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]

Direct Science Instruction Suffers a Setback in California - Or Does It? - PART 1



PART 1

I. THE REMARKABLE RECENT SETBACK (or is it?) for DIRECT INSTRUCTION
IN CALIFORNIA
Reports of the surprising recent setback for direct instruction in
California - heretofore victorious in California's math [Becker &
Jacobs (2000)] and science [Feder (1998a,b), Schultz (1998), Woolf
(1999, 2000)] wars - have been placed on the internet by the National
Science Teachers Association [NSTA (2004)], The California Science
Teachers Association [CSTA (2004)], the California Science Education
Advisory Committee [CSEAC (2004)], Scott Hays (2004a,b), and Jerry
Becker (2004).

II. SOME HISTORY (drawn from Hake (2004a):
As many of you know from previous posts [e.g., Woolf & Hake (2003),
Hake (2004b)], the California Curriculum Commission (CCC) attempted
to enact a "Criteria For Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional
Materials in Preparation for the 2006 Adoption" that would have
prohibited the expenditure of state funds for K-8 science education
instructional materials containing more than 25% hands-on activities.
Such a draconian edict would have reduced hands-on science activities
in most California schools, since all but the wealthiest are
dependent on state funding for instructional materials.

Because of its dire implications for the science literacy of the
general population and for science instruction in K-8 (and hence
K-16) NATIONWIDE - text providers tend to publish only materials that
can be adopted in California, their largest market - the CCC's
retrograde scheme was reported in the news media [Strauss (2004),
Galley (2004), San Jose Mercury News (2004)]; and prompted letters of
protest to the CCC and/or the California State Board of Education
(CSBE) from (among others):

(a) California state legislators [Goldberg (2003)];
(b) the California Science Teachers Association [Janulaw (2004a,b)];
(c) the San Diego Science Alliance [Winter (2004)];
(d) the National Academy of Sciences acting in concert with the National
Science Teachers Association [Alberts & Wheeler (2004)];
(e) the National Science Teachers Association [Wheeler (2004)];
(f) leaders of Genentech, Intel, Bechtel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Adobe Systems;
the Presidents of the University of California, Stanford, and the
California Institute of Technology; and all 10 Chancellors of the
University of California [Levinson et al. (2004)]. A separate letter of
protest was received from Richard Stephens (2004), president of the Boeing
Company.

In addition, just before and during the first two months of 2004,
Larry Woolf and I mounted an internet campaign that urged teachers,
scientists, and educators to protest the CCC's regressive "Criteria."
We thank all those who responded by sending anti-Criteria messages to
the CCC, the CSBE, or Governor Arnold Schwarznegger.

On 16 January 2004, despite an avalanche of objections, true to its
myopic allegiance to direct instruction (DI), and in keeping with its
typical disregard for external opinion, the CCC
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/cc/> passed its "Criteria."

On 5 March 2004, a meeting was called by Rae Belisle, executive
director of the CSBE to address the outpouring of protests to the
CCC's "Criteria" a few of which are indicated above. According to a
report by the California Science Teachers Association [CSTA (2004)],
Belisle's workshop was attended by state board staff and CSTA
executive director Christine Bertrand, K-12 teachers, California
State University (CSU) faculty, CSU deans, California School Boards
Association, California Teachers Association, and representatives of
Governor Schwarzenegger's office.

Certain amendments to the "Criteria" were crafted at Belisle's
workshop for consideration of the CSBE <http://www.cde.ca.gov/board/>
at its meeting
on 10 March. The most startling amendment REVERSED the Criteria's
demand that "instructional materials must include
NO MORE than 20 to 25 percent of hands-on materials"
to "instructional materials must include
"AT LEAST 20 to 25 percent of hands-on materials."

On 10 March, the CSBE unanimously accepted the March 5th amendments
of Belisle's working group, thereby SEEMING to repudiate the
anti-hands-on strictures of the "Criteria" that were written by the
CCC, most of whose members had been appointed by the
direct-instruction-oriented CSBE itself. According to a report by the
California Science Education Advisory Committee
[CSEAC: <http://www.wested.org/werc/cseac.html> (2004)] (some of whom
attended the 10 March meeting):

"In a rare show of unanimity, everyone involved in the issue
testified in support of the revised criteria based on the March 5th
negotiation. This testimony included those who had argued for this
and other changes AS WELL AS PEOPLE WHO HAD WRITTEN THE ORIGINAL
LANGUAGE RESTRICTING HANDS-ON INSTRUCTION. . . . .[My CAPS.] The
"Criteria," as amended, are online at
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science/>.


III. WILL THE DI SETBACK AFFECT THE 2006 CALIFORNIA ADOPTIONS PROCESS?
In Hake (2004a):

A. I argue that despite the recent nominal DI setback, DI may
continue to predominate in K-8 science classrooms because the 2006
instructional material adoptions will be heavily influenced by the
DI-oriented CCC and CSBE. I list eleven objections to the "Criteria"
that remain in force despite the amendments of 5 March 2004.

B. I urge the California State Board of Education, Governor
Schwarznegger, Secretary of Education Riordan, State Superintendent
of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, and members of the California
legislature to place the educational, social, technological, and
business interests of California and the U.S. above a blind and
unscientific faith in the efficacy of "direct instruction," and take
immediate action to:

(1) replace the CCC's DI diehards,

(2) rewrite the entire Criteria to insure LOCAL control of teaching
practices and instructional materials, and

(3) drastically upgrade teachers' salaries and working conditions.

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>

REFERENCES are in PART 2