July/August 2017 – Vol. 29 No. 8

Fordham Institute Review of California Science Standards Given a C-

Posted: Thursday, March 1st, 2012

by Peter A’Hearn

The Fordham Institute recently gave the California State Science Standards an A in its recent “State of State Science Standards” report.  The report says the standards are, “Truly excellent.” Pretty cool huh? We’re number one! We’re number one!

These standards have been around since 1998 and have definitely had the time to become central to the way that science is taught in California. And yet in the most recent Nation’s Report Card (NAEP 2009), California ranked second to last in science achievement out of 43 participating states. We beat Mississippi! They had a hurricane that year, what is our excuse?  On the NAEP, only 22% of California 4th graders and 19% of California 8th graders were proficient in science. The report is available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011451.

Maybe the problem is that the “truly excellent” standards haven’t been properly supported. The Fordham report does point out that, “standards alone can’t drive achievement.” But there is evidence that California teachers are doing a good job of teaching the science standards as seen on CST scores. On the California 2009 CST science test for the same year as the NAEP, 49% of 5th graders and 63% of 8th graders were graded proficient in their understanding of the California standards. This is actually frequently the pattern when NAEP scores are compared with state test scores.

So why is there such a great discrepancy between NAEP and CSTs? Perhaps is has to do with the way the tests are viewed.  The state tests are high stakes (for schools and teachers, not for students). Anybody who has spent much time in science classrooms lately will notice that a huge amount of time and energy is spent preparing for the state test: taking practice tests, analyzing test data for re-teaching, taking practice tests to prepare for the practice test. In other words, test prep has frequently taken the place of learning and doing science.  The result has been an increase in student scores on the state tests.

The NAEP is different. Because it is not high stakes, teachers are not under pressure to prepare kids directly for the test. Without intense cramming, the NAEP actually tests what kids know long term and can apply about science.  When California students are asked to apply what they know, they fail miserably as seen in the NAEP results. Anyone who has been to school can understand that there is a difference between what we can memorize and regurgitate when we cram for a test and what we have actually learned that we can use and apply.

So, given the fact that classroom instruction is closely tied to the standards, I would argue that the California standards themselves are a contributing cause of the terrible performance of California students in science.  The California standards are based on fundamental misunderstandings about how students learn science. I would label these misunderstanding as; “more is better,” “harder is better,”  “being able to give the correct answer means you understand it, “ and “science is a collection of facts.” These are misunderstandings that the authors of the Fordham report share. This is not coincidental, since two of the principal authors of the Fordham report, Martha Schwartz, and Rick Schwartz were also two of the principal authors of the California Science Standards and Science Framework.

Let’s start with “more is better.” The Fordham report praises California’s standards for being thorough and extensive, and for “covering topics rarely seen in other state standards.” They see a few things that they would add, and no topics that are “too much.” This is at odds with research done as part of the recent Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) which found that in the highest achieving countries, standards covered fewer science topics, which allowed for more depth. In California, by contrast there are 28 science standards in 3rd grade, 38 in 5th grade, 45 in 7th grade, and a whopping 87 in high school chemistry. There is simply not the time for students to grapple deeply with these ideas. More effective standards (according to TIMSS) also do not involve much repetition from grade level to grade level. Yet, in California, photosynthesis appears at 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th grades and in high school earth science and biology!

Next, let’s deal with, ”Harder is better.” The Fordham report praises the California standards for their rigor.  Rigor is a word that gets thrown around in education without a clear definition. Often the definition is, “I know it when I see it,” as Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography.

The Fordham definition of rigor seems to be, “hard and extensive.” Recent cognitive reports indicate that standards should be challenging, but sensitive to conceptual change that students must undertake to align their prior knowledge with scientific understanding. Introducing the atom and the periodic table, and the very abstract concepts of matter and energy at the 3rd grade level, as the California standards do, does not meet the cognitive standard! In fact, most educated adults could not give a coherent explanation of these concepts.

