In Washington, we've had a statewide assessment for Writing (grades 4, 7, 10) for as long as we have had state tests. I have been ambivalent about this test for several years now. As much as I believe in graduating students who have good writing skills, I don't know that this belongs as a performance area to compare schools and growth. There is also the question of the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent developing and scoring the tests each year. Finally, the feds only require that we test reading, math, and science (with the first two currently figured into AYP). Why lump more expectations upon schools than is necessitated by the legislation? I'm guessing that I'm not the only one thinking about this. I see that Maine is looking to cut its statewide tests for writing.

I was thinking again this week after reading a WaPo article about the decline in time spent on science in elementary classrooms due to focus on other tested subject areas:

Science advocates recommend 45 minutes to an hour of science instruction daily starting in upper elementary grades. But many elementary and middle schools now offer half as much science as they did before the law was enacted. Middle schools that used to teach a full year of science and social studies now may offer a half-year of each. Elementary schools have squeezed the two subjects into one block of time to make room for more reading and math.

While this observation might not really qualify as "news," what is new is the realization that NCLB requirements in science may well lead to a positive impact. "Science advocates predict that school systems...under pressure from the new tests, will begin to restore lost hours of instruction."

I'm not sure where the time will come from. Personally, I am a great advocate for integrating more non-fiction reading (science topics) and using experiences in science as a springboard for writing in elementary classrooms. Many elementary teachers agree with that philosophy...but lots of administrators do not. "Reading" and "Math" mean using the district programs (e.g. Open Court, Investigations...). To "implement with fidelity" (a la Response to Intervention) means no mingling can occur. There is going to have to be some sort of detente between the teacher and admin camps before we can seriously look at restructuring the precious bits of time we have available for student learning.

It is a shame, to say the least, that subject areas are left scrapping for time based on their importance to testing. I've heard many a social studies and world languages teacher musing on what it would be like to have a tested area---how they might have more serious consideration if that happened. It's sad to think that the answer to the question "What shall we test?" is leading to such narrow curriculum options for children.

Labels: NCLB, science, WASL

It's that time again! It's Mole Day 2008!

I may have a busy day of meetings ahead, but not so much that I can't make time to head over to the local Mole-Donald's at 6:02 a.m. to help kick off the festivities. Need more ideas for celebrating? Why not read the e-How guide or get some ideas from the National Mole Day Foundation (assuming their servers are back on-line).

Come on, baby, let the good times mole!

Labels: science

I really don't know where the last week has gone. It's a blur of meetings, road warrior activities, and the occasional stab at sleep---some of it interesting, but mostly not. In other words, it doesn't make for very good blog fodder. And while I've never been 100% sure which purpose this blog would serve, I know that I don't want it to simply be a catalog of the days' minutiae. Most of the time I'm not interested in it. I don't think anyone else would be, either. Therefore, I've been AWOL from the blog.

Amongst the hodgepodge of my days, I have been trying to ponder something a bit larger. I'm just grasping at it for now, but perhaps my always astute Readers might have some direction for me.
I think that when I was in the classroom, the answer to this question was much clearer to me. But from the level I operate in now, the answer is mushy. It comes from the difference between being someone trying to shape policy vs. my old life where I just had to carry it out; however, I can't help but think that at a state or national agency, there is an even greater need to have a clear vision. The reason I am wrestling with this now more than ever comes down to the issue of accountability. Here are the two driving questions:
Let's talk about kids for a moment. If we hold students accountable, then what should that look like? Is earning credit for high school courses enough---if so, how many credits? Should we direct what kinds of courses would be eligible or leave it up to school districts? If we increase requirements, what do we do about schools which don't have enough lab space or can't find high qualified teachers? Do we, instead, insist on using standardized tests as a measure for kids? What does this mean if the number of credits required for graduation would be completed after the test? Do we need a second accountability factor? I've been pondering what types of accountability might make sense and how those might be implemented and monitored. I actually like our standardized test for science in this state---but I can't say that I like that it's tied to graduation (or will be in a few years). When I read something like What Does Educational Testing Really Tell Us? over on Eduwonkette's blog, I can't help but nod in agreement...and yet, I'm hard pressed to suggest alternatives.

As for adults, that's a more difficult issue in some ways. At my place of work, we've had a few discussions about the time students (especially in the elementary grades) have to engage with science content. It's no secret that with the increased pressure on schools to raise achievement in math and reading, science and other content areas are being squeezed out. (see previous posts on studies of time spent on elementary science and its push-pull with literacy) But this brings up another question: How much time is "enough" for each content area? I know that the answer really isn't simple---every child's capabilities are different and every school serves a different population. However, can we make some general observations? Education Week seems to think we might be able to draw a few conclusions on the Effects of Extra Time for Learning. Yes, quantity can help, but quality is more important. "More" does not automatically equal "Better."

The heart of this whole problem is that without an accountability measure (e.g. AYP), schools won't teach (very much) science to kids...which gets me back to my original question: What is our purpose? I think that if this was well-defined, it would be easier to determine whether or not accountability should be required and what that looks like. Instead, we're trying to figure out all of these things at once. It seems disrespectful not to give each part of this issue its own bit of attention.

So, if things have been a bit quiet around ye olde blog, just know that I'm trying to find a way to balance the noise and pressure of my day with what I think my job should really be about. What do you think I should be doing?

Labels: assessment, science, student learning, teachers

I spend a lot of my days with my stomach growling...which is both unusual and also a bit puzzling. Let's face it, it's not like I'm doing hard labour or undertaking feats of athletic greatness. I'm usually sitting at my desk fussing over spreadsheets, attempting to stem the tide of e-mail, or in some sort of meeting. These are not major calorie-burning activities. I assure you that little or no sweating is involved. And then, I saw this article from Science Daily:

A Université Laval research team has demonstrated that intellectual work induces a substantial increase in calorie intake. The details of this discovery, which could go some way to explaining the current obesity epidemic, are published in the most recent issue of Psychosomatic Medicine.

