1. The NSF approach to education reform stresses science and mathematics for all students. In your view, do the math and science standards endorsed by the NSF Systemic Initiative provide an adequate grounding in these disciplines for those who want to study them at the university level?
No, they do not, and representatives of both the AAAS and National Academy of Sciences have indicated this in their statements to Congress. First, I quote from page two of a written statement made to the Subcommittee in response to my recent testimony, by Andrew Ahlgren, Associate Director, Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
"Metzenberg does not call attention to the fact that the Benchmarks prescribe only basic literacy, the majority of students (certainly any he would encounter in his own classroom) would be expected to learn far more."
Ahlgren implies that a student attending my university (California State University Northridge, which is a second-tier state institution behind the University of California), would not have an adequate grounding in science if they learned only the materials prescribed in the AAAS Benchmarks -- he would expect them to have learned far more. Second, I quote from the transcript of a September 24, 1997 hearing on "The state of science, math, engineering, and technology education in America" before the Committee on Science. Bruce Alberts is the President of the National Academy of Sciences.
Mr. BROWN of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This whole subject of how we improve math and science education, I don't need to repeat, but I will, is crucial to our future development as a society actually. There are some questions that I have with regard to standards that I've wrestled with all my life, and I don't know how to handle them. And one stems from the fact that human beings have this unfortunate propensity to have their abilities distributed over a bell-shaped curve, and that applies to learning ability, ability to hear, whatever almost. And the question becomes then, How do you apply standards to a population which fits into that without causing problems? You have at the upper end of the curve groups of students who probably don't even need teachers, who can learn on their own, who are motivated, and who can progress much more rapidly than those in the middle. And at the bottom end you have the reverse problem: those who are much slower.
Do the same standardscan they be applied to all parts of the curve? Is there some way in which you can adjust, so that the standards really are meaningful to your ''el excellant'' who can do tremendous math things in his head, and at the other end somebody that needs to really spend hours to do two and two equals four? How would you respond to that, Dr. Alberts?
Mr. ALBERTS. I'd just emphasize that the standards are minimal standards. This document was prepared to address all students, you know, with the exception of people really handicapped. We're not talking about people who are mentally-handicapped, but the idea
Mr. BROWN of California. The mentally-handicapped follow a bell-shaped distribution. They go all the way from 20 to 40 or 80 IQs
Mr. ALBERTS. That's right.
Mr. BROWN of California. And then they become normal suddenly.
Mr. ALBERTS. Yes, right. So this is not dealing with special education, as had been predicted, but it's meant for the vast majority of our students, 99 percent or so, and they're only minimal standards, and that's an important thing to emphasize because the criticisms I have had heard of the science standards are that they don't do enough for the most advanced student, but that's not the point. This is the platform in which the advanced students can then go off and take off on their own or, with their teacher's help, do special exercises. So there's a misunderstanding about the standards, and they're not meant to be a leveling device. They're meant to be a device to raise everybody to a certain level, allowing the really talented people to aim even higher than they do today.
The AAAS Benchmarks and NSES do not provide an adequate grounding for students wishing to study science in college, and the statements by Drs. Ahlgren and Alberts confirm that advanced students need far more. The critical issue is whether the setting of "basic literacy" or "minimal standards" is good national policy -- I have argued that it is not.
2. Your testimony included a discussion of the Indian standards, which appear to have two sets of standards: one for all students and another for those with an interest in pursuing science at the university level. Are two sets of standards needed in U.S. schools and would that be practical?
In the Indian system the students have committed themselves to one academic track or the other, and so there is still a sense of accountability to their respective set of standards. Setting two standards for one group of students would be tricky, because it defies the very idea of standards. A movement towards two sets of standards in this country would not be beneficial, unless the "minimal" standards were first made adequate.
In the case where there are two standards, the "minimal" standards are more important than the "advanced" standards because they dictate the level of accomplishment for most students. A secondary set of "advanced" standards can serve as a goal for some motivated students, and as a "reality check" for a school system that may be under-serving its better students.
