State of School Science: A Review of the Teaching of Mathematics, Science and Social Studies in American Schools, and Recommendations for Improvements. (1979)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

RECOMMENDATIONS Rationale The Panel's recommendations are based on three considera- tions: • An analysis of the alternative goals of pre- college education in science and mathematics. • Lessons learned from experience with the new courses and curricula of the 1950"s and 1960"s. • Evidence from teachers as to what they need in order to teach more effectively. The Goals of Science and Mathematics Education There are four main goals for the teaching of science and mathematics: 1. Knowledge is a value in itself. It need serve no immediately useful purpose other than to expand the world view of the individual learner. 2. Knowledge may be useful by helping the individ- ual to live in greater health and happiness, and even to survive better in a competitive society. 3. Important economic and social values are involved. Citizens with knowledge of science and mathematics are necessary for a healthy economy and for future progress; and intel- ligent action on many public issues depends upon understanding their scientific and technical content. 4. The education may be preparatory to a pro- fessional career in science or one of the technical professions. The major NSF-supported curriculum studies were initiated primarily to deal with the fourth goal, to help increase the nation's scientific manpower. Because there were at the same time a number of other measures to that same end, it is impossible to say just how much the Course Content Improvement Program contributed to the growing numbers of scientists and engineers. But it is clear that their number did increase greatly and that the new courses developed 41

under NSF auspices did provide improved learning materials for a significant number of students who were interested in careers in science and mathematics. Moreover the high visibility of the new courses drew added attention to their disciplines. Because the new curricula were designed for precollege students, and especially for high school students, they could only be introductory, and not fully professional. Thus for a large group of students, including many who were not headed toward scientific or technical careers, they served the other goals as well. They did so to varying "degrees. The first goal — learning for the sake of learning — was met with considerable success. The science curricula were modern, laboratory based, and inquiry-oriented. They were sophisticated and demanded considerable mental work from the student. They were indeed mind-expanding for students who were motivated, able, and disciplined, and who were for- tunate in having a skillful teacher and a well-equipped laboratory. The second goal — knowledge useful for one's own well- being -- was met less successfully. As an example, the bio- logical sciences can offer much of importance to one's health and happiness: an understanding of nutrition, disease and its prevention, and behavior. Yet the Biological Sciences Cur- riculum Study courses did not deal with these areas in a substantial manner; there were other messages that seemed more pressing to the authors. A second example is provided by the new elementary school mathematics. It may have intro- duced young pupils to the field of mathematics in a manner thought befitting by mathematicians, but it did not succeed in encouraging students to become "friendly with numbers" and it left some of them unable to do the simple calculations of adult living. The third goal — an informed citizenry — was probably the least successfully met. It is unquestionably difficult in one school year to give students an understanding of the basic scientific concepts in a field and also to provide enough relevant information to enable them as future citizens to deal intelligently with difficult political, economic, and social issues. But progress can be made; students can begin to develop critical standards that will help them to sort out and appraise the technological claims and advice they receive through the popular media. This task has not been given sufficient attention in past curriculum develop- ment efforts and needs to be readdressed. 42

In summary, goals two and three — knowledge useful for one's own well being and knowledge useful for good citizen- ship — now need more emphasis than they received in the 1950's and 1960's. Lessons of the Past In planning future programs, we should take advantage of the experience of the past two decades of curriculum reform. That experience has demonstrated that even the best curricu- lum materials will not be adequately utilized unless atten- tion is paid to the following issues: 1. Teachers must be provided opportunities and incen- tives to acquire the comprehensive training neces- sary for the successful utilization of the new materials and techniques. 2. Principals should be provided opportunities to gain understanding of the new programs, for they are key agents for educational change or for main- taining the status quo. 3. New course materials should be introduced in a fashion that encourages honest exchange of views between teachers and the exponents of curricular innovation. 4. Mechanisms of long-term materials support must be established so that teachers can obtain the instruc- tional materials and apparatus needed for the new courses. In the past, obtaining materials has pre- sented a serious obstacle to the successful adop- tion of elementary science programs, for many of those programs utilize a large variety of expend- able materials. Although commercially-prepared kits have been purchased by many school systems, elementary teachers, in particular, have found it difficult to order in advance all of the materials required to refurbish those kits so they may be used again. 5. Resource personnel should be available to provide continued expert advice and moral support to teachers and principals when problems arise. The three NSF studies indicate that most school systems are not sufficiently staffed with super- visory personnel to perform this task. Such super- visory personnel as exist are usually so fully occupied with administrative functions that they seldom have opportunities to work with the large numbers of teachers for whom they are responsible. 43

What Teachers Need Many teachers want help. They want to teach more effec- tively. They want better equipment that will help their stu- dents learn from observation, manipulation, and trying things out — from educative experience as well as from reading and discussion. They want to strengthen their own understanding of science and mathematics. And they want access to experts to whom they can turn for help on their teaching problems (Weiss, 1978, pp. B-93-B-116; Stake and Easley, 1978). The percentages of teachers expressing each need varied considerably, depending on the subjects taught and the age level of the pupils involved, but in total,large numbers of teachers said they wanted improvement in each of the following areas: • Opportunities to learn about new teaching materials. • Access to current information in their fields. • Opportunities to learn new teaching methods, especially regarding the use of "hands-on" materials and the implementation of the dis- covery or inquiry approach. • More permanent equipment, such as microscopes or balances, and better maintenance of equipment. • Ability to get consumable supplies such as chemicals, dry cells, and duplicating masters quickly and as needed. * * * * The teachers who want these improvements are to be found in many school systems. They are sometimes a minority within their own school system, but in total, there are many of them. Because the teachers who want these kinds of help are widely scattered and because no central education authority exists under the American system, the remedies have to be decen- tralized. Because the kind and amount of help teachers want or are able to accept varies, delivery has to be on a basis of voluntary participation. Thus, what seems to be called for is not a uniform and centrally planned revision of the whole school system or a set of uniform changes, but rather a set of opportunities that can be grasped by those teachers who are eager to improve. Because not all teachers will want to take advantage of such opportunities, the recommendations involve services that can be made available to motivated teachers regardless of what 44

their immediate colleagues or the teachers in neighboring systems decide to do. If these recommendations are put into effect, many teachers will be helped, and their pupils will reap the benefits of better education in science and mathema- tics. Science and Mathematics Teaching Resource Centers The findings of the three NSF studies indicate that teachers, principals, and superintendents all attest to a need for more assistance with the local implementation of course improvement programs in science and mathematics. Such assistance could be best provided by creating a network of science and mathematics teaching resource centers throughout the nation. These centers could provide a variety of support- ing services to science and mathematics teachers who want to improve their teaching. The centers could conduct in-service training programs based upon locally identified needs; pro- vide low-cost kits of science and mathematics instructional materials to teachers from participating school systems; and provide expert resource personnel to help teachers learn to utilize new science and mathematics instructional materials and techniques. Two successful prototype science teaching resource cen- ters already exist in the United States. In Spencerport, New York, the Science Center for Instructional Materials and Processing (SCIMAP) is currently serving approximately 1,000 teachers and 25,000 elementary school students in the Genessee Valley. The SCIMAP assembles elementary science kits and sponsors in-service training workshops for teachers from 17 small independent school districts. The SCIMAP operation is one of the services provided by the Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Monroe-Orleans Counties, New York. Participation in the SCIMAP science programs is voluntary; financial support is derived from the local participating school districts and the New York State Department of Educa- tion, with the state paying the larger share. A larger Science Materials Center was established in 1970 by Lawrence Watts, Superintendent of Schools of Fairfax County, Virginia. The Fairfax resource center is operated and supported by the Fairfax County School System (the twelfth largest school system in the nation). It provides teachers with a variety of in-service training programs and with class- room kits of science teaching materials, beginning at the kindergarten level and extending through high school. At the elementary school level, it provides science kits and teacher training services for 2,400 teachers and 60,000 children. 45

