|
posted by:
|
Kathryn Show
on May 16, 2003
at 0:21AM
|
|
subject:
|
legacies
|
Mark,
I really enjoyed your insightful ideas about the legacies of LSCs. As
a teacher leader in an LSC that has just about run out of no-cost
extensions and is looking for ways to sustain inquiry science, I found
your ideas stimulating and refreshing. Some of the legacies of our K-5
Inquiry-Based Science LSC include: 1) such an increase in elem.student
conceptual understanding and investigation and communication skills
that they are a driving force for science reform on the middle and high
school levels; 2) a model which has stimulated a desire for substantial
district-wide professional development in other content areas; 3) a
host of classroom teachers who have had leadership opportunities that
wouldn't have been possible without the LSC; 4) collaborative
partnerships with universities and 5) a community that believes more
than ever that science education is very important. This is all very
positive and perhaps worth all the funding from NSF.
But we worry about sustainability as attention turns to middle and high
school science reform and to the areas of literacy and math. Without
funding, we are faced with the age-old problems of teacher turn-over
and lack of enough support for the type of professional development
that lays the foundation for new teachers and supports experienced
teachers as they attempt to rise to the next level in instructional
expertise. In these dire economic times, we are frantically searching
again for external funding just to keep the minimum of support there to
maintain what we have going in elementary science. My question is and
perhaps it is only answerable by each LSC- how does the program that
spawned these legacies continue to benefit from them? How do the
legacies continue to live in spite of administrative turn-over and a
shift in focus to other areas of concern?
|
|
