One of the many reform efforts that is being implemented across the country is standards. At first I thought that this idea was ridiculous even at the state level because I believed it discouraged teacher creativity. I imagined that students were given "performances" by teachers with scripts rather than getting the individualized attention that they needed. However, standards are not the same as curricula, as I learned through my study of the state and national standards for science. Although I might not agree with some of the specifics of the standards, I do support the standards' underlying intent.

By examining the North Carolina Standards for Science, I realized that the state had a goal of ensuring that all students would become scientifically literate. The standards, however, were not a list of facts that a scientifically literate person must know, but instead a way of emphasizing the knowledge of concepts and the use of processing skills. Additionally, the writers did an excellent job expanding the focus of science so that students could realize its potential. They do not consider science merely biology or chemistry but a way of viewing the world. For example, in high school, there is a greater emphasis on both applied and theoretical aspects of science with students participate in the examination of socially relevant issues.

The state standards do not only help students, but also provide teachers with a starting point to their lesson plans and creates more homogeneity in the spirit of teaching. What I mean by spirit of teaching, is that, although students are not being educated in exactly the same way, the intent behind each lesson is similar. Although these standards help show which teachers are actually teaching, it might be difficult for some creative teachers to stick to the standards, especially if they choose to organize science in a different fashion. However, I believe that there is plenty of latitude within the standards for teachers to adjust the categories to their own style.

The state standards are not perfect, however. Firstly, there are some areas that need a little more detail. For example, what does it mean when the standards state that they want to develop responsible attitudes toward science? Also, the organization of the standards is sometimes awkward because the writers throw in content areas. Why is the chemistry competency goal 6 Properties of Solutions when all the other chemistry content areas are within the other competencies? I do not consider the concept of the mole less important than the properties of solutions, but that is what the standards imply.

The National Standards are very similar to the North Carolina Standards in thought and attitude. One difference, that I consider as an improvement, is that standards are not only created for science teaching, but also include standards for professional development for science teachers, for assessment in science teaching, for science content, for science education programs, and for science education systems. By expanding the effects of standards, the writers showed that they believed that there are many factors affecting whether these students become scientifically literate. They acknowledge that the administration, the education of the teachers, the parents, and policy makers all benefit students and that we all must work together to make the implementation of the standards a reality. This puts the responsibility on all of us instead of putting blame on the teachers.

Overall, the standards impressed me. As a teacher and a citizen of a democracy, they helped be envision ways in which I can help make the future a better place in which to live. Instead of feeling constricted, I felt invigorated to jump on the bandwagon and join the efforts to inspire students to view their world from a new and exciting perspective.
 

Back to Initial Reflections	Main Page
Reflections	Evaluation
Teaching	Learning