PFL Mystery Science Theater

Was I the only geek who liked Mystery Science Theater (MST)—the PBS show where robots sat around and made wisecracks about old sci-fi B-movies? Anyone? Bueller? Well, that’s a little bit what this blog will be like in the coming months regarding the revision of Washington’s science education standards. While we won’t likely be ribbing the standards revision a’la MST, we will be offering you front-seat commentary throughout the process.

Today’s PFL Science Theater Feature: “Washington begins to revise science education standards,” Seattle P-I.

Maureen: So here’s the 411—lots of ed folks are wondering why there isn’t as much crazy controversy surrounding the new recommended science standards compared to the much-debated math standards (what are they looking for? Blood, at this point?). Especially because barely a third of high schoolers passed the science WASL last year. My two cents: Give it time and people will get riled up.

Seattle P-I: The volunteer chairman of the [State] board's science committee says math advocates are more formally organized than science enthusiasts. And the math debate has two distinct sides, which is not possible in science, because there are so many different specialties from earth science to chemistry.

Maureen: I agree—but who is this masked volunteer chairman, anyway? Science does take a lot more forms than traditional math tracks. Think the standard algebra->geometry->algebra II vs. biology->physics or chemistry->electronics or anatomy or geology or monotony (just kidding). That’s why science curriculum—aligned with strong standards—is so important. And it’s good to see that…

Seattle P-I: After the new standards are approved by the Legislature, the superintendent's office will pick the two or three science programs at each grade level that best align with the new standards. Then the science WASL will be revised to measure the new standards.

Maureen: Sounds about right—if all the stars in the universe align.

Seattle P-I: "It's really more about the process of science. We want to make sure people are doing inquiry and data analysis, instead of memorizing rules versus problem solving," said science chairman Jeff Vincent, who is CEO of Seattle-based investment company Laird Norton Co.

Maureen: Jeff speaks the truth like his investment company makes money: All the time. And it looks like he did his homework—this is exactly what David Heil & Associates (the consultants doing the review of WA’s science standards) found and noted in their interim report.

Seattle P-I: Among the consultants' recommendations:

• Introduce some science concepts in earlier grades and increase rigor at all grade levels. They repeatedly pointed to the National Science Education Standards as a document that sets a high bar.

• Pay more attention to "inquiry," teaching students how to figure things out in science.

• Teach students how to design their own experiments, conduct the experiments and then use critical thinking skills to understand what they have learned.

• Enhance the standards for science and technology by adding relevant, real world examples.

• Add personal and social perspectives to the standards, with topics like population growth, environmental quality and natural resources.

Maureen: Well, there you have it folks! (Classic MST line, btw) Pop me some popcorn, because I’m certainly right on board with making WA’s science education rigorous, but equally interactive and relevant. But take a seat in the front row, let me know what you think about the science standards process and stay tuned for another PFL Science Theater Feature.