Quotes from AYP Survey

On May 31 we asked NSTA Express readers, which include science educators, administrators, curriculum developers, and others with an interest in science education, this question: Should science by included in AYP? Here are some responses we received, both for and against including science in AYP.

YES, SCIENCE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN AYP BECAUSE:

• Science is all around us and it is important to know the five w's of how it all works. Everyone should be taught how to think critically, how to make observations, hypothesise, analyze, and document what occurs. Science should be taught to all grade levels, it is just as important as the other subjects.
• Science gets "left behind" at the elementary level because of the emphasis on NCLB needs for math and literacy.
• If science results are not included in AYP, the will be less emphasis on teaching and funding for science.
• The only way my state will encourage science education in the elementary grades and middle school is if it is tested. When we tested science (prior to 1993) it was taught daily. Now it is rarely taught more than 6 weeks of the year.
• Science is a vital part of our future. The need to excel in science will continue to be played down by administrators since they know it is not part of the AYP. Equal time and attention must be given to science as is done to Math and English.
• Administrators might take science instruction more seriously and give us the support we need to increase student scores in science.
• This may be one way to get science back into K-6 schools.
• I feel that science has so much to do with everyday life and that there are many people do not realize this. If science assessment results were included in AYP those that control how much emphasis are put on each subject might realize how important science really is. In our district informational text in reading and problem solving in math are the lowest scoring areas. Even though science is composed largely of these two areas, instructional hours in science continue to decrease across the district.
• This gives educators and administrators a valuable tool in determining/measuring the effectiveness of instruction at the school
• Including the science assessment results in the AYP is one way to increase support of the teaching of science standards. At this point, in many schools, science takes a back burner to the teaching of language arts. However, in order for our country to stay competitive in this modern world, is necessary to for us to keep up in all areas, including science.
• This assessment will raise the level of motivation and emphasis on the teaching and learning of science in schools.
• Few elementary teachers are teaching science because it "doesn't count". One teacher I know had her principal throw the science book on the floor and tell her if she wanted to keep her job she would not teach science.
• Science teachers understand the importance of quality science teaching. Making science results a part of AYP will further legitimize what we have known for some time. Science is not only important for the future of our country but it also teaches critical skills to students beyond reading a writing and math. All these subjects should be a whole package...we cannot require competence in one area without demanding the same of other areas.
• Science education is rapidly becoming just as important as reading and math education. A well-rounded student can use his/her math skills and read well, but also must be able to interpret science in the media adequately so as not to be misled.
• Science is an important part of society. Not only is science sometimes applied math, but it affects all of us everyday. You cannot look somewhere and not see science all around you.
• The subjects that are measured by AYP currently are the subjects that get the most money and teaching time currently. Even students view those subjects as being the only ones that "count". If science education is going to be viewed as important than our assessment results must be included in AYP.
• Including science in the AYP will provide a more accurate picture of what's coming out of our school systems and into the society.
• Accountability needs to exist in all content areas and students should demonstrate learning in science along with math and language arts. Also, including science in the AYP would encourage elementary schools to reintroduce science curriculum which in many places has recently been overlooked to make more time for language arts and math.
• Because science instruction would then receive attention similar to the attention given to reading and mathematics. This would translate into funding, smaller and remedial classes, and a seriousness on the part of students, parents, and the community that is currently lacking.
• Science and Technology are CRITICAL if the U.S. is going to stay the World's leader. What gets measured always gets better, and we need to improve the entire culture of Science and Math in America.
• In elementary school, science is treated as a subject that is taught only if there is time. In preparing for the math and language tests teachers often use the designated science time as a way to do more language and math skills instead of the science concept. (e.g. reading in the content area)
• As a nation, we can no longer afford to continue falling behind other nations in the sciences. The only way to increase the importance of science in our society is to make our schools accountable for the subject.
• Children are naturally inquisitive! Science and the experimental "fun" that it brings to a classroom, encourages higher level reading development and math scores! Science is one of the best "hands-on" teaching methods available.
• Teachers need the ability to see growth every year. If students do not test yearly it is impossible to see this. Science also requires higher level thinking, something valuable to lifelong learning. By making this part of the AYP, it adds value to science instruction.
• If it is not part of AYP, then many administrators won't care about results. If it is part of AYP, science will become a priority again like it was in the 1960s after Sputnik - like it should be.
• Science achievement is no less important than math and language arts.
• As President Bush pointed out in his State of the Union address in January, science education is vital to America's future. Math is already a focus with accountability standards and I fear that for science to get that focus, science assessment data must be included in AYP, as directed by national or state legislation. Schools, including my home district, are cutting science instructional time in favor of math and reading because science scores do not count. I strongly feel that this is the wrong direction and will only serve to widen the gap between the performance of U.S. students and students in Asian and European countries.
  

NO, SCIENCE SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN AYP BECAUSE:

• Until science is given equitable attention by all teachers at the lower grades, scores will be inaccurate. How can we judge 150 when only 25 were taught the material?
• The assessments are mostly biased against special populations like ESOL students and minorities
• The emphasis on science is not comparable to that of reading and math in most school districts. Science is also not equally emphasized across the grades K-5, nor does it receive adequate funding. These kinds of things need to be in place before schools/teachers are held accountable, as well as a systematic, effective professional development plan.
• Science is the least consistent curriculum across states and the nation. Too much that is tested is the result of home education and exposure and not what is actually being taught. It becomes economic and social in nature. Not all students are good at, need or desire to know more science.
• Yes and no. Yes students need to be accounable. No it places too much pressure on the students and the school.
• US Science education is not progressive -- biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science are not taught in a connected way. Even evaluating each year -- there is a higher correspondence between student success in math with success in science then there is between taking one science and the next. Our AYP would depends more on math -- so why set ourselves up to fail?
• More and more objectives are being required of students and less money is being allocated to achieve these objectives. The end result is a poorer quality education in the knowledge and skills that must be mastered first: written and verbal skills along with basic math skills. I find that students who do well in the English and math areas tend to do better in science and those who perform poorly in these subjects tend to perform poorly in science as well.
• I think that the assessments become reading tests and not measures of what students know and can do in science. I also think that science assessments that are completed through on-line testing and multiple-choice questions have the potential of becoming 'trival pursuit' assessments and not true hands-on, minds-on assessments. How can we conduct science assessments in a meaningful inquiry model, not just a "repeat it back" model? Most of our teaching is process-oriented and inquiry-based; our local and classroom assessments also reflect this. Yes, we do emphasize building 'specific information' as well, but not exclusively. Shouldn't our state and national assessments reflect similar inquiry-based investigations?
• All we are doing now in English and math is teaching to the test. We would be only teaching the test in science which means there would be no time to allow the kids to "discover" science and find the area they like and could develop for their future career choice.
• I do not believe that the No Child Left Behind legislation and all its regulations is the correct direction for the United States to be going. Our students need a well rounded "liberal arts" education that includes not only science, math, and reading but also art, vocal and insturmental music, and physical education.
• There are too many schools concentrating on teaching kids to read and not giving very much time, if any, to science instruction. Middle school teachers are having to teach prerequisite elem. skills before teaching new content.
• There is TOO much testing already. Sorry.
• Science should only be included if the instructional time that is supposed to be spent teaching science actually is, if the teachers teaching science have some clue as to what they're doing/teaching. Including this content area in AYP results is entirely misleading, since you can't measure student progress, teacher progress, or administrative enlightenment if/when they make the realization that literacy and math are certainly part of science, and that teaching science doesn't take instructional time away from literacy studies. Also, for the realization to be made that you simply can't teach a Pre-K-3 grade science curriculum in 6 weeks in the spring of the 4th grade
• The students in my district score extremely well in science (93%of the current 8th graders meet or exceed) my concern is the growth each year to 100% is unrealistic and we would end up being labeled on the watch list when our kids are doing just great.
• Lack of good science teachers and adequate materials. Why become a science teacher when you can go into industry and start out at double the salary. I'm sorry unions.......science teachers should be paid more
• Students are coming in with different amounts of science instruction due to the emphasis on reading and math. But then again this may help equalization of science instruction if we have to worry about another test score.
• I resent being held accountable when I have no resources other than an outdated textbook to help my kids learn. I have no materials available in the media center, no computer lab, and no materials for lab. I have poverty-stricken children who deserve more than the local system can afford. I already spend 3 - 7 extra hours each day and am too burned out to try to do more. Too many people have the simplistic idea that testing students will make everything better, but until the funding is available and students are taught science in the early grades, science achievement will languish. One of the reasons science in not taught in the early grades is the sad fact that all the classroom time is spent getting students ready to pass state tests in reading and math. If I could get a job doing something else, I would. I love teaching, love the students; under the conditions in which I teach, I can't take anything more.
• AYP has been detrimental to the way that reading and math are taught because the focus becomes too "test" oriented. The lab skills, observation, values and "thinking like a scientist" just aren't measureable in a multiple choice format.
• NO, it will just turn science instruction into a multiple choice, text book driven instructional program, not inquiry based, hands-on as it should be.
• There should not be such high accountablility for results without financial support. Science is an expensive subject to teach and requires low student to teacher ratio and time to plan in order to provide the hands on experiences. I believe in accountability, but it should be based on appropriately funded and supported strategies that work.
• Not until the legislators adequately fund science programs. With the onset of AYP, most funds have been directed toward reading and math.
• There is too much testing already. The AYP doesn't improve education it is only used as a tool to hammer schools. Higher standards, accountability through other measures and adequate funding would improve science education more than another test.
• There is not enough funding, resources or emphasis placed on science for teachers to adequately teach to the level it would require to partially determine AYP.
• The importance of science does not lie in a test but in its very role in society. Placing it in the realm of testing will put more pressure on science teachers to teach facts (already an issue) without necessarily producing better science teaching