The research team, supervised by Dr. Angelo Tremblay, measured the spontaneous food intake of 14 students after each of three tasks: relaxing in a sitting position, reading and summarizing a text, and completing a series of memory, attention, and vigilance tests on the computer. After 45 minutes at each activity, participants were invited to eat as much as they wanted from a buffet.

The researchers had already shown that each session of intellectual work requires only three calories more than the rest period. However, despite the low energy cost of mental work, the students spontaneously consumed 203 more calories after summarizing a text and 253 more calories after the computer tests. This represents a 23.6% and 29.4 % increase, respectively, compared with the rest period.

Blood samples taken before, during, and after each session revealed that intellectual work causes much bigger fluctuations in glucose and insulin levels than rest periods. "These fluctuations may be caused by the stress of intellectual work, or also reflect a biological adaptation during glucose combustion," hypothesized Jean-Philippe Chaput, the study's main author. The body could be reacting to these fluctuations by spurring food intake in order to restore its glucose balance, the only fuel used by the brain.

"Caloric overcompensation following intellectual work, combined with the fact that we are less physically active when doing intellectual tasks, could contribute to the obesity epidemic currently observed in industrialized countries," said Mr. Chaput. "This is a factor that should not be ignored, considering that more and more people hold jobs of an intellectual nature," the researcher concluded.

Okay, so maybe I'm not an intellectual; but there's no doubt my brain is on a steep learning curve with the new job. I am inundated with various novel things to absorb. My body may be doing very little, but my brain is in Energizer Bunny Mode...and in its quest for ready energy, it's making me think I'm hungry. So, I've been stocking up on some 100-calorie packs of food and some fruit to have at work with me. Hopefully some small bites during the day will keep my mind going and my stomach quiet.

Labels: articles, science

A couple of articles to share this week...

First of all, Dan over at the Principal Learner pointed out Stanford News' piece on how Using Everyday Language to Teach Science May Help Students Learn. Anyone who's taught science at any grade level knows that vocabulary can be a major barrier to conceptual learning---even in constructivist situations. The study reviewed here approaches science vocabulary in a similar fashion to learning a new language. Simpler terms are used first until the concepts are understood and this serves as scaffolding for the scientific vocabulary. There are some definite limitations to this particular piece of research, as pointed out in the article, and I'm not wild about all of the word choices made...but then, I'm not so sure that a fifth grader really needs to understand photosynthesis, either. What I do like, however, is that this study focused on kids actually using terminology---not just memorizing it. I think that's a move in the right direction.

Dan might be interested in this recent Education Week article on how Principals Are Seen As Key in Science Instruction. I suppose the argument might be made that such leadership is essential for all content areas, but the authors assert that it is especially important in science.

Most teachers in the early grades are generalists who are expected to cover all subjects, including science, despite typically having had relatively little grounding in it. Even science teachers in the upper grades may be more comfortable in one science course, such as biology, than another, like physics. Struggling teachers may need help from colleagues to plan science lessons, and prodding to spend time on the subject. Principals can carve out the time for that planning. They can also do the necessary prodding.

Yet taking on that role requires principals to acknowledge that they need help with science content, and in developing ideas for teaching it to students, Ms. Rosen said.

“It’s important for the principal to make it clear to people that you’re not always right, and you don’t always have all the answers,” she said during a break from one of the academy’s sessions. Her goal, she said, is that she and her teachers “begin sharing, going in the same direction, learning as a group.”

The article focuses on The Academy for Leadership in Science Instruction, something I blogged here nearly three years ago. There is a similar academy here in Washington now, but it has not been in place long enough for any solid results to be seen.

What I think all of this will eventually mean is that starting with intermediate grade levels, science really should be taught by specialists. If good instruction in this area requires such a significant commitment to planning, content knowledge, materials, and concept development, is it fair to assume that any one teacher can give it the same level of attention as reading, writing, and 'rithematic?

That's all the science news fit to blog for now. Drop me a link if you see something I should have a look at.

Labels: articles, science

It goes without saying, I'm sure, that I have a particular bias about including science as part of a well-rounded education. It is not enrichment. It should not be an add-on to the curriculum, or something taught as filler when the teacher finds some time. I also believe that science becomes even more important in high-poverty areas because it provides students with background experiences as the basis for literacy. It is the concrete which allows teachers to tie on abstract words and symbols. It forms the foundation for students to make personal connections and have something to write about.

An area school is more or less eliminating everything which is not reading or math from the school day. Student achievement is poor. A great number of kids are not reading at grade level by 3rd grade (after which time, they never ever catch up according to the research). It would seem to make sense that spending even more than the 120 minutes per day set aside now for reading might be necessary. We need a literate society. If students are going to be able to break the cycle of poverty their families are in, they need basic reading and numeracy skills in order to have more higher education and job options. I understand that children who can't read will struggle with everything else.

So, this is my 22 that I'm caught in at the moment. Experiences in science build literacy (vocabulary in traditional settings does not). But students have to have the basic skills in reading and writing in order to support other learning. Which is more important? Which should be first? Do we do nothing but basic literacy and numeracy skills through third grade...and then allow students the "reward" of science and social studies? Or do we engage kids in all sorts of learning experiences at the primary level and use those as opportunities for literacy? Would science specialists at the elementary level take some of the instructional pressure off of teachers? (There was a great article in the Washington Post about science coaches in area elementary schools.)

