If you reply to this LONG (18kB) post please DON'T HIT THE REPLY
BUTTON (the bane of discussion lists) and thereby inflict it yet
again on suffering subscribers.
In his PhysLnrR post "Re: The End of Hands-On Science Activities in
California's K-8 Classrooms?," Seth Rosenberg (2004) wrote ". . . .
our community has tended to push for reform without studying the
history of what has been tried before, without considering our goals,
without considering the fact that there may be systematic resistive
forces - unless we begin to look at our reform efforts in a large
context, we can have little hope of success."
While one might question [(Hake (2004a), Epstein (2004), Wilson &
Barsky (1998)] Seth's thesis [Rosenberg (2003, 2004) that the massive
inertia of the educational system is due to systemic resistive forces
exerted by a privileged class, there is little doubt that economic,
political, and social forces often play an important role in
thwarting education reform.
A recent painful example is the 16 January 2004 passage by the
California Curriculum Commission (CCC)
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/cc/pubmtgs.htm> (with only cosmetic changes)
of the anti-hands-on "Criteria For Evaluating K-8 Science
Instructional Materials In Preparation for the 2006 Adoption"
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science>.
As pointed out by Woolf & Hake (2004), if this document is passed by
the State Board <http://www.cde.ca.gov/board/> - they will meet in
March 2004 - , it will become a mandatory directive for the state
purchase of educational material, and hence could adversely affect
K-8 science education not only in California, but also THROUGHOUT THE
U.S. because text publishers generally prefer to print texts that can
be adopted in their two largest markets: California and Texas.
To what extent was this green flag for the "Metzenberg Folly Express"
(MFE) [Feder (1998a,b); Hake (2003; 2004a,b)] due to political,
economic, or social factors rather than scientifically-based evidence
for the superiority of "direct instruction" over hands- and minds-on
activities? Could the MFE have been waved through partly due the aura
of Nobelist Glenn Seaborg, falsely advertised by Metzenberg (1998a,b)
- see Woolf (2004a) - as blessing Metzenberg's firm belief that
"understanding is built only upon a solid foundation of knowledge of
facts"? [Metzenberg (1998b)].
On 16 January Larry Woolf (2004b) testified to the deaf ears of the
CCC: "Who is in favor of the 20-25% limitation? The handful of
writers of this Criteria and the relevant section of the Framework .
. . <http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/> . . . This handful of people must
have strong evidence that hands-on programs in excess of 25% are
detrimental to science learning. But do they? Where is their
evidence? As far as I know, it is non-existent. It is contrary to the
views of thousands of scientists and science educators. It is also
contrary to over 30 years of education research. This research has
shown that interactive engagement of K-16 students in heads-on and
hands-on activities produces much more conceptual understanding and
problem solving ability than is achieved in traditional lectures.
This limitation is therefore unscientific."
Who were the handful of writers of the Framework
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/> in which the pathologic idea first
surfaced that a maximum of 25% of instructional time should be
devoted to hands-on science activities in K-8 classrooms? Once again
Larry Woolf's encyclopedic knowledge of California education politics
come to the fore. In a recent message to interested parties he wrote:
"For those of you who would like some proof that the California
Science Framework writing was dominated by a handful of people (3 to
be exact) with no K-8 science education background, no background in
science education research, and the common ideology of the
Mathematically Correct fanatics: From
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/cc/min/011603min.pdf>: 'Commissioner Norris
complimented former Commission members Patrice Abarca and Richard
Schwartz, members of CFIR staff and science experts, Dr. Munger, Dr.
Metzenberg, and Martha Schwartz for their work on completing the
Science Framework.' Note that Munger and Metzenberg are now on the
Curriculum Commission. You may also note that the name Schwartz
appears to be quite common in the above quote. Talk about political
incest."
It seems a near certainty that the disastrous hands-off "Criteria"
passed by the Curriculum Commission will be rubber-stamped by the
State Board of Education [<http://www.cde.ca.gov/board/>, see bios at
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/board/bio.htm>]. As Larry Woolf has written to
science writer Chris Moran of the San Diego Union Tribune [a paper
that myopically turned down the OpEd by Woolf & Hake (2004), just as
our "Letters to the Editor" were dismissed by the Los Angles Times,
the San Francisco Chornicle, and the Sacramento Bee]:
"The State Board . . .[composed of political appointees by the
Governor, often in return for campaign contributions]. . . approves
the final curricula/standards/frameworks because they appointed
people. . .[to the CCC]. . . with compatible views. . . . the system
is completely politicized with no checks or balances. And this
process determines the education of CA students!"
Thus it would appear that at this late stage the only hope of
derailing the "Metzenberg Folly Express" is to send messages to one
or both of:
GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
Email: <governor@governor.ca.gov>
Website: <http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/newgov/govsite/gov_homepage.jsp>
"To help us keep track of correspondence and to ensure that we are
able to respond to California residents, please be sure to include
your name and address when you communicate with the Governor's
Office. We do not accept
e-mail attachments.]
