Gary Hart, Secretary for Education

Governor’s Office

1121 L Street, Suite 600

Sacramento, CA 95814

February 17, 2000

Dear Secretary Hart,

You recently received from Assistant Professor Stan Metzenberg a letter stating that I misrepresented facts in order to obtain signatures for the petition to improve science education in California. The charges are themselves misleading and erroneous (Attachment A).

The science education petition is correct (Attachment B). The concerns outlined in the science education petition remain:

• The California Science Standards are based on neither the spirit nor the letter of the national science documents.
• The materials recommended for adoption contain errors in both science and pedagogy. None of the materials recommended for adoption have been thoroughly tested in classrooms.
• Innovative instructional materials that are scientifically correct, have been thoroughly tested in classrooms, and are widely and successfully used throughout the country have not been recommended for adoption.

I have also included a list of some of the mistakes and ambiguities in the California science standards (Attachment C) and my testimony to the State Board of Education about the poor quality of instructional materials that have been recommended for adoption (Attachment D).

I hope this information clarifies the beliefs of the supporters of the petition, who are passionately concerned about the science education of California's students. We believe that all of California's students deserve to be scientifically literate and should be provided with the finest instructional materials available.

Sincerely,

Dr. Lawrence D. Woolf

Cc: State Senator Dede Alpert

State Assemblymember Kerry Mazzoni

Executive Director John Mockler

Superintendent Delaine Eastin

Assistant Professor Stan Metzenberg

Members of the State Board of Education

"The signatories to the 12/22/99 petition were recruited by use of a letter and petition that is misleading and erroneous. Some of the signatories to the petition have potential conflicts of interest, as authors, developers, or regional sales managers for kit-based science programs that are seeking State Board of Education adoption."

The petition is not misleading or erroneous. See attachment B for details.

The affiliations of all supporters of the petition are presented after their names – there was no attempt to hide this. In a free country, I think it is fair to say that all have the right to express their beliefs. It is, in fact, somewhat alarming that Prof. Metzenberg would object to citizens freely expressing their views. The facts: of the 330 supporters of the petition, there is one regional sales manager for Delta Education, the publisher of FOSS, and 12 members of the Lawrence Hall of Science who are science curriculum authors and developers. Prof. Metzenberg should not be surprised that those who have spent their lives trying to improve K-12 science education would have strong opinions on matters such as these. FOSS is a nationally acclaimed Lawrence Hall of Science developed K-6 program that was not recommended for adoption.

"The State Science Standards encourage investigation and experimentation in every grade, and the Curriculum Commission’s criteria for evaluating science materials reinforce this principle."

I don’t disagree with this statement, nor does the petition.

"Our global economic competitors place high expectations on their students and the California Science Standards are world-class. A sampling of exam questions from Britain, Germany and Japan is included for a single advanced topic, the movement of charged particles in a magnetic field. The treatment of this topic in the California Science Standards is compared with the minimal coverage found in the two national standards documents."

Here, Prof. Metzenberg confuses science for all with science for future scientists. These problems are essentially AP Physics problems. Apparently Prof. Metzenberg believes that all students require proficiency at the AP physics level.

As stated in the introduction to these exam problems from other countries (Metzenberg's attachment C, p. 12):

• "31% of the 18 year-old British A-level students took A-level exams in at least one subject." Presumably, this indicates that significantly fewer than 31% of A-level 18 year-olds took the physics exam.
• "Of those German students who want to enter the university system, 20% took the advanced physics exam."
• "The Tokyo University entrance exam in physics is required of their students who want to major in the field. 43% of high school students graduating in 1990 applied to universities and 63% of applicants enrolled that year." So 27% of high school graduates enrolled in universities. "Of university entrance exams, the Tokyo University exams are widely considered to be the most difficult."

These problems are clearly not appropriate for all students in these countries or in California. I believe that the California science standards are meant for all students, Prof. Metzenberg apparently does not.