Similar large-scale prototype support centers do not currently exist for mathematics teachers. However, because the problems of in-service training and instructional materials are similar in science and mathematics, it seems likely that a joint effort would be feasible. One of the functions of the science and mathematics teaching resource centers would be to provide in-service training for teachers of science and mathematics in response to needs identified by local school systems. At the elemen- tary school level, such locally-based teacher-training efforts are urgently needed if significant improvements are to be made in the teaching of science and mathematics. Past efforts to institute significant improvements in science and mathematics curricula at the elementary level have often foundered, due to seemingly unmanageable problems of scale. Although it was possible to retrain a significant fraction of the nation's 15,000 high school physics teachers by holding summer institutes for several years at several universities, it has not been practicable to set up institutes to train over 1 million elementary teachers. Strategies involving the training of a token number of elementary school teachers during summer institutes, with the hope that they would return to their school districts to "spread the word", were at best wishful thinking. The three NSF studies indicate that a much greater teacher-training effort will be needed if significant improve- ments in the teaching of elementary school science and mathe- matics are to be achieved. The large number of elementary school teachers who must be reached points to the need for developing locally-based institutions which could focus on this task. The proposed science and mathematics teaching resource centers could assess local needs by arranging peri- odic meetings with key teachers, principals, and curriculum supervisors; organize meetings of parents and teachers to discuss recent developments in the teaching of science and mathematics; provide in-service workshops on science and mathematics instructional programs and methods; enlist the help of experts to speak on topics of special interest to teachers; and arrange for staff members to visit local schools periodically to ensure close communications with schools served by the centers. A second important function of the proposed science and mathematics teaching resource centers would be to provide low- cost kits of science and mathematics materials to teachers from participating school systems. The need for this service is especially great at the elementary school level, since most elementary schools are poorly equipped to teach science and mathematics. 46

It is generally agreed that science and mathematics at the elementary school level are best taught through the utilization of concrete "hands-on" experiences to develop key concepts (Hausman, 1976, p. 13; National Advisory Committee on Mathematical Education, 1975, p. 18). However, the logis- tics of supplying "hands-on" instructional materials to elementary school classrooms on a large scale has presented a serious obstacle to the implementation of activity-centered programs in both science and mathematics. Most school sys- tems have not been able to develop effective mechanisms to supply instructional materials other than textbooks to elemen- tary school classrooms. The problem has been one of scale, and also of costs. Even though the developers of the elemen- tary level course content improvement programs usually attempted to make use of materials that would be relatively inexpensive to purchase, the marketing costs associated with the commercial production of elementary science and mathema- tics kits has raised the price to a prohibitive level for many school systems. Another obstacle has been the problem of maintaining kits of instructional materials in a ready-to-teach condi- tion after their initial purchase. Because significant amounts of expendable materials are frequently used in many of the new programs, some provision must be made to refurbish the kits each term; both to replace the expendable items and to inventory, clean, and repair non-expendable items. The two existing science resource centers in New York and Virginia have demonstrated a practical solution to these problems. Personnel at these centers manufacture most of the science apparatus used in the elementary schools. These pieces of science apparatus, as well as packages of expendable materials, are assembled into kits that are loaned to teachers at participating schools. Considerable cost savings result from employing high school students to carry out many of the manufacturing operations necessary to assemble simple elemen- tary science and mathematics apparatus, such as microscopes, balances, circuit boards, and trundle wheels. Additional savings are made by purchasing supplies in bulk, directly from manufacturers, and by reprocessing kits of instructional materials after each use so that they can be used by several elementary school classes each year. Even when overhead and administrative costs are included, the science kits produced by these centers cost substantially less than those available from commercial suppliers. For example, a "Small Things" microscopy kit for a class of 32 students cost the Fairfax Science Materials Center $68 to prepare, compared with $202 for the least expensive commer- cial version. A large part of this saving resulted from the 47

use of a simple elementary microscope manufactured by the Fairfax Center at a cost of 52 cents. (Seven thousand of these simple microscopes were manufactured by high school students during two summer vacations.) The least expensive comparable microscope available from commercial suppliers would have cost over four dollars. In total, the first 4,000 science kits produced by the Fairfax Science Materials Center cost the school system $211,000 instead of the $420,000 they would have cost commercially. An added benefit can accrue by linking the provision of instructional materials support to the in-service training provided by a science and mathematics teaching resource cen- ter. Although past experience suggests that in-service training programs are most effective if teacher participation is voluntary, it is feasible to limit the availability of some kits of instructional materials to teachers who have attended an in-service training workshop designed to acquaint them with the effective use of the materials in the kit. Such an arrangement can help motivate teachers to become in- volved in in-service training programs who would not other- wise respond to appeals to upgrade their teaching skills. In addition, teachers often adopt a more serious attitude toward the utilization of new instructional materials if they must make an effort to qualify to receive them. Although most essential for the elementary school level, similar teacher-training and materials-support services would also be of considerable assistance to junior high school science and mathematics teachers. After the elementary school teachers, junior high school teachers comprise the group which is most numerous and least adequately prepared to teach science and mathematics. The science and mathematics teaching resource centers could also help improve the quality of teaching at the secon- dary level, both by working within the constraints of existing curricula and by providing opportunities to acquaint local decision-makers and teachers with the options available for improving the curriculum. The resource centers would provide an ideal site for the introduction, adaptation, and dissem- ination of supplementary science and mathematics teaching materials. It might also be possible for the resource center to collaborate with university science faculties to sponsor summer institutes for science and mathematics teachers that would be closely tied to the needs and interests of local school systems. Initially, a limited number of prototype centers might be started in locations where the essential local cooperation and support could most readily be found. It might be possible 48

to attach some such centers to existing institutions, such as science and technology centers or universities. However, because some teacher-support institutions established in the past have become bogged down in bureaucracy and enmeshed in struggles over control, it will be important to plan the science and mathematics teaching resource centers so as to lessen the probability of such problems ensuing. Due to declining enrollments, school systems in many parts of the country have space in school buildings that is no longer needed for classroom instruction. It might be possible to locate some science and mathematics teaching resource centers in such unused space. However, it is important that a resource center be independent of day-to-day school system management concerns, so that it can concentrate entirely on serving the teacher-support purposes for which it is being established. Ideally, a science and mathematics teaching resource center should be a quasi-independent, cooperative enterprise, governed by a board with representation from local participating school systems, and the local university and industrial scientific research community. In areas with many small school systems, a science and mathematics teaching resource center might be operated in con- junction with the other services sometimes offered by an "in- termediate school district", such as the Boards of Cooperative Educational Services that exist in New York State and the SCIMAP center in Spencerport, New York. Eventually, it would be advantageous for groups of resource centers to be loosely associated into regional networks which would allow them to share capabilities and to undertake collaborative efforts. The findings of the three NSF studies suggest that the proposed science and mathematics teaching resource centers would be enthusiastically supported by teachers, principals, and school system superintendents. Each new center would create a focus for the professional development of teachers; establish a mechanism by which teachers could have a voice in curriculum and materials design; and provide them with inno- vative instructional materials and moral support. RECOMMENDATION 1: We recommend the establishment of a number of science and mathematics teaching resource centers, each to serve a large school system or a group of neighboring smaller systems. Each teaching resource center would offer some or all of the following services: In-service training programs related to the science and mathematics courses being taught or to be introduced in the school systems involved. 49

