As I read Bill Aldridge's recent note to TEECH, I see him raising several
issues that deserve more discussion. I'd like to name the ones I see -- do
others see the same ones? They seem important, core questions for science
education.
Bill, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but put your points in my
own words, to make sure I "get it." I cannot hope to match the energy of
your wording, but will try to put these points as strongly as possible, to
make sure the right things are being emphasized. If you can correct me or
amplify, I'd appreciate it!
1. Leadership in the science education community is at least in part
disconnected from the real tasks at hand in science education. There is a
trend, far advanced, for leadership to be exercised by people with little
background in science
2. This science-weak leadership is symptomatic of a wider under-preparation
in science that can be seen in science teachers generally. You do not
specify age-range, but I am supposing that your concern focuses on secondary
and post-secondary schools primarily.
3. This lack of depth in science content has shaped the reform movement in
science education in several ways. First, it has made the reform of science
education inhospitable territory for scientists. Second, the goals that are
articulated for science education are put in terms that play to the strengths
of the leadership in the movement, thus there is an excrescence of jargon
about higher-order thinking skills and theories of epistemology, while the
actual skills and content of science are relegated to second place (or
worse). Thus a rationale is constructed which justifies the current
weaknesses and emphases in the field. Finally, the science faculties like
all others are under pressure from the myriad agendas that are foisted upon
schools, often in conflict with their basic mandate to educate the young.
4. The misdirection in the field is reinforced by misdirection of funds from
NSF and other crucial investors in science education, who have decoupled
science from science education, and for various reasons have spent large
amounts of money and rhetoric on efforts like SSIs which focus on levels of
organization and constituencies which by and large have little effect on the
practice of science education at the local level, where actual teachers meet
actual students.
5. There is strong, "hard," empirical information available about what
makes for effective science education, and this should be the basis for the
changes instituted in the field of science ed. There is similar hard
information about what makes for the development of effective science
teachers, and this too should be at the core of real reform.
I think I probably agree with Bill on many of these points, but there are
some questions that I'd like to raise for discussion. What does anyone else
think?
_____________________________________________________________________________
TEECH Leadership Development Discussion
To send a response, send mail to teech_leadership@teech.terc.edu
To unsubscribe from the list, send mail to ntlist_manager@teech.terc.edu
In the body of the message: unsubscribe teech_leadership <email-address>
View or post messages from the Web at http://hub.terc.edu/terc/teech.html
______________________________________________________________________________