Where does Science Fit In?

By Tom

A new report, commissioned by CSTP, was just released on science education in Washington State's elementary classrooms. It was conducted through interviews with 34 experienced teachers, many of whom are NBCTs.

The title speaks volumes: Science Education in Washington's elementary Schools: A System at Risk. Among the findings:

• It takes time and money for school districts to build a strong science program in the early grades.
• Most districts are investing in kit-based curriculum and providing appropriate professional development.
• Literacy and math instruction trump science education, in terms of both district and teacher priority. Teachers spend as little as 45 minutes per week teaching science.

I wasn't personally involved with this survey, but I see evidence of the findings all around me. After a huge literacy renaissance two years ago, my district adopted a new math curriculum this year, and the two subjects seem to be consuming everyone's attention. In many classrooms, science is the first "horse thrown off the ship."

So what?

Obviously it's hard to argue against the importance of literacy or math instruction in elementary education. And furthermore, it's probably fair to say that most grade school teachers weren't science geeks when they were growing up. Those were the kids who are now designing buildings and nanobots.

I was an exception; I loved science as a kid, even though the only hands-on experiment I can remember was boiling a pan of salt water under my mother's supervision until there was only some wet salt at the bottom. It took forever, wasn't very compelling, and ruined a perfectly fine piece of Revere Ware. Nevertheless, I went on to major in Science for Elementary Education at the UW, with the hopes of becoming a grade school science specialist, only to discover after graduation that PE and music teachers had pretty much cornered the market in regards to elementary specialists. I rebounded nicely, though, snagged a job as a third grade teacher and found that the state of science curriculum in the mid '80s was atrocious. Kids were expected to learn how to do science by looking at black and white pictures of kids from the fifties doing science.

I also found that once I put those books away and had my student actually "do science" they loved it. Especially the kids who weren't all that motivated during literacy lessons. I developed a theory back then that went something like this: Most grade school teachers love to read. And they always loved to read. For many of them, that's a main reason for their career choice. They love to teach kids how to read. It gets them up in the morning. Some children love to read. Some don't. Since people tend to bond more quickly with people who share their interests, it stands to reason that kids who love books will eventually feel more connected to school than their classmates who don't live to read. It's only a theory, of course, and I'm a living exception to my own theory. Nevertheless, I think there's something to it.

That might explain, at least partly, why elementary science education is a "system at risk." We have a book-loving teaching corp that generally isn't wild about science. On the other hand, we have students, who for the most part, are. We also have great science materials in the schools these days, way better than the junk we had as kids, and we have districts willing to spend on professional development. That gives me hope.

And there's one more thing. I increasing see good teachers leveraging their students' love of science to get them to read. Not only does it save science from the last-half-hour-before-we-go-home wasteland, it might just be the best way to teach reading. They realize something very important that's best communicated in a nine-minute video that I found on our good friend Nancy Flanagan's blog, Teacher in a Strange Land. It's called Teaching Content is Teaching Reading. You should watch it.

Comments

[Bob Heiny]

Thanks, Tom, for your review of the report. As we all know, science requires math and rational thinking, neither strongpoints in the past two decades of U.S. public elementary and middle schools.

I'm curious: what does the report say about female student performance in science? At what point and why do girls stop excelling in science and math in WA? Do female teachers have better science and math backgrounds now than previously?

I as likely does Tom agree, Travis, reading means reviewing content once readers have cracked the mechanical reading code. That's why some teachers, tutors, and parents still require learners to read the McGuffey series for the content, as our relatives did in U.S. schools for more than a century.

Twitter, Good!

[Kelly]

I agree that students should read about things that interest them, including science. And, I’ve always taught some reading through content. However, I have to agree with Jason Niedemeyer (See http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/09/10/03niedermeyer.h28.html?qs=scientific+literacy - Ed Week is having an open house through the 19th for those who aren’t subscribers) that science is really more about discovery through observation and experimentation. I wonder if it is the “fallibility” of experimentation that scares off some elementary teachers (the Revere Ware sometimes gets ruined and sometimes results are inconclusive) that scares off some elementary teachers. I have one very high maintenance class with several students who struggle with following directions, and while still training them this fall, was brainstorming how to still get outside and explore with those who could handle the chaos. It was suggested to me that students could learn science sitting at a table with a book. I don’t think so. They learn something, and it may be valuable, but I think that’s learning “about” science rather than the practice of science. Sort of like reading about baseball.

And with that, I have to get out the door to finish preparations for a trip to the creek with my students today.

[Travis A. Wittwer]

Did you know that you can read Stories from School via Twitter? It's great. Get the latest posts in your feed. Head on over to http://twitter.com/stories_school and check it out.

[Travis A. Wittwer]

Teaching Content is Teaching Reading is not a new concept. I know that you, Tom, are not saying this. I only mention this to put some perspective on it so that people do not think, "Wow, another fad." Many on my teachers, when I was in school, I am 37 now, has us read content oriented material. It seemed to make the most sense: if you are studying science, then we should read science material related to the topic, AND (and this is the kicker) THERE ARE SPECIAL WAYS to read content material.

Math teachers should be reading teachers, teachers of how to read math texts. Science teachers are reading teachers too, but with a focus on how science is read.

This concept was brought to recent light with the book Do I Really Have to Teach Reading? by Cris Tovani. A good read. A simple concept: each subject area is the master at how to read their subject material and as such, the teachers of those subject areas should impart to their students the skills to read the material.

I know...not your main point. However, it was the aspect that hit me first. I love your posts.