Construction, maintenance, repair, and distribution of kits of materials required to teach those courses. Expert advice to teachers to help them learn to use new science and mathematics instructional materials and techniques, and to help them with their individual teaching problems. This recommendation is addressed to individual school systems and clusters of neighboring systems, since such a resource center will be unlikely to succeed unless the local community wants it to succeed. Money, of course, is also needed. The resource centers in Genessee Valley, New York and Fairfax County, Virginia operate their science materials support programs for elementary schools at a yearly cost of four to six dollars per student, depending upon the grade level and the number of new science units that are intro- duced in a given year. This cost represents less than one- half percent of the total annual per pupil operating cost. Nevertheless, for 25,000 pupils an annual outlay of $100,000 to $150,000 would be required. Most of this cost should come from local school budgets, and we hope enough communities will develop teaching resource centers to give the idea a thorough testing under a variety of community and organizational pat- terns . However, federal assistance to help with the initial costs of establishing and outfitting resource centers will be needed to encourage a substantially larger number of school systems to establish such facilities. Such centers should also be eligible for federal support for special programs, such as institutes or other special in-service teacher training programs. Continuing operating costs, however, should come from local resources and should be considered as a part of the normal cost of operating the school system. New Courses and Learning Materials The continued advance of human understanding on the frontiers of science requires continued revision and develop- ment of the science curriculum. The yield from research is not new "information" to be packed into young heads; it is, rather, changes in understanding. Better understanding some- times requires not a new chapter in a textbook, but new textbooks and new ways of teaching. That task calls for the continued engagement of university scientists; through their collaboration with teachers, the linkage of primary source to the classroom can be most directly made. 50

A continuing program of improvement is also desirable in order to do better what we tried to do before, but in a first effort did not know how to do very well. Funding agencies need to pay special attention to the following needs; 1. The new math did not work out satisfactorily in elementary schools, but the current reemphasis on building skills in the four basic operations of arithmetic is not satisfactory either. Most elemen- tary school children not only continue to learn primarily computational arithmetic, they continue to be taught by rote with the same lack of emphasis on logical thinking that has already produced large numbers of adult mathophobes. The NSF case studies reported little evidence of the use of hands-on materials and found that fun and excitement were absent from almost all elemen- tary mathematics classes. Although it is now generally accepted that firmer mathematical foundations are laid if children's numerical think- ing is closely related to concrete perceptual experiences, elementary mathematics programs with such an emphasis are not common in elementary schools in the United States. Clearly, a renewed effort to improve the teaching of elementary school mathematics is a high priority need. However, in initiating new projects, great care needs to be taken to learn from the mistakes of the past, so as to develop elementary mathematics materials that can be read- ily understood by teachers and parents as well as students. 2. Well-intended efforts to make education "relevant" by developing totally new multi- disciplinary or problem-centered courses have not been very successful due to the reluctance of schools and school systems to make radical alter- ations in the core curriculum. The NSF statis- tical survey found that, at the junior high school level (grade 7-9), four fairly traditional fields accounted for 86 percent of the science classes — general science, earth science, life science, and physical science. Similarly, general mathematics and algebra accounted for 87 percent of the junior high mathematics classes. In grades 10 through 12, biology, chemistry, and physics comprised 74 per- cent of the science classes, and algebra and geometry more than two-thirds of all mathematics 51

classes. (See Tables 5 and 7.) Although these are the science and mathematics courses most commonly taken by secondary school students dur- ing the past decade, a disproportionately small percentage of the financial support has been allocated for their improvement. In the future, greater relative emphasis should be given to im- proving the courses that are taken by the largest numbers of students. 3. More attention needs to be focused on the development of science and mathematics materials appropriate to the needs of the average student, as distinguished from those students who are pre- paring for careers in science. In the past, it has been difficult for some course developers to appreciate the fact that not all students are interested in science for its own sake. Some courses have emphasized topics and activities that were of marginal interest to the average student. Although it is not proposed that developers cease trying to involve students in the intrin- sic delights of the pursuit of scientific know- ledge, in the future an effort should be made to develop some course materials that have greater appeal to students who are not intensely inter- ested in science. The problem is particularly acute at the junior and senior high school levels, where there is a current need for a junior high school applied physical science course, an activity-centered earth science course appropriate to the abilities and interests of the average ninth grader, and a general education chemistry course that is less mathematical than CHEM Study or CBA chemistry. The second and third goals of education stated on page 41 are knowledge for personal satisfaction and benefit, and knowledge for good citizenship and intelligent dealing with social issues that have a technical content. Courses aimed toward these goals are often more difficult to develop than are courses directed primarily toward know- ledge as an end in itself, and many scientists are not as comfortable in trying to develop or teach them. In planning such courses, delicate steering is necessary to avoid the levels of rigor and scientific sophistication that scare 52

some students away, and at the same time to avoid the mushiness of courses that are about but not of science, or that treat only the social aspects of a topic without giving students a better understand- ing of the underlying processes and principles. Developing courses to meet the second and third goals is not easy, but we think the effort is very much worth continuing. 4. There is a continuing need for the development of supplemental materials for the teaching of science and mathematics at all levels of the cur- riculum. Such supplemental materials can provide a focus for efforts to improve teaching, draw the attention of teachers to new ideas and teaching techniques, and serve as vehicles to add more timely and exciting activities to existing courses. A need also exists to explore alternative mechanisms for distributing low-cost supplementary resource materials for teachers, such as resource guides, learning games, duplicator and transpar- ency masters, and booklets for students on topics of special interest. Because supplementary mater- ials for teachers comprise a relatively small market as compared to textbooks, their production is often not economically attractive to commercial publishers. Several branches of the federal govern- ment, including the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey, are already publishing resource materials for teachers in specialized fields. Consideration should be given to the utilization of this mechanism for the dissemina- tion of some of the supplementary materials pro- duced with National Science Foundation support. If such materials were to be placed immediately in the public domain, even wider distribution could be accomplished through local reprintings at regional science and mathematics resource centers. Major curriculum development requires public funding for the familiar reason that the profit margins of textbook pub- lishing do not generate the necessary capital. History shows that the inertia of the country's vast, pluralistic, independent, locally controlled school system, taken together with the high risk and intense competition in educational publishing, has tended to inhibit innovation and to promote uniformity at a safely mediocre level in the quality and con- tent of textbooks and other materials sold by the textbook industry to the schools. Although many publishers were initially worried about "government interference", the 53

