I am sure will be filled with some other type of insult towards me.
The French established colleges during the Napoleonic period that eventually became Normale. These colleges were responsible for teaching prospective teachers what it meant for a person to have an education. This model was copied in the United States in the early Twentieth Century with the establishment of “Normal schools,” places where norms would be a part of the curriculum.
This process did not mean that the future teachers were making lists of exactly what the students were to know. Rather, it produced a group of aware and flexible teachers who did the best they could with what they had. Perhaps this is a better model for assuring that good instruction follows our educational needs. Good, professional teachers are the best antidote for an educational ailment.
I agree with you about good professional teachers – but then I will ask the question – how do you get there? What do you do? That is NOT an easy task. And until then, I say that having some type of guardrails such as standards, would help. If you could guarantee a professional teacher in every classroom (like a chicken in every pot), then sure, there isn’t a need for standards…but until that day.
jls
100% “high quality” staffing guarantee – impossible in any work setting and at any time.
Look in the mirror, you’ll see a person who lacks communication skills in part because of his/her analytical deficits and in part because of a deficit in empathy. You’ll see a defender of colonialism, an oligarch toady and a person who is detrimental to American progress for all but the richest 0.1%.
Linda – I realize that. And that is why I believe that having some type of standards provide guardrails.
“I would counter that teaching is BOTH an art and a science.”
For once we almost agree. Yes it’s about 99% art and 1% science.
Here’s my challenge jlsteach.
I’m not asking anything of you that I wouldn’t do, that I haven’t already done.
What is your real name? What is your real job position? What other employment have you done? What is your education level, from where? How many years did you teach, as the sole teacher of the class in public K-12? I know you reference that you have taught/worked in a very large district, which one?
I’ve given that information out many times on this forum*. Will you? Why would you be so afraid of identifying yourself if what you say is so supposedly true?
*To be fair here are my answers so you don’t have to do any looking:
Duane Edward Swacker
Retired due to disability for 6-7 years now. I was certified K-12 Spanish teacher and was the sole teacher for 21 years in two separate public districts/schools, one a suburban/rural district, the other a rural poverty district. I started teaching at age 39. I’ve been a pharmaceutical purchasing supervisor for a 500 bed university affiliated teaching hospital, a master upholsterer, a customer service manager and a production scheduling/materials manager in a metal building manufacturer along with miscellaneous other ventures throughout the years.
So WHO ARE YOU?
Oops missed one. Undergrad, masters from UMSL. Doctoral program there that I did not complete because they pulled the funding and I knew I wanted to remain in the classroom. It’s where the real teaching and learning takes place.
Oh and it’s adminimal. Minimal critical thinking skills and lots of animal herd behavior. Admanimal would be misogynistic of me since there are many female adminimals. And yes, except for the very few who have refused to implement the standards and testing malpractice regime, all administrators should be derided for doing so (and should not be allowed anywhere near a public school.)
Duane – I have a right to share or not share – as Dr. Ravitch has stated, she knows who I am. But more importantly, why does it matter? But I’ll share some information – I have a BS in Mathematics, an M.Ed in Secondary Education and a PhD in Education Policy and Leadership. I taught for 10 years in middle and high school mathematics as the sole teacher – the last 5 years at a STEM school in DC Public Schools. I then worked at university teacher preparation program for 10 years, where I did my dissertation on edTPA (I’ve mentioned that before Duane).
As for “why am I afraid” – well, in part because I have been attacked by some on other forums for stating my opinion. In fact, once I tried to engage in what I had hoped was a reasonable debate and instead was attacked openly in a blog post by the other person. Since then I have been very hesistant to share my information. Which, honestly, to me is a very sad thing. One would hope and wish that two people could have a conversation without being open to attacks, but we see it happen all the time.
I hope this gives you enough info you need. And that you may understand why I am hesitant to just be an open book. I do wish there was a way that decorum in online formus could be similar to those as in person. But it seems in general we are not there yet.
JLSTeach, you have no obligation to share your identity.
Thank you Dr. Ravitch for supporting this as well. I shared enough information that someone could determine who I was – and I know that you know who I am. But I have been attacked publically (not from anyone here, but in other situations) which is why I don’t feel as comfortable sharing my identity.
Thanks for the cogent response!