• No Child left Behind" is the worst educational initiative I've had to deal with in 25 years of teaching. I would rather keep science as far away from it, and AYP, as possible.
• The standardized testing cycle is already burdensome and disruptive to the goal of covering the state mandated essential skills and knowledge. If you'll look at the reader response to the "top barriers" cited in this issue of NSTA Express, you'll note the top two reasons expose the lack of time spent doing the real job of teaching the subject. More emphasis on the annual testing cycle makes things worse.
• I am terribly disappointed in the decision to try and have science become a part of AYP. I am a big proponent of science in my district, region and state; I am a very firm believer of students being held accountable for their learning and teachers being held accountable for their teaching. However, I do believe there are more effective ways to ensure that good, quality science teaching and learning are happening in America's schools. Schools are already overburdened with the responsiblity of AYP in other areas. They lack resources in funding, materials and man power to achieve these lofty goals. And yet, the teachers of our country have risen to the challenge and are helping our students to do so. This is extremly commendable. But when will the demands stop? Teachers are exhausted from finding ways to achieve the challenges that have been set forth for them. It is amazing to me that we can continue to be asked to do more and more, without resources or support to back up the
• Experiments will disappear. 100% study/direct instruction will be the result. This may be the goal of "education professionals" who want to tear down students that are already achieving in order to close the achievement gap.
• We should be working to eliminate NCLB legislation, not adding to it!
• NCLB has been a disaster from the start, don't lump science into it as well. While there may have been a few successes, there have also been too many situations where the great educators have had to 'dumb-down' their teaching to meet their peers'
• Until a good, solid set of basic science knowledge and skills are determined, the science assessments become largely games of trivial pursuit. We need to agree upon a set of skills that are necessary knowledge, relevant to everyday life and taught through all the school years beginning in kindergarten. We need time to be dedicated to science everyday in every elementary, middle, and high school classroom. Until we meet these needs, we are setting us all up for failure by adding the science scores to AYP. Once this set is established, published, and taught throughout the curriculum, as LA and math skills are, then we will be ready to include science scores in the calculation of AYP.
• Standardized tests are really tests of reading with content scattered through them. If we're already required to test in reading it seems that it's overkill to add content area subjects as well. Children are worn out by all of this testing and don't seem to be retaining the information just regurgitating facts especially those that are eight and nine years old. Let's make this testing developmentally appropriate!
• We have little time to focus on the 2 critical pieces, Reading and math. To add another piece at this time is obsurd.
• A science assessment component will not improve science education. The time and money spent on developing a science assessment would be better spent on instructional materials and technology for the classroom.
• Love of literature and truely creative writing. Historical fiction and class discussions. Performing plays and singing show tunes. All of these magical experiences of my school days have been transformed in to dreary test score boosting quicky devised, profit generating, rote learning bnad-aids that Title One funds provide a captive customer base for in our schools. Science is about students learning how to figure things out and try stuff. When it is changed to something testable it will become horrible! We are the bright spot in our kids days. We are the free room where there own mind is allowed to tumble with odd questions and there bodies are up and out of the chairs as they try marshmallows in catapults and measure the heights of their seedlings. Please don't break the spell. I will have to leave school and volunteer at the Exploratrium and pump gas to keep a roof over my head. Aloha.
• NCLB is the biggest disaster in education initiatives to ever be passed by our government. The law was designed to make public schools fail - it makes unreasonable demands on public schools, that will be labeled as failures if 100% of the student body doesn't pass a standardized assessment test. The science test is just another addition. Look at the number of instructional days that students already miss to be assessed by the state - now we are throwing even more testing at them. Let's stop the insanity and start funding public schools appropriately and fairly rather than making the testing companies rich and putting children at the blunt of ridiculous politics.
• NO, and the entire NCLB legislation should be rewritten. Kids are tested to death and teachers just play the accountability game. There is way too much time spent training kids to ace a test and not enough time spent on teaching kids to be successful in real life application because is nearly impossible to assess that in a valid way. Right now the winners in this game are testing companies making big bucks creating and scoring tests. Our kids are losing by spending too much time learning content that can be easily assessed and not enough time learning the skills that will help them be successful in life.
• The science curriculum is so fully packed that the shear amount of content standards makes it impossible to achieve full understanding of the concepts within one school year...unless one teaches and they learn by pencil and paper alone. Long term learning and understanding comes from pondering, thinking and synthesizing concepts then reworking them...this can only be done through depth - not breath - So to be tested on so many standards, when most students do not learn by pencil and paper along, is not a fair assessment of what they are deeply learned...
• I believe it is important to have standard Science tests for students however including any content other than Reading and Math in AYP will open the door to every content wanting to be included. Our elementary students are over tested as it is - please consider the developmental needs of children as you make some of these determinations.
• Including Science in AYP will increase pressure on science instruction and, I fear, push us further into "drill and kill" fact based science and eliminate inquiry and hands-on science programs. I see it now in writing. Writing is taught the right way, with no AYP pressure.
• First of all, the continued growth of ALL students is unrealistic. Adding yet another component to the mix will not enhance the performance. Further, a true test of science would include a practical lab component. This could not be scored by the in-school instructors to be non-biased so how would it be scored soundly?

(Back to NSTA Express)