March 4, 2004

California State Board of Education
1430 N Street, Room 5111
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear California State Board Member:

Prior to the California State Board of Education meeting on March 10, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association would like to address the proposed Criteria for Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional Materials.

We agree with the California Science Teachers Association that some of the criteria are unclear and restrictive. Teachers must be provided the flexibility to structure lessons in a way that ensures student mastery of the science standards. Category 1, criterion number 5, states that “To be considered suitable for adoption, an instructional materials submission must provide . . . a table of evidence in the teacher edition, demonstrating that the California Science Standards can be comprehensively taught from the submitted materials with hands-on activities composing no more than 20 to 25 percent of science instructional time (as specified in the California Science Framework). Additional hands-on activities may be included, but must not be essential for complete coverage of the California Science Standards for the intended grade level(s), must be clearly marked as optional, and must meet all other evaluation criteria.” We believe this section is confusing, arbitrary, and overly prescriptive to teachers.

Hands-on science is a core component of the National Research Council's National Science Education Standards (NSES) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science's (AAAS) Science for All Americans. The NSES state, “At all stages of inquiry, teachers guide, focus, challenge, and encourage student learning.” The current criteria before the Board presume to tell teachers how to teach. If enacted, they would clearly prohibit many valuable science instructional materials from being adopted by the state and used by local districts, as well as limit the amount of hands-on instruction a teacher can offer, simply because there would be a dearth of quality hands-on instruction resources with which to do so.

Quite simply this language can, and will, significantly limit the way science can be taught in California. This is troubling and will have huge repercussions not only in California, but also for the thousands of scientists, administrators, and teachers who are working to incorporate effective hands-on inquiry strategies and related instructional materials into classrooms nationwide.

The current criteria clearly favor direct instruction approaches that undermine the authority of local districts to make basic instructional decisions and dismiss the expertise of teachers to understand and meet the specific needs of their students. The California board should not

California State Board of Education

March 4, 2004

Page 2

prescribe or limit the amount of time hands-on activities should be allowed in the science classroom; it should instead provide teachers with a large array of effective tools to help them do their jobs.

To provide more clarity and eliminate the restrictive nature of the document, we respectfully request that you consider revising the Criteria for Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional Materials using suggestions submitted by the California Science Teachers Association, which are attached. We look forward to your reply on this matter, and we stand ready to answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Dr. Bruce Alberts, President

National Academy of Sciences

Dr. Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director

National Science Teachers Association

cc: Secretary of Education Richard Riordan

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell

Hon. Jackie Goldberg

Hon. John Vasconcellos

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Suggestions for Revisions to

Criteria for Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional Materials

respectfully submitted by California Science Teachers Association

(Suggested deletions are designated by strikeout; suggested revisions are in italics)

Category 1, #5: A table of evidence in the teacher edition, demonstrating that the California Science Standards can be comprehensively taught from the submitted materials using a variety of pedagogical strategies, with hands-on activities composing no more than 20 to 25 percent of science instructional time ( as specified in the California Science Framework. ). Additional hands-on activities may be included, but must not be essential for complete coverage of the California Science Standards for the intended grade level(s), must be clearly marked as optional, and must meet all other evaluation criteria.

Rationale: This criterion need not be so precise. It is confusing, arbitrary, and too prescriptive. Teachers need to be able to make the decision as to what instructional strategy will best teach a particular concept. For example, research shows that English language learners are more successful in mastering a concept through use of hands-on experiences. If a teacher needs to present the concept through instruction that is 50 or 75 percent hands-on, the teacher must have the flexibility, and the resources, to do so.

Category 1, #7: Evidence in the teacher edition that each hands-on activity (whether part of the intended program or included as an additional activity) directly covers one or more California Science Standards, (in the grade-appropriate Physical, Life, or Earth Science strands), demonstrates scientific concepts, principles, and theories outlined in the California Science Framework, and produces scientifically meaningful data in practice. All hands-on activities activity (whether part of the intended program or included as an additional activity) must be safe and age appropriate.

Rationale: By eliminating the confusing percentage requirement in #5, above, these two phrases are not necessary.

Category 5, #1: A teacher edition that describes what to teach, how to teach and when to teach, includesing ample and useful annotations and suggestions on how to present the content in the student edition and in the ancillary materials.

Rationale: Teachers are the experts in how and when to teach particular materials, not textbook publishers. This criterion denigrates the ability of teachers to exercise their judgment about how best to meet the needs of their students.

Category 5, #9: Suggestions for how to adapt each hands-on activity provided to direct instruction other methods of teaching, including teacher modeling, teacher demonstration, direct instruction, and reading, as specified in the California Science Framework.

Rationale: There is no research to suggest that direct instruction is superior to any other instructional strategy. If alternatives to hands-on activities are suggested, those suggestions should include all possible strategies a teacher might use to teach a scientific concept.