responsible leadership of the industry came to welcome the curriculum-reform movement and to conclude that they, as well as the schools, had benefitted from it (BCMA Associates, 1975) The NSF-supported curriculum-reform enterprises not only supplied fresh materials directly to the publishers that took over the distribution of their product but also made market breakthroughs that were sufficiently successful to stimulate competing publishers to update the content and enhance the appeal of their offerings. This successful model of curriculum development needs to be revived and continued. The earlier effort was suc- cessful, in part, because the shock of Russian achievement in space motivated many able and prominent scientists to devote much attention to improving precollege instruction. There is now no single motivating factor comparable to Sputnik. But there is another kind of motivation to reinforce a sense of public duty: many scientists are greatly dissatisfied with the education of their own children. RECOMMENDATION 2: We recommend continuation and increased support for the NSF programs of funding the design, experimental testing, and revision of new courses or curricula in science and mathematics and their associated teaching and learning materials. The cost of this recommendation will be of the order of $15 to $20 million a year, and should be provided by the federal government. During the 1960's, 77 elementary and secondary school curriculum projects cost a total of $93.8 million, or an average of $1.22 million each (National Science Foundation, 1970). They varied substantially in size and scope; some of the larger projects cost about $5 million each. If emphasis is placed on the core subjects that are taken by the largest numbers of students, if each of these courses is revised every five to ten years, and if there are always two or three alternative programs for each subject, one can estimate that some six to eight new projects would be started each year. At the average cost of the 1960's, corrected for inflation, we arrive at a figure in the $15 to $20 million a year range. Institutes for Teachers The new courses developed under NSF auspices are not as widely used as they were a few years ago (Weiss, 1978), and the learning techniques that characterized many of those courses — the inquiry approach, hands-on student experimen- tation, and student-initiated discussion — are not in common use in most schools (Stake and Easley, 1978). 54

There are probably several reasons for this situation. Certainly part of the problem is due to the fact that only short-term teacher-training efforts were made to solve long- term problems. Several studies have indicated that the NSF Institutes held prior to 1970 were generally successful; teachers who had attended such institutes were more likely than other teachers to be using curriculum materials developed with NSF support, to be emphasizing laboratory activities, and to be stressing a pupil-centered approach (Schlessinger, Howe, et al., 1973, p. 149). Nevertheless, in Fiscal Year 1971, NSF negotiations with the Office of Management and Budget resulted in a reduction of over one-third in funds for teacher-training institutes (from 33.1 million dollars to 20.1 million dollars). In explaining this change in priorities in 1971, Dr. William McElroy, the new NSF Director, stated: Up to now we have put roughly $460 million into the summer institutes for high school teach- ers and we think we have reached the maximum benefit from this approach. We think it is time to turn around and reexamine our whole approach... The major cutback is in summer institutes for high school teachers... 40 percent of our high school teachers have now participated in one or more of these. Unfortunately, we don't have, but hope to know by the end of the year, how much further we can really go in reaching the football coach who is assigned to teach biology at the high school level (Crane, 1976, pp. 145-146). As it turned out, the issue was not so much how to reach the "football coach who is assigned to teach biology" as it was to give the new teachers who continued to enter the schools an understanding of the specific content, rationale, and techniques required to teach the improved core curriculum courses developed during the previous fifteen years. Each year, the schools have a significant turnover of science and mathematics teachers. In 1971, the average teach- ing experience of secondary school science teachers was between 10 and 11 years (Schlessinger, et al., 1973, p. 103). In recent years, this figure has increased slightly; in 1977 the NSF statistical survey found an average of 11.5 years of experience for mathematics, science, and social studies teachers, with no great differences among the three subject areas (Weiss, 1978, p. 137). Many of the 40 percent of the teachers who had attended NSF institutes prior to 1970 are no longer teaching. Although declining school enrollments have now slowed the hiring of new teachers, declining enrollments have created new problems. When lay-offs are necessary, younger teachers 55

with little seniority are the first to be terminated; they are often replaced by teachers with more seniority who have been transferred from other disciplines. In 1977, 13 per- cent of the secondary school science teachers in the nation were teaching courses they did not feel adequately qualified to teach (Weiss, 1978, p. 144). For example, it is not at all unusual to find a former chemistry or biology teacher with no academic background in earth science assigned to teach that course. In such situations, teachers often abandon the more rigorous course materials in favor of alternative texts that stress reading about science, and place fewer demands upon the teacher. The classrooms of these teachers are generally distinguished by a lack of emphasis on laboratory work and a preoccupation with answering the questions at the end of each chapter. Unfortunately, adequate opportunities have not been pro- vided during the 1970's for retraining teachers who have been transferred to new fields. The 1971 reduction in funds for teacher institutes described by Dr. McElroy was followed by further reductions, and in 1975 all funding for NSF teacher training programs was suspended. In 1976, Congress restored $4 million for teacher institutes but restricted its use to institutes that are disciplinary in nature and not integrated with course development efforts. These are institutes of the original kind, those intended to help teachers learn more chemistry, more mathematics, or more of some other subject they teach. Although there has been some dissatisfaction with the extent to which these institutes actually increased the scientific knowledge of teachers attending them, there has been general approval of the objective. Much more controversial has been a second type of insti- tute. As new courses and materials were prepared by some of the curriculum projects supported by NSF, it seemed desirable to give teachers of those courses special training not only in the subject matter but also in methods of handling the laboratory and other special materials used in the new courses, and in how to use the discovery or inquiry method of teaching that some of these courses emphasized. The second objective has been both confused and criti- cized. The purpose has sometimes been described as stimulat- ing the adoption of new curricular materials that had been developed with NSF support, and when so described has been justified as increasing the effectiveness of the courses developed under the NSF Course Content Improvement Program. At other times, however, the same effort has been criticized as improperly interfering with course selection decisions that should be made at the local level. These course-specific 56

institutes have also been charged with being unfairly competi- tive with private textbook publishers who do not have funds to support teacher training institutes. Although both of these issues have been overemphasized in recent years by some members of Congress, there have been few complaints from publishers or school district officials. A 1975 report on the elementary and high school publishing industry indicates that, although the publishing industry was apprehensive twenty years ago when the NSF Course Content Improvement Program was initiated, most publishers now appre- ciate the need for course-specific institutes. The report explains: [Publishers] may not be equal to the challenge of new curriculum materials with their new approaches to teaching and learning and with content fre- quently not included in the teacher's undergraduate and graduate curriculum. The publishers' efforts to expand implementation beyond their present efforts is limited by the money available in school budgets. Many publishers are convinced that the programs they develop with a heavy investment of their own funds, as well as the programs developed by Study Groups and Councils, do not always live up to expectations because of the cost limit imposed on implementation (BCMA Associates, 1975, p. 21). Moreover, the spectre of interference in local curricu- lum decisions is dispelled by the endorsement of NSF activi- ties by many school superintendents. The NSF statistical survey found 58 percent of the superintendents agreeing that federal support has improved the quality of curriculum alter- natives available to schools, 66 percent believing continued federal support for curriculum development to be necessary, and 77 percent believing that NSF should continue to help teachers learn to implement NSF-funded curricula (Weiss, 1978, p. 76). Several changes in NSF policy had the effect of depriv- ing many teachers of contact with the individuals who were most knowledgeable and most committed to the successful utilization of the new materials in the core areas of science. These changes included NSF's reluctance to fund teacher- training efforts by the groups responsible for developing the new materials; termination of some of the projects in the core areas before their fruition; and a switch in emphasis from the core subjects to interdisciplinary approaches and social studies. During the period when the largest numbers of teachers finally began to use the core curriculum materi- als developed with NSF support, most of the curriculum pro- 57