A better definition of rigor involves higher order thinking. Memorization is low rigor. Being able to do something with knowledge, making predictions, evaluating evidence, asking hard questions, creating something new—these are examples of rigorous understanding. The California standards set a bar for low rigor by beginning each standard with “Students know…” In 4th grade we get this example where knowing interferes with understanding: “Students know how to design and build simple series and parallel circuits by using components such as wires, batteries, and bulbs.”  To meet this standard, students don’t actually have to build circuits, just know how to do it.

Asking kids to “know” is the “being able to give the correct answer means you understand it” fallacy. If all we have to do is “know” then memorization is all we need, but we’re not doing science.  Science is a both a body of knowledge and way of understanding. Our students need to go beyond “knowing” science; they need to do and apply science ideas to real problems. Research shows that people learn what they apply. By using information and connecting it to what they already know, they build up a conceptual framework in which information is strongly linked and will be remembered.

The California standards do not put science process skills front and center. They tuck them away at the back of the other standards and do not honor them with a paragraph of explanation as they do with the “know” standards. They only count for 10% of the state test score. And anyone who has spent time in California classrooms can see that actually “doing” science is being squeezed out in favor of “knowing” science for the test. One result is that participation in high school level science fairs in the state is rapidly dwindling. It is wrong to separate what we know in science (the content) from how we know it (science process), but the California standards do just that to the detriment of our students.

The last misunderstanding is, “science is a collection of facts.” Once again, the California Standards are “uneven” at best with standards of many different grain sizes.  Compare the 7th grade standard “know the function of the umbilicus and placenta during pregnancy” with “know plants and animals have different levels of organization for structure and function including cells, tissues, organs, organs systems, and the whole organism.”  In the former statement, students know a fact; in the latter students are asked to understand a core concept in life science. The released items on the CST are often of low cognitive demand, resulting in instruction that focuses on factual answers rather than conceptual understanding. No wonder the students do poorly on NAEP that requires conceptual thinking.

There are some things to like in the California standards and some things that I agree with in the Fordham report. I’m glad to teach science in a state where the Earth is more than 6,000 years old and where dinosaurs and humans weren’t around at the same time. But as a model of standards that lead to excellent science teaching and learning, they leave much to be desired.

Luckily the California legislature (after many years of hard work by CSTA) has finally passed a measure allowing the standards to be revised. California is also one of the states participating in the national development of the Next Generation Science Standards. These look very promising based on the framework. They put science practices (what scientists do) front and center and include engineering as one of the strands along with earth, life, and physical science. They identify central crosscutting concepts that tie all the sciences together. Most excitingly, they seek to describe what students do within each standard by using the scientific processes. In other words, to demonstrate understanding, students do not simply “know”, they build a model, they collect and interpret data, and they support claims with evidence. It is a work in progress, but it seems like it will provide much needed changes to how science is taught in California.

Pete A’Hearn is the K-12 science specialist in the Palm Springs Unified School District and is region 4 director for CSTA.

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by Peter AHearn

Peter AHearn

Peter A’Hearn is the Region 4 Director for CSTA.

7 Responses

  1. […] third threat, though more subtle, may be the most real of all. The recent Fordham Report, giving California Standards a grade of A, may give some decision-makers an opportunity to delay or […]

  2. I have been pointing out for quite a few years that the testing USED to be a small sampling of the vast amount of knowledge that students had learned…But that is no more.

    What is on the tests is no longer a “small” sampling—
    No, it is ALL that the students are given. If it is not on a High Stakes Test, it’s not to be taught.

    “FORGET ABOUT THINKING! Thinking is NOT on the test!”

  3. Finally!

    I was appalled when I first read the drafts of the 1998 science standards and have been struggling with them ever since, trying to keep engagement, relevance and scientific process central to my class room. I was shocked at the politicization of the whole process, including the exclusion of the word ‘inquiry’ as if it were some kind of left-wing plot to ‘dilute’ the standards.

    Prof. Helen Quinn of Stanford is an unsung hero in this whole fiasco – she endured personal attack and stuck with at least having experimentation included as an after thought to each grade level’s standards if not integrated. She is now spearheading the new Next Generation Science Standards. Inspiring and finally, effective. I can’t wait to see them rolled out, the drafts are looking excellent and will rock our science world in California!