I think we need to maintain an assumption that students do not know whether they are bound for a university, nor whether they will pursue science when they get there. This is a nation of "second and third chances", and that should be a cherished freedom. We do not, and should not ask students to commit to the equivalent of a European "A" level or "O" level track at age 16. When a student gets to college, they should have the broad preparation to enter any field that may suddenly take their interest, whether it is English, History, Science, or Mathematics. Even if a student does not immediately go to college after high school, they should still have the academic preparation to attend at a later point in their lives if they so desire (and many do!). A minimal standard must bring students to a level of accomplishment where they have the freedom to attend a university or choose a career path at a later point. The AAAS Benchmarks and NSES rob students of this freedom, because their goals are merely to have our citizens lead fuller or more interesting lives:
From the Introduction, AAAS Benchmarks for Science Literacy (page xi)
"Project 2061 promotes literacy in science, mathematics, and technology in order to help people live interesting, responsible, and productive lives. In a culture increasingly pervaded by science, mathematics, and technology, science literacy requires understandings and habits of mind that enable citizens to grasp what those enterprises are up to, to make some sense of how the natural and designed worlds work, to think critically and independently, to recognize and weigh alternative explanations of events and design trade-offs, and to deal sensibly with problems that involve evidence, numbers, patterns, logical arguments, and uncertainties. "
From the Call to Action Statement, National Science Education Standards (page ix)
"The National Science Education Standards are premised on a conviction that all students deserve and must have the opportunity to become scientifically literate. The Standards look toward a future in which all Americans, familiar with basic scientific ideas and processes, can have fuller and more productive lives. This is a vision of great hope and optimism for America, one that can act as a powerful unifying force in our society. We are excited and hopeful about the difference that the Standards will make in the lives of individuals and the vitality of the nation."
Whether there are two sets of standards or one, the "minimal" standards need to do far more than just prepare students to be middle-aged citizens, with full and interesting lives. They need to prepare students for the critical years after high school, a time when academic grounding can either sustain or dash their dreams for a career. As a faculty member at an institution that accepts many poorly-prepared students from the Los Angeles Unified School District, I can attest to the wide gap between dreams and realities in this population, and the devastating impact of their poor secondary schooling.
As stated eloquently in the 1983 report A Nation at Risk:
" In a world of ever-accelerating competition and change in the conditions of the workplace, of ever-greater danger, and of ever-larger opportunities for those prepared to meet them, educational reform should focus on the goal of creating a Learning Society....In contrast to the ideal of the Learning Society, however, we find that for too many people education means doing the minimum work necessary for the moment, then coasting through life on what may have been learned in its first quarter. But this should not surprise us because we tend to express our educational standards and expectations largely in terms of "minimum requirements." (from: The National Commission on Excellence in Education, April 1983, available at http://inet.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html)
3. Dr. St. John's testimony suggested that school "capacity" should be used instead of test scores to measure the success of a Systemic Initiative. Do you agree with his analysis?
One would certainly fail to be impressed with an initiative that was only reaching a few schools, even if it were doing outstanding work. At the same time however, capacity is not the most important measure. If a program does not lead to improved performance on the part of the student, it is essentially worthless. A widely disseminated program can even do harm, where it interferes with the activities of a successful teacher using methods that he or she may have developed over the course of a long teaching career.
The principal argument presented by Dr. St. John is that the nation should not jump ahead and look to test score improvements too soon after a program is initiated. He illustrated this with an analogy from the space program. In the 1960's, the United States did not evaluate progress towards putting a man on the moon by a measure of distance reached each year -- otherwise the program would have been canceled after 3 years because we would have appeared to not be any closer to our goal. The fallacy behind this argument, behind the obvious fact that NASA has rigorous standards for testing and retesting every element of a system, is that we ought to expect short term improvement from our educational systems. We have students' futures at stake, and we need to ask the tough questions early: "Have our students just boarded Apollo 11 or Apollo 13?" If we guess wrong, we can lose the academic potential of an entire generation.
