Becker, J.P. and B. Jacob. 2000. "The Politics of California School
Mathematics: The Anti- Reform of 1997-99," Phi Delta Kappan, March;
online at
<http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbec0003.htm>: The abstract reads:
"The authors tell the story of a powerful group of parents and
mathematicians in California who manipulated information and played
off of the public's perception of our 'failing schools' to acquire
political clout. Through this telling, they hope that other states
will be able to adopt a more rational course as they reconsider their
policies." For more references to the California Math Wars see Hake
(2004b).
Becker, J. 2004. "Science Ed. in CA: IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT" post to
Math-Learn, Math Teach, the "National Council of Supervisors of
Mathematics" (NCSM), and "Illinois Council of Teachers of
Mathematics," online at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn/message/5694>.
CSTA. 2004. "K-8 Instructional Materials Adoption: State board adopts
revised materials criteria, declines to limit hands-on materials,"
California Science Teachers Association; online at
<http://www.cascience.org/IMCriteria.html>.
Feder, T. 1998a. "California Pulls Together a Science Standards
Writing Team," Physics Today 51(3): 79-80: "Scientists and educators
from two groups will jointly draft California's science standards,
which are intended to be a step toward more internationally
competitive test scores and a more scientifically literate society."
Feder, T. 1998b. "California's Science Standards Slammed for
Demanding Too Much, Too Early," Physics Today 51(11): 54.
Galley, M. 2004. "Calif. Mulls Hands-On Science Lessons," Education
Week, 25 February; online at
<http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=24Science.h23&keywords=
California%20science>. As to whether of not the Criteria passed by
the CCC on 16 January 2004 sought to limit "hands-on" instruction,
see especially the quoted comments of Thomas Adams and Rae Belisle,
executive directors of the CCC and CSBE, respectively.
Goldberg, J. 2003. Letter of 9 January 2004 to CCC Executive Director
Thomas Adams, signed by 29 other CA legislators with cc's to Supt. of
Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, Secretary of Education Richard
Riordan, and CSBE President Reed Hastings. [See Goldberg's homepage at
<http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a45/a45bio.htm>. She is
chair of the Assembly's Education Committee and was recently
appointed to the CCC.]
Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Direct Science Instruction Suffers a Setback in
California - Or Does It?" 11 April, contributed to the 129th National
AAPT meeting in Sacramento, CA, 1-5 August 2004; online as reference
33 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or download directly as a 420
kB pdf by clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DirInstSetback-041104f.pdf>
[about 160 references and 180 hot-linked URL's].
Hake, R.R. 2004b. "Re: Back to Basics vs. Hands-On Instruction" online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0402&L=pod&P=R17377>. Post
of 29 Feb 2004 17:57:25-0800 to AERA-K, AP-Physics, Biopi-L,
Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Math-Teach, Phys-L, PhysLrnR,
Physhare, PHYSOC, and POD.
Janulaw, S. 2004a. Letter to Edith Crawford, Vice Chair of the
California Curriculum Commission (CCC), 9 January, with "cc's" to
members of the CCC, State Senator John Vasconcelllos, State Assembly
Member Jackie Goldberg, State Secretary of Education Richard Riordan,
and CCC Executive Director Thomas Adams; online at
<http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=49065>.
Sharon Janulaw is president of the California Science Teachers
Association (CSTA).
Janulaw, S. 2004b. Letter to Johnathan Williams, California State
Board of Education (CSBE), 24 February, with "cc's" to Governor
Arnold Schwarznegger, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack
O'Connell, State Secretary of Education Richard Riordan, State
Senator John Vasconcelllos, & State Assembly Member Jackie Goldberg;
online at
<http://www.cascience.org/IMCriteria.html> as a 636 kB pdf
<http://www.cascience.org/StateBoardLetter.pdf>.
