{"id":802,"date":"2015-04-11T10:27:29","date_gmt":"2015-04-11T14:27:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bakeramitchell.com\/?p=802"},"modified":"2015-04-11T10:27:29","modified_gmt":"2015-04-11T14:27:29","slug":"how-not-to-teach-elementary-school-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bakeramitchelljr.com\/index.php\/2015\/04\/11\/how-not-to-teach-elementary-school-science\/","title":{"rendered":"How not to teach elementary school science"},"content":{"rendered":"

CURRICULUM CRITIQUE: SCOTT, FORESMAN’S “DISCOVER SCIENCE”<\/strong><\/p>\n

[When organizing some digital archives on this\u00a0rainy Saturday, I came across this paper\u00a0that I had written\u00a0in the early 1990’s while taking a course for a lateral entry teaching certificate. \u00a0I don’t know if this particular series is still around, but things have not changed very much. \u00a0I do know that the disdain for using any math in an elementary science text\u00a0is\u00a0even more prevailing today than 20 years ago. ]<\/em><\/p>\n

\"sf<\/strong><\/p>\n

Texas Edition, 1991; Grades 1-6; Specific Comments refer to the Sixth Grade Text<\/p>\n

By Baker Mitchell<\/p>\n

Intended Setting:<\/strong>\u00a0 The intended setting is a Texas classroom of thirty retarded, good-humored, English-speaking orphans of rich Europeans who will soon return to their native countries of France, Italy, and Belgium and become neo-impressionists supported by the state and family wealth.<\/p>\n

The eight authors, nineteen consultants, and forty-one reviewer\/consultant-specialists (one of these 68 people is actually a scientist -PhD, biology)\u00a0 state the first two of the above-mentioned setting attributes (Texas, thirty students). The remaining attributes may easily be inferred from examining the texts and the teacher’s annotated edition.\u00a0 For example, the ounce, pound, inch, foot, yard, pint, quart, and gallon are never mentioned in the entire six years of student texts.\u00a0 Mysteriously, dollars and miles are occasionally mentioned but these occurrences are undoubtedly the fault of some careless editor.\u00a0 The Newton – that ever-so-handy metric unit of force – is mentioned once.<\/p>\n

Rationale:<\/strong> One inferred rationale for this series is to screen the school children for seers, oracles, and prophets.\u00a0 For example, “Life Science” – the most complex of the sciences – is presented first and constantly refers to concepts such as pH, sodium chloride, soil properties, and CO2-02 cycles.\u00a0 These basic topics are then covered more than a hundred pages later in the sections of \u201cPhysical Science\u201d and \u201cEarth Science.\u201d\u00a0 In “Physical Science” the chemistry section (discussing ionic electrical bonding on p. 181) precedes the physics section (that covers electrical attractive forces on p. 229).\u00a0 In the physics section, Newton’s three laws of motion are presented 1, 2, 3 – not 3, 1, 2 as is usually required for non-seers.<\/p>\n

Because it has been shown that only 13.1% of Texas students are proficient in math at their grade level, another rationale is to omit mentioning math altogether. For example, although energy is discussed in all sections, it is never defined and the Law of Conservation of Energy – the single most basic of all laws that requires second grade addition and subtraction – is never mentioned.\u00a0 Nor is energy either defined or quantified because it requires the multiplication of whole numbers (energy = force X distance_moved) – supposedly learned in the third grade.\u00a0 Despite much talk about conductors and insulators and insulators, Ohm’s Law (voltage = current X resistance) is never mentioned because it, like energy, uses third grade multiplication.\u00a0 Perhaps sixth graders are deficient in sixth grade math – but in third grade math?\u00a0 (And maybe using some math in science at each grade could reinforce the math and increase the math proficiency.)<\/p>\n

Goals:<\/strong> Scott, Foresman states that:<\/p>\n