Whereas the California Science Standards are based on neither the spirit nor the letter of the National Science Education Standards developed by the National Academy of Sciences,

Whereas the California Science Standards are based on neither the spirit nor the letter of the Benchmarks for Science Literacy developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

This is misleading. These two National Standards documents were designed to indicate minimal expectations for all students. On the other hand, the California Standards were mandated by law to be "comparable in rigor to academic content and performance standards of America’s global economic competitors." The intents of these documents are therefore different.

Apparently Prof. Metzenberg agrees with the petition. As he states, the documents have different intents. The spirit of both national documents is that science is something students do, not something that is done to them. The national documents focus on learning through inquiry and are based on the conviction that all students deserve and must have the opportunity to become scientifically literate. These sentiments are absent from the California science standards. In addition, I quote from testimony of Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, to the California Academic Standards Commission on May 6, 1998:

Other states, such as New York, Ohio, and South Carolina have developed standards that are consistent with these national documents.

Also, the legislation mandating standards (60604 (a) (3)) literally states that the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall design and implement "Statewide academically rigorous content and performance standards that reflect the knowledge and skills that pupils will need in order to succeed in the information-based, global economy of the 21^st century." The statement quoted by Prof. Metzenberg, "comparable in rigor to academic content and performance standards of America’s global economic competitors," does not appear in the above quoted legislation.

Whereas many of the California Science Standards are incorrect, misleading, ambiguous, and age-inappropriate,

This is incorrect. The standards have been thoroughly reviewed by scientists. While disagreements may remain about wording, the Standards are fundamentally correct.

Again, Metzenberg does not disagree with the petition. The Standards are fundamentally correct – there are however many incorrect, misleading, ambiguous and age-inappropriate standards. Some that I have noticed are listed in Attachment C. This list has been sent out to a list serve of over 250 scientists and science educators and discussed in 2 editorials published in San Diego area papers. No scientist, including Prof. Metzenberg, has yet contacted me to tell me that I am incorrect. In addition, I quote from testimony of Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, to the California Academic Standards Commission on May 6, 1998: "Many science concepts are presented at grades that are not appropriate for students. For example, we know from extensive research that students in lower elementary grades cannot comprehend abstract ideas, such as atoms and molecules."

Whereas the California Academic Standards Commission ignored offers from the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific societies to improve the quality of the California Science Standards,

This is incorrect. The suggestions from these groups were given prominent notice, and many (but not all) of the suggested revisions were accepted.

I quote again from testimony of Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, to the California Academic Standards Commission on May 6, 1998:

I quote from the statement of Andrew M Sessler, President of the American Physical Society:

These offers were declined. The petition is correct.

The petition:

Whereas the California Board of Education has approved a policy that effectively prohibits the adoption of scientifically accurate, thoroughly tested, and highly regarded kit-based science curricula,

This is misleading. The criteria for science instructional materials require that instructional materials be scientifically accurate.

There are many NSF funded kit-based science programs that are scientifically accurate, field-tested and revised, and highly regarded by scientists, teachers, and students. These programs, used throughout the country, include FOSS, Science and Technology for Children, Issues, Evidence and You, Insights, and SEPUP. The Board of Education approved a policy that requires that instructional materials meet every standard at the specified grade level to be considered for adoption. This requirement, in conjunction with the short time period of about nine months between the adoption of the California science standards and the submission of instructional materials for review has resulted in the following situation: Materials that have been carefully developed, tested in classrooms, and revised using teacher and student comments and test results cannot be approved for adoption because the time frame for incorporating this new material, testing it in classrooms and revising it is 2-4 years, much longer than the 9 months allotted.

The fact is that no thoroughly field-tested program has been recommended for adoption. These field-tested programs are all scientifically accurate and highly regarded kit-based science programs. The petition is correct.

Whereas the California Board of Education has approved a policy that allows the adoption of materials that have never been thoroughly tested in classrooms.

Metzenberg comments:

This is misleading. Education code section (60200 (c3)) requires that the State Board of Education adopt materials that are "factually accurate and incorporate principles of instruction reflective of current and confirmed research."