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION RICHARD RIORDAN
Governor's Office
Office of the Secretary for Education
1121 L Street, Suite 600
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 323-0611
Fax: (916) 323-3753
Website: <http://www.ose.ca.gov/>
Biography: <http://www.ose.ca.gov/bios/riordan.html>
I think Seth is right in his claim that: "unless we begin to look at
our reform efforts in a large context, we can have little hope of
success." Perhaps the political machinations of California's
counter-reform direct-instruction diehards [e.g.,
<http://mathematicallycorrect.com/science.htm>] can be brought to the
attention of physicists at the upcoming AAPT meeting in Miami Beach
<http://www.aapt.org/Events/128th/index.cfm> [see, e.g., [Announcer
2003a,b; Mahajan et al. (2003), Rosenberg (2003)] and the March APS
meeting in Montreal <http://www.aps.org/meet/MAR04/>.
REFERENCES
AAPT Announcer. 2003a. Volume 33(4): 112, Session CL: "Multiple Goals
in Physics Education & Physics Education Research: The Origins of
Incommensurabilities," Tuesday 27 January, 10:30am - 12:30 pm in
Miami Beach.
AAPT Announcer. 2003b. Volume 33(4): 119, Session DF: "Considering
Education and Educational Reform Through a Social/Political Lens,"
Tuesday 27 January, 1:30pm - 3:30 pm in Miami Beach.
Epstein, J. 2004. "Re: The End of Hands-On Science Activities in
California's K-8 Classrooms?" PhysLrnR post of 18 Jan 2004
00:30:5-0500; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0401&L=physlrnr&F=&S=&X=0ED0874A20D436EC28&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=6934>.
Unfortunately, one must subscribe to PhysLnrR to access its archives,
but it takes only a few minutes to subscribe by following the simple
directions at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> / "Join or
leave the list (or change settings)" where "/" means "click on." If
you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under
"Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives
and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the
list!
Feder, T. 1998a. "California Pulls Together a Science Standards
Writing Team," Physics Today 51(3): 79-80.
Feder, T. 1998b. "California's Science Standards Slammed for Demanding
Too Much, Too Early," Physics Today 51(11): 54.
Hake, R.R. 2004b. "Re: 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=5286>.
Post of 14 Jan 2004 21:28:25-0800 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 California Curriculum Development
and Supplemental Materials Commission.
Mahajan, S., S. Rosenberg, & M. Dancy. 2003. "Empowering Not
Employing Students: Goals for Physics Education and Physics Education
Research,"
AAPT Announcer 33(4): 112.
Metzenberg, S. 1998a. Testimony before the U.S. House of
Representatives; online at Mathematically Correct
<http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/>,
scroll down to and click on "Science Corner" under "Site Index" and
then click on: "Stan Metzenberg at the House Science Committee."
Metzenberg, S. 1998b. Testimony before the U.S. House of
Representatives; online at Mathematically Correct
<http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/>,
scroll down to and click on "Science Corner" under "Site Index" and
then click on: "Follow-Up Questions for Dr. Stan Metzenberg."
Rosenberg, S. 2003. "Reclaiming the Role of Education and Education
Reform Using Social Reproduction," AAPT Announcer 33(4): 119.
Rosenberg, S. 2004. "Re: The End of Hands-On Science Activities in
California's K-8 Classrooms?" PhysLnrR post of 15 Jan 2004
01:52:26-0500; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0401&L=physlrnr&O=A&X=6C53681AF0AA7D5BB0&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=4006>.
Unfortunately, one must subscribe to PhysLnrR to access its archives,
but it takes only a few minutes to subscribe by following the simple
directions at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> / "Join or
leave the list (or change settings)" where "/" means "click on." If
you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under
"Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives
and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the
list!
Wilson, K.G. & C. Barsky. 1998. "Applied Research and Development:
Support for Continuing Improvement in Education," Daedalus 127(4):
233-258: "Given the role that we see for education R & D, we next
turn to consider the new applied research discipline that would
support it. We have given the discipline the temporary name of
'change science,' believing that one of its major challenges will be
to determine how to bring continuing change to education. It will
also be extracting lessons from the history of continuing change in
sociotechnological systems, education itself, or other arenas, some
as distant as classical music."
Woolf, L. 2004a. Testimony to the California Curriculum Development
and Supplemental Materials Commission on 1/16/04 in Sacramento
California: "[Hands-off science instruction] is also at odds with the
vision of Glenn Seaborg, the father of the California Science
Standards . . .
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/standards/> . . . . and former chairman of the
Lawrence Hall of Science . . . <http://www.lhs.berkeley.edu/>. . .,
who stated <http://isswprod.lbl.gov/Seaborg/LHS25th.htm>: 'Lawrence
Hall of Science programs have been able to successfully convey the
essential elements of the 'guided discovery' approach to science and
mathematics education and to spell out how that approach can be
practically presented, by both veteran and less experienced teachers,
to the enormous benefit of all concerned. Learning by
doing-activities in which students explore and experiment, as the
teacher facilitates with open-ended questions to encourage
independent and critical thinking-this effective educational
philosophy and practice is the 'hallmark' of the Lawrence Hall of
Science. This too has its democratic reverberation, for without
direct citizen and community 'hands-on, minds-on' participation,
there cannot be responsive and effective democracy."
Woolf, L. 2004b. Testimony to the California Curriculum Development
and Supplemental Materials Commission on 1/16/04 in Sacramento
California.
Woolf, L. & 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 California Curriculum Development
and Supplemental Materials Commission.