While I can understand your hesitancy, those of us who have challenged the educational malpractices, and who have not hid our identities and who have paid the price can certainly empathize with what you say. However, for me, one who HAS paid dearly in doing so, I am less than satisfied with your thinking not only in terms of not being totally upfront, but in not reading and understanding quite pertinent writings on the standards and testing malpractice regime.
Do you have a link for your dissertation? I would like to read it. If you don’t feel comfortable in linking here in public, please email me with a link at dswacker@centurytel.net.
Thanks for the cogent response.
While I can understand your hesitancy, those of us who have challenged the educational malpractices, and who have not hid our identities and who have paid the price can certainly empathize with what you say. However, for me, one who HAS paid dearly in doing so, I am less than satisfied with your thinking not only in terms of not being totally upfront, but in not reading and understanding quite pertinent writings on the standards and testing malpractice regime.
Do you have a link for your dissertation? I believe I have found it. Was it from 2018? Will read it over the next few days.
Dwayne, I suspect that you have found my dissertation if you put enough clues together. I certainly gave enough hints that anyone could find me. I welcome you to read it. And your thoughts.
jls
I would say to your face exactly what I have written at this blog. It’s a shame that others haven’t.
Using civility AGAINST the people who live it, is a tactic directly out of the social Darwinist playbook.
Linda – it’s sad that you don’t believe in having civil conversations. You believe that civility is a form of Social Darwinism – wow?! And one wonders why this country is so divided.
I think you and JLSTeach should agree to disagree and cut off this unproductive and increasingly vituperative exchange.
Dr. Ravitch – I apologize for engaging in the back and forth on this. I think that you are correct on this. While I may not agree with some (perhaps many) on this blog, I have always tried to maintain decorum in my responses. However, I do not like being personally attacked for any opinion or life experience I may have had.
Thanks!
JLSTeach, your restraint and civility are commendable. Stick with us, but if the debate goes uncivil, disengage.
Another of jls’ deficits, he can’t read and understand the written word.
If jls’ boss is competent, he/she should review the comment thread and recognize the inadequacy of his/her employees.
Ah yes, more insults from Linda. That’s not exactly the way to have a civil discussion. But from your constant comments on my posts, and your insutlts, I see that civility isn’t one of your goals. Which I again thing is sad. I am sorry to see you so angry Linda. I wish you all the best.
Duane, With all due respect, I don’t think it’s fair to ask a commenter here to reveal their identity. There are many reasons individuals prefer anonymity that should be respected. If you, or anyone, wants to critique an argument by jlsteach, do so based on reason and facts.
I think it is fair to ask. I also think it is fair to refuse to give that information.
At the same time, those of us who haven’t hid behind a screen and who have paid the price for our challenging the standards and testing malpractice regime find that stance to be less than courageous. But that is for each individual to decide.
I’d contend that part of what someone is trying to communicate is intricately tied to whom that person is, his/her background, work history, and many other things that are often times left behind a screen.
Wishing those who teach science the best- to please a large segment of GOP voters, teachers will have to provide instruction in what Rep. Matthew Cawthorne believes, “Women are earthen vessels sanctified by God.” Women are vessels whose sole value is as egg incubators.
I doubt Bill Gates will care if that message is interwoven with training to code.
Speaking of science, Dr. Oz, a so-called man of science, is planning to run for Senate in Pennsylvania as a Republican. It seems he appreciates his money more than science. He neither votes in nor lives in Pennsylvania. He is an out-of-state opportunist. His in-laws live in Huntington Valley, a Philly suburb.
Dr. Oz’ ethical code is difficult to decipher. He’s definitely chosen the right party.
Thanks for making us aware of this book. Just put it on my Christmas list.
Anything to get good teachers to teach.
Another attack on the teaching of content knowledge, and in the subject where it is most important. The same worn out and inaccurate complaint about “memorizing disconnected (unrelated) facts”. And interestingly enough this attack on science knowledge and understanding comes from both the ” Play, Art, Coherence, Community” supporters and the “NGSS” cheerleaders. Just what we need, another education “war”. Another attempt to pretend that novice learners can think and problem solve like a highly trained professional scientists whose brains are, ironically, filled with science content knowledge.
Under NCLB and ESSA, science has been the one tested subject that had flown under the radar. Untainted by the fools who created the CCSS, state science standards and federally mandated tests (in heads 4 and 8) were reasonable, fair, objective, and age appropriate.
