Competing Priorities:  A blog response to Kashi Dinghra’s article, “Towards science educational spaces as dynamic and coauthored communities of practice.”

The critical factor around which learning revolves is the provision (or absence) of access to participation in meaningful science related activity. Further, the shared underlying premise is that it is through such experiences that students gain access to the opportunities potentially afforded by a globalized economy. The general strategy to these ends is the co-construction of science-as-practice by (marginalized/immigrant/minority) youth together with the teacher who, as cultural broker negotiates between the multiple worlds coexisting in the classroom (Dhingra, 2007).

Dhingra’s words should be a punch-to-the-gut for the majority of urban high school teachers.  With the constantly increasing pressures of accountability through standardized testing and the expanding popularity of district-wide standardized curricula (Liu & Fulmer, 2008), even in the educational reform community, the teacher’s ability to create an environment where the pursuit of science knowledge is a task shared and co-created with the student is extremely limited.  Subsequently, the students are denied access to the “globalized economy” and are put at risk of cultural and economic marginalization. 

In an urban district, where the majority of the students are already culturally and/or economically marginalized, this is a particular problem.  The result is either a student that works tirelessly, with little result, or a student who completely withdraws from the education environment, either mentally or literally (Ennis & McCauley, 2002).  At my school, this can be seen in a drop-out rate that approaches 45%, and students in the “academic” courses that still get less than 800 on their SATs, don’t pass their AP exams, and are unable to earn Proficient scores on the state assessment, despite all of their efforts.  The papers that Dhingra reviews make clear the necessity of involving the student in the process of creating his/her educational experience, but in this era of “accountability” is that really possible?

Educational Violence is the Standard

Dhingra (2007) points out that the response to a call for a standardized curriculum is a resorting to either “fact-based knowledges” or “back to basics” science education paradigms.  These have the shared result of losing already marginalized students.  Further, their lack of science acumen keeps them from fully participating in the global community.  All of the researchers reviewed show how denying the students’ a way to access science knowledge from within cultural frameworks ensures student lack-of-interest and failure.  Culturally open education, on the other hand, results in students that experience science education efficacy.  The more that a student feels that he/she is an important part of the science classroom, and that science education is welcoming to him/her and his/her pathways of thought and understanding, the more that student will be successful in learning about, understanding and using science knowledge.  The reality, unfortunately, is that many districts approach science curriculum development through the former, rather than the latter, paradigm.

In my district the three “core” sciences (General Physical Science, Biology and Chemistry) have a district-wide standardized curriculum, based on state standards.  These curricula purport to be inquiry-based, but are actually almost purely knowledge-based.  Further, they are not based on more expansive, accessible and usable big ideas (Leonard, Gerace & Dufresne, 1999; Orkwiszewski, 2006), but individual sets of facts and skills-objectives.  The following image is part of a screenshot taken of the second week of the chemistry curriculum (available online):

            Even though the “21^st Century Applied Skills” to address are “Ethics/Social Responsibility” and “Teamwork/Collaboration”, the teaching objectives are all facts.  The performance descriptors all describe fact-related tasks to be accomplished.  The particularly important piece to note is that each asterisked item is something that is considered “eligible content,” meaning content that will be tested on the state standardized test.  What this means is that a teacher may WANT to allow the student to be part of the discourse of developing the language of liquids, solids and gases, or the description of physical properties, but if that discourse leads to a language that is different from the state’s language, even if it is appropriate, it will be wrong.  What will then happen is the student will likely face the test question and think that what he learned is wrong, even if it isn’t.

            Further pressure has been added in the form of quarterly (and in subjects, weekly) standardized Benchmark Tests that are meant to establish whether the students are “where they are supposed to be” in the curriculum.  A teacher may WANT to be able to teach students how catalytic converters work, because he has a lot of car enthusiasts in the classroom, but if it doesn’t have a place in the curriculum, there isn’t time.  Instead, the teacher might be called upon to force feed the memorization of ionic compound names, just to be sure that it is done before the test happens.

The Teacher Stands Alone

            Unfortunately, the lack of time and the pressure of administrators who are, themselves, under pressure from district, state and national mandates, creates an opposition of priorities (teach the student or teach the content) that forces the teacher into a difficult decision, between the Scylla choice of ignoring the administrative mandates, at the risk of her job, and the Charybdis choice of ignoring the needs of her students, at the risk of her professionalism and her students’ futures.  The researchers that Dinghra reviews know which side they fall on.  They all make clear the fact that the development of the students’ learning experiences should be a process shared with, the students to be educated.  Dinghra (2007) further produces a list of actions that must be taken to insure that these reforms take place.  Dinghra goes on to state that assessment should be a process completed “side by side” with the student.

These are all great suggestions, but are moot if the only one fighting for these reforms is the classroom teacher, and all of the administrators and decision-makers are moving in opposition.  When the standardized weekly assessment started, every one of my teachers came to me with their hands in the air.  “I am behind in the [Planning and Scheduling Timeline].  What am I supposed to do?” one asked.  “Either I skip the presentations that my students have prepared and teach them this material at the last minute, or I give them a test on material they’ve never seen.  Either way, they’ll be angry, upset and will probably not do anything for the next month.”  I had no answer.  When I asked regional representatives for the rationale behind the weekly test, it was made clear that the reason they were instituted was because the district administration did not think that the teachers were cleaving sufficiently to the district curriculum.  What can a reform-minded teacher do with that?

            Dinghra does assert that it is not the burden of the school to move towards the suggested reforms, but goes on to say that school can help to pull on students’ experiences through providing experiences, such as field trips or after-school programs, or acknowledging experiences as valid, such as television or video games.  Again, however, what happens if the experience through which the student understands a particular subject does not fit the standardized test?  More often than not, the student is not able to make the transfer of knowledge, and gets the question on the test wrong.

            Here is my question to Dhingra and the researchers reviewed:  If it is not the role the school, and the district administrators won’t take on that role, what can be done?  Clearly, legislation can force bad change.  Can’t it also force good?  The researchers need to come together to lobby the legislators.  I believe that then, and only then, will science knowledge pursuit become inclusive, rather than exclusive.

References

Dhingra, Koshi. (Nov 2007).  Towards science educational spaces as dynamic and coauthored

communities of practice.  Cult Stud of Sci Educ 3:123–144.  Retrieved January 12, 2009, from https://courseweb.library.upenn.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1& url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_2893_1%26url%3d

Ennis, Catherine D. & McCauley, M. Terri.  (2002) Creating urban classroom communities

worthy of trust.  Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(2), 149-172.

Liu, Xiufeng & Fulmer, Gavin.  (April 2008). Alignment Between the Science Curriculum

and Assessment in Selected NY State Regents Exams.  Journal of Science Education and Technology 17, 373-383.

Orkwiszewski. (2006).  Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction.  The American

Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342-345.

School District of Philadelphia.  (2008).  Planning and Scheduling Timeline:  Chemistry. 

Philadelphia:  Office of Teaching and Learning.

University of Massachusetts Physics Education Research Group:  Department of Physics &

Astronomy and Scientific Reasoning Research Institute. (1999). Concept-Based Problem

Solving:  Making concepts the language of physics. Amherst, Massachusetts: Leonard,

William J., Gerace, William J., & Dufresne, Robert J.