4. You have been a critic of the math and science standards endorsed by NSF's Systemic Initiative program. How would you change these standards? Are there alternative standards available that you think would be superior to the NCTM and NSES math and science standards now being pushed by NSF?
The primary failings of the NCTM standards, the AAAS Benchmarks, and NSES, are that they set low expectations for all students, and are not explicit about what students should know. California has adopted a different vision for science and mathematics standards, and this has been largely driven by public outrage over the poor performance of students in "reformed" districts.
" ...California is the center of opposition to the NCTM Standards. Because the 1992 California Mathematics Framework had been viewed as consistent with the NCTM Standards, if not an expression of the Standards, low state scores on the CLAS and NAEP tests convinced many citizens, parents, and policy makers that the framework was wrong. By extension, they concluded the NCTM Standards were wrong." (from: California Fact-Finding Team Report to the NCTM Board of Directors, http://www.nctm.org/about/california.report/pg3.html)
Frank B. Allen, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Elmhurst College, Past President of NCTM, and National Advisor for Mathematically Correct has described the outlook for the California Standards as follows:
"Lacking support in either research or experience, these NCTM-based programs are worse than just fads -- they are mistakes that have been systematized. They impair the quality and content of the mathematics our students are expected to learn. ...
California, perhaps having suffered the worst from these fads, is now moving in the correct direction. That state has, with the very substantial help of College and University mathematicians, adopted Standards that clearly describe the mathematics the student is expected to learn in each grade in elementary school and in each subject in high school (despite the name, the NCTM "Standards" do not do this). Recently adopted by the California State Board of Education, these new standards will soon lead to new programs to replace the weak NCTM-based programs. That this is a vast improvement, there can be no doubt. In a recent review of state standards, the Fordham Foundation reports that the new California Standards are number one, surpassing even the equivalent document used in Japan." (from: Repairing school mathematics in the US, by Frank B Allen, available at http://mathematicallycorrect.com/report.htm)
I recommend the California Standards, both in mathematics and science (still in draft form), as a worthy alternative to the national standards, because they have an underlying vision of rigorous content and scholarship. To illustrate these points, I have included one page examples extracted from each of the following documents, as well as a supplementary statement from Dr. David Klein, a colleague of mine who is familiar with the issues in mathematics:
6. AAAS Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Several sections from Grades 3-5 span)
7. NSES (Structure and Function, Grades 5-8 span)
8. Draft California Science Standards (Grade 5 - Life Science)
9. NCTM (Number Sense and Numeration, Grades K-4 span)
10. California Mathematics Standards (Number Sense, Grade 4)
11. Supplementary Statement on the NCTM Standards (Dr. David Klein)
With regard to the sciences, there are stark difference in expectations placed on students, particularly with respect to the detailed understanding of matters such as digestion and respiration:
AAAS Benchmarks: [students should know that] From food, people obtain energy and materials for body repair and growth. The undigestible parts of food are eliminated. [students should know that] By breathing, people take in the oxygen they need to live.
NSES: [students should develop understanding of structure and function in living systems -- fundamental concepts and principles that underlie this standard include] The human organism has systems for digestion, respiration, reproduction, circulation, excretion, movement, control, and coordination, and for protection from disease. These systems interact with one another.
California: [students know] how blood circulates through the heart chambers, lungs, and body, and how these parts work together to allow exchange of carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxygen (O2) in the lungs and tissues. [students know] the sequential steps of digestion, and how the teeth and mouth, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine, and colon are important in the function of the digestive system.
The authors of the national documents might argue that they are building understanding in the students, while the California Standards ask simply for knowledge of isolated facts. To quote from page 20 of the NSES:
"Emphasizing active science learning means shifting emphasis away from teachers presenting information and covering science topics. The perceived need to include all the topics, vocabulary, and information in textbooks is in direct conflict with the central goal of having students learn scientific knowledge with understanding."
I vehemently disagree with their approach, because understanding is built only upon a solid foundation of knowledge of facts. The American Federation of Teachers has also been a strong advocate of this position:
"Whether it is social studies, science, math, or English, a solid education is built on knowledge. Students who don't acquire substantial content knowledge in school will suffer later, both in their personal lives and in their careers. Furthermore, it is impossible to successfully use a skill, say scientific reasoning, without learning some science concepts and content." from: Criteria for Judging State Reforms" (available at: http://www.aft.org/research/reports/standard/i.htm)
This is something that would be acknowledged by nearly every working scientist, but is an anathema to the educational reform movement. The California Standards are significantly different from the national standards because they were developed in a committee chaired by one of the most notable scientists of our century, Glenn T. Seaborg, who co-discovered ten transuranium elements (including seaborgium which was recently named after him) and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1951. I would recommend that the NSF consider his contributions very carefully, and reject the tenets of the educational reform movement.
AAAS Benchmarks for Science Literacy (examples from grade 3 - 5 span)
THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT
E. Flow of Matter and Energy. Students should begin to notice that substances may change form and move from place to place, but they never appear out of nowhere and never just disappear. Questions should encourage students to consider where substances come from and where they go and to be puzzled when they cannot account for the origin or the fate of a substance.
It's all right to start students on chains of what eats what in various environments, but labeling the steps in the chain as energy transfer is not necessary. Transfers of energy at this level are better illustrated in physical systems; biological energy transfer is far too complicated.
By the end of the 5th grade, students should know that
Almost all kinds of animals' food can be traced back to plants.
Some source of "energy" is needed for all organisms to stay alive and grow.
Over the whole earth, organisms are growing, dying, and decaying, and new organisms are being produced by the old ones.
THE HUMAN ORGANISM
C. Basic Functions. At this level, children can begin to view the body as a system, in which parts do things for other parts and for the organism as a whole. Models help children to see and touch the internal organs and to know where they are located in the body. Questions about familiar body systems can be useful in getting students to start thinking about systems generally. They can then begin to understand that each organ affects and is affected by others.
By the end of the 5th grade, students should know that
From food, people obtain energy and materials for body repair and growth. The undigestible parts of food are eliminated.
By breathing, people take in the oxygen they need to live.
Skin protects the body from harmful substances and other organisms and from drying out.
The brain gets signals from all parts of the body telling what is going on there. The brain also sends signals to parts of the body to influence what they do.
available at: National Science Education Standards (example taken from Life Science section)
As a result of their activities in grades 5-8, all students should develop understanding of
Structure and function in living systems
Reproduction and heredity
Regulation and behavior
Populations and ecosystems
Diversity and adaptations of organisms
Fundamental concepts and principles that underlie this standard include
STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION IN LIVING SYSTEMS
Living systems at all levels of organization demonstrate the complementary nature of structure and function. Important levels of organization for structure and function include cells, organs, tissues, organ systems, whole organisms, and ecosystems.[See Unifying Concepts and Processes]
All organisms are composed of cells--the fundamental unit of life. Most organisms are single cells; other organisms, including humans, are multicellular.
Cells carry on the many functions needed to sustain life. They grow and divide, thereby producing more cells. This requires that they take in nutrients, which they use to provide energy for the work that cells do and to make the materials that a cell or an organism needs.
Specialized cells perform specialized functions in multicellular organisms. Groups of specialized cells cooperate to form a tissue, such as a muscle. Different tissues are in turn grouped together to form larger functional units, called organs. Each type of cell, tissue, and organ has a distinct structure and set of functions that serve the organism as a whole.
The human organism has systems for digestion, respiration, reproduction, circulation, excretion, movement, control, and coordination, and for protection from disease. These systems interact with one another.
Disease is a breakdown in structures or functions of an organism. Some diseases are the result of intrinsic failures of the system. Others are the result of damage by infection by other organisms.