Thatt has changed when 20 states were fooled into adopting the NGSS from the disruptors at Achieve. The Next Generation Science Standards are the bastard spawn of the Common Core, written as performance standards that incorporate the use of the failed and debunked methodologies of discovery learning and constructivism. NGSS authors also adopted the same foolhardy idea used in the CC math and ELA of pushing concepts down into grades where brain development simply isn’t ready.
The Play, Art, Coherence, Community approach presented here provides no real insights into how it would actually be applied in the classroom or why it would improve student understanding, so pretty difficult to critique. At best it sounds like there might be some seed ideas that could be adapted to a traditional curriculum.
My thanks to Jack Hassard for his review and Diane Ravitch for reposting it. I am humbled and grateful. In response to JSTeach, of course you can have your standards and creativity too, but that’s a poor reason to accept their flaws. In Beyond Science Standards, I tell stories of teaching in grades 4 and 10. These lessons align with the NGSS—and go well beyond. I also share experiences teaching graduate students in Beijing, leading a summer field geology course, anecdotes of museum educators working with students in Denmark, and piloting ambitious weather balloon activities with for middle schoolers in upstate New York. What I find in the standards is a regrettable disconnect between “scientific practices” and “disciplinary core ideas,” a disconnect fostered for more than 150 years to characterize the sciences generically, for example, as steps of “the” scientific method (followed by scientific processes, inquiry skills, nature of science). My classroom stories express the inseparable relationship between what scientists know and how they go about finding it out—in particular contexts, not in keeping with a generic construct of method, process, or practice. Current rhetoric (and online matrices) divorces overarching “practices, themes” from subject-by-subject “core ideas.” It’s up to the schools and teachers to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Challenge a child to create a spectrum of colors from sunlight using a mirror and a bowl of water. Have them express their experience with watercolor painting. Share the paintings as a classroom gallery and you have a story of play, art, and community. Go ahead, read my book—framed by an epigraph from Timothy Egan’s A Pilgrimage to Eternity: “Arguments don’t change minds, stories do.”
Kip,
Thank you for your very engaging response. Good luck with the book!
Diane
Dr. Ault – I appreciate your coming here and posting a thoughtful response. I do want to reply with a couple of questions/comments:
I am not as familiar with NGSS as I am a math educator and focus on the Math CCSS. I do know that in addition to the standards, there are Standards for Mathematical Practice http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/). They focus on the how and what students should be doing with the math – does a similar document exist for NGSS? If not, I am curious why not.
It seems from your description of your work here, along with this quote from the book description on Amazon (Schools, no less than the sciences, profit from playful exploration), that we are in full agreement in the pedagogy and the HOW of schooling and learning. I shared in one of many posts here the incredible work happening at a Fairfax VA school that I was fortunate to view (https://www.fcps.edu/Global%20STEM%20Challenges). I LOVED the interaction around critical problem solving, hands on learning, etc. Is this what you are promoting in the book? From my vantage point it seems to be.
THAT said, I believe that some on this blog may misinterpret this as a mean that there should be no standards at all in terms of learning. I apprecaite your noting that one can have standards and creativity. I am sure like the NGSS that the CCSS Math Standards are not perfect – I think even the Mona Lisa probably has some flaws in it (and no, I am not comparing academic standards to the Mona Lisa, but rather noting most thigns have flaws). From your comment that they were universally accepted – it seems that your concern is that they was not enou enough scrutinity and that seems fair. What changes would you make to the NGSS, or would you do away with them completely and have no standards?
thanks fo considering these points!
Linda , Dr. Ravitch kindly asked both of us to stop this discussion. I have no idea why this morning you decided to type up such a hateful diatribe against me, but if you don’t want to listen to me (which I respect), at least listen to Dr. Ravitch, whose name is on ths blog and who is the moderator of this blog.
BTW, I currently work for a public school system – last I looked that position is not billionare created. I’m also not sure where you received my education history at private schools – as in my own childhood I attended both public and private schools. But then you say, “he she is less than worthless”
Again Linda, I have no idea where your anger towards me come from, but clearly it is from an experience that impacted you deeply. And for that I am sorry to hear.
Dr. Ravtich – What are the rules of people continuing to post when they provide verbal attacks with no merit agaist someone else?
You are right. I will block ad hominem abd baseless diatribes.
