The Fordham Institutes State of Science Report for 2005 reviews the state of State Standards in Science and found 15 states scoring “F”, Wisconsin among them. The states whose Science Standards were deemed worthy of an “A” are California, New Mexico, Indiana, New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, and South Carolina.
Of course, standards are one thing, implementation is another. This report does not, and is not meant to directly address delivery of the content; but, it is likely to have either a positive or negative effect depending on the quality of the Standards. To quote the report:
“Academic standards are the keystone in the arch of American K-12 education in the 21st century. They make it possible for a sturdy structure to be erected, though they don’t guarantee its strength (much less its beauty). But if a state’s standards are flabby, vague, or otherwise useless, the odds of delivering a good education to that state’s children are worse than the odds of getting rich at the roulette tables of Reno.”
“Sure, one can get a solid education in science (as in other subjects) even where the state’s standards are iffy—so long as all the other stars align and one is fortunate enough to attend the right schools and benefit from terrific, knowledgeable teachers. It’s also possible, alas, to get a shoddy education even in a state with superb standards, if there’s no real delivery-and-accountability system tied to hose standards.”
The report, written by active scientists, is highly critical of the current approach to teaching science, and argues frequently against “discovery” methods, “inquiry-based” learning, and the false dichotomy between “rote-learning” and “hands-on” learning.
Interestingly, the Fordham Report is highly critical of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) and the NRC (National Research Council) for producing very weak “national standards”, due to their enshrining of “discovery learning” pedagogy over “old-fashioned” instruction, remarking that this pedagogy essentially expects American students to learn science by reinventing the work of Newton, Einstein, Crick and Watson. “That’s both absurd and dysfunctional.”
Wisconsin’s Science Standards scored 29% — “F”. In the previoius Fordham Institute’s 2000 report, Wisconsin scored “C”. To quote the report on the current Wisconsin standards:
“The Wisconsin Model Academic Standards announce confidently that they “set clear and specific goals for teaching and learning.” That was not the judgment of our review. They are, in fact, generally vague and nonspecific, very heavy in process, and so light in science discipline content as to render them nearly useless….”
To make these matters concrete, compare the California Science Standards (a single PDF document) to the vague and disorganized Wisconsin Science Standards.
Then, review what your child(ren) has(have) learned or are learning in our schools. In spite of the Wisconsin Standards, are they learning, or have learned the curriculum as described in the California Science Standard document, or is their learning as vague and useless as the Wisconsin Science Standard?
