Uplifting Science Story

An absolutely fantastic story from teacher Craig Parsley at Crosscuts about teaching science with the help of a cranky boiler and a hard-working custodian. Basically:

"...how Dave the custodian became an integral part of the science program at Schmitz Park Elementary School in West Seattle."

From the article:

Though the standards seem to be a moving target these days, with new educational goals this year and possible federal standards coming soon, there are three basic themes teachers can hang their lab coats on: physical science, earth and space science, and life science. While there are multiple and overlapping domains within these themes, we can distill them down into just a few words: energy, rocks, and photosynthesis.

He explains the problem in SPS:

The are two key themes in Seattle’s science mission statement that limit the methods teachers may use to inspire budding young science minds: “construct” and “investigate.”

Essentially, constructivism promulgates the belief that “knowledge is constructed, not transmitted.” Teachers in a constructivist classroom are passive guides and material handlers. They do not teach, they merely facilitate.

The other constraint found in the statement is the overused term investigate. Back in the day, before constructivism became the latest education reform fad, kids did experiments to test a hypothesis (or prediction). Now they investigate prefabricated situations (with predetermined outcomes) that arrive in a box from a district science warehouse in Seattle.

I don't know about you but I remember my sons' elementary teachers really hating the NSF kits. Never enough of what equipment you need (or it's broken) and very boring experiments.

He says what he thinks kids today want:

Growing a plant, observing goldfish, or waiting for water vapor to condense on plastic sheets no longer fascinates children. What kids want (and need) is full contact, high energy, vibrant, and visual science experiences to compete with the myriad other events in their lives vying for diminishing attention spans. Students relish fire, noise, digital media, messes, and destruction. With few exceptions, children don’t have the patience to investigate and their teachers do not have the time to facilitate investigation.

And herein lies the problem. How do teachers with limited resources, boring science materials, and digitally driven students get children interested in rocks, energy, and photosynthesis? Well, ask Dave the custodian. He spends his day doing much of the science a 4th- or 5th-grade student needs to be successful on the MSP test. Or, he has the materials a teacher could use to engage students in compelling science activities.

Then Mr. Parsley goes through all the scientific knowledge you can learn walking through an elementary school. And with a little help, even more can be done:

A former parent at our school, Grant Varney, liked the work we were doing in science and decided to use his contractor’s expertise to build us several inexpensive science teaching tools. He started with a well-built lever and fulcrum. Our students thoroughly enjoy lifting a heavy stump using this simple device. Applying the pressure of one hand, a student can lift 50 kilograms.

Watching the kids' faces you would think they had suddenly morphed into superheroes. But lifting is just the science part of the lesson. They enjoy crushing things under the stump even more — that’s the “make it fun” element of the lesson. So, what do they learn? Simple machines allow humans to do more work than they could do otherwise.

I know, not every school has a custodian like this or savvy parents but Mr. Parsley has an answer for that as well:

To interest students in earth and space science, elementary teachers need two qualities: tech-savviness and a willingness to get dirty. PBS, BBC, and YouTube all offer high-quality videos (eye-candy) that establish the basis for studying landforms and geology.

He points out that there are no science textbooks in elementary schools so kids can't go off and read on their own.

He points out the issues with what SPS currently does:

For teachers to conduct these simple, hands-on science activities requires some training. However, the inertia surrounding school district's insistence on using National Science Foundation (NSF) kits discourages curriculum innovations. Teachers don’t have to think about science (or know it); they merely have to follow the scripted lessons.

The NSF kits also represent a huge capital expenditure, and their maintenance requires an entire 14,500-square-foot warehouse. The District maintains and refurbishes over 2,500 elementary school science kits with a full-time staff of four employees. Each kit must be refurbished three times per year.

What to do?

The alternative to the SPS inquiry-based, materials-intensive elementary science program would involve shifting the emphasis away from a highly centralized program to a site-based model where schools purchase and manage their own materials.

Budget expenditures could then be redirected towards building and buying durable science materials with multiple functions.

In an ideal world, carpenters, groundskeepers, plumbers, mechanics, welders, and custodians (like Dave) should all serve as the primary support services to teachers developing new classroom science innovations. Parent volunteers from multiple trades serve as an excellent resource to build science equipment.

He ends with some pretty forward-thinking talk:

Many of my colleagues will probably write off these ideas as pie-in-the-sky idealism. They will say, "SPS is known for its glacial pace when it comes to curriculum changes." Yet doing nothing — slowly — ensures that more than half of 5th-graders will continue to fail the science MSP exams. Inertia is infectious.