Lopez, R.E. & T. Schultz. 2001. "Two Revolutions in K-8 Science
Education." Physics Today 54(9): 44-49; online at
<http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-54/iss-9/p44.html>: "Although the
consensus embodied in the two revolutions. . . [in the GOALS of
science education and in the METHODS]. . .. is widespread, it is not
universal. Resistance comes from several sources: . . . . Fourth are
those who reject many of the findings of cognitive science, for
example the importance of material being age-appropriate. These folks
were a major factor in the California standards battle in 1998. That
is why California now expects the atomic theory of matter and the
periodic table to be introduced in the THIRD GRADE. A fifth group,
including many of the same people . . .[e.g., the CA Direct
Instructionists] . . . , believes that more is more: that the more
facts a child is taught, the easier it is for the child to learn
still more. This contrasts with the less-is-more belief underlying
the standards -- the more facts you try to teach a child, beyond a
certain point, the less likely the child is to develop any real
understanding."
Schultz, T. 1998. "History of the Development of California Science
Content Standards," online at
<http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/standards/history.html>. See also the
excellent articles by Lopez & Schultz (2001) and Schultz (2001).
Schultz (1998) wrote: "This. . .[the 1995-1999 CA Science Wars]. . .
is an important story, but NONE OF THE PROMINENT NEWSPAPERS REALLY
COVERED IT. The conflicting goals of the different approaches to
science education, the evidence for each, the supporters of each, and
the intensely political maneuvering behind the scenes have all been
missed. And the Op-Ed pages have distorted the issues at best,
totally misrepresented them at worst. ATTEMPTS TO CORRECT THE WRONG
IMPRESSIONS, TO HAVE AS AN OP-ED PIECE A SHORTENED VERSION OF THE
ENCLOSED STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES (WHO IS ALSO A RENOWNED BAY AREA SCIENTIST AND A LEADER OF
THE EFFORT TO IMPROVE SCIENCE EDUCATION IN SAN FRANCISCO), WERE
REJECTED BY THREE OF THE STATE'S LEADING NEWSPAPERS. While people who
care have been grossly misled, the development of the California
Science Content Education has been hijacked, and California's science
education is about to take a giant step backward." [My CAPS.]
Stephens, R.D. 2004. Letter to the CA State Board of Education, 8
March; online at <http://www.cascience.org/IMCriteria.html>. Richard
Stephens is President of the Shared Services Group of the Boeing
Company.
Strauss. V. 2004. "Back to Basics vs. Hands-On Instruction:
California Rethinks Science Labs." Washington Post, Tuesday, 3
February. page A12; online at
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6944-2004Feb2.html>.
This report was stimulated at least in part by the wide internet
disbursal of Woolf & Hake (2004), an OpEd piece REJECTED by the San
Diego Union Tribune. As of 6 April 2004 there were 75 reader
responses to this article on the site's "Message Board."
Winter, P. 2004. Letter to Members of the State Board of Education,
12 February. Patricia Winter is the Executive Director of the San
Diego Science Alliance < http://www.sdsa.org >, a non-profit
consortium of businesses, K-12 education, higher education, and
scientific institutions, with over 250 members.
Woolf, L.D. 2000. Letter of 17 February to California Secretary of
Education Gary Hart in response to a letter by Stan Metzenberg who
criticized Woolf's "Science Education Petition" [Woolf 1999] as
"misleading and erroneous." Woolf sent cc's to State Senator Dede
Alpert, Assemblymember Kerry Mazzoni, CSBE executive director John
Mockler, CA Superintendent of Schools Delaine Eastin, members of the
CSBE, & Stan Metzenberg; online at
<http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/standards/Metz.html>.
Woolf, L.D. & R.R. Hake. 2004. "The End of Hands-On Science
Activities in California's K-8 Classrooms?" online at
<http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0401&L=physhare&O=D&P=4583>.
Post of 12 Jan 2004 16:57:42-0800 transmitted to (a) the discussion
lists AERA-K, AP-Physics, BIOPI-L, CHEMED-L, PHYS-L, PHYSLRNR; and
(b) to the members and staff of the CCC. This post was intended as an
OpEd piece for the San Diego Union Tribune but was rejected by the
editor as being written too much for "insiders." Also "letters to the
editor" by Woolf and Hake were immediately tossed into the circular
files of the LA Times, the San Francisco
Chronicle, and the Sacramento Bee. Is it bad writing, bad editing, or
a topic of no public interest? The 75 lively responses (as of 6 Sept.
2004) to Strauss (2004) suggest that it is not the latter. According
to Schultz (1998), California newspapers similarly failed to
adequately cover the 1995-1999 "California Science Wars" [Woolf
(1999, 2000), Feder (1998a,b)].