Learning: FYI
Science Texts Flunk

A leading science education group says not one of the popular middle school textbooks is up to par. What’s a teacher to do?

The American Association for the Advancement of Science created Project 2061 to improve science education. The project recently assembled teams of middle school teachers, curriculum specialists, and professors of science education to review nine widely used textbook series. Not one got a passing grade.

What criteria did the reviewers use in rating the books?
Project 2061 and the National Research Council have developed standards for what children should know and be able to do in science as they progress through school. These standards focus on important scientific understandings about nature—for example, that matter is made up of atoms.

The reviewers wanted to see whether the textbooks could help teachers teach these ideas. They found that the texts do cover the big topics, but they don’t help teachers teach, or students learn.

What was wrong with the textbooks examined?
The texts cover too many topics and don’t develop any of them well.

“Dictionaries–that’s a good way to characterize these books,” says Jo Ellen Roseman, who led the textbook study. “Most have no more material about a concept than you would find in a dictionary, and often it’s not even that good.”

“Our students are lugging home heavy texts full of disconnected facts that neither educate them nor motivate them,” adds Project 2061 Director George Nelson. “It’s a credit to science teachers that their students are learning anything at all.”

How did the textbooks get so useless?
“I don’t usually defend the textbook companies, but they do have constraints,” says AAAS study leader Roseman. “They’re trying to sell to every school district in the United States, and each state has its own standards. As long as the states say they must have all the concepts, we’re pushing for a dictionary approach.”

If all the books are bad, what’s the alternative?
Don’t buy new textbooks, says Roseman. Some communities labor under a policy that says every student must have a science text no more than seven years old.

“That’s a waste,” she says.

Instead, Roseman recommends that school districts put their money into limited, stand-alone units covering major science concepts, as well as into professional development.

The Project 2061 review teams gave high marks to three units developed by Michigan State University and the Michigan Department of Education.

This excerpt, from the Michigan “Matter and Molecules” unit, demonstrates how to get students thinking about the idea that molecules are in constant motion:

“Explain how you can smell an open bottle of vinegar even though you are across the room. What is actually reaching your nose? How did the vinegar molecules get into the air? How did the vinegar molecules reach your nose?”

That’s a far cry from the rote memorization required from current textbooks.

At the Morse School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, NEA member Karen Spaulding teaches grades 6, 7, and 8. Her district uses Prentice Hall Science, one of the texts panned by AAAS (see list below).

“On the list of materials that we use to teach science,” says Spaulding, “the text is last.”

Spaulding has had “countless hours” of professional development and now uses teaching kits for parts of the curriculum. The Education Development Center in nearby Newton (www.edc.org) is one source Spaulding uses.

This Cambridge teacher also recommends TERC, a 35-year-old nonprofit research organization (www.terc.edu), and the Exploratorium in San Francisco (www.exploratorium.edu) for help with professional development and with materials.

If I skip parts of the text, will my kids flunk the state tests?
No, says Spaulding. She does skip large parts of the text, and her students still take the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System.

“A deeper understanding can only help students perform better,” she says. Last year, her students’ scores were the most improved in the state, and above both state and school district averages.

What can I do to get better textbooks?
Complain. Write to textbook companies and, especially, to the committees and boards that buy or approve textbooks.

“If teachers don’t act politically, things won’t change,” says Roseman.

Teachers in states where state authorities pick a list of books that can be bought with state funds—California and Texas are the biggest—can play a crucial role, because these states drive the textbook market.

“This study confirms our worst fears about the materials used to educate our children in the critical middle grades,” says Project 2061 Director Nelson. “Because textbooks are the backbone of classroom instruction, we must demand improvement.”

For more . . .

• Check www.aaas.org for details of the AAAS review and a book-by-book analysis.
• The three Michigan units that received high marks are distributed by the Battle Creek Math and Science Center. For more, contact Johna Bard at 616/965-9602 or E-mail jbard@remc12.k12.mi.us.
• AAAS study leader Jo Ellen Roseman notes that the Spokane schools in Washington State have put together a useful set of independent science units and other resources. Their program is summarized on the Web at www.sd81.k12.wa.us/ science/second/index.idc.

–Alain Jehlen

Do You Use These Texts?

No middle school science textbook met the AAAS standards for a quality text. These are the books rated:

• Glencoe Life, Earth, and Physical Science
• Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Science
• Middle School Science and Technology
• Prentice Hall Science
• PRIME Science
• Science 2000
• Science Insights
• Science Interactions
• SciencePlus