|
|
Volume 3 |
|
Goals and History of Science Education |
The Case
The report Science for All Americans, issued in 1989 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science outlines recommendations for the improvement of science in the Nation's schools. Newsome Wave, a former high school science teacher, but now a school superintendent, is a sharp critic of the report. He asserts that the AAAS has created a warmed-over version of recommendations that are similar to the reform proposals of the 1950s and 1960s. In an article published in a major Los Angeles newspaper, he said that "this report (Science for All Americans) reinforces the elitism of the scientific establishment, and fails to deal with the needs of all students who pass through out schools. How can a report that has scientists, who for the most part are remote from and outside the school environment, identify what that should be taught in the schools, be taken seriously. One of the lessons we learned from the curriculum reform projects of the sixties was they addressed the needs of a very small part of the school population. The AAAS seems headed the same direction that cursed the sixties science reform project. Haven't we learned that national curriculum projects simply can't can not meet the needs of the diverse population of school students, let alone the diversity of the science teaching force."
Reginald Regis, the coordinator of science of a highly populated Western state, and a advocate of AAAS's effort at science curriculum reform, wrote a blistering rebuttal to Wave in the journal New Science. Regis pointed out that Wave failed to mention that the AAAS has developed a broad program that includes the involvement of cooperating school districts. He also points out that although panels comprised of scientists and university officials did write the unifying concepts, educators reviewed the panels' recommendations.
Wave and Regis have agreed to appear together at the annual conference of the National Science Teachers Association to debate the issues surrounding each educator's point of view.
The Problem
First consider your position in this case. Is the AAAS report a rehash of the wishes of the sixties? What do others in your class think? Take the position of either Mr. Wave or Mr. Regis. What are the facts that support your position? What are your arguments? Prepare yourself for a debate with your opponent.
The Case.
Mr. John Moore is a biology teacher in a small community about 50 miles from a large metropolitan area in the midwestern region of the country. He has been teaching biology to ninth and tenth graders for seven years in this school district. The state he teaches in adopts new science textbooks every five years, and this year it is time to review and make final selections for secondary science books. Mr. Moore was asked by the district science supervisor to chair the six member biology textbook adoption committee. The district procedures include placing the textbooks in all the districts school libraries, and three of the library branches so that parents and interested citizens can review the books that are being considered for adoption.
During the review process, Mr. Moore receives a letter for an irate parent who objects to some of the content in the biology books, especially the treatment of evolution. The parent, Mr. Alan Hockett, is an engineer with a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from a prestigious university in California, claims that creation theory is as likely a scientific hypothesis as evolution. He points out in the letter that neither theory can be supported by observable events, neither can be tested scientifically to predict future events, nor are they capable of falsification. He claims that not to give students opposing "scientific views" is indoctrination. He says that "equal time" should be given to creation science if evolution is taught in the biology curriculum. He demands to meet with the committee, and ends his letter by saying that he will go to the school board if he is not satisfied with the committee's responses to his claims.
The Problem.
Should the committee meet with Mr. Hackett? What should the committee do to prepare for the meeting? How will this effect the adoption process? What position should the biology committee take?
The Case.
Miss Jennifer Harris is the chair of the science department of Block High School in an urban school district in the Northeast part of the country. It is her first year as chair, but her tenth year of teaching at Block. The science department has agreed to implement in all course a new emphasis by incorporating the goals proposed by Project Synthesis. At a meeting of the science department, Miss Harris explains that in each science course, content will be emphasized in terms of:
• personal needs
• societal issues
• academic knowledge
• career education
The teachers agree that all course syllabi should reflect these new "goal clusters," and they agree to rewrite them to show this change.
About a month into the term, a student in Miss Harris's first period class hands her note from the student's father. The father is furious that these new science goals are being implemented. He is sick and tired of these new education fads, which seem to come and go, and never produce any positive results. He wants to know why time is being spent in science classes on personal needs and career education. Can't that be done by the school counselor?
The Problem.
What should Miss Harris do? How should she respond to her student's parent? Are these goals simply a new education fad, or are they grounded in defensible educational practice?