Dr. Ravitch and I can agree to disagree that concocting a charge of “anger issues” and attributing them to a person’s purported deeply- scarring personal experience is, “civility that should be appreciated”.
Dr. Ravitch and I can agree to view differently, the ease with which a commenter asks, superciliously, for punishment of others at the blog.
Jls self-identified as holding an official, unelected position. His or her paycheck is paid by the taxpayers who have no opportunity to express dissatisfaction with public sector jobs, jls’ included, that were created to fulfill the Gates’ agenda. Commenter Chiara uses this blog to express that dissatisfaction, in general terms.
When jls chooses to describe situations where he or she tells teachers what is allowed and isn’t allowed under THE standards and when jls introduces personal information about going to school with Melinda Gates and to brag about his or her charity, jls opens the door for others to do just what he/she does, draw inferences about motivations e.g. my supposed (false) crippling experience with religion.
Jls is welcome to criticize my competence as derived from what I write at the blog. However, I am not paid by taxpayers and I don’t have authority over students via their teachers and school systems which would render jls observations without impact.
IMO, my comments have shown great restraint given the fact that
jls furthers an unjust system targeting children, teachers, communities and taxpayers while simultaneously demanding respect for it.
Commenter NYS Parent has the skill to recognize false victims.
Linda – I am going to take a different tactic – what is your goal in presonally attacking me here? How is that helpful to anyone else on this blog? You said that I criticized your competence – no, I don’t believe I did. As for as my reference to anger issues, that comment is only related to the tone and the vitriol of your comments addressed to me.
Now, a few things:
You state, “Jls self-identified as holding an official, unelected position. His or her paycheck is paid by the taxpayers who have no opportunity to express dissatisfaction with public sector jobs, jls’ included, that were created to fulfill the Gates’ agenda.” – When did I state that?
You state, “When jls chooses to describe situations where he or she tells teachers what is allowed and isn’t allowed under THE standards” – When did I say that I did that? I don’t believe that I did. Rather I mentioned situations where a teacher teaching the same subject as myself taught soemthing complete differently that me – and issues related to that.
As for noting that I attended one of the alma maters of Melinda Gates or referring to serving others, those things were only mentioned after you presonally attacked me about my committment to serving others. I also shared the information about the alma mater when I was asked to share personal information about myself.
I hope that all on this blog, including Dr. Ravitch, have seen that I am able to have civil conversations with others even when we disagree. I have engaged in a conversation with Frances about testing, standards, etc. There are not any easy solutions – there are lots of factors involved – money, time, etc. that impact everything.
JLS, don’t take the bait. Stop it.
Will do Dr. Ravitch. I am fine with not engaging with her anymore.
Thank you. I learned a hard lesson over many years of jousting with critics. If you can’t change your mind, and they can’t change yours, tune out. Don’t waste your time.
Linda, please drop this increasingly vitriolic and counterproductive exchange. You and JLS disagree. You won’t convince him. He won’t convince you. Don’t read his comments. Enough. Plenty other things to worry about.
Linda, you have carried your negative view of JLS as far as you should. Drop it. It’s boring for everyone.
Thank you, jlsteach, for checking out the publisher’s description of Beyond. In answer to your questions, first, the Fairfax VA Global STEM program merits praise and emulation. Pedagogy that “stems” from problem-solving approaches the ideal. To their credit, the NGSS has elevated the status of engineering education—a dramatic improvement in school science. In the 1990s I was an evaluator for a museum exhibit titled “Engineer It”—my eyes were opened. The documents of the NGSS, in print and on-line, are legion. The standards’ immediate precursor (a scholarly researched position paper) is “A Framework for K-12 Education.” Many parts are excellent. The authors recognized that methods of inquiry and ideas about the natural world ride in the same boat, that language is an integral component of learning science (beyond “hands-on’’—what Hassard called “minds-on”), and that expanding the circle of participation in the sciences is a moral imperative. In the 1990s, the standards movement in the sciences began as with the intent to emulate the first iteration of the math standards. In my view, the mathematics community shared a vision of “what students ought to learn” (with disagreements on how to teach or how to sequence lessons) more so than scientists and science educators. The first science standards finessed disagreement by presenting standards in several distinct, co-equal “content domains.” Three were traditional (life, phys, earth sci.). They were joined by five others: (1) unifying concepts and processes, (2) science as inquiry (3) science in personal and social perspectives, (4) science and technology, (5) history and nature of science (https://www.nap.edu/read/4962/chapter/8). The document was