Sensible Science Education
Curriculum and constructivism in the public
schools.
Connected Knowledge: Science, Philosophy, and Education,
by Alan Cromer, Oxford University Press, 1997, 221 pages, $25.00
By Carol Doherty
Debates on science education are heated these days at Northeastern,
and Alan Cromer always seems to be in the middle of them. I first met Cromer,
an N.U. physics professor, about two and a half years ago when I was looking
for a faculty member to help public school teachers in Fall River, Massachusetts,
restructure the middle school science curriculum. I was impressed with
his credentials and intrigued by his methods for developing curricula.
Over the ensuing years we have had many conversations about the teaching
of science. The publication of his latest book, Connected Knowledge,
afforded me the opportunity to learn even more about Cromer's views on
science education in the primary schools.
As an educator and not a scientist, I will focus this review on Cromer's
critique of the schools rather than on scientific theory. The book's early
chapters, on standard applications and illustrations of scientific principles
such as the Archimedes principle, the oscillating rod, and the Hempel analogy,
are truly enlightening. It provides a certain measure of comfort to be
reminded that the universe is still orderly. Using these scientific applications
as a foil, Cromer ultimately gets to the point of his book: that public
education doesn't work.
It is at this point, the juncture between scientific theory and his
analysis of the schools, that the author and I part company. His criticism
arises from a view about how science should and shouldn't be taught. Cromer
would like science education to be as orderly as the universe. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist to make the connection between his passion about
the teaching of science and his views about what's wrong with the public
schools.
A self-described reformer, Cromer believes that teachers come to their
work ill equipped, and as a result students leave without adequate knowledge.
He believes that science curricula are poorly developed, that science teachers
are poorly prepared, and that "constructivist" theories have
been the undoing of public education. The crux of his argument is that
the current structure of schooling is a big waste of time for most students
and that we ought to teach 'em, test 'em, and get 'em on their way as soon
as possible. The best and the brightest will remain, and the others will
fend for themselves.
Cromer offers several solutions of his own making to these problems.
He suggests that the existing GED (General Education Development) test
should be the norm for evaluating student learning and that "ability
grouping" is the best way to organize that learning. He makes an argument
for curriculum reform and for practice-based training as an approach to
teacher development. He thinks soft-covered texts and universal, low-cost
computers are ways to make knowledge less expensive and therefore more
accessible to students.
Cromer's greatest ire is directed at constructivism, which he presents
as "a movement led by educators who have no knowledge of science even
at the middle school level." He goes on to say that "these educators
feel that they don't need to have science knowledge, since education is
no longer about learning anything and that it is about content-free, criteria-free
solutions of poorly defined problems and consistent with their [constructivists']
denial of objective truth."
The reality of a constructivist approach is that learning content and
skill is the educational goal. The critical feature is how knowledge is
acquired. "Students must develop the necessary content-bound understandings
without sacrificing the intellectual autonomy essential for the construction
of meaning," in the words of a prominent constructivism advocate,
Irving Sigel. Constructivism is a guide to finding out how to teach people.
The dichotomy that exists between Cromer's opinion about the organization
of learning and the constructivist view is one that has existed for thousands
of years. Each view has its own distinct goals and practices and its advocates.
The key is to balance the extremes.
Cromer's proposal of "ability grouping" is particularly problematic.
Schools should "organize students into at least three ability groups
or levels, and require each to complete a core curriculum. Instruction
would be appropriate to student needs. Students would be preselected for
these groups based on their attainment in preschool and kindergarten,"
he writes. Yet he maintains that "although this looks like tracking,
smells like tracking, and tastes like tracking, it isn't really tracking."
If this isn't really tracking, then what is it, really?
Cromer proposes that the GED test be required of all ninth grade students.
Results would determine who stays and who goes. Students who pass would
have the option of continuing their high school education, going on to
college, entering a professional training program, or going to work. Those
who fail could stay in the ninth grade and continue to study and take the
test again. What is implied is that they would also have the option to
leave school at that point.
The book's endnotes are a fascinating read and offer additional information
on the author's thinking. I scanned them looking for clarification and
concrete evidence to substantiate some of Cromer's claims about teachers
and the failure of constructivist theory to improve the schools. As I had
imagined, this information isn't there because these ideas are anecdotal.
I did find, however, an argument to support his view that high schools
should basically abandon the eleventh and twelfth grades. He says, "Since
the last two years of high school have no measurable benefit on the bottom
third of students, and the upper third could continue their education in
college after the tenth grade, it is hard to see what purpose is served
by grades eleven and twelve." If we follow this line of thought, the
questions one must pose are: What then will happen to the middle third?
Where will the bottom third go? What will these students do? Cromer might
say that addressing these concerns is not the role of the public schools.
Well, if not us, then who?
If there is agreement on any single fact, it is that our system of public
schools has room for improvement. The flurry of reform activity that has
swirled about the American educational system since the 1970s has yet to
offer any lasting solutions, and it continues without relief. Until sufficient
quantitative data are generated to make the case for either view, the debate
will continue. At most, we have learned that there is not one best way.
Perhaps that in itself is the problem. Alan Cromer, using Connected
Knowledge as his platform, has immersed himself in the debate.
Carol Doherty, a former president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association,
is director of the Program for Teacher and Curriculum Development at Northeastern's
Center for Innovation in Urban Education.
Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment
By Sandra Steingraber
Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1997
Biologist and poet Sandra Steingraber, a former visiting fellow at
Northeastern, argues that rising cancer rates in the United States can
be traced to growing environmental contamination. Steingraber offers detailed
scientific analysis, describing how cancer-causing substances wreak havoc
inside the body, as well as her own compelling story of battling cancer.
She also delves into stories of her Illinois hometown and other communities
confronting cancers that may have been caused by the dumping of industrial
and agricultural toxins. Finally, the author suggests ways to eliminate
dangerous substances from the environment.
Selected Letters of Bayard Taylor
Edited by Paul C. Wermuth
Bucknell University Press, 1997
Wermuth, a retired Northeastern English professor, offers an autobiography,
in letters, of a notable American of the mid-nineteenth century-one who
led a fascinating and varied life as a journalist, lecturer, and writer
of poetry and travel books. Although Bayard Taylor is a name now nearly
forgotten, this volume of 275 letters brings Taylor back to life. Taylor's
letters to close friends and to famous people of his time-such as Longfellow,
Tennyson, Browning, Swinburne, James Russell Lowell, Lincoln, and Rutherford
Hayes-paint a vivid picture of mid-nineteenth-century American life and
the difficulties a writer of that time faced in earning a living.
Return to top of
page