No Child Left Behind Shortchanges Science
February 28, 2008
In a new article in School Library Journal's "Extra Helping" Newsletter entitled "Schools Cut Back on Other Subjects to Focus on Reading, Math," Debra Lau Whelan writes:
Are teachers spending less time on science and social studies to focus on their students’ reading and math scores? You bet, says a new report that analyzes how much other subjects are suffering as a result of districts trying to meet the strict requirements of No Child Left Behind.
How bad are the cutbacks? Whelan writes that the Washington, DC-based Center on Education Policy (CEP) reports that "53 percent of the districts surveyed cut instructional time by at least 75 minutes per week for both social studies and science."
That's a loss of 15 minutes per day or 45 hours per school year for each of those subjects, both vital for helping youngsters develop and refine their critical thinking skills.
For an inside look at the way NCLB has changed instruction in a school often cited as a "poster child" for the program's success, including the impact on education in science, social studies, and the arts, I recommend Tested: One American School Struggles to Make the Grade by Linda Perlstein. (The link takes you to my review of that important book.)
Printer-friendly versionPermalink
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Comments
NCLB
March 2, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 37 weeks ago
Comment id: 27873
Submitted by SLC
Prof. Jason Rosenhouse of James Madison Un. has opined that the purpose of NCLB is to destroy the public school system so that education in the US can be completely privatized.
NCLB = Privatization?
March 3, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 37 weeks ago
Comment id: 27883
SLC's comment deserves consideration.
I'm not sure that privatization is viewed as a direct result of NCLB, but it is clear that having "failed schools" will encourage districts to embrace vouchers, and that will encourage privatization.
As a product of an urban school that worked well in the 1950s-60s, and is continuing to work well after decades of social change (including busing and the rise of magnet programs) in an economically struggling area, I think so-called "failing schools" can be rehabilitated within the public school systems. Diverting money to vouchers works against that.
Vouchers, in theory, provide competition for public schools and provide needed pressures on teachers unions to clean up their act. In practice, however, they declare, "We give up." Those who can get out use their vouchers to do so. The remaining students are left in more distressed schools than before.
That's the destruction of public schools that Rosenhouse envisions. We need to watch carefully and act to protect public schools in light of that warning. We also need to keep enough pressure on teachers unions so they focus more on quality education (which includes paying teachers what they deserve) and less on playing political power games, which some union leaders do too much of.
Yours from the middle of the road,
Fred Bortz
Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com)
and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
broken, broken, broken
March 1, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 38 weeks ago
Comment id: 27861
If the schools are emphasizing test taking, then that is yet more proof that the system is broken. It isn't the standards, or the tests, it is once again a problem of the education system qua system and how it responds to educating children.
If the system was effectively teaching the most basic and fundamental skills in the first instance, there would be no need to "teach to the test." The fact that the response is to teach shortcuts, instead of substantive skills, is evidence positive of extreme dysfunction.
A Matter of Time
February 29, 2008 by Renaisauce, 1 year 38 weeks ago
Comment id: 27844
You know what's interesting about that study is that when they looked at the percentage decrease of every time division that wasn't reading and math (science, social studies,art and music, even recess) every group was cut by a third. The absolute amount of minutes of social studies and science that were lost were greater because more time was devoted to them in the past. But what the schools basically seemed to do was cut everything by a third and then fill it with the 3 R's.
My questions are:
1. Is all of that time spent on rote skills and test-taking? Is there a break-down of how that time is used qualitatively?
2. How much reading and math teaching encorporates science and social studies contexts into the curriculum?
3. Have science and social studies grades dropped? Are science teachers in high school finding their students less prepared?
4. Are we prepared to live in a world where our kids get less science AND less recess? I'm not.
Excellent questions, Renaisauce
February 29, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 38 weeks ago
Comment id: 27845
Renaisauce,
A good place to get some answers is in the book I have been suggesting. I'm away from my desk right now, and I can't remember whether it has an extensive bibliography, but I'm sure it will point you in the right direction. I believe it mentions the recess issue, too.
As my review notes, test-taking strategies are emphasized so much that the students don't have to be concerned about spelling or grammar in the "brief constructed responses" that pass for composition exercises on the test. In a way, they are also cutting the three Rs (especially such things as writing coherent paragraphs) to teach test-taking technique.
The result: they may be better at decoding words as measured by the test, but they are less prepared to use them well.
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
How to learn science and math
February 29, 2008 by Fred Bortz, 1 year 38 weeks ago
Comment id: 27842
It seems the two anonymous commenters misunderstand where I am coming from. I am not against the ideas of accountability and determining how well schools are doing, which is the goal of NCLB, but I am objecting to the implementation, which creates an incentive not to teach reading and math but rather to teach techniques that will enable students to do better on a particular flavor of standardized test.
The Urban Scientist has it right when he expresses concern about what will happen to science when standardized testing takes over there. Science is best learned experientially, and it is not a collection of facts.
As far as how best to learn to read and do math, I would argue that they are not skills to be learned without context. Sure, it is important to be able to decode words, but it is more important to understand the nuances of what you are reading. Likewise, you might learn how to do arithmetic and algebra, but applying them in real-world circumstances give meaning to the skills.
In short, spending time developing critical thinking in science and social studies is one of the best ways I know to teach reading and math.
What's the good of learning to walk if you never go anywhere? What's the good of learning to talk if you never have a substantive conversation? That, in essence, is my point.
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
re: NCLB shortchanging science instruction
February 29, 2008 by The_Urban_Scientist, 1 year 38 weeks ago
Comment id: 27840
This is very true, especially in elementary grades. But now districts will be playing catch-up. Science is now a testable standard, see my posting about this http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/state-stem-education-u-s-13499.html. I'm sure in an effort to get scores up, they'll more than likely force feed alot of vocab and graphing exercises to kids -- making science boring and painful.
The Urban Scientist
www.SciEdSociety.blogspot.com
... and the point is?
February 29, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 38 weeks ago
Comment id: 27839
That's a loss of 15 minutes per day or 45 hours per school year for each of those subjects, both vital for helping youngsters develop and refine their critical thinking skills"
Separate this statement into its two clauses and think about them individually with one more fact thrown in; reading and math are prerequisites for science and social studies.
If the author expects the reader to be concerned, either the author is missing the ability to apply critical thinking skills or the author believes the reader is missing the ability to apply critical thinking skills.
more drivel
February 28, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 38 weeks ago
Comment id: 27832
Strict? You mean teaching the most fundamental basics of reading and mathematics that somehow teachers managed to do AND teach science in previous decades?
If schools can't teach fundamental reading and math without taking out science and humanities time, then that should be a good indicator that something is more seriously wrong than your gripe with a piece of legislation.