I've been asked to give some advice in this area, but I know it's a losing proposition for science. "More...more...more..." will be the literacy cry. "Make them practice reading all day, if necessary, because more instruction is the same as better instruction." I can't argue with the need for developing basic reading skills, but I might be able to toss out a few shots against the "More = Better" stance. If you have any thoughts or ammo about breaking out of this Catch-22 cycle, send them along.

Labels: elementary, science

I just bought this set of "Nerdy Baby Cards" on Etsy. (click on image to enlarge) I was driven to it by seeing the same set of letter/sound cards in every room of the school...including the office. I totally get why they're there, but I have to say that these cards are more my style.

Etsy is a dangerous site. I've been able to resist the Molecular Muse, but just barely. I don't know if I will be able to resist the charms of The Builder's Studio for much longer.

I'll content myself with these letter cards for now. I'm going to have to find a very special place in my workspace (a corner of a classroom/storeroom) for these. As a trained secondary science teacher moving into an elementary school world, these should help ease the transition.

Labels: personal, science

My hunch is that for most adults, memories of a high school biology class conjure up memories of major groups of living things and some dissections. Times have changed---mostly increasing the amount of molecular biology (proteins, DNA, genetics) and decreasing the emphasis on a survey of living things.

As I finish up the year with my students, I am discovering that this may be the first year in which I do not actually talk about living things in a holistic way. I don't think we're going to talk about plants, animals, fungi, and protists---and only have a cursory look at bacteria. Imagine biology without snips, snails, and puppy dog tails.

Part of the reason for this is simply the standards themselves. Believe it or not, phylogeny is not part of the science standards here in Washington. As I've focused this year on getting kids to meet the standards that we do have, there isn't going to be time for "extras." I've been reflecting on this, wondering if it's still biology without whole living things. I've decided that I'm okay with this. We're spending nearly all of the last quarter of the school year on human biology---and perhaps an understanding of body systems is more important in the long run than being able to tell the difference between three phyla of worms.

I've also been thinking about something I heard at WERA. The keynote speaker was Dean Fink and he was sharing some of his ideas around Leadership for Mortals. The part which really resonated with me was how we (educators) have confused standards with standardization. They are not the same thing. Although we expect all students to reach the standards, they do not all have to follow the same path to get there. Perhaps that is a good reminder for me, too. There can be many pathways to "biology." As our understanding of the field evolves on a daily basis, maybe the classroom needs to as well.

Labels: science, standards

Back in the early days of accessing the internet from home (when AOL seemed like a great option), I belonged to a group of science teachers organized through LabNet. I wish I had a link to share, but in the intervening years (this was almost 15 years ago), the traces of our work seems to have disappeared. It was hosted by TERC, which is still an active entity. The databases, idea sharing, bulletin boards, and other vestiges are all gone.

This blurry photo is one of the last reminders of LabNet that I have:


I know it doesn't look like much. It represents The Pringles Challenge. The idea here is that my students were paired with those at another school across the country to exchange a single Pringles potato chip. The goal was to have it arrive at its destination in one piece while using the lightest smallest packaging possible. The whole thing was a blast. I can't say that my kids did a particularly stellar job with their ideas, but the internet had opened up a whole new world of possibility for me---and for my junior high charges in the wilds of New Mexico. (It's hard to realize that most of these kids will be turning 30 in the next year or so.)

LabNet may have become extinct, but it appears that The Pringles Challenge is alive and well. I can't wait to play again.

Labels: personal, science

Over the last several years, I've had the opportunity to see some really good elementary science lessons...and some truly awful ones. As I think about what made the difference, some of it is due to general instructional expertise, some is due to the orientation of the classroom (teacher vs. student centered), but a lot of it seems to be tied to content knowledge.

In elementary schools, science comes in a box. I feel like that is a dangerous symbol to implant in young minds, but that's another battle for another time. Teachers have a manual with step-by-step instructions (including what to say) and prepackaged materials. Science by convenience. Teacher pull out the items, read from the manual, kids fill in worksheets...and Voila! they've taught science.

This would all be well and good except for one thing: kids have questions. Kids want to know why and how. They have their own hypotheses (often misguided, but at least they're thinking) and ideas. Some teachers are very good about allowing kids to ask and predict. Others are terrified to leave the scripted lesson and have some real exploration.

The other issue I've seen that gets in the way of real learning is the quality of the "output" provided. By this, I mean the worksheets that come with the curriculum (specifically those which come with the FOSS kits---STC is a far superior program). There is little or no critical thinking required by students. The lessons are wasted opportunities to have kids capture the process that is science. Again, this is not necessarily the teacher's fault. S/He is using what is there---and has been assured that the materials have quality. But so many were developed before a standards-based era where more rigorous thinking was required. The experiments themselves are still strong---but the lesson structure is not.

It is overwhelming to think about the kind of out of the box thinking that would be necessary to better support student learning in science. Teachers don't have time (or knowledge/expertise) to revamp things...and I'm only one person. I think that if we can get teachers to ask better questions during and after science lessons---even if they themselves don't know the answers---we'll be a lot closer to student achievement.

Labels: elementary, science

A recent summit at the American Museum of Natural History made the case for the support of a "science generation" as a national imperative. The idea was noble enough---how can science education be improved and what is needed to make change happen---but after reading the summary in Education Week, I'm not so sure that the discussion moved things in the right direction. Here's a summary of the major ideas that were proposed:

• a laptop for every child
• more college science scholarships, new programs to train science teachers, and more research funding
• national standards for science

First of all, I'm not convinced that America is ever going to be able to compete with China and India in terms of the science, math, and technology workforce we develop. It has nothing to do with smarts, and everything to do with sheer numbers. This doesn't mean that science isn't an important area for children to engage and for citizens to develop an understanding of---but rather that should be the goal in and of itself.