more of a treaty among competing paradigms than an effective plan for reform. In their zeal to rectify the ensuing chaos, NGSS authors settling on the construct “three-dimensional learning.” Disciplinary core ideas were restricted in number (4 big ones for physical science) and, in order to leverage engagement, bound to “cross-cutting concepts” and “scientific and engineering practices.” Thus streamlined and anchored to good scholarship, NGSS proponents began the task of marketing and glossing over shortcomings (and catch up with the math community’s efforts). I write to “ungloss” them, and it would take a book (or two) to explain my position. Most importantly, the standards—their content and use–are not the fundamental issue. The ideology of the sciences as unified in “habits of mind” (Dewey phrase) or by a generic set of practices and themes accompanied the birth of science education for the general student in the 1850s (and philosophies of science for centuries). This belief reasserts itself decade by decade. It’s neither wrong nor unreasonable, but it does obscure essential differences among strategies for solving various kinds of problems. I would not do away with the standards completely. I do think a revision in a decade or so will happen—something on the same scale that produced the “next generation” from the first one. It will be contentious. I would counsel standards that encourage timely, local, and particular studies—glacial soils in Wisconsin, reef ecology in Florida, zooarchaeology in Oregon. At the center, in place of a generic depiction of scientific literacy, I would place subjects chosen on the basis of contributing to solving societal problems. For each subject, I would emphasize, within a restricted context, how its claims have earned trust. I’d like to see 15% of the curriculum, if not more, organized in this fashion. I hypothesize that the anti-science prevalent in current circumstances results, in part, from the public’s failure to appreciate the intelligent and adaptive response of different sciences to diverse problems. The generic approach, still much too present, encourages the misperceived expectation of conformity to a stereotype of experimental method in pursuit of definitive facts. Evolution, climatology, geology, astronomy, and medical sciences fit this mold rather poorly, opening susceptibility to arguments dismissing their conclusions. And that’s a serious social and political problem of the present.
Personally, I am grateful that there are scientists will to work towards Next Generation Science Standards to safeguard the teaching of evolution, climate change, etc. There are many state legislators that would like to ban the teaching of evolution, etc.
Children’s brains do not develop at the same rate and sorting children by birth year is a flawed system. The world of high stakes testing intensifies these problems.
NGSS not perfect, but in these days when so many people think COVID is a hoax, won’t get vaccinated, won’t wear a mask, deny the role of anthropogenic gases in climate change, think the earth is 10,000 years old, refuse to accept evolution, I am glad that there are people fighting to preserve the teaching of modern science. I don’t regard them as corporate sell outs for trying to defend evolution. The world of high stakes testing is very destructive and there needs to be less rigidity in how teachers are permitted to teach.
Frances, you omitted a critical factor- Bill Gates’ push for privatization. Religious schools are exempt from standards like Common Core.
It’s only the schools that Bill Gates and Charles Koch dislike that will be forced to impose life-sucking performance benchmarks for teenagers and children.
You’ve built your argument on old propaganda and out-dated talking points- paraphrasing- without the authoritarianism of the self-appointed billionaires, the U.S. will fall into a polarized world of the educated and uneducated. It’s 2021, the nation’s already in that trough. Robbing communities of local democratic control has contributed to the problem. So, if Gates wants to worsen the problem, making sure more people vote GOP, he’s got you to help make it happen.
You should be embarrassed to even go down the road, “sell outs” “defending evolution”.
Linda – I really do not understand your anger here. But now I see you have chosen to attack another poster who admitted that the NGSS Standards were not perfect, but then noted that having some type of standards in science education helps prevent those that are teaching science to teach claims that are ridiculous – and the importance of science today in relation to climate change or vaccinations.
Plesae stop your diatribes. This space is supposed to be a place for discussion (even if people disagree). It should not be a space where anyone feels attacked.
I try to keep my posts concise so that they will be read. I support the total obliteration of high stakes K-12 testing. I oppose vouchers. I oppose private entities being publicly funded. I share the disappointment of Melinda Gates wrt her ex.
Frances – I will say that nearly all of your comments in this last post I agree with – in an ideal world I too would get rid of high stakes testing, but candidly I am worried that if we remove any type of accountability (it may not need to be high stakes testing, but what type of accounability do we put into place?). The reality is that with all of the faults of testing, and I can list MANY, MANY of them, I struggle with a reasonably priced and quick way to assess student understanding.