ject personnel were dispersed, and could no longer respond to the problems encountered by teachers. This discontinuity also prevented project personnel from becoming significantly involved with the very real problems of large-scale course implementation; such experience could have provided the basis for substantive improvements in later revisions of the course materials. Although there can be no substitute for subject-area competence, the NSF statistical survey revealed that large numbers of teachers indicated a need for additional assistance in obtaining information about new instructional materials (43 percent), learning new teaching methods (43 percent), implementing the discovery/inquiry approach (36 percent), and using manipulative materials (33 percent) (Weiss, 1978, p. 147). The dicipline-centered institutes that are now authorized may be able to meet some of these needs in addi- tion to increasing teachers' knowledge of the discipline involved. But past experience has shown that there is no such thing as a "teacher-proof" curriculum. Unless adequate teacher training programs are provided when new courses are introduced, very little change occurs in the classroom save the substitution of one textbook for another. Most of the major curriculum development groups have stressed that the approach used by teachers in the classroom is as important as the new course materials. Some projects have stressed that the success of their materials in the classroom is critically dependent upon the adoption of a new role by the teacher. Teaching science or mathematics with an emphasis on the quality of children's thinking is an alien experience for many teachers, and is not an easy task for anyone. Teachers who are not convinced of the need to change their approaches to teaching can and do sabotage even the best of the new programs. The NSF case studies suggest that considerable attention needs to be given to the development of strategies to help teachers cope successfully with the practical problems created by the introduction of new teaching approaches and materials into their classrooms. Substantive and long-term teacher-training efforts are needed, both to update teachers' understanding of science and to address the specific problems and challenges that the new courses gener- 58

ate, such as the use of the inquiry approach, the development of questioning techniques that focus on the quality of a student's thinking, the management and use of manipulative materials, the orchestration of a multi-media approach, the evaluation of student achievement, and the maintenance of discipline in an activity-centered classroom. Rarely are these skills adequately mastered in the pre- service education of teachers, partly because teachers usually do not know which courses they will be teaching until they are hired, and partly because theoretical discussions of pedagogy do not seem to have much impact on teachers before they have grappled with the realities of managing their own classrooms. The alternative is more effective in-service training programs, but local school systems do not have the capabilities, resources, or will to assume responsibilities for the in-service training of science and mathematics teachers, particularly at the secondary level. It is there- fore important that the National Science Foundation resume support for institutes that can be course-specific, as well as for those that are primarily disciplinary in nature. The charge of undue interference in local curriculum selection decisions need not arise, for NSF funding of institutes with the original emphasis on the upgrading of individual teachers would allow NSF to remain at arm's length from the adoption of specific programs by specific school systems. After a school system has decided to introduce a particular new program, special training for the teachers is essential regardless of whether development of the new pro- gram has been supported with NSF funds. In addition to in-service training programs for teachers, more efforts should be made to develop summer institutes for elementary and secondary principals, focused on new approaches to the teaching of science and mathematics. Besides making principals more effective, such efforts might also enlist their support in recruiting reluctant teachers to participate in in-service training institutes. RECOMMENDATION 3: We recommend support of an NSF pro- gram of institutes for teachers, both to increase their knowledge of subject matter and to improve their skill in teaching the new courses that will be developed in the future, whether the development of these courses is funded by public or private sources. Although there has been much testimony to the value of the NSF institutes, it must be acknowledged that the leaders of some of the institutes were disappointed that they were not more effective. In planning for future institutes, 59

attention should be given to overcoming the deficiencies reported in some of the past ones. At peak level during the latter half of the 1960's, NSF was expending close to $40 million a year to support insti- tutes attended by about 40,000 teachers a year. Nearly 90 percent of the institutes were for high school teachers, and the major cost was for stipends for the teachers who attended summer or year-long institutes. The part-time institutes attended by in-service teachers were considerably less expensive. For the future, there is no "right" number of institutes; the number will be determined by the normal political processes of balancing competing needs and opportunities, but we believe the program should have per- manent, continuing status. Non-traditional Educational Opportunities Much learning goes on outside of schools and school lessons. The Panel had extensive discussions on only one of the non-traditional educational agencies — the science and technology centers that now constitute the most rapidly grow- ing segment of the museum world. But two others should be mentioned, for although the Panel did not consider them in detail they will have to be given careful attention in future efforts to improve science education. One has resulted from recent revolutionary changes in electronic circuitry. The hand-held calculator is used by many thousands of students and teachers, to solve a variety of quantitative problems. Computers of increasing power and decreasing cost have added a new dimension to instruction in a range of subjects. Computer aided instruction has not fulfilled all the hopes of its advocates, but surely is not yet to be dismissed. When and how these powerful tools can most effectively be used in education is a topic of much importance in future studies of science education. The other is television, which has clearly become an enormously potent force in American society. Most children watch and are influenced by it, and several studies have suggested that by the time they graduate from high school, many students have spent more time watching television than attending school — 20,000 hours and more. The Panel noted that in the past, TV science programs have not been popular with children (Holden, 1978) and that even the best programs have not been totally successful, particularly in involving the child actively, instead of as a passive spectator. Nevertheless, a major challenge and opportunity lies in using television, perhaps in unconven- 60

tional ways, as a tool to improve science literacy. The Children's Television Workshop science series now being developed has attractive possibilities; the Panel would hope other innovative approaches can be found. It is possible that new and cheaper technology might help in making children more active participants. For instance, it is likely that video discs will soon be available in classrooms so that video materials can be consulted readily and without help from teachers, just as books can now be used. Similarly, cheap hand-held video cameras and recording equip- ment could allow children to video-record their own science programs, the goal being not necessarily the finished product but rather involvement in the process of program preparation. Television and the computer have drastically changed most people's lives in the past 25 years. However, the right strategy for their use in education, particularly in science education which depends heavily on active individual discovery and conceptual development, is not evident. Certainly much harm can be done by the misapplication of inappropriate tech- nologies, and the glamour of sophisticated technologies often casts them in the role of a solution in search of a problem. The Panel would hope that in the future the educational value of these technologies will be assessed objectively, giving full consideration to both costs and benefits, so that their most appropriate uses in children's science and mathematics education can be identified. Science and Technology Centers Many a visitor has come away from a museum, a planetar- ium, a zoo, an aquarium, or a science and technology center with a new interest, or an enhanced understanding of some scientific process or phenomenon. These non-formal educa- tional institutions differ in kind, style, and effectiveness, but in communities that are fortunate enough to have them they can be valuable resources to children and adults who want to know more about science and technology. Their permanent and traveling exhibits and their special- ized collections and facilities provide opportunities for experiences that are practically never available in schools. One can watch a polar bear, view science films, get a close- up view of a live octopus, sit in a space capsule, or examine artifacts from early civilizations and other cultures. And in a science and technology center — much more than in the typical museum or zoo — one can also manipulate, try out, and experiment with equipment specifically designed to facil- itate learning through experience. As compared with school, the learning is less systematic, deliberately less formal, 61