Secondly, all of the ideas listed above will have absolutely no impact on student achievement in science unless classroom instruction changes. Just because every student has a laptop does not mean that teachers will give up their overhead projectors and whiteboards. Ditto for standards. They are the end, not the means. And all of the scholarship and professional development money in the world will make no difference if that doesn't make permanent changes to they way science in the classroom is currently presented.

I certainly support NSF funding (with significant increases), but if Congress and private business really want to make a difference at the public school classroom level, they need to provide money for strategies and practices that support student learning.

Labels: articles, science, student learning

I'm sure that there must be some of you readers who remember one or more science related products Ma Bell used to have available for the classroom. Whether it was a film like Hemo the Magnificent or a kit exploring sound, Bell Laboratories were an integral part of American science classrooms.

Believe it or not, someone has a stash of the old kits. These kits were never distributed---they are "brand new," in a sense. They've been waiting for 40 years for you to want them.


The bad news is that the distributor is going out of business. Now is your last chance to own a bit of science education history---and perhaps use these tools to inspire a new generation of scientists. If you're interested in learning more about the kits, pricing, and ordering, visit the Bell System Memorial page.

Labels: curriculum, science

Do you ever have one of those "Duh." moments? The ones that are slightly embarrassing to admit? I had one today...and yes, I'm revealing it here for all the world to read---because I want other biology teachers to benefit from my revelation.

There is a lab that I have often done with students. You take three different solutions (water; yeast and water; yeast, sugar, and water) and place them in test tubes. There is a rubber stopper with the glass tube and some rubber tubing that lead from each test tube into a smaller test tube containing bromthymol blue, an indicator for carbon dioxide. The experimental set-up is represented below:The idea is that you're able to look at evidence of cellular respiration because the assembly with the yeast, water, and sugar will turn the bromthymol blue yellow. It's great, except there are always some problems. It's darned hard to get all the tubes to stay connected and upright. If you have more than a couple of classes, you struggle to have enough materials. Keep in mind that the experiment runs overnight, so it isn't as if you can use the same things for each class. Meanwhile, the length of the experiment means that there is ample time for things to get knocked over or otherwise screwed up. The tubing isn't always clean and so results can also be iffy. More than once, I've played the role of the "carbon dioxide fairy," and used a straw to blow in some carbon dioxide before the students arrived.

So, it's that time again. I'm thinking about this lab, and while I want to use it...it's a lot of trouble and the issues with the design get in the way of The Big Idea. There has to be a better mousetrap, right?

At lunch, I mixed up some yeast, water, and honey. I put some in 2 test tubes along with bromthymol blue. I covered one and left the other uncovered (just in case the whole rubber stopper thing was important). In a third tube, I put bromthymol blue and then inserted a pipette that contained the yeast solution (in case separating the yeast from the indicator was important).

Wouldn't you know it? They all worked. And what's more, the two where the solutions were directly mixed only took 15 minutes to show results. The third tube took longer, but the indicator was yellow within 2 hours. No rubber tubing. No glass tubes. No rubber stoppers. No test tube racks overflowing and falling over with stuff.

I could have been doing this for years, saving myself a tremendous amount of headache and heartache...but no. The answer and materials were in front of me all along and I just didn't look for it. I am glad that I have now, and while I feel a bit foolish for not making this discovery before, I hope that others can learn from this.

Duh.

Labels: science

Show the picture on the left to any biology teacher worth his/her salt, and it will be quickly identified. "Elodea!" they will exclaim in rapturous delight. It's an aquatic plant, prized for its cell structure and thin leaves. Underneath the microscope, there are lots of big beautiful chloroplasts which are easily visible. There is often evidence of "cytoplasmic streaming," meaning that the skeletal structure inside the cell is circulating the chloroplasts in an effort to maximize exposure for photosynthesis. It's a great plant for many an experiment in biology. The cells readily show reactions to changes in concentration of salts, sugars, and water.

The only problem is that in Washington, it's illegal to sell. That's right, in this state, it's a bit of a contraband organism. It's not native to our area and far too many aquarium hobbyists (and bad bio teachers) have dumped their extra bits and pieces in lakes...where the plant is taking over. It grows rapidly and is squeezing out native species.

But what's a good bio teacher to do when she needs her some Elodea? It's not illegal to possess the plant---just to sell it. She can't go to a pet store or biological supply company to buy some. She's gotta call the godfather who has a free Elodea hook-up for her. That's what.

In talking about an upcoming lab with students, I mentioned the plant and its dubious distinction in our state. Most of them made the unfortunate association with another sort of weed and assumed that this plant is also controlled because it shouldn't be smoked. Um, no. They were completely disappointed by the real deal on this plant and that there are no pharmaceutical effects; however, the mystique has remained. I had told them that I was getting together with my "supplier" soon and we would have some to play with in the lab.

I couldn't have asked for a better setup for today. In one of my classes, the hand off was made in full view of the students...and they were enthralled. Mind you, it was one of the football coaches who brought it in---this big baggie of green weedy stalks floating around in aquarium water. The kids' eyes got big as they watched the happy delivery. "Look!" I exclaimed, after he left. "We have Elodea for tomorrow's lab!" Personally, I was ecstatic to get some of this delightful teaching tool. For the kids, however, they're sure that they've just been privy to some biology. Gangsta style.

Labels: science, students

Although the content of this post will contain no surprises for any veteran teacher, it may dishearten a few noobs out there. I was reminded today that you can't always tell which way a lesson will go. Over the last umpteen years, I've seen the most carefully crafted lessons go completely sideways...then kicked myself afterwards for spending so much time and energy in planning them. And there have been other lessons that I spent five minutes (or less!) on went over like gangbusters. (Does the word "gangbusters" show my age?) But there is another kind of lesson---one that you have a feeling is good, but think the kids will hate anyway. It's always a shock when they actually love it as much as you do.