Dr. Rollie Otto has stated the following:

{I was asked by FOSS to perform the technical review for their middle school electronics unit. In performing this review, I read every word in both the teacher and student books and did every experiment. I took off a complete week of work to do this - and this was for only one 6-week unit from one publisher at one grade level. In addition, I specifically pointed out areas where I did not have the competence to perform an adequate review and told them to find an expert in that area to review the work.}

My testimony to the State Board of Education on Feb. 9, 2000 and some additional background information is presented in Attachment D. Some explicit mistakes in both content and pedagogy in materials recommended for adoption are presented.

In addition, given the time frame involved (9 months from the adoption of standards to the submission of science instructional materials that could meet every standard at the specified grade level), none of the materials recommended for adoption could have been thoroughly tested in classrooms.

We therefor call for 2. Rejection of the current policy that only allows the adoption of curriculum materials that meet all of the current California Science Standards at the specified grade level.

If students are to be held accountable to standards, it is appropriate that they be provided with comprehensive instructional materials aligned to standards. In addition, this policy cannot be rejected given the provisions of E.C. 60200.1 (a) (1) requiring that "the criteria adopted are consistent with the content standards adopted by the State Board of Education in each of the four core content areas for which standards are adopted."

I believe that it is far more appropriate that students be provided with high quality engaging inquiry-based instructional materials that have been field tested and appropriately revised, are scientifically accurate and are developmentally appropriate. In addition, as is obvious from the above quote from the education code, the legislation does not mandate that materials must meet all of the standards at the specified grade level – this narrow requirement is the result of action by the Curriculum Commission, not the legislature.

I might point out that according to 60201. (a), the state board may "retain any instructional materials from a previous list."

We therefore call for: 3. The immediate allowance of waivers for school districts so that they may purchase materials that are scientifically accurate, age-appropriate, and thoroughly tested.

If a district wishes to purchase other materials that were not on the adopted list, they have discretion over 30% of the state funds and may already apply for a waiver for the remainder.

Applying for waiver and having waivers allowed do not have the same meaning. In order to use the 70% of the IMF funds ($31 /ADA for K-8), districts must first apply for a waiver and the waiver must then be granted. The petition obviously calls for the immediate allowance of waivers for the 70% portion of the IMF funds that require an application. In addition, the Schiff-Bustamante funds ($42/ADA) can only be used for instructional materials approved for adoption. The petition implicitly calls for the allowance of waivers for these funds as well.

Grade 4, 4b: "solar energy reaches Earth through radiation, mostly in the form of visible light" should be replaced by " … some of it in the form of visible light." The statement as currently written is wrong. For an excellent discussion of this point, see the American Journal of Physics, volume 67, p. 946 (1999).

Grade 7, 6c: "light travels in straight lines except when the medium it travels through changes." This statement is wrong. At normal incidence, light will travel in a straight line as it enters a material with a different index of refraction. Light will also travel in a straight line at off-normal incidence if the indices of refraction of the different media are the same.

Grade 7, 6f: "light interacts with matter by transmission (including refraction), absorption, or scattering (including reflection)" should be replaced by "light can be reflected, transmitted, or absorbed by matter." When written in this way, it is a statement of energy conservation. Scattering includes both reflection and transmission and should properly refer to both, not just reflection.

Grade 8, 7c: "substances can be classified by their properties, including melting temperature, density, hardness, heat, and electrical conductivity." Delete the word heat. Heat is not a property of a substance. If the authors meant thermal conductivity, they should use thermal conductivity.

Part of the grade 5 earth science standard 4d states that "students should use weather forecasts to predict local weather." Using weather predictions to predict weather makes no sense. The rest of this standard states that students should know "that prediction depends on many changing variables." "Changing variables" is meaningless jargon. By definition, variables vary. In addition, prediction properly depends on appropriate use of models.

The grade 5 physical science standard 1c states that "metals have properties in common, such as electrical and thermal conductivity." This is a meaningless standard because it indicates that only metals have these properties in common. In fact, all materials have electrical and thermal conductivities. It is as meaningful as a standard that states: "All metals have properties in common, such as density."