California Draft Science Standards (an example)
Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards
Grade 5 - Life Sciences
2. Respiratory, digestive, and waste disposal systems in plants and animals transport substances essential for life and growth. As a basis for understanding this concept, students know:
a. many multicellular organisms have specialized structures to support the transport of materials.
b. how blood circulates through the heart chambers, lungs, and body, and how these parts work together to allow exchange of carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxygen (O2) in the lungs and tissues.
c. the sequential steps of digestion, and how the teeth and mouth, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine, and colon are important in the function of the digestive system.
d. the role of the kidney in removing cellular wastes out of blood, which become urine stored in the bladder.
e. how sugar, water, and minerals are transported in a vascular plant.
f. carbon dioxide (CO2) and energy from sunlight are used by plants to build molecules of sugar for growth and maintenance, and oxygen is released into the air.
g. plant and animal cells break down sugar to obtain energy, forming carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (respiration).
NCTM Standards (an example)
STANDARD 6: NUMBER SENSE AND NUMERATION
In grades K-4, the mathematics curriculum should include whole number concepts and skills so that students can--
construct number meanings through real-world experiences and the use of physical materials;
understand our numeration system by relating counting, grouping, and place-value concepts;
develop number sense;
interpret the multiple uses of numbers encountered in the real world.
Focus
Children must understand numbers if they are to make sense of the ways numbers are used in their everyday world. They need to use numbers to quantify, to identify location, to identify a specific object in a collection, to name, and to measure. Furthermore, an understanding of place value is crucial for later work with number and computation.
Intuition about number relationships helps children make judgments about the reasonableness of computational results and of proposed solutions to numerical problems. Such intuition requires good number sense. Children with good number sense (1) have well-understood number meanings, (2) have developed multiple relationships among numbers, (3) recognize the relative magnitudes of numbers, (4) know the relative effect of operating on numbers, and (5) develop referents for measures of common objects and situations in their environments.
Children come to understand number meanings gradually. To encourage these understandings, teachers can offer classroom experiences in which students first manipulate physical objects and then use their own language to explain their thinking. This active involvement in, and expression of, physical manipulations encourages children to reflect on their actions and to construct their own number meanings. In all situations, work with number symbols should be meaningfully linked to concrete materials. Emphasizing exploratory experiences with numbers that capitalize on the natural insights of children enhances their sense of mathematical competency, enables them to build and extend number relationships, and helps them to develop a link between their world and the world of mathematics.
If children are to develop good number concepts, considerable instructional time must be devoted to number and numeration. Children's experiences with numbers are most beneficial when the numbers have meaning for them. A variety of place-value tasks that assess children's thinking can be used to identify those numbers that have meaning to individual students; traditional numeration tasks are not good indicators of children's understanding. Teachers can also provide exploratory experiences with larger numbers, but symbolic tasks with numbers should not be presented in isolation and should not be emphasized until the numerals have been carefully linked to concrete materials and children understand the major concepts.
California Mathematics Standards (an example)
Adopted by the State Board of Education
By the end of fourth grade, students understand large numbers and addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of whole numbers. They describe and compare simple fractions and decimals. They understand the properties of and the relationships between plane geometric figures. They collect, represent and analyze data to answer questions.
NUMBER SENSE
1. Students understand place value of whole numbers and decimals to two decimal places, how these relate to simple fractions, and use concepts of negative numbers.
1.1 read and write whole numbers in the millions
1.2 order and compare whole numbers and decimals to two decimal places
1.3 round whole numbers through the millions to the nearest ten, hundred, thousand, ten thousand or hundred thousand
1.4 decide when a rounded solution is called for, and explain why this is the case
1.5 interpret different meanings for fractions including parts of a whole, parts of a set, indicated division of whole numbers and quantities (and measures) between whole numbers on a number line; and relate to simple decimals on a number line
1.6 write tenths and hundredths in decimal and fraction notation and know fraction/decimal equivalents for halves and fourths (e.g., 1/2 = 0.5 or .50; 7/4 = 1 3/4 = 1.75)
1.7 write the fraction represented by a drawing of parts of a figure; represent a given fraction using drawings
1.8 use concepts of negative numbers (e.g., on a number line, in counting, in temperature, "owing")
1.9 identify the relative position of fractions, mixed numbers, and decimals to two decimal places on the number line
2. Students extend their use and understanding of whole numbers to addition and subtraction of simple decimals.
2.1 estimate and compute the sum or difference of whole numbers and positive decimals to two places
2.2 round two place decimals to one decimal or the nearest whole number, and use rounding to judge the reasonableness of an answer
3. Students solve problems involving addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of whole numbers, including the addition and subtraction of negative numbers, and understand the relationships among the operations.