and more dependent on individual initiative and interest. At the same time, the experience can enrich the classroom fare, allow one to go more deeply into an interesting topic, and bring a topic to life through close study and manipulation of specific examples. These benefits are available to those that seek them. Yet there has been surprisingly little research on what and how visitors to museums, zoos, and science and technology centers really learn. It seems clear that some visitors learn much. And attendance records and the number of repeat visits give evidence that many people value these institu- tions. The science and technology centers are especially popular; a 1974 survey by the National Endowment for the Arts found 38 percent of all museum visits to be to science and technology centers, as compared with 24 percent to history museums and 14 percent to art museums. Science centers had 36.5 million visitors in 1975 (Kimche, 1977; Roark, 1979). Because of their popularity and flexibility, science centers can be very important contributors to increased science literacy of the American public. How their programs and exhibits can best contribute to this end is an area of educational research that merits much more effort than it has received in the past. In addition to their classic, museum-like function of presenting interesting and informative exhibits, many of these institutions offer other educational opportunities. Examples include: • Special lecture-demonstrations, given to school classes brought to the center for that purpose, or taken to the school by the center staff, together with a van load of demonstration equip- ment. • Organized classes, a few hours a day for pre-school children; and short courses on photography, magne- tism, geology, computer programming, and many other topics, taught at levels appropriate for designated age groups. • Guided tours, work on projects that have educational value, a home and meeting place for amateur science clubs, and a variety of other activities, some for particular age groups and some designed to attract whole families. • Internships for elementary or high school teachers who want to learn more about science education and 62

how to make use of a variety of kinds of equipment, or for prospective teachers during their pre-service education. Typically, the people who take advantage of any of these opportunities constitute a voluntary, self-selected group; people visit museums and science centers because they want to. Thus the students who make most use of these out-of- school opportunities are likely to be those who are most interested in science, for there they can pursue their inter- ests to greater depth, in new directions, and at their own pace — all more readily than is usually possible in the more structured atmosphere of the school. This aspect is an asset that should be preserved, for under current priorities the abler and more highly motivated students are now often given less attention in school than their abilities and their potential contributions to society would warrant. At a science center, they can pursue favorite topics in more depth, work on science projects, and get expert advice more readily than in most schools. At the same time, because these centers are located in cities, they can also provide inner-city youngsters with better opportunities to learn what the natural world is like than can be offered by the fenced-in blacktop surrounding a city school building. Some centers have already started special programs for this purpose, such as the events spon- sored by the Oakland Museum to involve local community members and the "explainer" student intern program of the San Francisco Exploratorium. Science centers can play quite significant roles in providing alternative educational experiences for talented students from inner-city schools who do not have sufficient opportunities in school to pursue scientific inter- ests. This concept will be discussed in more detail later, in the section entitled "The Needs of Special Groups". In some communities, the local science and technology center may be the best organizational base for a science and mathematics teaching resource center of the type described earlier. A science center provides a degree of independence from the school system itself. The center's staff may include experienced and successful teachers and also practicing scientists interested in improving science education. And it may already have a variety of useful supporting services, such as shops, technicians, and graphic arts facilities. The decision is obviously a local and individual one, for many communities do not have a science and technology center. But in communities in which they do exist, their educational usefulness could sometimes be increased by enabling them to assume the additional role of a teaching resource center. 63

In a number of communities, the educational value of science and technology centers is already so widely recog- nized that they are being pressed to do more than can be sup- ported by their over-strained budgets. All of their func- tions require money, and admission charges are never suffi- cient to meet expenses. Gifts from private sources or sub- sidies from public ones are essential. Contributions from business and industry, grants for special projects from private foundations and federal agencies with scientific and technical interests, and the new but still small sustaining grants from the federal Institute for Museum Services are all needed, and all helpful. In some communities, the school systems of the region have found the local science and technology center to be so valuable that they regularly provide some support from school budgets. This is a relationship to be encouraged, for it gives both sides an on-going interest in developing the most educationally useful methods of collaboration between the formal school system and these non-school allies in improving science education. RECOMMENDATION 4: We recommend the development of additional science and technology centers of the kind that now exist in a number of cities. Furthermore, we recommend the strengthening of cooperative arrangements between these centers and nearby school systems to increase the extent to which the centers provide planned supplementa- tion of the programs of the associated schools, and to increase their general value to children and adults who wish to learn more about science. This recommendation does not call for action by the federal government. A number of cities have found means to develop science and technology centers; their number is growing; we hope it will continue to grow. But we are not recommending their establishment anywhere except where there is sufficient local interest and local financial support to get one started. The Needs of Special Groups Minority group members and women are seriously under- represented in science and engineering. In 1974, minorities constituted almost 11 percent of the employed labor force, but occupied only about 5 percent of all jobs in science and engineering. Women, who made up almost 40 percent of the work force, comprised only 6 percent of the employed scientists and engineers (NSF, 1977, p. 6). 64

These disparities are so great as to show clearly the need for positive efforts to increase the opportunities for women and for members of minority groups. But citing the disparities does not mean that our objective is exact statis- tical parity of all groups in all occupational fields. Indeed the attainment of precise statistical parity in all fields would no doubt require the illegal use of race and sex as criteria for selection. In any event, the goal should not be statistical, but individual: any child who has the necessary interest and ability should not be denied access because of race or sex to a career in any field of science or any of the professions based on science. Among the four generally identified minority groups, persons of Asian origin are statistically over-represented in science and engineering, and therefore do not need special attention in the context of this report. The other three — American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Blacks, and Hispanics — are all underrepresented. Of these three groups, Blacks are most numerous, have been most studied, and will most often be used as the illustrative minority group in the following discussion. In general, however, the special needs of Blacks are matched by similar needs of the other two minority groups, and also by those economically disadvantaged children in general. Blacks constituted 15 percent of the 18-21 age group in 1974 and 10.7 percent of the total undergraduate population. But Blacks constitute only 6.9 percent of undergraduates majoring in the biological sciences, 5.9 percent of those majoring in engineering, and 4.6 percent of the physical science majors (Office of Civil Rights, 1976). At the graduate school level, the numbers of minorities receiving doctorates in scientific disciplines are even lower. Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans account for almost 20 percent of the population, but in 1977 constituted less than 4 percent of the Ph.D. recipients in all science and engineering fields, including the social sciences. Women received 18 percent of the doctoral degrees in science and engineering in 1977 (National Research Council, 1978). The situation means that as a nation we are not utiliz- ing effectively many gifted young people, although technolog- ical innovation is widely recognized as a need focal to our economic health. A large fraction of the nation's corporate executives and more than half of the federal decision-makers (GS-18 and above) come from science and engineering back- grounds. It is unfortunate that more women and minorities are not receiving the scientific education that would improve their opportunities for upward mobility. 65