There are some will say – just trust the teachers, Trust the administrators. Yet as you noted in your first post about standards, there are some teachers that will teach whatever they believe (creationism, or anti-vaxination, or anti-climate change)…
I do NOT have a great solution for this huge quandry…I am just noting the importance of accountability
Dear jlsteach,
My perception may be wrong, but my perception is that test scores mostly measure family socioeconomic status. For high mobility schools, some students only spend a few months at the school. Students in cities with charters end up going to a mix of charters and district schools over their student careers. I don’t judge a teacher by the student test scores.
I totally agree that districts need ways to identify teachers that don’t belong in the classroom! A number of pieces of evidence work better than a single multiple choice test. The parents know who the good teachers are. The fellow teachers know who the good teachers are. The principal knows who the good teachers are.
These are the days of parents posting their views of their child’s teachers on their public social media sites.
Frances – it seems we agree more here than we disagree! First I agree that test scores are not the best measure (or possibly any measure) of student understanding given all of the thigns you mentioned. I also don’t believe that teachers should be judged on test scores (potentially at all, but certainly NOT as the the only factor)
Where we will disagree are on these things: The parents know who the good teachers are, the fellow teachers know who good teachers are, the principal knows who good teachers are.
By this rationale, if a teacher thought it was okay to teach creationism, and the fellow teachers (and the principal) in the school thought that was okay as well…what would you think? Beacuse I am certain there are public schools in the US where that is happening. As for parents knowing – yes some overly involved or very involved parents will post thigns about the teacheres on social media. But for many immigrant families, who may me working multipile jobs, they don’t have the time to engage or know if their teachers are doign well. Many immigrant families place blind trust in teachers because of cultural norms – they would never question a teacher. I admit my privledge in both being in eduction and being an active parent, that if I have a question about my daughters’ education I am wiling to ask the teacher, or the principal. etc. So many parents do not feel comfortable doing that.
The “social media posts”- how’s that working relative to teaching the truth about U.S. racial history? Didn’t Diane have a post about teachers’ fears related to the social milieu surrounding CRT?
Frances Kelsey Fan,
If teachers know who the other good teachers are it is of little use to parents or administrators. Teachers are apparently bound by their professional ethics not to say anything.
I learned this many years ago when I was involved in a discussion about a public school jr. high science teacher who taught creationism in his science class. The teacher in the next grade knew that the jr high school teacher’s students knew nothing about the theory of evolution through natural selection, but told no one. I thought it was unethical for the downstream teacher not to report it. I was told in a comment that I was wrong. A respected orthodox commenter stated that “One must be very careful in speaking up about one’s colleagues. It is unprofessional to do so unless there is evidence that the colleague’s actions are bringing immediate harm to students.”
Since no other poster disputed this statement, I concluded that a large majority of teachers have this view of their professional ethics.
The discussion can be seen in this thread: https://dianeravitch.net/2012/08/15/is-this-a-failing-school-with-great-graduates/#comment-24080
If folks are interested in the original story that prompted the discussion, it is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20teacher.html
TE,
Yes, many teachers are not inclined to comment on other teachers’ abilities. However, there is a way to do it. First as the teacher who followed the creationist “science” teacher, I would note what the students say about their curriculum, what and how it was taught. If it was against district policies/the established curriculum (no, not standards–sorry couldn’t resist adding that in) I would go directly to the teacher and find out what their take on it is. If the teacher was not teaching the curriculum, I would point out what they should be teaching and offer help to them to do so.
In my way of thinking one should go horizontal in the hierarchy before going vertical.
If the teacher doesn’t change his/her ways then I’d let them know that I had no other choice but to take the concern vertically up the hierarchy, that I didn’t want to do that but I had no choice. And then I’d do it.
U. S. has had standards as long as it has had state textbook adoption. Publishing textbooks that would be acceptable to both Texas and California fulfilled a national standard. A need did not exist.
WCT – can you clarify a bit on what you mean? While I think you are implying that if a textbook satisfies requirements in two diverse states than that is okay. What about all of the other states?
Sales is the bottom line. Accommodating two diverse states with large numbers of students in public schools was more profitable.
JLS,
I think that WCT is saying that the textbooks, which are broadly adopted, set the standards. Not only in CA and TX but wherever they are adopted.
