16 Responses

1. Drew
   June 5th, 2012 at 11:00 am
   
   

   How unsurprising. Note that after all the cutbacks and shuffling off of non-core classes over the past decade it was clear that the biggest chance to save money is by zapping science. Science is expensive, especially in consumables.

   The “brains trust” in Sacramento probably see no other way to save money in significant amounts and are probably hoping the the CTE “replacements” such as the dubious PLTW program will still cover enough science for those who care, if they can continue to get grants for them.

   They’ve blasted teachers and will again. They’ve removed pretty much all but the core and are now attacking that. It’d have been smarter to get rid of districts and let schools self-manage and have the counties do oversight. Who knows, maybe they’re next.

2. Dick Filson
   June 5th, 2012 at 11:12 am
   
   

   The concept of reducing the cost of public education by cutting any specific high school graduation requirement does not make any sense to me unless it is coupled with the reduction of the number of credits required for the high school diploma. That would appear to be false economy. There is no differential in teacher salaries based on the subjects they teach nor is there any special state funding for science classes that I am aware of. There is a minimum number of credits for the diploma. For the sake of discussion, let’s say students must earn 240 credits for four years of study, six one-year courses per year each worth 10 credits. Where is there a savings if students still take the same number of credits? Certainly reducing the time that students spend in the classroom per day and per school year may allow savings if school employee salaries are cut based on reduced service. That makes sense fiscally. But, of course, any reductions in educational time will have a long term impact on the student’s education as well as society in the long term. If we are unwilling or unable to maintain the level of funding for a quality education, we will certainly get what we pay for and that is a less educated citizenry. Singling out science or any other subject areas for reduction does not really add up.

3. Dick Filson
   June 5th, 2012 at 11:19 am
   
   

   Most districts fund science through their “discretionary” funds therefore there are no “earmarked” funds for science. A student who takes a non laboratory class cost the state the same. One might think, oh, it’s the textbooks. Wrong again. Textbooks pretty much all fall in the same ballpark when it comes to cost. I can see no logic what so ever to the state cutting specific course requirements. I can understand to logic of reducing the teaching day and the teaching year in that employees spend less time working, the get paid less.

4. Harry Keller
   June 5th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
   
   

   Cutting out a 2-year science graduation requirement is just plain foolish. It should be expanded to 3 years. That said, science courses are ripe for targets of cost-cutters. They just plain cost too much.

   I cannot say whether the state’s estimate of $400 per high school student is anywhere near accurate, but it certainly gets people’s attention. There’s the cost of building lab facilities, of maintaining them, of insuring them, of the equipment in them, of repairing and replacing that equipment, and of consumables. You don’t have those costs in your basic math classes.

   The answer is really simple. Use technology to save enough of that money to make the state back off. So far, technology has been used in ways that increase costs (e.g. probes) or that pervert the science (simulations as labs instead of as visualization aids or models for comparison with real data). That can change because you now can do real experiments online with actual point-by-point data collection. No predetermined data either by formula or by data table. The student determines what data are collected and what their values are. Just search for “online science labs” to find out more. Do not settle for simulations. Do not allow the state to single out science for bad treatment just because labs are expensive.

   You can flip your science labs and have time in class to discuss the results and so get more learning. Students can understand the nature of science and engage in scientific thinking more than ever. They can do hundreds of experiments each year instead of dozens. You can have everything, all student work including data points, online and ready to be analyzed. It’s a new era in science education.

5. Lee Boyes
   June 5th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
   
   

   In my 32 years of teaching chemistry, the utmost in consumable lab materials, I have NEVER been given $400 per student to fund my labs. Therefore, I have learned how to do lab on a budget either by doing more small scale labs with less supplies or by getting my community to support our lab by way of donations of old equipment from beakers to hot plates to baking soda!
   Teachers are resourceful and will find ways to deal with less money for their classes but if we cut the graduation requirement to one year of science, the inequity for students will grow as less students take science and we will graduate less citizens able to comprehend and make good decisions about the rather technical world around them.

6. dan greenwood
   June 6th, 2012 at 8:54 am
   
   

   I am not understanding our state government. The White house says more more, and Brown says less less less. So lets eliminate science requirement, that will put us in the lead of the rest of the country in science and technology. We need to vote everyone out of office in Califronia, and find some people with forward thinking not backward.

7. admin
   June 6th, 2012 at 9:50 am
   
   

   Thank you for all your comments. Please keep them coming. Please also spread the word and contact your Assembly and Senate representatives.

8. marilyn proffitt
   June 6th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
   
   

   i am appalled at the dumbing down of california atudents. Years ago we moved to California specifically because of the high quality of education available to our children at all levels, including the university. Those opportunities are no longer available to young people. Is it a wonder the jail system is so crowded? Uneducated people are unable to earn, and turn to whatever is at hand for i ncome.
   Especially now in world competing so intensely in the sciences, we should be increasing not decreasing the amount of science taught in schools.

9. lusa
   June 7th, 2012 at 9:56 am
   
   

   The issue is the funding owed schools by the state, that they are not paying anyway. As long as it is a requirement the state owes the school district money. As soon as this is no longer required the state no longer owes school districts money.

   The state wants to stop accumulating an unpaid bill. I understand part of the problem is that school districts here in california are funded much differently then they are in other parts of the country, for example, the east coast.

10. admin
    June 7th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
    
    

    Lusa, yes, funding for California schools comes mostly from the state level. A good summary of the funding of schools in California can be found on Ed Source: http://www.edsource.org/sys_edsystem.html

11. admin
    June 7th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
    
    

    Recent media coverage on this issue:

    LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-science-schools-20120606,0,2454775.story

    KQED Forum: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201206070900

12. leah rosnau
    June 10th, 2012 at 8:35 am
    
    

    I am deeply saddened that Jerry Brown would even consider this avenue of cutting state costs. To cheat our children out of one of the basic foundations of their education will most certainly have long term detrimental effects. How does this huge cut help our young adults to be successful in college and in turn give them more options for their future? I strongly urge Jerry Brown and his advisers to search elsewhere to do their “fat” trimming.

13. Another Victory for Apathy « Infidelworld
    June 10th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
    
    

    [...] The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe in its June 9, 2012 episode did a service to anyone concerned about science and science education with three news stories highlighting three attacks from three different angles. One of those stories was the decision by the South Korean Ministry of Education, Science, and technology (MEST) to “…produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx.” (via NCSE) But, the Rogues also ridiculed North Carolina for legislating the selection of data involving the effect of AGW-altered sea levels on coastline erosion and California for dumbing down high school science requirements. [...]

14. Helen Richards
    June 13th, 2012 at 8:28 am
    
    

    our district superintendent makes $300,000 a year.
    I buy my own lab supplies, and use as many of the broken microscopes as i can.
    My equipment is old and out of date.
    I have students who want to go into the medical field.
    Other students look at me like I’m nuts to talk about education. They see a future in selling drugs.

15. California Classroom Science » Second Year Science Graduation Requirement – Updated June 15, 2012
    June 15th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
    
    

    [...] Second Year Science Graduation Requirement Elimination: Governor Stands Firm [...]

16. California Classroom Science » Second Year Science Graduation Requirement – Update June 18, 2012
    June 18th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
    
    

    [...] Second Year Science Graduation Requirement Elimination: Governor Stands Firm [...]

Leave a Reply