I’m concerned about the decrease in scheduled time for science instruction, especially in the primary grades. The teachers say that it’s all because of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) and its emphasis on reading and mathematics. Is this the case everywhere?
— Greg, Westminster, Colorado
The phrase “No Child Left Behind” implies we’re going somewhere. As science teachers, we need to make sure where we’re going with the students is a worthwhile place and the journey is an interesting one.
“We aren’t allowed to teach science until after the state tests in April.” I couldn’t believe it when I heard this at an elementary school I visited recently. I knew many schools were focusing on reading and mathematics (the two subjects whose test scores are used to calculate a school’s Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP), but this sounded like an extreme case.
According to the 2008 study “Initial Impacts of No Child Left Behind on Elementary Science Education,” published in the Journal of Elementary Science Education, 60% of the teachers surveyed said they cut back on time for science instruction as a result of NCLB. So your school and the one I visited are not isolated cases.
Even before NCLB, science was often shortchanged in terms of scheduled time. (Although we’re discussing science here, I’m equally concerned that social studies, the arts, and physical education are also on the back burner in some schools.) I know some teachers who were strong in science before NCLB are still making time for science and their students are doing well on the reading and math tests. But I suspect some teachers have not protested too much about the de-emphasis of science.
If teachers decide to pursue this issue in their own schools, the real cause for the decrease in time for science should be determined. I’m not sure NCLB is the sole factor in every school where science time has been cut back. The study does mention other factors: few resources, lack of administrative support, outdated materials, and inadequate professional development. In addition, I know some schools use the time scheduled for science or social studies as “pull out” time for students who need remedial work in reading and math.
I’d also be concerned about the quality of science instruction during the time currently scheduled for science. If a science class consisted of worksheets, lectures, and busywork, then perhaps making the class shorter was not necessarily a bad thing. Another complication is that now states administer science tests based on their science standards as a part of NCLB. One eighth-grade teacher mentioned she felt she had to cut back on lab investigations to try to “cover” everything for the test, which included the standards for grades 6, 7, and 8.
There are those who suggest science content could be integrated with reading instruction. There certainly are many interesting nonfiction books students could use in reading class. But I think we’re shortchanging students when we substitute assignments in reading class for planned and purposeful science instruction including both science content and processes such as hands-on investigations, vocabulary development, observations, writing, measuring, and questioning. In a well-planned science class, students apply their skills in reading and math to authentic situations.
The study mentioned earlier describes research conducted by Michael Klentschy, which showed inquiry science led to increased student performance in math, reading, and writing, even in schools with large number of at-risk students. So if test scores are an issue, I wonder if schools should increase time for inquiry science, rather than decreasing it! Perhaps if we give students more opportunities to apply their reading and math skills in other content areas, they will begin to see how their subject areas are connected.