In May of this year, Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-Michigan) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives titled the Science Accountability Act (H.R. 5442). This bill would amend the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act to ensure that science would be counted in each state’s accountability system for student progress beginning in 2008–2009.

If every teacher in every classroom had the resources, support, and content knowledge to provide the best science instruction possible so that all students could develop scientific understanding, the United States would have no need for NCLB, for AYP, or for state tests.

The 2006 National Science Board report America’s Pressing Challenge—Building a Stronger Foundation stated that “in spite of pockets of excellence, the general system for precollege education in science, mathematics, and technology has been impervious to reform. And Indicators data show that U.S. students are not performing at a competitive level on many important measures of performance and achievement in these fields.” The inability of teachers and all other stakeholders to bring about full reform can be attributed to many factors.

All elementary teachers are science teachers; in fact, they make up the majority of science teachers in the United States. Yet many lack adequate preparation in science; therefore, they neither understand the nature of science nor have the necessary science content background. And most undergraduate education programs concentrate on literacy and math. With a few exceptions, most universities’ programs do not require any laboratory science course work for elementary majors. In many states, laboratory science is not required for either certification or university graduation.

Science is not being reformed in our elementary schools because some teachers are directed to omit it. I’ve heard from elementary teachers who say that their administrators have told them to drop science from the curriculum because there is simply no time for it: They are to concentrate on reading and math. NCLB legislation requires testing in reading and mathematics, and administrators are held accountable for those test scores. This mandate has squeezed science out of many elementary schools, especially elementary schools with low-income and minority students. Without a high-quality elementary science program, we will never develop a truly educated, science-literate citizenry. Student understanding of science concepts builds cumulatively. A solid foundation in science during the elementary school years gives students a better foundation of science at the secondary level and beyond.

Another threat to science education is that some teachers, at all levels, are told to avoid or eliminate vital tenets of science, such as evolution. Pressures from forces outside the school system create a venue for debating the value of scientific concepts. This major distraction takes time away from class and the focus on real science. Another detractor is that science, engineering, and mathematics courses are not funded sufficiently to lead to careers in those fields.

Soon after the Science Accountability Act was introduced, NSTA Express readers had an opportunity to voice their opinions concerning AYP. They responded by nearly two to one that science should be included in AYP. One of the respondents pointed out that “including science in the AYP will provide a more accurate picture of what’s coming out of our school systems and into the society.” To have a clear picture of the education students receive, we should consider all facets of their education. We do not want to leave any child behind when it comes to literacy and math; we should also not allow them to be left behind in science. As another respondent said, “Science achievement is no less important than math and language arts.”

Those who spoke out against including science in AYP noted the flaws and errors of current assessments in science education. “I think that the assessments become reading tests and not measures of what students know and can do in science. I also think that science assessments that are completed through online testing and multiple-choice questions have the potential of becoming ‘trivial pursuit’ assessments and not true hands-on, minds-on assessments. How can we conduct science assessments in a meaningful inquiry model, not just a ‘repeat it back’ model?”

The clearest and most frequent reason for opposing science inclusion in AYP is the lack of resources currently available to teachers. This statement from an NSTA Express respondent makes it clear: “Too many people have the simplistic idea that testing students will make everything better, but until the funding is available and students are taught science in the early grades, science achievement will languish.”

If science becomes part of AYP and scores on the grade-level benchmark tests are low, then we will have a challenge to meet. The initial years of testing certainly will show less than adequate improvement; how could it show anything more? Science has not been given the attention in our schools that it requires. But as another NSTA Express reader states, “What gets measured always gets better, and we need to improve the entire culture of science and math in America.”

Yes, the concerns are valid regarding proceeding with legislation that would require AYP in science. But if this form of accountability provides resources and allows us to do our best as science teachers, then it’s time for science education to be held under the same lens as is used for literacy and math. Science should join literacy and mathematics and become part of a school’s Adequate Yearly Progress.

I would like to hear your opinions about Adequate Yearly Progress. Please e-mail me at nstapresident@nsta.org.

Reference

America’s Pressing Challenge—Building a Stronger Foundation, A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Washington, DC: National Science Board.