The past decade focused on reading reform, with programs like Reading First taking over school autonomy. Yet our country is realizing our heightened focus in reading caused a lag in science. When will we learn the power of balance? Our government is like a little puppy; attention focused only on the direction the toy was thrown, even when the thrower kept it in his hand.
Reading is important, but plugging schools in with regimented programs which tell teachers what to say and when to say it will not create better teachers OR better students. Science took the back burner and now we are paying for it. I argued this for years, working in a district that leaves a half an hour for science and social studies combined. Of course the children will suffer! I prefer to teach with project-based and inquiry learning, but with only a half hour, once directions are given and materials passed out, that leaves little exploration and reflection.
Perhaps other districts value science and social studies more and have included more time in the curriculum. The article I read today touches on the idea that comparing US student scores to other countries, such as China, show the huge disparities between poor and affluent communities. There are other studies, such as the 3 Million Word Gap where affluent children come to school with more (3,000,000) vocabulary because parents engage them in conversation each day, whereas poverty families talk "at" their children, focusing on what to do/not do, rather than prompt them to inquire about their world.
I believe another factor should be covered in this article: English As A Second Language (ESL) or English Language Learners (ELL). These students are learning the basics of English, in addition to content knowledge. Studies show it takes an average of 7 years to become proficient in a language. The toughest part of learning a new language is content area; image having to learn the concepts of electricity in a new language. It is more challenging than your every-day speak which is repeatedly practiced in realistic situations. Our country hosts a plethora of cultures and language. We are a melting pot and, in addition to beefing up an authentic inquiry-based (vs memorization of facts) curriculum, we need to accept that it is going to take our students a little longer to master the science vocabulary. It is hard to authentically compare our progress to other countries in which the majority of the population speak the same language (not considering different dialects).
For further reading, please read "A Tale of Rich And Poor" in the middle of the article "Why does U.S. fail in science?" by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
Reading is important, but plugging schools in with regimented programs which tell teachers what to say and when to say it will not create better teachers OR better students. Science took the back burner and now we are paying for it. I argued this for years, working in a district that leaves a half an hour for science and social studies combined. Of course the children will suffer! I prefer to teach with project-based and inquiry learning, but with only a half hour, once directions are given and materials passed out, that leaves little exploration and reflection.
Perhaps other districts value science and social studies more and have included more time in the curriculum. The article I read today touches on the idea that comparing US student scores to other countries, such as China, show the huge disparities between poor and affluent communities. There are other studies, such as the 3 Million Word Gap where affluent children come to school with more (3,000,000) vocabulary because parents engage them in conversation each day, whereas poverty families talk "at" their children, focusing on what to do/not do, rather than prompt them to inquire about their world.
I believe another factor should be covered in this article: English As A Second Language (ESL) or English Language Learners (ELL). These students are learning the basics of English, in addition to content knowledge. Studies show it takes an average of 7 years to become proficient in a language. The toughest part of learning a new language is content area; image having to learn the concepts of electricity in a new language. It is more challenging than your every-day speak which is repeatedly practiced in realistic situations. Our country hosts a plethora of cultures and language. We are a melting pot and, in addition to beefing up an authentic inquiry-based (vs memorization of facts) curriculum, we need to accept that it is going to take our students a little longer to master the science vocabulary. It is hard to authentically compare our progress to other countries in which the majority of the population speak the same language (not considering different dialects).
For further reading, please read "A Tale of Rich And Poor" in the middle of the article "Why does U.S. fail in science?" by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
No comments:
Post a Comment