As children approach adolescence, the availability of role models becomes an important factor in their selection of future careers. Studies have shown that, although parents are listed by adolescents as the individuals most responsible for their career choices, associations with other adults holding specific occupations are second in importance (Pallone, Hurley, and Rickard, 1973). There is a need, there- fore, to provide more women and minority group role models, if we are to encourage more adolescent girls and minority group students to consider careers in science. Ways should be explored to increase the number of such role models on the science and mathematics faculties of secondary schools. However, minority group students and girls need contact with role models from scientific careers other than secondary school science or mathematics teaching. It is here that industry and university science and engineer- ing departments can provide an important service by lending scientific personnel to work with minority youth and girls. The Minorities in Engineering programs initiated through- out the country beginning in 1972 provide many examples of cooperative efforts involving local school systems, industries, and universities (Committee on Minorities in Engineering, 1977). With support from a number of industrial corporations and their foundations, these programs have focused on estab- lishing local organizations that encourage interactions among secondary school personnel, college faculty members, indus- trial personnel, and community groups. However, much remains to be done, not only in engineer- ing but in other scientific fields. Until it is possible to improve significantly the quality of mathematics and science education for all disadvantaged children, particularly in inner-city schools, there is a need to develop an approach that will identify gifted but economically disadvantaged students early in elementary and junior high school and follow them through high school and college, so as to provide them with the support necessary to increase their opportunities for learning and their chances of success. There is much that could be done to help such students cross the academic hurdles in their path, such as the establishment of special schools or schools-within-a-school, the provision of summer enrichment camps in science and mathematics, the arrangement of part- time student apprenticeships with professional scientists and engineers, and the provision of special career-planning assis- tance for students and their parents. If larger numbers of women and minority group members are to have careers in science and engineering, larger numbers of students must be put into good science and mathematics courses, enrolled in the college-preparatory programs in high 66

school, and given the education that will qualify them for admission to scientific and technical programs in college. Effective actions of this kind should be the conscious and measurable objectives of programs to increase interest and motivation. Even if many special efforts are made, the task will take decades. Success will require a national commitment lasting into the next century. The fact that the task cannot be accomplished quickly should not deter us from continuing on what must necessarily be a long-term effort. RECOMMENDATION 5: In order to give women and mem- bers of racial or ethnic minority groups greater opportunity to become interested in and to prepare for careers in scientific and technical occupations, we recommend that scientists and engineers work with their local school systems to provide special lectures and classes; tours of local scientific, engineering, and technical facilities; opportuni- ties to meet with appropriate role models; and other experiences intended to increase their motivation and to overcome their disadvantages in securing the education necessary for scien- tific and technical careers. In addition, we recommend that efforts be made to identify gifted but economically disadvantaged students early in their schooling, so as to ensure that they will be afforded adequate opportunities to prepare themselves for admission to scientific and technical programs in college. Accomplishment of these objectives will require wide- spread, decentralized, continuing effort on the part of many organizations and individuals. This recommendation is equally broadly aimed. Accountability and the Use of Tests The phrase "back to the basics" summarizes the most widely publicized recent campaign in education. Three quarters of the States of the Union have adopted some form of minimum competency legislation, legislation requiring students to pass certain tests before being promoted or allowed to graduate. Both the back to the basics movement and the minimum competency legislation are evidence of in- creasing public insistence that schools be held accountable for the performance of students. This whole movement has been fueled by widespread com- plaints that high school graduates are not as well educated 67

as they should be. Employers complain that new young em- ployees with high school diplomas are illiterate. College English departments are having to shift more of their Fresh- man English classes to work on composition and remedial English instead of teaching literature courses (Gibson, 1978); publicity has been given to declining scores on the Scholas- tic Aptitude Test, and part of that decline has been related to the fact that "less thoughtful and critical reading is now being demanded and done" and "careful writing has appar- ently about gone out of style" in many schools (Wirtz, et al., 1977) . So the call arises for an end to social promotion, the abolition of frills and a reduction in the number of soft courses, for greater emphasis on the basics of reading, writing, and computation, for the use of standardized tests to determine whether students have attained minimum competency, and for increased accountability on the part of the schools. The motivation for much of this concern is highly laudable. The public should be interested in its schools. There is room for much improvement in the curriculum. Reading and writing are basic and essential skills. Schools should be accountable for the effectiveness with which they educate the nation's youth. The trouble with accountability is not with the concept, but with the method by which student performance is measured and publicly reported. If teachers know the tests that will be used to compare their pupils, their schools, and their own performance, of course they will emphasize in their teaching the skills and knowledge that are emphasized in the tests. Nothing else could be expected. Indeed teachers would be remiss if they did not help their students acquire the information and skills on which they will be judged. It is therefore necessary to understand the methods by which pupils are judged, and to analyze the slogan "back to the basics", for that slogan seems to have different meanings for different users. As a reassertion of the primacy of the central core subjects in contrast with a variety of "fringe" or "soft" courses, it raises a question of educational philos- ophy on which there is continuing argument, and to which the answer often depends upon the particular students being con- sidered. As insistence on mastery of the facts, methods, and skills that are essential for competent performance, learn- ing the basics of mathematics or other subjects has the same kind of solid justification that it does in learning to play basketball, or a musical instrument. Initially, reading, 68

writing, and arithmetic are skill subjects. After the rudi- ments have been learned, they become much more than that, but for a beginning pupil much practice is required to master the basic skills. Because those skills are essential for other school subjects and for effective management of many aspects of adult life, the public is right in wanting to hold schools accountable for the ability of their students to read, write, and calculate with reasonable competency. Reasonable competency may be all that can be expected of some students, but for others that level is not enough, par- ticularly in the higher grades and especially for the more competent students. Thus loss results when back to the basics sets limits on what is to be learned, as it does when some subjects, such as science, are excluded from the definition of basic education which is used to allocate state funds to local schools; or when teachers and students are led to believe that there is no need to go beyond the level of min- imum competency, as they are when promotion or graduation are determined by scores on tests of minimum competency. It is this last interpretation, or implementation, of the back to the basics and minimum competency movements that we strongly oppose. When those movements set a low ceiling on expectations and opportunities, many of the children and society are deprived. Ralph Tyler provides an example of how the low ceiling of a minimum competency requirement affects schools: "In Florida, the National Education Association panel (which I chaired) heard criticisms that the eleventh grade testing program was resulting in an overemphasis in many high schools on elemen- tary reading, arithmetic, and specific test items in order to ensure that students can pass the tests. As a result, high school subjects such as science, history, literature, music, and the arts have been neglected. Some of the teachers actually believed that the law now required them to narrow the curriculum to these minimum compe- tencies .. .Many teachers interpreted the emphasis on basic skills to mean they must devote most of their attention to routine drill" (Tyler, 1979, p. 29-30) . An encouraging contrast to this report is the fact that some students now seem to recognize what has been happening; a recent survey conducted by Gallup Poll and the Kettering Foundation found many students saying that elementary school standards are too low and that classes are not suffi- ciently challenging. 69

