Nineteen eighty three was a year some point to as being similar in some respects to the Sputnik year of 1957. Two reports were issued by very prestigious commissions which marked another turning point in the Nation's perception of education (Actually, over 300 reports were issued during the mid-eighties calling for reforms in education). In 1957, the perceived concern was with the nation's inability to prepare scientists and engineers to meet the challenge of the space age. In 1983, the perceived concern was with America's ability to compete in the world economically. In the report (A Nation at Risk) by the National Commission on Excellence, established by the Secretary of Education, to report to the American people on the quality of America's education, the authors (only one of fourteen being a teacher) made this statement on page one of the report:
If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.
The report goes on to say that the United States is being taken over as the leader in science, technology, commerce, industry and innovation by Japan, as well as some other nations, and this is most likely due to the "rising tide of mediocrity in our schools."
The commission supported their statement of risk by citing results on various achievement test scores. For example, they reported that international comparisons of student achievement completed a decade ago, reveal that on 19 academic tests American students were never first or second and, in comparison with other industrialized nations, were last several times. They also cited falling scores on standardized scores, such as on the College Boards, and SATs. It should be pointed out that some took issue with the Commission for citing the poor performance of American students on international comparisons. The director of the report of the International Project for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement warned against using the data to make generalizations about individual countries' educational system. He also stated that "the best American students are comparable in achievement to those of other advanced nations." He went on to say that the comprehensive systems, such as in the United States, result in bringing more people into the talent pool.
The report, never the less, impacted education in general, and science education specifically. Using the language of the Back-to-Basics Movement, the Commission recommended that all students seeking a diploma from high school be required to take a curriculum, which they called the Five New Basics consisting of: a) 4 years of English; b) 3 years of mathematics; c) 3 years of science; d) 3 years of social studies; and e) one-half year of computer science (college bound students should take 2 years of a foreign language). With regard to high school science they recommended a curriculum which should provide all graduates with the following:
1. The concepts, laws, and processes of the physical and biological sciences.2. The methods of scientific inquiry and reasoning.
3. The application of scientific knowledge to everyday life.
4. The social and environmental implications of scientific and technological development.
They also said that science courses must be revised and updated for both college-bound and those not going to college. With regard to computer science, students should a) understand the computer as an information, computation, and communication device; b) use the computer in the study of the other Basics and for personal and work-related purposes; and c) understand the world of computers, electronics and related technologies. Among the other recommendations, the commission suggested raising college entrance requirements, administer standardized achievement tests at major points in student's careers, upgrade textbooks by having states evaluate texts on the basis of their ability to present rigorous and challenging material clearly. The report also recommended that American students stay is school longer each day (from six hours to a seven hour day), and to extend the school year to at least 200 days per year (then 180), but preferably to 240 days.
The report did give state and local district science educators the "rationale" to require more science, and indeed many states passed laws requiring more science for graduation. There was also an increased effort to require more time-on-task, and some states required science teachers to log in the number of hours students were engaged in science laboratory activities. (Georgia, for example, requires that 25% of instructional time must be spent doing laboratory activities.
Another, and perhaps more significant report for science education was Educating Americans for the 21st Century issued by the National Science Board. The report is very clear about the main goal for improving science, mathematics and technology education. The authors of the report state the following as the one basic objective:
The improvement and support of elementary and secondary school systems throughout America so that, by the year 1995, they will provide all the nation's youth with a level of education in mathematics, science, and technology, as measured by achievement scores and participation levels, that is not only the highest quality attained anywhere in the world but also reflects the particular and peculiar needs of our nation.
Some critics have charged that the report is overly nationalistic, and was reminiscent of the era of the Cold War and space race. The report also uses the language of the Back-to-Basics Movement, stating that education must return to the basics, but the basics of the 21st century are not only reading, writing and arithmetic, but include communication, higher order problem-solving skills, and scientific and technological literacy. The report also has been criticized for its failure to address the social implications of science, and importance of science education in general education. Further critics have charged that the Board ignored the shortcomings of the course content curriculum projects of the 60s and 70s, and instead recommended that the National Science Foundation be the leader in curriculum development efforts by promoting the development of new curricula.
Even with these criticisms, the report has had an impact, and has been used by a number of groups as a rationale for charting "new" curricula, and for seeking funding. Educating Americans for the 21st Century suggested that the science curriculum, K-12, should be revamped, and that science and technology education at the elementary and secondary levels should result in the following outcomes:
Ability to formulate questions about nature and seek answers from observation and interpretation of natural phenomena.
The report also recommended a K-12 curriculum plan as follows:
K-6.
Emphasis should be on phenomena in the natural environment,
with a balance between biological and physical phenomena.
The curriculum should be integrated with other subjects, and
should be implemented with hands-on activities. Grades 7 -
8. The focus
in the middle school should be on the biological, chemical
and physical aspects related to the personal needs of
adolescents. The curriculum should also focus on the
development of qualitative analytical skills.
Experimentation, science texts, and community resources
should be used in instruction. Grades 9
-12. Biology
should be presented in a social/ecological context. Topics
should include health, nutrition, environmental management
and human adaptation. The biology curriculum should be
inquiry oriented, and problems should be selected in a
biosocial context involving value or ethical considerations.
Chemistry should emphasize the social and human relevance of
chemistry, and should include topics from descriptive and
theoretical chemistry. Physics courses should be designed
for a wide variety of students and should be built upon
students' earlier experiences in physics. The emphasis in
grades 9-11 should be on the application of science and
technology. Schools should offer discipline-oriented career
preparation courses in grades 11-12, in which several
disciplines would be taken in each year.
Because of these and other reportsaction to modify and change school programs was set into motion at the national, state and local levels. At the national level, the National Science Foundation received appropriations from Congress to once again develop curriculum materials for the schools. During the eighties and continuing into the nineties, the NSF funded a number of curriculum projects, especially at the elementary and middle school levels. Many of these funded projects were joint efforts involving the public and private sectors. In nearly all of these projects, a publisher or a commercial enterprise teamed up with a university group, or science education center (such as the BSCS) to develop science curriculum materials. Some of these projects will be discussed later in this chapter.
Science education in the eighties was also a time of reflection and recommendations for science education toward the year 2000. Earlier in the chapter, I described the work and recommendations of Project Synthesis. Project Synthesis represents the most comprehensive approach to the analysis of science education and science curriculum goals.
In 1982, the National Science Teachers Association began its Search for Excellence in Science Education program. This program, which was begun by then NSTA President Robert Yager was designed to identify exemplary programs in science education. The criteria used to identify exemplary programs were the desired states identified by the Project Synthesis subgroups (elementary science, biology, physical science, science/technology/society and inquiry). Several volumes in the Search for Excellence Series has been published by NSTA as follows:
Additional monographs in the series included Teachers in Exemplary Programs: How Do They Compare?, Centers of Excellence: Portrayals of Six Districts, and Exemplary Programs in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Earth Science. I will discuss some of these programs in the sections on curriculum later in this chapter.