Equity, scaling up and professional culture
Bill G. Aldridge ( (no email) )
Thu, 27 Mar 1997 07:56:03 -0800
Equity does not mean equality of achievement! It means equality of
opportunity and resources! It means we cease providing additional
advantage to the advantaged! It means a fundamental change in attitude on
the part of so-called "leaders" in science education: just because so many
science educators never learned any real science, and therefore do not
genuinely believe that kids from disadvantaged circumstances (or their
teachers) can do so, and just because these "leaders" would provide fluff
and superficial "literacy" to THESE kids, while continuing to provide
excessive resources to the advantaged to pursue science, does not make it
"equitable." Real equity means elimination of tracking! For this is where
the resource allocation equity problems are obvious (Oakes, J. 1990.
Multiplying Inequalities. The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking
on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science. Santa Monica, CA: Rand;
Wheelock, Anne 1992. Crossing the Tracks: How "Untracking" can save
America's Schools. New Press, NY). Real equity means knowing and acting on
the conclusive evidence that essentially ALL kids can learn science to far
greater depths than we are providing for most, NOT approaching science for
ALL by assuming they cannot learn (because most of us didn't) and offering
fluff for the masses and real stuff for the few advantaged. The NSES were
NEVER intended to drive the system toward a "literacy" approach. They were
to provide the basis upon which an entire science curriculum, K-12 could be
created for all kids. Instead, our "Leaders" are perverting that intended
goal with the provision of "literacy" for the masses and special, continued
advantage for those already advantaged. So, if you want real equity, you
must act to provide opportunities for all teachers to learn the science
they do not know and need to know, and you must provide opportunities for
ALL kids to learn real science. When some do not, it will be because they
are unmotivated to do so; and that is not entirely their problem. It is
one of our challenges. But we do not address it through contextual
learning! There is the myth that relevance leads to generalized learning
(for transfer). But as was clearly shown in a synthesis of research on
learning (Druckman, D.and Bjork, A., Ed., Learning, Remembering, Believing,
National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1994), transfer of
learning occurs when people learn generalizations and abstractions, but
does NOT occur when they learn in a specific context.
Equity in Professional development means taking seriously the fact that
teachers do not know enough science, and that knowledge is an absolutely
necessary (but not sufficient) condition for good teaching of science. It
means doing a careful and honest inventory of what that teacher knows and
understands, identifying the gaps, and filling them. This takes at least a
year of full time study on the part of the teacher. It means providing
those study opportunities in circumstances where the teacher can continue
to share in the support of his/her family. NSF once had 3-summer
institutes, self-designed, and based upon such a needs analysis, where
teachers could fill these gaps, and in the process, earn a master's degree
IN A SUBJECT FIELD---not another education degree (I have three of those
education degrees, along with a Master's in physics and all of the course
work for a PhD in physics. There are valuable courses in education, but
they are worthless without substantial knowledge of science).
My point is simple. Professional development of teachers can only occur
when it is taken seriously, and the funds are provided to support those
teachers over long periods of time. There is NO scaling up! You can scale
up only by providing the needed resources.
Now, A professional culture? Teachers will be treated as professionals
when they become professionals! You cannot be a professional within the
constraints of the typical labor union situation that restricts or inhibits
innovation and excellence and protects incompetence. Schools, of course,
are often managed by principals who are extraordinarily anti-intellectual
and ignorant themselves, and the whole system of "administration" of
schools must somehow be changed. I have no idea how this can be done.
Most of my colleaques in science or science education will not utter the
truths that I have expressed here. The system is designed to maintain
itself, and there are powerful retributions in place for those who would
speak the truth. They come from the NSF (whom I no longer care to depend
upon for support, and, therefore, am prepared to openly challenge, in
constrast to so many of my colleagues who have expressed precisely the same
thoughts privately, but will not do so publically), and they come from
entrenched colleagues who must preserve the status quo. But one does not
reform a system by describing the problem in generalities using jargon.
One can do so only by delineating the problem and attacking the components
that fall out. No one in Washington is serious about that task---they will
take the superficial approach.
Finally, it is really time that science educators do something about the
jargon. We need clear and specific definitions of terms. A word like,
"reform" ought to mean precisely the same to all who use it in regard to
science education. There are many other words floating around, like
"literacy," when the only decent definition of that term has been expressed
by Arnold Arons (Arons, A. 1973. Toward a Wider Public Understanding of
Science, American Journal of Physics, Vol 41, p 769).
We do not need "high priests", a "priesthood" and an orthodox
interpretation of the NSES (supposedly a dynamic and changing document,
according to its introduction). That is the impression that is conveyed by
much of the activity of the NRC in regard to the NSES. We need innovative
and interesting applications created by those on the front lines of
teaching who know their science.
So good morning to all! It is a beautiful warm day here in Henderson,
Nevada.
bill aldridge
_____________________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________________