In practice, the emphasis on minimum competency has led to over-reliance on tests of those aspects of the curriculum that can be most readily expressed in simple numerical scores. This tendency is reinforced by the already wide use of objec- tive and nationally standardized tests of aptitude and achievement, and by the desire on the part of parents, the public, and school administrators to be able to compare this year with last year, or this school with that one. Unfortunately, this emphasis on numerical measures that are easily obtained and easy to report undermines an impor- tant part of the schools' educational function, for the tests that best satisfy the desire for ease of administration and reporting are, in the main, designed to measure the simpler and more routine aspects of education: ability to perform the four fundamental processes of arithmetic rather than understanding of mathematical principles and reasoning; remembering the names of concepts rather than understanding their meaning; ability to recognize rules and principles rather than ability to interpret and apply them; ability to recognize parts of speech rather than ability to write literate English. Yet as a report from the Council for Basic Education emphasized, "without the thinking elements science teaching is stripped of its greatest appeal to children," and these "more subtle and often more important objectives of education" tend to be suppressed by the rigid application of accountability measures (Hausman, 1976, pp. 3 and 10). It is possible to improve the examinations that are used to measure minimum competency and that should be done for they will no doubt continue to be used. But even at their best, they help establish a single standard for the granting of an educational credential, a standard that may be discouragingly high for some students and dispiritingly low for others. As stated earlier, there are important basic skills that students should be expected to learn, and it is appropriate to require demonstration of competency in reading, writing, and arithmetic computation. But measures of these skills should never constitute the sole basis for decisions concerning promotion or graduation of students or the evalua- tion of school curricula. Tests of these skills do not measure and do not purport to measure all that should be con- sidered in making those decisions. We, therefore, recommend that teachers be provided with a more desirable and flexible alternative: a large bank of carefully constructed examination items from which indi- vidual schools and individual teachers can select their own examinations (Zacharias, 1979). There should be such a bank or reservoir of test items in each subject or major area included in the curriculum: in the sciences, and also in foreign languages, social studies, the arts, and all the rest. 70

Each bank should cover a wide range, from the elemental and simple facts to the ideas, the concepts, the methods, and the more difficult and abstract aspects of the subject. Each item bank should include questions of several types. Some can be of familiar multiple-choice form, but other types would also be included. Essay or discussion questions are harder to score, but pedagogically more effective. In between multiple-choice and essay questions are open-ended questions that can be answered by a word, a phrase, a sentence, a com- putation, or a comparison. These items can be scored in a highly reliable manner; they can be phrased to require real understanding; they can be written in great variety; they serve more effectively as a basis for class discussion than do multiple-choice items; and they stand up better to public scrutiny. Each bank should be large enough to provide very wide choice in selecting items to make up different examinations — different in order to be appropriate for the wide range of schools and pupils that exist in the United States, and dif- ferent so the same school or teacher can draw many examina- tions from the bank. Moreover, and most importantly, the bank should not be secret. All of the test items should be publicly available, to teachers, parents, school children, to anyone who is inter- ested. Unlike tests whose secrecy must be carefully pre- served, there would be no danger in allowing students to examine the test bank. Within any field -- biology for example — there would be so many different items, testing so many different aspects of biological knowledge, principle, and method that any teacher could say to a pupil "Go to it. If you can answer the questions in the biology bank you know enough biology to earn a high grade." It may be desirable 2 Beginning in the 1930's, the University of Chicago faculty — with help from the University's Board of Examinations — con- structed long, searching examinations that were the sole basis for grading in many courses. These examinations includ- ed some multiple-choice and other objective items, some to be answered by a word or phrase, and some that required longer answers. As soon as one of these examinations was used, copies were made available in the University Book Store for purchase by anyone interested. This system worked very satisfactorily. The faculty had to construct good examinations, ones they were willing to make public. Students had the opportunity to find out in advance what the faculty considered to be the content, scope, and appropriate examination for a course. The reason- ableness of our proposal is supported by this favorable expe- rience, but our proposal goes further in making the whole bank of items available from the start. 71

to add that under most circumstances the particular items from the bank that will appear on a given examination should not be announced in advance. The whole item bank should be open, but if the particular questions on which students will be graded are known in advance, students will be tempted to concentrate too exclusively on the answers to the selected items. Open access to the whole test bank would force the people who construct the test items to do a better job. It is dif- ficult to write test items that assess a student's ability to think clearly, to understand principles and relationships, to express ideas in clear, concise prose. It is more diffi- cult to write such items than to write test items that depend on memory for facts, names, or word meanings, but it is not impossible. If ,al,L of the items are open to public inspec- tion, and if the test bank is expected to cover the whole range of curricular objectives, the test writers would have to do a better job. If all of the items are open to inspection, they are also open to objection by experts. Scientists could chal- lenge any that involved faulty understanding of the scien- tific facts or principles involved. Representatives of minority groups could challenge any that seemed unfair to their groups. The purposes of these test banks would be to improve education and to give teachers wider latitude in measuring what their pupils have learned than is possible with stan- dardized tests. For other purposes, tests of other types are available. Employers and college admissions officers can continue to use standardized tests to aid in making their selection decisions. Educational and vocational counselors can continue to use the tests they find of value in their work. The National Assessment of Educational Progress will no doubt continue to use tests designed for its purposes. Tests for these uses are typically the same throughout the country, and care is exercised to keep the test items secret, at least until after the test has served its purpose. But neither national standardization nor secrecy are necessary for tests used to assess progress during the school year, to help diagnose areas of strength or weakness, to use as starting points for classroom discussion or other forms of teaching, or to determine when a student is ready to move to the next level or block of material, or is ready for pro- motion or graduation. For these purposes, examinations con- sisting of questions selected from the appropriate test bank can give each school or teacher substantial latitude in selecting items with the content and at the level that are appropriate for that particular group of students. 72

RECOMMENDATION 6: We recommend vigorous efforts at local levels to combat the overemphasis currently given to scores on standardized tests of achievement in comparing the performance of schools, classes, and individual pupils. Because the tests most generally used for these purposes give emphasis to the more elementary and routine abilities necessary to meet "minimum competency" requirements, they constitute only a part of the basis upon which schools and pupils should be judged. In addition, in order to make available more desirable tests with which teachers can appraise the performance of their pupils, we recommend the creation, for each major subject, of a large bank of test items, of varied types and covering a wide range of skills and knowledge of the subject field. These test banks should be openly available to any teacher, school administrator, parent, child, or anyone else who is interested. Open availability of the entire bank of test items should improve the quality of test items and will give teachers latitude in selecting the test questions that match their educational objectives. Much work would be involved in making up the thousands of items that would be needed for the item banks in all of the major areas of the school curriculum, and to pretest the items to determine their difficulty and uncover hidden ambiguities. Because the test items would be of quite varied types, more time would be required to score them than is necessary for tests that can be scored by machine. But off- setting these costs would be the large amount of time saved by not having to construct individual teacher-made tests and the advantage of having access to a large resource of reliable and well-tested items from which any teacher could draw exam- inations tailored to the particular needs and interests of a school or class. 73