National standards are attractive. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates that schools reach proficiency on reading and mathematics tests by 2014, but the states define proficiency. States’ achievement tests often diverge widely from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). One state’s test indicated 87% proficiency among fourth graders while NAEP indicated only18% proficiency. If a state’s standards are low, that state will be more likely to avoid federal sanctions under NCLB. A common set of standards, if translated into appropriate assessments, should result in fairer comparisons.

It also makes sense that the quality of education a student receives should not depend on whether the student is in Alabama, Wyoming, or any state between (alphabetically). National standards, properly applied, ought to contribute to greater equality of what students learn and should ease the burden on students who move from one state to another. Finally, any project that can obtain agreement among governors and chief state school officers from 46 states ought to be applauded for diplomacy and persuasiveness.

So what’s not to like about this? I can think of two important things: The new, common standards appear to be restricted to content. There appears to be little or no involvement of K–12 or post-secondary teachers in developing the standards.

The original National Science Education Standards (NSES) include a much broader range of standard-setting than just content (2). Fewer than half the pages (106 of 262) are devoted to science content standards; 110 pages are devoted to standards for science teaching, professional development, assessment, science education programs, and science education systems. The NSES considered an entire educational system, not just what students should be expected to know. The importance of this breadth of standard-setting can be seen in the science education system standards. Policies that influence science education must be congruent with the program, teaching, professional development, assessment, and content standards; coordinated within and across agencies, institutions, and organizations; sustained over sufficient time to bring about changes; supported with significant resources; reviewed for unintended effects on classroom practice; and carried out by individuals who aim to achieve a new vision of science education. Content standards alone are unlikely to achieve a new vision and are likely to have unintended consequences.

According to the press releases the new, common standards will be drafted by the College Board, ACT Inc., and a Washington-based group, Achieve. The commitment to common standards by the 46 states was by governors and chief state school officers. I doubt that they have consulted with classroom teachers. A committee of experts in content standards will review drafts of the standards, but the experts will be chosen by the governors and chief state school officers. This appears to be yet another failure of the public, elected officials, and those charged with overseeing school systems to recognize teachers as professionals who have a great deal to contribute to the betterment of education.

Shortly after I commented on the value of recognizing K–12 teachers as professionals two months ago, I became aware of the short book, Science Teaching as a Profession: Why It Isn’t. How It Could Be. by Sheila Tobias and Anne Baffert (3). Tobias and Baffert argue that science teachers should have substantial control of “curriculum content, pedagogy, pacing and assessment” and should become leaders at the school, district, state, and national levels. In addition to documenting the fact that teachers do not now have such control, Tobias and Baffert suggest ways that science teachers can take more control of the future of science education: write about the problems and solutions; speak out locally and nationally; form communities and action groups to press for reform; identify young teachers and encourage them to do the same; and “sing the praises of outstanding science teachers”. They describe ways to attract science teachers to governance positions in schools and districts; suggest establishing science teacher councils in schools or districts to recommend on hiring, promotion, evaluation, and curriculum; and suggest much greater interaction among teachers and scientists through summer research and workshops. Read this short book and act on what you read!

It is generally recognized that the most important factor in a student’s success in learning science is a good teacher. Let’s work to make certain that the importance of science teachers as professionals is recognized and celebrated.

Literature Cited

1. McNeil, Michele. Education Week 2009, 28 (33), 16; viewed online (accessed Jun 2009).
2. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, 1996; available online (accessed Jun 2009).
3. Tobias, Sheila; Baffert, Anne. Science Teaching as a Profession: Why It Isn’t. How It Could Be; Research Corporation for Science Advancement: Tucson, 2009; available for download (accessed Jun 2009).

Blogged at NSDL ExpertVoices.