3.1 demonstrate understanding of, and the ability to use standard algorithms for addition and subtraction of multi-digit numbers
3.2 demonstrate understanding of, and ability to use standard algorithms for multiplying a multi-digit number by a two digit number and long division for dividing a multi-digit number by a one digit number; use relationships between them to simplify computations and to check results
3.3 solve problems involving multiplication of multi-digit numbers by two-digit numbers
3.4 solve problems involving division of multi-digit numbers by one-digit numbers
4. Students know how to factor small whole numbers.
4.1 understand that many whole numbers decompose in different ways
(e.g., 12 = 4 x 3 = 2 x 6 = 2 x 2 x 3)
4.2 know that numbers such as 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 do not have any factors except 1 and themselves, and that such numbers are called prime numbers
Supplementary Statement on the NCTM Standards
David Klein - Professor of Mathematics
California State University, Northridge
Criticism of the NCTM Curriculum and Evaluation Standards is widespread within the mathematics community and beyond. A critical report on the NCTM standards from a committee appointed by the American Mathematical Society is available at: http://www.ams.org/government/nctm2000.html
The Mathematical Association of America also has available two reports with specific criticism of the NCTM standards at: http://www.maa.org/past/maanctm2.html and http://www.maa.org/past/maanctm3.html
The NCTM standards is not in any practical sense a set of mathematics standards. The document is an expression of support for a constructivist philosophy of education. In the words of Professor Harold Stevenson, Director of the Ethnographic Case Studies Project of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS):
"...the NCTM standards present a vague, somewhat grandiose, readily misinterpreted view of what American children should learn in mathematics. Moreover, the view fails to meet what we would consider to be the meaning of "standards." Standards should involve a progression of accomplishments or competencies that are to be demonstrated at defined times in the child's schooling. The NCTM standards give no indication (beyond four-year intervals) of the sequence with which the content is to be presented and are not helpful to the classroom teacher in designing lessons that meet the standards." (Professor Stevenson's complete statement may be found at: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/hwsnctm.htm)
The NCTM Standards lack balance and downgrade the importance of basic skills. It recommends that "appropriate calculators should be available to all students at all times" and "Calculators must be accepted at the K-4 level as valuable tools for learning mathematics" with the justification that "Classroom experience indicates that young children take a commonsense view about calculators and recognize the importance of not relying on them when it is more appropriate to compute in other ways" (p. 19). These statements appearing in the NCTM standards are extremist and irresponsible. The common sense evidence that the use of calculators in these early grades undermines the mastery of arithmetic can be found in far too many of California's elementary school classrooms.
A practical alternative to the NCTM standards is available. The state of California has adopted excellent K-12 mathematics standards. These standards provide clear, achievable benchmarks for each of the grades K-12. Unlike the NCTM standards, California's math standards do not insist upon any particular teaching philosophy or methodology, only grade-level benchmarks.
In a recently released report, the Fordham Foundation ranked California's new mathematics standards the best in the nation and even better than Japan's. In addition, more than 100 California mathematicians have endorsed an open letter I wrote to Charles Reed, the Chancellor of the California State University system. The open letter expresses support for California's new K-12 math standards.
Among those endorsing the open letter are mathematics department chairs at Stanford, Caltech, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, CSU Los Angeles, the Vice-President of the American Mathematical Society, a former President of the Mathematical Association of America, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and some of the most distinguished mathematicians in California. The list includes representatives from Community Colleges, the California State University system, and the University of California, as well as private universities. Jaime Escalante, often described as the "Greatest Teacher in America" has added his personal endorsement of this Open Letter. It may be found at: http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/reed.htm
It is unfortunate that Luther Williams, the National Science Foundation's Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources, wrote a letter to the California Board of Education widely interpreted as attempting to undermine California's world-class mathematics standards before they even had a chance to be implemented.