Hi Dr. Ravitch (and WCT) – I partially agree with the idea that textbook companies are creating standards. The reason I say partially is because there are SO MANY different textbooks on a given topic – whether it’s Algebra 1, or US History. Some books include certian material while others may not. In that way, I would not be comfortable with having the decisions on what topics students should learn be left in the hands of textbook companies.
I found Dr. Alts’s response about the importance of standards quite insightful – particularly how science has been a bit behind math in terms of the work with standards.
About ten years ago, I read every high school history textbook. They were written to “cover” every topic in the state curriculum frameworks. What was striking to me was how similar they were. Different publishers, identical content.
Dr. Ravitch – your process is interesting, but that seems a bit backwards in the process that I am describing – that state standards are first set and then books write to the standards (that makes sense). But I am not sure of the other way around – that books would then lead to the standards.
Chicken and egg
It’s quite obvious that standards-based teaching and learning raises the temperature of the room and brings out a variety of opinions.
I am pleased that you have given attention to the work of Dr. Kip Ault. If you haven’t read anything he has written, I urge you to take some time to explore his work. One place to start is his new blog at kip-ault.com. You’ll be please.
Now, a few comments from me. I’ve had a long career in education which started in 1962 as a high school science teacher in Massachusetts. I completed a master’s degree in science education at Boston University while I was teaching, and then drifted west to Ohio State University on an NSF Academic Year Fellowship, which led to a Ph.D. in science education and geology. In 1969, I began a 33 years career at Georgia State University.
Decades ago, I was one of the authors of Holt Science, a K-6 science textbook series, 1980-1995. There were four authors. Two of us were professors of science education, one was a supervisor of science in a New Jersey school district, and the fourth was an elementary teacher. We designed the science curriculum for the textbook series. We didn’t follow a set of standards, but we of course were cognizant of other elementary science series, and also the four of us had backgrounds in science, and each of us taught elementary through high school science. Once the NGSS emerged, textbook companies addressed the standards and created texts that incorporated the standards, as well as the experiences of the authors.
I’ve been a critic of the standards, especially the Common Core, and have written extensively about standards on my blog (https://jackhassard.org/?s=science+standards).
Yet, I have to confess that in 1972 I was invited to Florida State University for a sabbatical to work as an author on the Intermediate Science Curriculum Study (ISCS) and a writer of science standards for junior high school science in the state of Florida. The FSU science group had a contract to write the standards (they were called objectives in those days and we used Robert Gagné’s levels of learning to write objectives and two test items per objective). It was a massive project, and was one of the first state-wide standards efforts in the nation.
When I returned to Georgia State University the next year, I was asked to submit a proposal to design and write the standards for elementary science for Florida. With a grant of $50,000 we assembled a team of science education professors, graduate students (all former teachers), and elementary teachers from local schools. We designed a domain chart to map the nature of elementary science and then, using Gagné’s system of learning, wrote standards and test items. As a young professor, it was a rich and rewarding experience. Other state departments of education consulted with FSU and the Florida Department of Education as they were considering standards for their own states. Yet, as I look back, I have to admit that I promoted standards-based teaching. Not so much anymore.
One researcher, Dr. Carolyn Keys, a colleague of mine at GSU, has written about the effect of standards-based curriculum on her own teaching, as well as others in a high school science department. After 20 years of university life, she retired and took a job in South Georgia as a high school biology teacher. She used her year long experience to write about the effect the standards had on high school biology teaching. The purpose of her researcg was to uncover insights about the science standards that have been used over the past decade and a half that have posed barriers to science teaching and learning.
She put her research study (https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20470) this way:
“I synthesize research from educational policy, science education, curriculum theory, critical inquiry, and my own experiential learning from a particular case in the state of Georgia to analyze the effects of authoritarian standards language on science classroom teaching. I argue that curriculum standards based on a content and product model of education (A. V. Kelly, 1999), have been incongruent with research from cognitive psychology, science identity formation, language use, and science as inquiry.”
One of the key aspects of her study is her suggestion “that there are two characteristics of the current generation of accountability standards that pose barriers to meaningful teaching and learning in science.”
The tightly specified nature of successful learning performances precludes classroom teachers from modifying the standards to fits the needs of their students.
The standards are removed from the thinking and reasoning processes needed to achieve them.