If you're a non-teacher reading this---or a newbie teacher---you may wonder how random this seems. Shouldn't all lessons which are thoughtful be appreciated? Maybe in the Utopic classroom. In the real ones filled with real kids and daily changes in dynamics, outcomes are not always as predictable as a teacher might like.

I have long been a Problem Based Learning enthusiast. I like the idea of giving kids a decision-making role, a purpose for asking more questions and doing some investigations, and having them think about real world applications. Yes, I know that this is the ultimate goal of all learning, but let's face it---sometimes there is material that you just have to dig in and do. I gave one of my classes a problem about red tide today. This is not a particularly with it group, and they actually ate it up. When I walked into class this morning, I was feeling a bit down. I love this particular set-up and haven't done it for a few years. I wasn't looking forward to handing it over and having a bunch of teens tell me how much this sucked. But they liked it! Hey, Mikey!

Meanwhile, I was doing a lab with my bio kids. It's a really cool lab, in my opinion. I modeled off of this lab on using yeast to investigate how different factors affect cell membranes. We boil, we centrifuge, we use different bases to look at pH. The first and only time I did this lab prior to today, kids were ho-hum about things. But I pulled out this old chestnut for one more try, and what do you know? The kids thought it was the coolest lab ever.

I suppose that if everything was predictable about the classroom, it would be dull. Maybe I should be glad that most days, you never can tell what's going to make sparks fly.

Labels: classroom, science, student learning

If you've been reading along here recently, you'll likely have noticed that there's been an awful lot of posts about general education topics...and precious little science. Seems like a bit of false advertising for a Science Goddess not to sprinkle in more science, don't you think?

My new favourite site, via Pharyngula, is Zooillogix. It's a site devoted all manner of animal curiosities. The main page currently includes an Insect Jukebox (oh, what fun you could have with this in cubicle land), a story about a Hollywood bug wrangler and painter (he has insects walk around in paint, then on paper), wonders where have all the monster bugs gone, and tells us all about where Great White Sharks go to hook up (check out the captions).

Labels: science

Via Pharyngula...

This year's annual meeting for the National Education Association includes a booth by "Answers in Genesis," a creationist group. As Dr. Myers points out in his post:

It's rather like finding the Mafia has a booth at the police convention, but there they are, with lots of pictures, proudly peddling creationist dogma that is not legal to teach in public schools, and which can get school districts embroiled in expensive lawsuits, to teachers... I'm mystified why the NEA would allow this — any teacher in a public school who followed the advice of these clowns could land their school in very hot water, not to mention that they would be misleading and miseducating their students.

Hey, it's just another reason for the NEA (WEA, Uniserv, and Local) to suck away that $700 from my paycheck right? If a few out there teachers don't do stupid things, then what would be the point of the mob enforcement "protection" mentality that they have? Why not stoke their own fires by providing materials for teachers to get in trouble for using? I have no doubt that it would make perfect sense to the union "leadership" here.

Labels: science, union

Popular Science has been publishing an annual list of The Worst Jobs in Science. They refer to it as their "annual bottom-10 list, in which we salute the men and women to do what no salary can adequately reward." So, without further adieu, here's the 2007 edition:


10: Whale Feces Researcher (they use sniffer dogs to help)
9: Forensic Entomologist (not sure I agree with this one...I think it might be cool)
8: Olympic Drug Tester (4000 cups of pee in 21 days)
7: Gravity Research Subject (which doesn't involve being dropped off the top of tall buildings)
6: Microsoft Security Grunt ('nuff said)
5: Coursework Carcass Preparer (hey, all those dissection specimens have to come from somewhere)
4: Garbologist ("Think Indiana Jones...in a dumpster")
3: Elephant Vasectomist (somehow "snip snip" doesn't quite work here)
2: Oceanographer (depressing)

and...

1: Hazmat Diver (swim in sewage, toxic waste, and other...things)

Maybe a hard day in Curriculum isn't so bad. :) Want to know about more jobs that are likely worse than yours? Check out the 2005, 2004, and/or 2003 lists.

Labels: humor, science

It was a pretty afternoon on Monday and after I got home, I played in the yard for awhile. I am still a little shy of an area where I ticked off a group of yellowjackets last summer. It's still too early for them to be out in full force again, but I haven't forgotten their venomous ways. I didn't realize until a few days ago, however, that there is actually a scale for those wacky hymenopterans and their toxic vengeance. The Schmidt Sting Pain Index was written by an entomologist who has a passion for all things ant and wasp-like. It is rich in imagery.

• 1.0 Sweat bee: Light ephemeral, almost fruity. A tiny spark has singed a single hair on your arm.
• 1.2 Fire ant: Sharp, sudden, mildly alarming. Like walking across a shag carpet and reaching for the light switch.
• 1.8 Bullhorn acacia ant: A rare, piercing, elevated sort of pain. Someone has fired a staple into your cheek.
• 2.0 Baldfaced hornet: Rich, hearty, slightly crunchy. Similar to getting your hand mashed in a revolving door.
• 2.0 Yellowjacket: Hot and smoky, almost irreverent. Imagine WC Fields extinguishing a cigar on your tongue.
• 2.x Honey bee and European hornet.
• 3.0 Red harvester ant: Bold and unrelenting. Somebody is using a drill to excavate your ingrown toenail.
• 3.0 Paper Wasp: Caustic and burning. Distinctly bitter aftertaste. Like spilling a beaker of Hydrochloric acid on a paper cut.
• 4.0 Pepsis Wasp: Blinding, fierce, shockingly electric. A running hair drying has been dropped into your bubble bath (if you get stung by one you might as well lie down and scream).
• 4.0+ Bullet ant: Pure, intense, brilliant pain. Like walking over flaming charcoal with a 3" nail in your heel.

