A new report out by WestEd this week says that California elementary teachers are having a hard time fitting in science instruction. With increased attention, accountability, and assessments in English and math, science – they say – has fallen by the wayside. School days are dominated by remedial courses for English and math to push students to grade level, and funding is more often diverted to those two subjects, rather than to lab supplies or dissecting kits.
Forty percent of the elementary teachers surveyed in this WestEd report said that they spend no more than one hour on science instruction per week, and 60 percent of districts reported that they have no staff members dedicated to elementary science.
But California’s not the only state.
“It does confirm things we have seen in K-12 classrooms across the nation,” Dr. Francis Eberle, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, told me this week. He referred to a 2008 report that showed “substantial decreases” in science instructional time at the elementary level: half of all districts cut science classes by at least 75 minutes per week.
“I don’t think schools realize that by teaching a high-quality science program, both literacy and math will increase more” than by not including a science program. Science, he says, provides opportunities to develop vocabulary, write, and compute math problems, so students are applying math and English concepts in a science context.
Science is also an important subject because it develops critical thinking skills and presents several opportunities for interactive, hands-on learning. There’s a particular spotlight on this subject as well, as universities and employers across the nation work to attract more qualified applicants in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) fields. To do that, elementary schools can help by stirring interest in youngsters still curious and excited about the world around them.
“It all begins in elementary,” he said. “Science is really an understanding of the world around you. It provides you with a different kind of disposition.”
Do you agree? Do you teach in an elementary school? How much time can you dedicate to science each week? If it’s not enough, what would enable you to provide more science instruction? (training, time, resources, space, etc.)
We want to hear from classroom teachers. Please leave your experiences below.
Click Image To Enlarge
5/29/2012 | The New York Times discusses Mary Nguyen's report "Degreeless in Debt: What Happens to Borrowers Who Drop Out."
5/28/2012 | The Washington Post discusses Mary Nguyen's analysis of college dropouts and loan defaults from her Chart You Can Trust, "Degreeless in Debt: What Happens to Borrowers Who Drop Out." 
5/24/2012 | Education Week discusses Anne Hyslop's views on Mitt Romney's education plan.
{ 10 comments }
And while I agree, we could do a better job of introducing interesting concepts of science into reading, math and ELD instruction, reading books about science content is “learning facts.” It not teaching kids to question, to experiment, to understand the nature of science. We cannot encourage scientists without exposing them to what it means to DO science. There’s no shortcut for that.
It’s a complicated issue but science instruction is gone mostly because the precious minutes of the school day in CA have been dictated. I.e., if teachers in low-performing schools with English language learners are required to teach 2.5 hrs of language arts, 1 hour of ELD instruction, and 45 min of math every day, and 150 minutes of PE is required per week (30 min a day) that is more than there are minutes of instruction available. Good science is worthwhile, and it can yield authentic results in math for a purpose, writing both descriptively and accurately, etc. but teachers aren’t given the time- or the freedom since early science looks like chaos in the classroom sometimes. Lawrence Hall of Science led a similar study in 2007. Whatever training teachers get in their credential program, if they can’t practice it and get rusty, it does erode confidence, and science has been disappearing from classrooms rapidly since before 2007. This means more than 5 years since many teachers have had time to good science education, outside of preparation for the state test in 5th grade.
Of course, we could also bemoan the fact that earth science is ignored after 6th grade. so the way things are going, many students get next to none even from schools with some science ed in elementary. We don’t test for it either, another reason the most concrete and relevant science young people isn’t being taught.
Organized Chaos: From the sounds of it, you’re providing exposure to scientific concepts and activities through opportunities in other classes. And that seems like more than what’s being done among the schools and districts surveyed in the WestEd report.
Mandy, I think PD could help, but to be honest, we’ve had PD on it before. I should give some background- I teach kindergarten/First grade special ed at a Title 1 school where most children just came into the country and are learning to speak English. When we teach science it is usually embedded into reading, writing, or math. We’ll use a big book about science as a shared reading, we’ll use science guided reading texts, we’ll write about what we learned as a whole class in our interactive writing lessons. We’re exposing them to science, but we rarely go for mastery of a science concept. What we’re worried about is they know P for pumpkin rather than the life cycle of a pumpkin.
In the primary grades we’re lucky- it’s far easier to intertwine science with the other subjects. When you’re learning how to listen to sounds in words and record them on paper you can do that with any subject. In the upper grades it gets harder.
We know that science can motivate children to read, especially when we include hands on experiments. Science becomes a means to an end.
Should we approach it differently? It’s hard to say. Every year I give the state science test to 3rd graders and I shudder as I watch them fill in the wrong answers to questions I am horrified they don’t know. But it would be worse if they couldn’t read the question to begin with but knew the answer.
So right now we settle for exposure to science concepts. We’d all prefer that they be able to fully explain the water cycle in depth, but our energy goes into teaching them to read.
I think NCLB encouraged schools to put less of a priority on science and put more emphasis on reading and math. I use to think that was a bad thing, but now I’m not so sure.
Susan: Good point. (But today’s NAEP release might dispute your statement that “math scores plateaued long ago and reading skills in the upper grades is weak.” While reported gains aren’t drastic, they’re there.)
Crimson Wife: Great idea! Thanks for chiming in. Hopefully, your tip will be helpful to other teachers.
In our homeschool, I don’t use a “reading” textbook but instead have my primary grade students practice reading with books related to the topics we’re studying in science and history. There are so many of these kinds of books available, I don’t know why the practice isn’t more common in public schools.
Science and social studies curriculum have changed with technology. Those curricula have leveled readers and audio support for reading. Content has gotten short shrift for too long. Our students need science and social studies to develop a back ground knowledge to succeed at higher grades. Our schools are in desperate need of a redesign to child-centered and child-directed learning. Math scores plateaued long ago and reading skills in the upper grades is weak, so the excuse that we are sacrificing science for math or social studies to improve reading does not bare scrutiny.
Organized Chaos: At this point, I’m not sure it’s possible to find more time in the school day for science class. I understand the demands teachers face in math and English. Perhaps the best solution, as you mentioned, is incorporating science concepts into math and English class (or vice versa). When I spoke to NSTA last week, they mentioned that only about 25 percent of elementary teachers report feeling comfortable teaching science. If this is true, perhaps professional development is needed — not only to improve pedagogical and content knowledge, but also to demonstrate how science can be intertwined with English and math. I’m just thinking aloud here. There’s got to be a better answer to this than “it’s just not a priority.” How do we make it a priority?
Becky Baker: Does “4 50 minute” mean that you teach science four times a week for 50 minutes each? If so, how do you do it? How do you find the time? Your successes could be helpful to other teachers.
4 50 minute
There is rarely any time to teach science independently of other subjects. I wish it wasn’t true, but it is. Learning to read is so important, and when so many children in your class are significantly behind grade level teaching science becomes a luxury. Of course sometimes we use science texts to teach reading, but the true priority is teaching them to read. There are ways to integrate science into reading, writing and math and talented teachers can make it happen. It still doesn’t change the priorities. The minute a class starts to fall behind in reading or math other subjects have to be sacrificed. Sadly teaching science has become like having time for recess or play time- we all know it’s better when it happens, but sometimes it is just not a choice.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }