Should the scientific community expect the California science standards and approved science curricula to be world class? I would think so.

Are the California science standards and approved science curricula world class? I think not.

Consider the following standards that fall within my area of expertise.

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.

What process leads to state standards that are ambiguous, misleading, and age-inappropriate? Clearly, one that is seriously flawed.

The two most prestigious science organizations in the country, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) each spent close to 3 years developing science benchmarks and standards based on the best science education research available and the best scientific minds in the country. Thousands of scientists, science educators, and classroom teachers contributed to these documents. Unlike the California science standards, the AAAS benchmarks and the NAS standards are scientifically correct, age-appropriate, and based on the best science education research.

The California standards are based on neither the spirit nor the letter of these documents. As they clearly are in conflict with the standards and benchmarks, they then are not based on what many in the scientific community consider the best science education research and minds. Instead, they are based on the decisions of a political group. In other words, our standards are fundamentally grounded in politics, not science.

During the development of the California standards, the president of the NAS along with many other science organizations pointed out the flaws in our state standards. The recommendations from those organizations were ignored.

Did all the member of the state science committee responsible for approving the science standards read the NAS standards and the AAAS Benchmarks? Have they seen the video "A Private Universe," where 22 of 25 Harvard graduates interviewed failed to know why it is warm in the summer and cold in the winter? Did they read the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and heed its recommendation that if US students are to be competitive with those from other countries, then our science curriculum must involve deeper investigations of fewer topics? I hope so, but, by their actions, fear they did not.

Is there other evidence of the flawed nature of the standards-based process? Sadly, yes. In order for curricula to be approved for adoption by the state, the curricula were required to meet every one of these new standards at the specified grade level. No curricula (at least at the K-8 level) in existence met this requirement, so all major publishers rushed to develop standards-based curricula in the allotted time frame of about 9 months. So the adopted curricula to be used throughout the state will not have been thoroughly tested in any classroom.

Contrast this with the process used by the National Science Foundation to develop curricula. Based on the AAAS Benchmarks and NAS standards, the curricula are written and pilot tested in a limited number of classrooms. Using teacher input, these curricula are then revised and retested in a larger number of classrooms. Following another round of teacher input and revision, and a review of the material by science experts from universities or industry, the material is deemed ready for publication. This process takes from 2-4 years. An example of this type of curriculum is the FOSS program developed at the prestigious Lawrence Hall of Science, here in California. This program was not recommended for adoption even though it is used throughout the country and is widely heralded by teachers as a program in which student learn meaningful science and learn to love science. FOSS was rejected, in part, because its developers could not revise their materials in the short time given to do so, and would not revise their material to include inappropriate and incorrect science standards.

High tech companies know that it is necessary to pilot test a new device or product prior to large-scale production. They also know that the best ideas must always be used. Such knowledge appears to be missing from our science materials adoption process.

The outcome of California’s irrational process is that materials that have been carefully developed, thoroughly tested, and revised have not been, and, in fact, cannot be approved for adoption by the state. Only those materials that have been rapidly developed and have not been tested can be adopted.

This is a recipe for disaster.

As a physicist at a high technology company for the past 17 years, I have had to solve novel complex problems. The basic physics concepts that I have used are those contained in the benchmarks and standards: they are powerful unifying principles. Scientists solve problems by utilizing known principles of science and applying them to new situations. Our students must have the same experiences throughout their education or they will not be prepared for their future challenges.

As a scientist, I have had to constantly learn new science. If students are presented with interesting and meaningful science, they will learn not only to love science but also to love to learn science. If we fail in this endeavor and treat science as an unrelated collection of facts, then many students will certainly learn to hate science. This will result in a scientifically illiterate public and a severely drained pool of potential scientists - an outcome that is clearly unacceptable.

The scientific community must demand that a California science education be world class. Our children deserve it.

A brief bio of Dr. Woolf is available at

http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/people/lwoolf.html