The "2.0" version was quite enough for me (many times over). I'm not sure I want to find myself in situations where I'm going to want to just lie down and scream. I think I'd prefer either some "Ant-ique" wallpaper:

























Or maybe some ant sugar?

Revenge is supposed to be sweet, isn't it?

Labels: fun, humor, science

My district used to belong to a consortium which supplied our elementary science curriculum. A central supply replaced consumable items and prepared kits to be delivered to schools three or four times a year. There were lots of issues with this model---especially after the state finalized its science standards. The curriculum we had was not a good match, was costly, and there would be no help on the part of the consortium...so we ended our partnership. Now, the next largest district in this group has ended its contract. They asked another specialist and I to meet with a group of their teachers yesterday and talk about the road we've traveled this year.

I have to say that visiting with that group was one of the few times I've actually felt eloquent. Thinking about the events of the last year and organizing them to share was a good exercise for me. I took some time to put things in perspective in order to talk about them.

I started by divulging the bias our district had in making our final decisions. The bottom line is that what we do in schools is about kids. Kids are the ones who are held accountable to the standards. While I know that we made some mistakes with our implementation this year...that there were things I wish had occurred in a better way...the truth is simply that I haven't a single regret about the decision to leave the consortium. More than anything else, that tells me that we had done the right thing.

We talked through our curriculum selection process, what has and hasn't gone well this year, adjustments we'll make, and plans for the future. I told them that I couldn't claim that everything was all sunshine and rainbows this year: change is unwelcome for nearly everyone and this was no exception. I also said that I didn't really mind dealing with annoyed teachers---their frustrations are real and should be acknowledged and supported, when possible. But none of the complaints this year have been about kids...that kids can't do the science, don't like the kits, or aren't learning. We'll work out the teacher kinks as long as kids are getting what they need.

There was a feisty teacher in the group. She enjoyed testing the depth of my convictions and seeing how true I would stay to my philosophical beliefs. She wanted to know just how much I understood about issues with teaching science. I liked this woman. We need teachers like her questioning all that we do...being the devil's advocate. If you can win her over in a small group, she will cheerlead for you with others.

I can see that this district has some of the same staff development issues that we do. There are some major hurdles to leap in order to create a high quality science experience a reality for every student; but, I also believe that without a vision of what can be and where you want to lead teachers, nothing can change.

We left the group at lunch and drove back to our own district, wondering where the process of selecting curriculum would take them. We didn't have to wait long. This morning, the group leader e-mailed us to tell us that they've decided to go with the exact same thing we chose for our district. I'm a bit surprised by this---not because I think we made bad choices---but rather because each district is a bit different. The strengths and weaknesses of staff are not the same everywhere. Even if the standards are the same for students across the state, there are different curricula to support them. I also found it interesting that this district chose curriculum sight unseen...something we were not brave enough to do last year.

Words are powerful things, at least in my mind. Knowing that I was influential in the decisions of another district feels a bit odd. The most important thing I learned, however, is that in spite of all the budget talk, program cuts, ugly issues, and hoopla this year...it's still about kids for me. I can see that it isn't for many people I work with, but my reason for being in education is unswayed. That gives me a lot of courage to keep moving forward.

Labels: elementary, science

I don't get my science geek on very much anymore. I know that sounds odd since I am a science specialist, but my role is more about pedagogy and teaching tools than actual science "stuff." So, I'm overdue to share a good science story. The one which follows is one that my 9th grade science teacher told me. Although I hate to admit that it is nearly 25 years later, it is still a tale that I shared with students of my own each year...and a colleague earlier this evening. It deserves to be passed along because it's just so goshdarned good.

I used the story in order to help students understand catalysts: enzymes that speed up chemical reactions without being used up in the process. In my own poor way, I would illustrate the story while I told it...much to the delight of my students. (I am a terrible artist and the stick cows required for this tale were really at the edge of my abilities.)

Farmer Bob has three sons: Bob, Jr.; Billy Bob; and Bubba. Bob also has a herd of 23 cows. Alas, poor Bob discovers that he has only a short time to live and asks his attorney to draw up his Will. In the will, Bob, Jr. is to receive 1/2 of the herd; Billy Bob would get 1/3; and Bubba, being the youngest and least responsible, would be provided an 1/8. Sure enough, Bob kicks the bucket and the boys begin to squabble. How will they ever divide the herd? No one wants a fraction of a cow. At this point, a neighbor intercedes. She is tired of the family fights and provides the boys with another cow. The herd now stands at 24. Bob, Jr. takes his half (12 cows), Billy Bob his third (8 cows), and Bubba his eighth of the herd (3 cows). 12 + 8 + 3 = 23. A-ha! The boys have now divided up the original herd according to the proportions...and the neighbor can have her cow back.

The neighbor cow is the "cattle-ist": the item which speeds up the reaction (dividing the herd) without being used up. There is a very simple reason why the math works, but it usually takes kids a few minutes to catch on. In the meantime, it gives them a great visual of how reactions can work in the body (and elsewhere).

Whew. I'm glad I let my science nerd out to run around for a little while. :) It's good to be a little different.

Labels: science

Working with elementary science has brought all sorts of new learning experiences to my doorstep. I never thought I'd need to have conversations about the best ways to keep worms alive and well...find the cheapest source for puppy training pads...or how to get teachers to think outside the kit.

