Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Back to Basics vs. Hands-On Instruction



The CA State Board of Education meets on 10-11 March 2004 to decide
the fate of the CCC's "Criteria For Evaluating K-8 Science
Instructional Materials In Preparation for the 2006 Adoption,"
online as a 40kB pdf at <http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science>.

To help block passage of the "Criteria" and its disastrous
consequences for K-8 (and therefore K-16) science education in
Califoria and the nation, YOU ARE URGED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE BOARD
by sending LETTERS to:

State Board of Education
1430 N Street, Room 5111
Sacramento, CA 95814

According to the Board's Kathy Akana, there's no need to write to
individual Board members, since ALL letters sent to the above address
will be forwarded to ALL members of the Board with one-day service
every Thursday. This means that to influence the board before its
crucial meeting on 10-11 March 2004, letters should be in the U.S.
snail mail so as to reach Sacramento by Wednesday, March 3. Assuming
an optimistic one week delivery service, this means that TODAY, 25
February 2004, IS THE DEADLINE FOR MAILING LETTERS TO THE BOARD.

Political activists tell me that letters are the most effective way
of communicating with busy bureaucrats, and that email's, FAX's, and
telephone calls are often ignored.

Here are four points that might be made in a letter to the Board:

1. It is important that the CCC'S oft-repeated but spurious claim
that the "Criteria,if passed, will NOT limit hands-on activities
must be vigorously refuted, otherwise the Board may trash your
letter. In my post of 24 Feb 2004 online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0402&L=pod&O=D&P=18509>, I
wrote [bracketed by lines "HHHHHHHHHH. . . . ."; see that post for
the references]:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
[According to lines 105-109 of the Criteria, to be considered for
adoption in CA instructional materials must provide] "A table of
evidence in the teacher edition, demonstrating that the California
Science Standards can be comprehensively taught from the submitted
materials with HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES composing no more than 20 to 25
percent of science instructional time (as specified in the California
Science Framework). Additional hands-on activities may be included,
but *must not be essential for complete coverage of the California
Science Standards for the intended grade level(s),* *must be clearly
marked as optional,* and must meet all other evaluation criteria."

As explained by Woolf (2004a), Dykstra (2004), Steinbok (2004), and
Hake (2004b), the practical effect of Lines 105-109 will almost
certainly result in prohibiting local schools and school districts
from using state funds to purchase K-8 science materials or texts
that do not fit the direct-instruction mold so favored by the CCC.

One reason, yet again, is that publishers, judging from their
deplorable records [see, e.g. Hubitz et al. (2001)], will tend to
maximize their bottom line by printing materials for CA (and the rest
of the U.S) which satisfy ONLY the bare minimum required by CA,
namely materials with no more than 25% hands-on material.

A second reason, as emphasized by Woolf (2004a) and Woolf and Hake
(2004), is that lines 105-109 will eliminate the adoption of all
hands-on inquiry-based instructional materials - including those used
by many districts in the state and including all NSF-funded K-8
instructional materials, since these instructional materials use more
than 25% of instructional time for hands-on inquiry based activities.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

2. There is a mountain of evidence that inquiry or interactive
engagement methods are far more effective than direct instruction for
promoting student learning in conceptually difficult areas [see e.g.,
my post of 19 February at
<http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0402&L=physhare&O=D&P=3989>]


3. The 'Criteria" run counter to the the announced intentions of
Governor Schwarznegger and Secretary of Education Riordan. In my post
of 24 Feb 2004 online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0402&L=pod&O=D&P=18509>, I
wrote [see that post for the references]:

"It can only be hoped that the announced intentions of Governor
Schwarznegger and Secretary of Education Riordan [see Helfand (2004)]
TO MOVE CONTROL OF TEACHING PRACTICES FROM SACRAMENTO TO LOCAL
TEACHERS, principals, and parents - in direct opposition to the
intentions of Metzenberg, Wurman, and the CCC - is not the usual
empty rhetoric of California politicians."


4. It is imperative to LEAVE TEACHING OPTIONS OPEN TO THE TEACHERS IN
THE TRENCHES and NOT allow politically appointed state bureaucrats to
dictate the methods teachers must employ.

In this regard, I agree with the Christine Bertrand (2004), executive
director of the California Science Teachers Association
<http://www.cascience.org/>, that the restrictive lines in the
"Criteria":

"A table of evidence in the teacher edition, demonstrating that the
California Science Standards can be comprehensively taught from the
submitted materials with HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES COMPOSING NO MORE THAN
20 TO 25 PERCENT OF SCIENCE INSTRUCTIONAL TIME . . . ."

would be better replaced by:

"A table of evidence in the teacher edition, demonstrating that the
California Science Standards can be comprehensively taught from the
submitted materials USING A VARIETY OF RESEARCH-BASED PEDAGOGICAL
STRATEGIES (as specified in the California Science Framework)."
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>