Transforming our science program would cost nothing upfront. It would merely require a shift in emphasis away from centralized control of curriculum to allow for site-based innovations. Seattle Public Schools must release its grip on both materials management and pedagogy.

He probably didn't get the memo on curriculum alignment.

Next thread - high school science alignment.

Comments

OT, but relevant to this blog:
Rising tuition a threat to GET program. I think the discussions the legislature is having about GET and about tuition rates at public universities may warrant a new thread.
peonypower said…
Amen to shifting science instruction to the local school. Being able to work on something at your school that your students create- that is what fires kids up about science. Just at my school there is the NASA mission that was in the paper, the maritime students preparing for an oil spill, students working on the robot for a robotics competition, and greenhouse students creating a design for the NW flower and garden show. Unfortunatley the juggernaut of "teaching to the standards" is choking out any creativity in classrooms because apparently only canned curriculum can do that, and the district is prepared to ram more of that down students throats with the new science alignment for high school.
Jet City mom said…
I have been involved in the free Storming the Sound for environmental educators in the past.

I don't know if this will work- I seem to fail at links


in any case go to ecy.wa.gov/puget_sound/
stormthesound2011central, for the March 25th conference-
( There was also one last month in La Conner.
soundsalmon said…
I am an elementary educator with a background in science, and I think this story about abolishing science kits is short-sighted and completely missing the target. Of course the science kits and the trainings that are provided at the district are not the end-all, be-all. They are a place to START that ensures science access to all teachers and students, which is essential in elementary where most teachers have little to no science background. The kits and curriculum have been carefully designed with local scientists and local problems, and continue to be altered and developed constantly with the feedback from teachers who care enough to talk to their science coaches. If you haven’t seen the curriculum in the last five years, you wouldn’t know how many connections outside of the classroom to “real world” problems have been added. My students are now studying Puget Sound with reading materials that come in the kit that the Seattle Aquarium provided, and next week we will be writing letters to legislators about one of the many current environmental bills being debated in our legislature.

Like the teacher at Schmitz Park, I spend as much time doing creative extension projects as I do lessons from the kit. But it takes EXPERIENCE and BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE and COMFORT in knowing your subject to teach it with this level of creativity. Remember, middle/high school teachers are endorsed in science, but the majority of elementary teachers do not have much background in science at all and rely heavily on the kits and trainings in the first few years in order to teach science AT ALL.

Any informed person RE elementary science program at Seattle Schools would know that the problem is NOT the kits and "standardized" curriculum that comes with them, but that the more heavily tested subjects of reading and math, and the large-scale adoption of writers workshop, are taking priorities over the time spent teaching science. Many elementary schools are simply not teaching science. Or science is spotty, some grades have it, others don't. It's not part of the strategic plan anymore, so who cares, right? That is certainly NOT going to close opportunity/achievement gap in education.

We are fighting the same fight. Keep teachers empowered to teach creatively. I would want nothing less. But the kits do not stifle you or me from doing that at all. Don’t take away an actually rigorous and well-supported curriculum (look at one developed recently!) that ensures access to a content area that teachers are highly under-prepared in. This would not be best for students.
Zebra (or Zulu) said…
Sound Salmon:

To be fair, could you please post your school's 5th grade Science MSP Scores so we can evaluate the efficacy of your science program against the state standards. Schmitz Park is usually on top of the heap (or near it anyways). If you are a science coach that may have an economic stake in the status quo, you should inform us readers of that too. What is an "elementary educator?" Is that a "teacher" or a "coach?"

I think the writer emphasizes innovation over blind faith in somebody else's materials. He says that resources abound if you look close to home. "Short-sighted" is pretty harsh for an article about one of the top elementary science schools in the district. They just do things differently. The article suggests that you try to innovate and be creative in your thinking. That's what I want from my child's teachers. Isn't Schmitz Park the Singapore Math School. A quick check of their math MSP scores says they are #1 in that area too.

BTW: You are wrong about this; better read the whole report: "The kits and curriculum have been carefully designed with local scientists and local problems..."

Here is the key "partner:"
Alliance for Education
(a foundation supporting the Seattle Public Schools)

This Science Kit Project is a mish-mash of reformers trying to promote an agenda:

http://www.inverness-research.org/reports/2002-05-Rpt-SeattleLSC-EndRpt.pdf

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

First Candidates for Seattle School Board Elections 2023