Sixth grade has a few activities that list pennies as an item; but teachers don't really need them. They just need something to add weight. It could be anything: dirt, beans, rice, salt, water. There's nothing magical about using the pennies. Right now, teachers are skipping activities with pennies on the list because they don't have this item. We've told them it's okay to substitute items, but there's a lack of lateral thinking.

This isn't the only grade level where this is happening. I think part of the problem is that teaching elementary is already too big of a job: 30 minutes of planning time when a teacher is responsible for teaching all content areas (including set up time for science). They just want to be able to pull out the exact item and move on. I do understand that...but what disturbs me is that those teachers haven't thought about the concept they're teaching. It's all just a series of steps and not a cohesive idea. They only see trees and not a forest. How must their kids' understanding of science then be?

Labels: science, teachers

This letter went out to superintendents in our state:

Dear Washington State Superintendents,

I want to inform you about an important issue that is developing in the Washington State Legislature. A bill is being introduced this legislative session which calls for revising both the essential academic learning requirements (EALRs) and the statewide academic assessment system.

House Bill 1288 states that an Academic Standards Panel, made up of content area experts, will take a fresh look at the state academic standards. By next September, the Panel will make any recommended revisions to the reading, writing, math and science EALRs.

Secondly, a new WASL test will be developed based on the new EALRs. The bill states that the revised WASL must:

• Measure an individual student’s annual growth in a manner that is reliable and valid;
• Provide diagnostic results;
• Be easily administered, quickly and easily scored, and easily shared with parents;
• Be designed so that sample and actual tests are promptly available including individual student results;
• Permit comparison to school districts and states outside of Washington;
• Meet federal NCLB accountability guidelines.

The bill directs the State Superintendent’s Office to submit a student academic growth model (a system of measuring individual students' academic improvement as they advance from grade to grade) proposal to the U.S. Department of Education for NCLB purposes by 2009-10. This model would be based on results from the revised WASL.

Finally, House Bill 1288 removes all current statutory requirements and references to the Certificate of Academic Achievement and Certificate of Individual Achievement as a high school graduation requirement. This includes removing the requirements for students to pass the WASL, retake opportunities and alternative assessments.

Some of us were asked for feedback to our supe about this. My reaction? "S***!" Well, that was my initial reaction, but I don't think that he would find that particularly helpful nor enlightening. Here's what I did send:

We are not the only district to have spent significant amounts of time and money working on the alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Personally, I am in favor of reducing the number of standards at each grade level. I think what we have is a great "wish list" for each area, but it has not been truly boiled down to what is essential. I am not in favor of scrapping what we have. I understand our need to prepare kids for a competitive world, including an international stage and yet we do not know exactly what jobs will exist in the future. Education is its own worst enemy: we never leave anything in place long enough to really get a feel for how it works. Starting over with standards is not an option---we just need to tweak what we have.

I'm a little ambivalent about the second item. I like the WASL, oddly enough, but I have never felt comfortable with it being used as a graduation requirement. To me, the one benefit of that is the student accountability piece. NCLB conveniently leaves parents' and students' responsibilities out of learning and that's really not okay. I do like the idea of an annual "dipstick" test and something less cumbersome than the way WASL is now (especially for elementary students). I guess the bottom line is whether or not it's okay for a kid to make some progress every year and never reach an "end point" in the standards. How will this be any different than just moving up a grade each year? We've had that model for decades and the dissatisfaction with that has really pushed the standards based movement forward.

Finally, I don't know how I can face teachers with this information. I can imagine the "See! I told you it would all go away!" reaction from secondary teachers. Those who never truly bought in to moving kids toward the standards will feel completely reaffirmed in their beliefs and I can't imagine how that will ever be overcome throughout their careers after this instance. How do we tell all the other teachers who have committed themselves to standards based teaching and learning, "Thanks for playing!" What incentive will they have to buy in to the next wave?

2007 is shaping up to be the quite the year in both our district and state. Good thing I grow out my fingernails as I'm going to need them to hang on to the wild ride ahead.

Labels: science, WASL

I used to ask my students how you tell if someone is male or female. I always got some giggles and a few eyerolls. It's obvious, right? Mind you, we mostly talked about this in human terms---determining sex throughout the animal kingdom isn't just a matter of innies and outies.

The International Olympic Committee has been concerned with this very question for a long time. The first issue was simply a concern of men dressing as women to compete for their countries---something solved by having athletes walk naked in front of a panel of doctors. This wasn't a particularly popular solution with athletes, so the IOC moved to a Barr Body test. In humans, women typcially have 2 "X" chromosomes and men have one. In women, one of the X chromosomes turns off in each cell, migrates to the side, and hibernates. (It's not the same one in each cell---hence patterns in calico cats, for example.) The IOC decided that anyone who had a Barr Body must be female.







But then the IOC found out that they were disqualifing men who were for all visible purposes male. They just happened to have an extra chromosome. Why were they men? Because a gene from the Y chromosome (the SRY gene) had been transferred to the X chromosome during sperm formation. There's lots of gene exchange (a/k/a "crossing over") happening during sperm and egg formation. Things sometimes get stuck in the wrong place or in the wrong way. No matter---the gene functioned as it should have, causing the embryo to be flooded with testosterone at the right time to make the child a male. Now the IOC determined that anyone with an SRY gene would be viewed as male. Here again, there were issues. If that gene doesn't kick on at the right time or is counteracted in other ways, the embryo will keep developing as a female.

It's not so easy, is it?

The recent news about the runner from India failing a gender test and being stripped of a medal made me think about all of this again. Why did she fail? Too many Y chromosomes. Physically, she is female. At the cellular level she has some DNA that should have produced a male when she was in the womb, but it didn't happen. To me, there is something deeply unfair about disqualifying someone because their dad had a mutant sperm. This isn't like doping or cross-dressing. She didn't choose her chromosomes---it isn't anything she has any more control over than any other trait. It's discrimination at the molecular level.

