|
posted by:
|
Elaine Woo
on May 17, 2003
at 1:40PM
|
|
subject:
|
The Challenging Crossroad
|
Mark’s article and the responses are very interesting. It would be a
challenging exercise to think about what an outside observer might see
in three years from now. It is not necessarily predictable, but my
guess is that there will be some pieces of evidence that there was an
LSC three years from now. We live in a city where there is a large and
strong science community. The scientists and educators involved in our
elementary LSC will collectively build on the efforts to date, whether
they were a P.I. on the grant, a grad student or post-doc scientist who
taught a science content course, a scientist parent who had children
participating in the new science investigations, or a district
educator. Also, the groups of teachers, principals, and other parents
will demand some continued support. In our seventh year (no-cost) of
these efforts, our LSC has made quite a strong impact. Some of the
people who cared about this in the first place will continue to work in
new and different ways to ensure students have high quality science
instruction.
There are some factors outside of our LSC which will help to keep
attention on science instruction. Our state is about to mandate
science assessments (Washington Assessments for Student Learning – the
WASL) for the 5th, 8th, and 10th grades. Fifth grade teachers from
almost half of our elementary schools voluntarily piloted these
assessments for the first time this spring. We convened a group of
3rd, 4th, and 5th grade teachers to share how their students reacted,
what they were doing in their instruction that helped, and some general
recommendations for the future such as looking at released items and
talking about how one might prepare students for such. A number of
teachers commented at the end of the session that they felt that some
schools and some individual teachers really need to step up to the
plate a little more. A few years ago, we wished that this science WASL
had started earlier during the full implementation of our LSC. Now, it
is coming just barely in time to keep teachers going, and I believe it
will motivate them and put pressure on them to continue their efforts
to improve their inquiry-based science instruction.
Another factor is the job market here in Washington. A number of
industries cannot find qualified candidates to fill positions.
Managers and leaders of these industries are concerned. Somehow,
because of this, pressure will continue to exist for K-12 educators to
increase their capacity to provide high quality inquiry-based science
instruction.
I agree with Kathryn’s comments about the legacies of our elementary
LSC. Teachers in our elementary schools now expect to teach science.
They expect that they must take professional development in order to
access new units. Quite a number of them know they need more
professional development. In every school, there is evidence of
science instruction in the classrooms, in the hallway displays, and in
the school newspapers. The science notebook classes and the data
analysis classes draw teachers back to the professional development as
they see these courses help with their science instruction and also
with writing and mathematics instruction. When principals had to
prioritize services provided for the schools next year because of
budget cuts, the K-8 principals overwhelmingly agreed that the Science
Materials Center must be maintained. We have used our adoption
materials for seven years; we will continue to use these same materials
for several more years. We have already adjusted four of the units
(three years ago), and as funding becomes stronger and more available,
one might predict that we would change only a few units at a time to
better support state and district standards and other local needs. A
few years ago, district officials chose inquiry as a major theme, and
that continues to be in place.
Earlier, in the midst of our LSC, we were advised by our evaluator to
build strands that would outlive the LSC. We did that. We have a
partnership with the Aquarium which is funded by a Howard Hughes
Medical Grant focusing on the Ecosystems unit. This grant and project,
Sound Science, will extend at least two years beyond the end of the
no-cost years. We have developed a partnership with the City of
Seattle. We have received some excellent support from this
partnership, and it is likely that the collaboration will continue. We
have a very strong Expository Writing and Science Notebook Program with
funding from the Stuart Foundation that will possibly outlive these
no-cost years. Finally, we have a Family Science Program which is
funded with NSF dollars which will outlast our LSC. These strands will
keep the work alive until other support systems are secured.
As the last few dollars of this LSC are spent in the next few months,
conversations will continue regarding forging new partnerships and
seeking new funding. I agree with Ben and Kathryn, at least here in
Seattle, that the elementary LSC has paved the way for other university
partnerships to develop. And, some new universities may become
involved as well. And, the courses for pre-service teachers are slowly
beginning to change. Although this work is very challenging and nothing
is certain, there is a will out there to continue to provide support
for elementary teachers in science. It is a matter of time before
something will become more solidified.
|
|