  4. Thank you, Pete. Do you know how to bring a mild-mannered teacher out of retirement and away from his garden and leisurely days at the Oregon Zoo? I’ll tell you. Remind him of the arrogance and chauvinism of the “students know” half of the Content Standards writing team, or of the fools who wanted to add that we should throw in “Students know how to infer what animals eat from the shapes of their teeth” (IN FIRST GRADE) because “little kids like teeth”. Sorry, Sue, but I was a member of that writing team, and must assume some responsibility for how they turned out. Can’t say that I liked how they turned out … it was one of the first truly bitter defeats of my life. What I DID like, however, was how a large number of California teachers refused to knuckle under and worked their rear ends off to find ways to keep inquiry in the mix, and students at the center. Now is not the time to relax, as other comments in this edition of CCS point out.

  5. The memorization aspect of California’s standards is a legacy of Dr. Seaborg, who was a really old-school chemist. It is true that you need a lot of facts as a baseline to evaluate new data.

    But these days, there are so many rapidly changing data, and so readily accessible, that much more emphasis on evaluation of claims and evidence is needed for tomorrow’s voting citizens.

    California has good standards??? Ha! California HAD good standards – a decade ago in comparison to other states. Now CA HAS out-of-date standards.

    The reason the NEAP scores are low is because California’s Science CST cut scores are really, really low.

  6. Does the fact that Rick Schwartz and Martha Schwartz participated on the writing team for the California State Standards pose a conflict of interest when it comes to the grade? The replies so far have been relatively critical of the standards as is your editorial. So is it both good and bad? I mean is it a case of an excellent essay written about the wrong topic? I am confused.

  7. Thanks for all of the great commentary, especially from those with the scars to prove they were fighting the good fight in ’98. To reply to Eric- Are the standards a good essay written about the wrong topic? I suppose that would be true if the topic had been- What standards would you come up with if they were a wish list by college professors of what they want from incoming students without any regard to the input of K-12 classroom teachers about what works, any consideration of the considerable research in the field, and baffling error of forgetting that science is a process and is based on fundamental concepts. Then, its a great essay. A great essay on this topic is at http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/03/jack_hassard_are_science_stand.html. It reminds me the quote by Henri Poincaire, “Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks; but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house. “

Leave a Reply


CTC Seeking Educators for Science Standard Setting Conference

Posted: Wednesday, August 16th, 2017

The Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) and Evaluation Systems group of Pearson are currently seeking California science educators to participate in a Science Standard Setting Conference for the California Subject Examinations for Teachers (CSET) program. Each standard setting panel is scheduled to meet for one-day, in Sacramento, California. The fields and dates are listed below:

Multiple Subjects Subtest II (Science), Monday, October 2, 2017
Science Subtest II: Physics, Monday, October 2, 2017
Science Subtest II: Chemistry, Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Science Subtest II: Life Sciences, Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Science Subtest II: Earth and Space Sciences, Thursday, October 5, 2017
Science Subtest I: General Science, Friday, October 6, 2017

The purpose of the conference is for panel members to make recommendations that will be used, in part, by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) in setting the passing standard, for each field, in support of the updated California Subject Examinations for Teachers (CSET).

Click here to nominate educators. If you are interested in participating yourself, complete an application here for consideration.


Public school educators who are:

• Certified in California
• Currently practicing (or have practiced within the last school year) in one or more of the fields listed above. 

College faculty who are:

• Teacher preparation personnel (including education faculty and arts and sciences faculty)
• Practicing (or have practiced within the last school year) in one or more of the fields listed above, and
• Preparing teacher candidates in an approved California teacher preparation program.

 Benefits of Participation Include:
• Receive substitute reimbursement for their school (public school educators only),
• Have the opportunity to make a difference in California teacher development and performance,
• Have the opportunity for professional growth and collaboration with educators in their field,
• Be reimbursed for their travel and meal expenses, and
• Be provided with hotel accommodations, if necessary.

For more information, visit their website at www.carecruit.nesinc.com/cset/index.asp

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

CSTA Annual Conference Early Bird Rates End July 14

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

by Jessica Sawko

Teachers engaged in workshop activity

Teachers engaging in hands-on learning during a workshop at the 2016 CSTA conference.