I tend to think of gender as something of a continuum, not an either/or. At one end, you have the XX fertile female...and at the other, an XY fertile male. In the middle? People missing a part or having something extra. Gender is really left to the individual to identify---not society. I understand that the IOC is looking to keep countries honest and ensure a level playing field in a variety of ways, but I worry about the precedent they may be setting. How many of us are unknowingly carrying all sorts of genetic oddities that might mean an employer, insurer, or group would prevent us from participating?

Labels: science

When I was in junior high, one of the heartbreaks my peers and I endured was that there were no school dances. This was not reflective of the plotline in Footloose (although the movie was contemporary to our situation), but rather that the school thought that it was best to save some experiences for high school. "What will you have to look forward to if you get to do everything now?" This rather old-fashioned point of view was not enjoyed by those of us in our pre-teen/early teen years, but I respect it now.

I was prompted to remember this story after reading "'Tweens Are Fast Becoming the New Teens" on the AP wire. The gist of the piece is that typical teen behaviors (need for independence from parents, dating, etc.) are now being seen more and more commonly in 8 - 12 year olds. It's not just behavior that's changing, but also bodies. "Several published studies have found, for instance, that some tweens' bodies are developing faster, with more girls starting menstruation in elementary school — a result doctors often attribute to improved nutrition and, in some cases, obesity. While boys are still being studied, the findings about girls have caused some endocrinologists to lower the limits of early breast development to first or second grade." Are parents really having to buy training bras at the same time they provide training wheels for their daughters' bikes?

I recommend a look at the whole article, if you can spare a few minutes. It brought up a variety of questions for me. "Childhood" is really a 20th century and western cultural concept. Could it be that some of the behavioral maturity we're seeing is just something that was there all along? Right or wrong, children used to be viewed as mini-adults and expected to be as such. We may not be sending our kids out to the fields or off to work in the sweatshops, but we are sending them to school and continuing to push the envelope in terms of what we expect kids to know and be able to do. We now have tutoring for toddlers and learning benchmarks for early childhood (starting at birth).

The article does make some good points about the role of parents in all of this. Just because your nine-year old is nagging you for a cell phone doesn't mean you have to give it to her. Parents can monitor and guide selections for tv, music, and video games. However, even the most vigilant parent isn't likely to completely prevent their young children from learning about sexy, violent, or "in" things from their peers. I especially liked the point about clothing. What kind of parent buys their 12-year old a pair of shorts with "Hottie" printed across the seat? My guess is that most consumers out there will blame manufacturers for these, but if there wasn't a demand for it, they wouldn't make and sell it. How many parents out there had children because they would be the ultimate accessory item...and are treating them as such?

I get the feeling that this road to early physical and behavioral maturation is a runaway train. We're not likely to stop it at this point. One thing that is not in the article that I wonder about is the cognitive development in children---and if there have been any changes there. My guess is that the pre-frontal lobe of the brain (responsible for more complex decision-making and abstract thinking) is not maturing at an earlier point in time. In other words, kids might look and act more like adults at a younger age, but they can't think like adults. What impact will that have on them in the long run?

RIP, childhood.

Labels: articles, science, teens

LiveScience recently posted the results of a study looking at the connection between test-taking and memory. Their title is a bit misleading, making the claim that test-taking leads to an improved memory. What the study really reveals is that it's not so much the test as it is the opportunity to review. And sleep. "Based on the results, the researchers, led by Jason Chan of Washington State University in St. Louis, recommend that 'educators might consider increasing the frequency of testing to enhance long-term retention for both the tested and the related, non-tested material.'"

This is not really news. There's lots of research out there to support the importance of having practice with information in order to achieve mastery. I used to talk with students frequently about the importance of sleep...something often lacking in the lives of teenagers. It's not just the rest your body needs, it's the opportunity for your brain to process the things encountered during the day and reinforce new neural connections it has made. If you don't sleep, there is even less of a chance of retention.

Labels: science, student learning

Have you been over to Adopt-a-Microbe? Go on and have a look. There's a lot to choose from!

Labels: science

It seems like most of my working life over the last year has been devoted to thinking about our science kit center. Should we have one? How much would it cost? What would we need? Could we handle it? There are lots of other projects I would very much liked to have worked on, but this was one that just had to have priority. It has made this fall difficult in some ways and not much fun in others. But we have survived in good stead.

We were able to hire someone, although a month later than what HR promised us. Good things come to those who wait, I suppose, as the person we got is amazing. She is terribly overqualified with an M.S. and years of experience running a research lab where people who had earned their DVM degrees came back to work on PhDs. Ordering paper plates and cutting wax paper is definitely not what she's been professionally trained to manage. However, she has her reasons for wanting this job and we're not going to quibble with them. We have truly come out ahead with this.

There are some minor issues continuing to dog the first rotation of kits...and we are certainly having to think about getting restocked for rounds two and three. I don't think that there will be a quiet spell until the spring. But we are getting several community volunteers in to help and our new coordinator has brought several good relationships with vendors with her. Things take time, which is not what you want to hear if you're a classroom teacher with a need for that day. Most of them have been very patient and understanding.

This is the first week where I don't have back to back meetings and events scheduled on my calendar. I have time to actually concentrate on my job: supporting teachers.

Labels: elementary, science

For those of you who might not know, today is a type of holiday in chemistry: it's Mole Day. I blogged about this last year, and over the course of the last week, I've had several hundred hits by people searching for information on Mole Day...and in particular, Mole Bucks. So, to all of you out there partying in a hardy way and desperate for your just rewards, you can now find a sample above.

Happy Mole Day!

Labels: science

I'm staying late tonight as I have a presentation