The Charles A. Dana Center’s Response to the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s The
State of State Science Standards: 2005
In December 2005, the Fordham Institute, a Washington, D.C.–based think tank, released
its State of State Science Standards and gave a failing grade to the Texas science
standards—the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). While the Institute’s
attempt to identify high-quality science curricula is laudable, its assessment of the Texas
standards is compromised by factual errors and marred by an ideological approach to
teaching science that is outside the mainstream of expert scientific opinion. No one likes
to be given a failing grade. But sometimes, the failure is in the grading, not in the work
being graded. We address below a few of the recurrent themes of the Fordham report.
On Teaching Students Science
One of the challenges of good science education is balancing the need to help students
learn the methods of systematic scientific inquiry with the need to help students master a
large and growing body of scientific facts and principles. Even students who do not
pursue science-based careers must learn to observe, analyze, and use scientific ways of
thinking so that, as lifelong learners, they will be able to make informed decisions in an
increasingly complex world. But effective application of scientific methods requires that
students know a great deal about the world around them—and that includes many facts,
figures, and, as they get older, specialized mathematical and scientific techniques.
A balanced view of science education is supported by modern cognitive psychology and
is reflected in the model standards developed by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Research Council (NRC). The Texas
science standards were developed by master science teachers and practicing scientists.
Their efforts were influenced by current research on learning and by the work of these
national science leadership organizations.
In sharp contrast with the fundamental tenets that underlie the views of the NRC and the
AAAS, the Fordham Institute reviewers express antipathy toward inquiry. They call
efforts to engage students in building their own understanding “absurd and
dysfunctional.” Thus, it is not surprising that balanced, inquiry-based standards such as
the TEKS are rated much less favorably than a curriculum that primarily lists facts for
students “to know” or memorize.
On Respect For Our Students and Their Potential
The Fordham reviewers devote considerable space and energy decrying what they see as
political correctness in state science standards documents. They see efforts to honor and
highlight the contributions of members of American ethnic groups to science as
intellectually dishonest. They assert, for example, that “Examples of real and important
scientific achievement in cultures different from our own, past and present—real science
from the ancient Chinese and Arab cultures, for example—are welcome in science
teaching. But: none of that means that every individual is, or can be, a scientist.”
We do not agree. In Texas, we believe that highlighting the real contributions of presentday members of American ethnic groups to the advancement of science is appropriate,
pedagogically useful, and an important reminder to our children that science is a human
endeavor open to those work hard and seek knowledge. For too long and in too many
places, science education has been shaped by the presumption that not every child can be
a scientist. The view articulated by the Fordham reviewers has not served our nation well.
On Sharing Practitioner Wisdom
In an unfortunate error, now acknowledged on their website, the Fordham reviewers
evaluated instructional resources developed by Texas science teachers for science
teachers—“Snapshots: Ideas for classroom activities that address the intent of the TEKS
for science”—as if they were a component of the state science standards. They are not.
The reviewers took a few of the more whimsical suggestions among the hundreds
assembled by Texas teachers and scientists and used them to attack the integrity of the
standards.
Motivating students and keeping them engaged in a rigorous science program is hard
work. Unlike the Fordham reviewers, we see no problem in asking young elementary
school students to dress up as atoms and describe their properties to their classmates as
long as the teaching of science is well considered and the content is accurate.
The Snapshots, along with other TEKS support materials, are available free of charge on
our website. We encourage interested readers to review them for themselves at
http://www.utdanacenter.org/sciencetoolkit. The Fordham Institute report can obtained
from their headquarters, 1701 K Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, D.C., 20006, or at
their website: http://www.edexcellence.net/institute.
We have great respect for the Fordham Institute, and appreciate the often constructive
role it plays in public understanding of American educational issues. In this case,
however, it’s the Fordham reviewers who deserve an “F.”
Philip Uri Treisman
Executive Director
Charles A. Dana Center
The University of Texas at Austin