November/December 2017 – Vol. 30 No. 2

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

LATEST POST

Apply to Join Achieve’s Science Peer Review Panel

Posted: Friday, December 15th, 2017

Achieve is excited to announce the expansion of the Science Peer Review Panel!

Achieve’s Science Peer Review Panel (“Science PRP”) is an elite group of educators who work to evaluate and share high-quality lesson sequences and units that are designed for the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Members of the Science PRP are part of the solution to a persistent problem in the science education field: not enough examples of high-quality instructional materials designed for the NGSS.

Join the Science PRP by filling out this online application and connect with a network of educators across the country committed to advancing science education for all students, develop your expertise in the NGSS, and work to make better science instructional materials more widely available to the science education field. This opportunity includes free, valuable professional learning experiences designed to deepen your understanding of the NGSS and the evaluation process for instructional materials. 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.

Priority Features of NGSS-Aligned Instructional Materials

Posted: Wednesday, November 29th, 2017

Recommendations for Publishers, Reviewers, and Educators. The California Science Teachers Association and the science teachers associations of three other Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) west-coast states, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, have co-authored a white paper on priority features of NGSS instructional materials. This is the first time our states have collaborated to convey a common vision on an issue of great importance for the implementation of the NGSS. We understand all too well that for meaningful shifts to happen and to support the full vision of the NGSS, strong K-12 Instructional materials are required. 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.

State Board Moves Forward Two Key Pieces Supporting CA NGSS Implementation

Posted: Wednesday, November 29th, 2017

by Jessica Sawko

CSTA President Jill Grace provides public comment at the November 8, 2017, California State Board of Education meeting.

On November 8, 2017, the California State Board of Education (SBE) took action on two items of import relating to the implementation of the California Next Generation Science Standards (CA NGSS). One item was relating to the California Science Test (CAST) and the other to instructional materials. CSTA provided both written and oral comments on both items along with providing input on what CSTA and many other advocates view as a critical component of our state’s emerging accountability system – student access to a broad course of study. 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.

NGSS – Early Attempts and Later Reflections from an Early Implementer Teacher

Posted: Thursday, November 23rd, 2017

by Christa Dunkel

  • There are so many acronyms! Where do I start?
  • What “baby step” should I take first? 
  • How can I make this happen in my elementary classroom?

All of these thoughts and more swam through my head over three years ago when I began my journey into NGSS. I was fresh from a week-long institute with the K-12 Alliance as part of the CA NGSS K-8 Early Implementation Initiative. Much of the week was spent on digging into the NGSS architecture – how the standards are set-up, how to read the standards, what each of the three dimensions meant. Now that I knew how to read them, I needed to figure out how to implement them into my classroom of 24 eight-year-olds. With some guidance from the K-12 Alliance leaders and my own district-level NGSS team, I began the process with some easy “baby steps.” 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.

CSTA Is Now Accepting Nominations for Board Members

Posted: Friday, November 17th, 2017

Current, incoming, and outgoing CSTA Board of Directors at June 3, 2017 meeting.

Updated 7:25 pm, Nov. 17, 2017

It’s that time of year when CSTA is looking for dedicated and qualified persons to fill the upcoming vacancies on its Board of Directors. This opportunity allows you to help shape the policy and determine the path that the Board will take in the new year. There are time and energy commitments, but that is far outweighed by the personal satisfaction of knowing that you are an integral part of an outstanding professional educational organization, dedicated to the support and guidance of California’s science teachers. You will also have the opportunity to help CSTA review and support legislation that benefits good science teaching and teachers.

Right now is an exciting time to be involved at the state level in the California Science Teachers Association. The CSTA Board of Directors is currently involved in implementing the Next Generations Science Standards and its strategic plan. If you are interested in serving on the CSTA Board of Directors, now is the time to submit your name for consideration. 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.