And then she adds that these two barriers are reinforced by the use of high-stakes testing in the present accountability model of education.
Dr. Key suggests standards should be written “in a language that connects the learning objectives with the types thinking and reasoning to achieve them.” She also suggests that if standards’ managers would frame the standards using non-authoritarian and participatory language, science teaching and learning could be transformed. Teachers need to have the authority to interpret standards in ways that make the standards relevant and meaningful to their students, and culture.
Another of my colleague’s here in Atlanta is Mr. Ed Johnson. He’s another old guy like me who has a deep interest in student’s lives in the Atlanta Public Schools. He has not only written extensively critiquing the use of charter schools and other attempts to privatize public education, but he has tracked and studied the effects of standards, and test scores on student learning. Most of you know that Atlanta suffered a disaster in the “Cheating Scandal.” Testing created an atmosphere of fear throughout the APS, causing administrators and teachers to change test results to make their schools meet school wide expectations. All of this was the result of. the State holding school districts hostage by using state-wide testing to measure effectiveness of schooling. You can read about Ed Johnson on my blog (https://jackhassard.org/?s=ed+johnson).
Thank you for reacting to this post, and to the work of Kip Ault. All the best.
Dr. Carolyn Keys argues that standards should embody “a language that connects the learning objectives with the types thinking and reasoning to achieve them.” They do not because “separation” is the hallmark of standards writing. Science education has intentionally separated content from process for a long time. Content objectives appeared as specific propositions and process objectives as generic behaviors in textbooks of the 1960s. Testing the former is rather straightforward but becomes mostly a test of reading ability. “Performance objectives” attempt to reunite the two domains but are very challenging to write and score. The 3 dimensions of the Next Generation Science Standards compound the original sin of separation with two generic categories (scientific practices and crosscutting concepts) aligned with every lesson about a “disciplinary idea” (a specific proposition found by grade level on a matrix). Consider thinking and reasoning about the phases of the moon (a “phenomenon” to “make sense of” in NGSS jargon). Commonly, teachers guide students in moving a small and large ball around a lamp to demonstrate orbital modeling (practice) and learn that the relative position of the moon changes the phase viewed on earth (the “idea” expressed as a proposition). Less frequently, teachers engage students in observing and recording the moon with respect to the horizon. Sometimes, students use themselves as the earth and extend a ball with their arm to represent the moon, then rotate their body in natural sunlight to observe changing phases. Linking a model (or a crosscutting concept) to specific knowledge is a trivial challenge. More challenging is to reconstruct the experience of moon-watching, whether of observations of the sky or the illumination of the ball, in terms of “frame of reference” coordinated with relative position and relative motion properly scaled. When this reconstruction is complete, the learner has a mental model of orbital motion capable of answering a host of questions. When a child in Austin Texas sees a crescent moon near the horizon at dinner time, how are the earth, moon, and sun positioned? What lunar phase will appear to an observer in Cali, Columbia that same night? For each observer, which way will the horns of the moon point? Often learners imagine that the earth’s shadow causes changes in the phase of the moon. The quarter moon, however, is a half-circle of light. Does the earth cast a shadow with a straight edge? (No) Alas, most crescent moons in comic strips are the letter C. When does a U.S. observer observe a letter C crescent (and not a reversed C)? (Early morning only—when the moon is waning). A conception of the earth, moon, and sun in motion, then stopped in different positions, generates the thinking required to answer these questions. The position of the observer on earth does not change the relative position of the moon, earth, and sun. The rotating earth changes the observer’s perception of the moon in the sky. Grasping how phases look and change for different observers taxes students of all ages—especially when cast as observing the earth from the moon (or Venus from an earth orbit). On the conception all else depends. The ladder of understanding this conception has many rungs. The a priori separation of process from content helps its ascent not at all. The task for the learner is one of cognitive reconstruction of experience and perception using the resources of astronomy and interactions with artifacts and others. It’s kinesthetic (moving the body), social, verbal, and spatial. Drawing is crucial. 3D learning fails to do justice to the challenge. We should take Dr. Key’s findings to heart. Now, picture the trace of the moon’s orbit with respect to the sun, not the earth. That’s a scaling challenge. Does the path loop to cross itself? Does the path make sinuous turns? (No and no) It’s not easy teaching science.
download online casino
Jack Hassard: Teaching Science with Art, Not “Standards” | Diane Ravitch's blog