IBSE Final

Chapter 1 The Teaching of Science: Contemporary Challenges

tHE tEACHING OF SCIENCE: 21 st-CENTURY PERSPECTIVES 25

the situation. We value a system with wide and significant variation but appeal

to assessment results as though we were one unified system.

How might this contradiction be resolved? This basic challenge centers on

maintaining the rights of states and local jurisdictions to determine the curric-

ulum, instruction, and assessments and, at the same time, attaining higher

student achievement as a nation. This suggests a place for national common

core standards for science education.

No Child Left Behind

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) must be considered because it

has been a dominating influence on science education, and its implementation

will continue after the introduction of assessment for science in the 2007–08

school year. The NCLB uses assessment results as a punitive means to ensure

that schools make adequate yearly progress in student achievement. To meet

this goal, the federal law requires states to set high standards, ensure highly

qualified teachers, and implement yearly assessments—all at the state level.

But note that states are still setting the standards and implementing the assess-

ments. Most financial support for changes designed to accommodate the NCLB

mandates goes directly to the states, so NCLB avoids establishing a national

curricula, and I argue that it holds little promise of attaining higher levels of

student achievement—as one nation. Because, by design, NCLB yields decisions

about standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment to the states, it does

not avoid the fundamental causes of incoherence at the core of the education

system.

A Proposed Solution

I can propose a resolution to the problem. The science framework for the 2009

National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) and common core stan-

dards hold promise both for maintaining the rights of states and school districts

to select instructional program and for attaining higher levels of achievement—

as a nation.

First, it is important to understand that use of, for example, the NAEP frame-

work and standards such as the National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996)

and common core standards is voluntary.

Second, the framework standards define and describe what students should

know and be able to do. The NAEP framework and national standards include

the science understanding and abilities students should develop as a result of

their K–12 education. They do not prescribe the structure, organization, balance,

or presentation of content and processes in classrooms. To be clear, national stan-

dards and assessment frameworks are not lessons, classes, courses of study, or

school science programs. This said, they do have the capacity to influence core

components of the education system—namely, curriculum, instruction, class-