By Robert Yager
Professor Emeritus, The University of Iowa USA

Too often educational leaders seek reforms (i.e., changes that hopefully would result in more knowledgeable students) in terms of producing more materials (curriculum outlines and textbooks). These are prepared for teachers to follow closely as the way of assuring successes. Most nations have central control of education which includes specific courses, course sequences, textbooks, and support materials with the expectation that teachers follow and use the materials exactly as provided.

In the U.S. education is left to the states with several exercising control over the “approved” textbooks. These states are among the largest and hence provide the motivation for commercial textbooks to provide materials that match their guidelines. This means that all science textbooks include ninety percent of the same material (major topics, verification-type laboratories).

Testing companies are pleased with the use of only a few mainline textbooks which differ only slightly in format. They prepare tests to match what teachers teach – and the textbooks provide the perfect answers.

In the U.S. several material curriculum projects continue to be funded. Interestingly, the projects that change the least are the most popular. Some of the most innovative ones cannot find mainline publishers; some of these often do not last long in terms of the market place.

One of the most vivid examples was the Unified Science and Mathematics for Elementary Schools (USMES). The materials for this K-8 program were organized around local and school issues. It was devoid of the science/math topics which characterize typical materials. In less than a year after being offered commercially, the company went bankrupt. USMES exists today only as a part of the ERIC collections.

Most state standards and most textbooks used by most teachers miss the basic reforms proposed by reformers around the world. They do not match the goals, the definitions of science and math content, the changes needed in teaching, especially the use of constructivist ideas regarding learning.

We are not likely to succeed with needed changes if K-12 science education is focused on producing graduates who are scientifically literate. This means graduates who can think, debate, collect evidence to support individually formulated ideas and proposed explanations. Success in science means producing persons who understand real science and can “do” it on their own – outside of science classrooms.

If the science curriculum is a given and teachers are mere translators and transmitters of what we know about the natural world, we are casting science into another religious dropout – something to follow based on faith and evaluation of learning based on repetition, recitation, and regurgitation. We need to start with real science – not an elaboration of current understandings and explorations accepted by the scientific establishment.