d'mensions D'Youville college Journal august 2o11

FEATUREHelen M. Kress, Ph.D.Assistant Professor, DEPARTMENT of EducationIn the late 1990s, I was graduating from UB with a PhD in the socialfoundations of education. This field is the historical, anthropological,and sociological study of the relationships between society and itsschools. Most states require one “big picture,” linking social theoryto practice in a social foundations course for new teachers. My mostcommon refrain in class is, “Now explain, why would or shouldteachers do that in a classroom?”TEACHING THE TEACHERS n My students become school teachers inelementary and secondary schools. The secondary teachers will bespecialists in one subject (e.g., math, English); however, I use myexpertise to be a cheerleader for interdisciplinary teaching with theircolleagues and for opening up more access to science and math forall children. The knowledge for how to do this is available. Themotivation and the money are what we need. It is frustrating to methat our country needs more scientists and mathematicians than itcreates. I worry also that these sciences feel removed from manypeople’s lives (i.e., there is a lack of trust in and understandingabout science); moreover, I think the latest government policies forschools will make these problems worse.Scientists should be more outspoken about what schools shouldbe doing better. That was the focus of my presentation at theNovember 2010 Science in Society conference in Madrid, Spain.Ideally, a science classroom needs to foster creativity and flexibility,and interaction between people and laboratory experiences that aremeaningful to the students, their communities and the profession.Science teaching should be reflective of the many cultures that haveamassed science knowledge and science should help or be relevantto many cultures. Above all, science teaching should search for anddebate among many truths and their various applications. Whenscience or math teachers have to speed through an increasinglystandardized and overpacked curriculum in a crowded classroom orlaboratory so that students can be readied for a closed-end computerscoredtest of their future potential, it simply is not reflective of thebeauty of the sciences. What a tremendous waste of both youngminds and teacher energy!In 2010, three education policy initiatives coincided in ways thatpredict the decline of science as a profession and a subject oflearning. These initiatives are all happening currently in the UnitedStates. This process which has been a major trend in recent decades,encompasses the following strategies:n Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards(led by professional science education organizations)n Common Core State Standards Initiative (led by governors acrossmany states)n Race to the Top Fund (U.S. Department of Education initiative)All three policies seek to document experts’ expectations forstudent learning in American public schools. Each intends to aid incertifying who is qualified to teach and what are acceptable goalsfor learning. If viewed as relatively new policies, these three are stillin the early stages of development: They can impact the future ofscience as a profession, and the impact can be changed. If viewedalternatively within a longer historical context, these policies aretragically consistent with previous school reforms.THE creation PROCESS / THE CONTENT / THE USES OF STANDARDS nDespite the “new” or “innovative” appearance of these initiatives,all three – the science framework, the common core, and the Raceto the Top Fund – are basically modern manifestations of howAmerican schools have always worked. Aligning curriculum contentor goals, monitoring instructional methods and benchmarking12