Don’t miss your chance to register at the early bird rate for the 2017 CSTA Conference – the early-bird rate closes July 14. Need ideas on how to secure funding for your participation? Visit our website for suggestions, a budget planning tool, and downloadable justification letter to share with your admin. Want to take advantage of the early rate – but know your district will pay eventually? Register online today and CSTA will reimburse you when we receive payment from your district/employer. (For more information on how that works contact Zi Stair in the office for details – 916-979-7004 or zi@cascience.org.)

New Information Now Available On-line:

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

Goodbye Outgoing and Welcome Incoming CSTA Board Members

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

Jill Grace

Jill Grace, CSTA President, 2017-2019

On July 1, 2017 five CSTA members concluded their service and four new board members joined the ranks of the CSTA Board of Directors. CSTA is so grateful for all the volunteer board of directors who contribute hours upon hours of time and energy to advance the work of the association. At the June 3 board meeting, CSTA was able to say goodbye to the outgoing board members and welcome the incoming members.

This new year also brings with it a new president for CSTA. As of July 1, 2017 Jill Grace is the president of the California Science Teachers Association. Jill is a graduate of California State University, Long Beach, a former middle school science teacher, and is currently a Regional Director with the K-12 Alliance @ WestEd where she works with California NGSS K-8 Early Implementation Initiative districts and charter networks in the San Diego area.

Outgoing Board Members

  • Laura Henriques (President-Elect: 2011 – 2013, President: 2013 – 2015, Past President: 2015 – 2017)
  • Valerie Joyner (Region 1 Director: 2009 – 2013, Primary Director: 2013 – 2017)
  • Mary Whaley (Informal Science Education Director: 2013 – 2017)
  • Sue Campbell (Middle School/Jr. High Director: 2015 – 2017)
  • Marcus Tessier (2-Year College Director: 2015 – 2017)

Learn More…

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

Finding My Student’s Motivation of Learning Through Engineering Tasks

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

by Huda Ali Gubary and Susheela Nath

It’s 8:02 and the bell rings. My students’ walk in and pick up an entry ticket based on yesterday’s lesson and homework. My countdown starts for students to begin…3, 2, 1. Ten students are on task and diligently completing the work, twenty are off task with behaviors ranging from talking up a storm with their neighbors to silently staring off into space. This was the start of my classes, more often than not. My students rarely showed the enthusiasm for a class that I had eagerly prepared for. I spent so much time searching for ways to get my students excited about the concepts they were learning. I wanted them to feel a connection to the lessons and come into my class motivated about what they were going to learn next. I would ask myself how I could make my class memorable where the kids were in the driver’s seat of learning. Incorporating engineering made this possible. Learn More…

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by NGSS Early Implementer

NGSS Early Implementer

In 2015 CSTA began to publish a series of articles written by teachers participating in the California NGSS k-8 Early Implementation Initiative. This article was written by an educator(s) participating in the initiative. CSTA thanks them for their contributions and for sharing their experience with the science teaching community.

State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Unveils Updated Recommended Literature List

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson unveiled an addition of 285 award-winning titles to the Recommended Literature: Prekindergarten Through Grade Twelve list.

“The books our students read help broaden their perspectives, enhance their knowledge, and fire their imaginations,” Torlakson said. “The addition of these award-winning titles represents the state’s continued commitment to the interests and engagement of California’s young readers.”

The Recommended Literature: Prekindergarten Through Grade Twelve list is a collection of more than 8,000 titles of recommended reading for children and adolescents. Reflecting contemporary and classic titles, including California authors, this online list provides an exciting range of literature that students should be reading at school and for pleasure. Works include fiction, nonfiction, poetry, and drama to provide for a variety of tastes, interests, and abilities. Learn More…

Written by Guest Contributor

From time to time CSTA receives contributions from guest contributors. The opinions and views expressed by these contributors are not necessarily those of CSTA. By publishing these articles CSTA does not make any endorsements or statements of support of the author or their contribution, either explicit or implicit. All links to outside sources are subject to CSTA’s Disclaimer Policy: http://www.classroomscience.org/disclaimer.