The NCTM standards have spawned a series of watered-down K-12 mathematics curricula, several with NSF support. Parental resistance to these inferior curricula have lead to the so-called "Math Wars" and the formation of parents organizations like "Mathematically Correct." All of the information listed above, and much more, may be found on the Mathematically Correct website at: http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/
5. You have mentioned as an alternative approach getting local colleges and universities more involved in local school districts as a way to have the "content being delivered by someone who knows the content". In your view, how important is it for those teaching math and science to have significant grounding in these subjects?
As I have discussed previously, the content of the science curriculum is of utmost importance. In California for example, there are far too many mathematics and science teachers who are teaching outside of their area of expertise. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, 60% of new teachers are hired with only an "emergency credential". Science teachers should hold at least a Bachelor's Degree in their narrow field (e.g. biology, chemistry, physics), and professional development programs should aim to increase and refresh the teachers knowledge of the content in their field.
One of the most alarming trends in science teaching (and one being supported by the NSF Systemic Initiatives) is the practice of "integrated science", in which all fields of science are combined into a holistic course of study. The net result is that one teacher, who may have taken a concentration of courses in biology in college, is expected to also teach principles of chemistry and physics. Needless to say, it has proven to be a disaster in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Scores on the science section of the Stanford Achievement Test are significantly lower for 9th and 10th grade students enrolled in Integrated Science, compared to their peers taking a traditional Biology course.
6. What is your response to the letter from the Associate Director of Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science?
I will respond briefly to a few of his points. In my written testimony, I cited several examples from the Research Base of the AAAS Benchmarks which illustrated problems characteristic of all the research they cited. The point of the first example, that it was poor research design, was completely ignored by the Associate Director in his response. The point of the second example was that the researchers, and AAAS Benchmark authors, had made factual errors in their statement of the requirements for cooling objects:
"Some students appeared to be unaware that every cooling process requires an interaction partner. It appears that they held the idea that bodies may cool spontaneously without other (colder) bodies being involved." (Kesidou and Duit, p. 97)
"Middle- and high-school students do not always explain heat-exchange phenomena as interactions. For example, students often think objects cool down or release heat spontaneously - that is, without being in contact with a cooler object." (AAAS Benchmarks, p. 337)
The Associate Director presents what he might call a "counterexample" to my objection:
"A body will cool down by radiation only if its surroundings (including the sky, of course) are cooler than it is - otherwise it will absorb more energy than it radiates (or an equal amount)" (Ahlgren's letter, page 3)
However, this example does not demonstrate either that "every cooling process requires an interaction partner", nor that a hot object can only cool down if it is "in contact with a cooler object." To prove the point, we need only think about a star cooling in the vacuum of space, without benefit of an "interaction partner" and without "being in contact with a cooler object". The Associate Director would no doubt agree, but has attempted to rephrase the question so that he can argue my own point against me. I find it deeply disturbing that he has not taken the opportunity to admit the scientific error in the Benchmarks, and that he may be attempting to cover up the problem.
With regard to another type of error, in which the Benchmarks refers to a study of high school students (when in fact the subjects were college students), the Associate Director again prevaricates:
"Not encouraging at all here is Metzenberg gleefully pointing out that the report was about college students, not high-school students as said in the Benchmark reference to it. But he misses the logic again: since the report concluded that even college students have persistent misconceptions, the case is even stronger for high-school students" (Ibid.)
I would not agree that it is obvious that the average college student has more, fewer, or the same number or type of misconceptions than an average high school student. It is even more shocking that the misstatement in the Benchmarks is apparently acceptable to the Associate Director of Project 2061 and may have even been purposeful. Scientists are supposed to be very careful with the facts. The most charitable interpretation one can put on this is that it was an accident, and provisionally I would accept that explanation.