The grade 5 earth science standard 5c states: "the path of a planet around the sun is due to the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planet." One must take high school level physics to understand why planets revolve around the sun; you must first know Newton's Laws, centripetal acceleration, and vector addition. If gravitation were all that is relevant to planetary orbits, then the earth would fall into the sun and we'd all be dead. This standard is ambiguous, incomplete, and age-inappropriate.

The grade 5 physical science standard 3c states: "water moves in the air from one place to another in the form of clouds or fog." This standard is also incomplete and misleading. All air contains moving water molecules, even on days without fog or clouds.

Thank you for this opportunity.

I speak today as a concerned parent of 3 children in California public schools, a Ph.D. physicist at a high tech company for 18 years, and as a volunteer actively involved in improving K-12 science education.

As you may know, I initiated a petition drive to demonstrate to the state that a large fraction of the science education community disagrees with many aspects of both the science materials adoption process as well as the science standards. The list of supporters of this petition is now 34 pages long. I have copies here for you; I encourage you to read their comments.

I will limit my testimony to some specific examples of problems in two of the science textbooks recommended for adoption and then discuss more general issues.

1. Harcourt Science 5th grade, pages C64-C67:

Energy is a key part of many standards at many grade levels and is one of the most important concepts in science. In four pages of this 5th grade Harcourt textbook, the following concepts are covered:

· Energy

· Kinetic energy

· Potential energy

· Transformation of energy

· Law of conservation of energy

· Mechanical energy

· Thermal energy

· Electric energy

· Light energy

· Sound energy

· Elastic potential energy

· Gravitational potential energy

· Chemical energy

This is not science - it is, rather, a shopping list.

To confuse the issue further, two different definitions of energy are given:

a. On page C67: "Energy is the ability to cause changes in matter."

b. On page C66: "Energy is the ability to do work."

Does this "rigorous" treatment of energy lead to student learning. I doubt it.

2. McGraw-Hill Science 5th grade:

On page 138, the Coriolis effect is discussed - a topic best left to advanced college physics courses. I think that fifth grade students may have some difficulties understanding fictitious forces in rotating reference frames on spherical surfaces. In addition, the book is completely wrong in asserting that the direction of water moving down the drain has anything to do with the Coriolis effect.

On page 295, students are told that gravity and inertia together make the Earth go around the sun, a somewhat more correct treatment than the Standard which ignores inertia. But to understand this concept require knowledge of the mathematics of vector addition. Yet, this math concept is foreign to 5th grade students. So students will learn the words, but they won’t really understand the concept.

On page 297, the reason for the seasons is compressed into one sentence and one irrelevant diagram. Again, I believe that no learning is possible, but the student will be able to repeat that the seasons are due to the earth's tilt; they just won't know why.

The materials recommended for adoption clearly have some problems.

Now I would like to make some general comments and recommendations about the science materials adoption process.

1. These adopted materials have not been tested in classrooms, have no track record, and are flawed.

2. There are innovative materials used throughout the country that are based on the science of learning, that have been tested in classrooms and revised accordingly, and are highly regarded by scientists, teachers, and students. Districts throughout California, which have invested millions of dollars in materials and professional development, are using these programs, such as FOSS, successfully. These programs have not been recommended for adoption because of the inflexible rules adopted by the Board that the materials must meet all standards at the specified grade level.

Therefore:

1. The Board should allow waivers for school districts so that they may purchase curriculum materials that are state-of–the-art, scientifically correct, age-appropriate, and field-tested.

2. The Board should revise the materials adoption policy.

3. The Board should convene a panel of experts to determine why (1) the CA science standards differ from the National Science Education Standards, the Benchmarks for Science Literacy, and many other exemplary state standards such as New York and Ohio; (2) why California’s students will be unable to utilize new and innovative curriculum materials; and (3) why California has chosen to ignore the latest research on the science of learning. The ramifications of these policies on student learning should also be assessed.

Thank you for considering my comments.