The Role of Public Policy in K-12 Science Education

Abstract

The book is organized into an introduction and three parts. DeBoer’s introduction describes thepolitical landscape underlying the science educational policy terrain in the USA from federalmandates, state benchmarks/testing, and local course offerings. He notes that (a) the dominantresearch strategy attempts to ‘back fill’ the evidence voids on enacted policies made by wellintendedpoliticians, bureaucrats, and other powerful actors; (b) more research is needed on how science education research affects policy; and (c) more effort is needed to make high-qualityresearch findings available to policymakers. “There are also opportunities for science education researchers to become actual policy researchers, that is, individuals who study the very interesting and complex process involved in policy formation and implementation.” (p. 8).Part I, by far the largest and most diverse, addresses the multiple influences on policy developmentand enactment—science education researchers, scientists, foundations, funding agencies,state departments, and science teacher associations. Chapters 2 and 6 provide overviews of the intersection between policy and practice and how some European Union member countries designed and implemented science education change. Osborne (Chapter 2) examined how the declining rate of interest in science-oriented careers (pipeline issue) and the general democratic need for science literacy amongst citizens (mainstream issue) influenced the English national science curriculum, which reframed secondary science courses to meet the needs of studentsseeking advanced study and of all students to critically assess events in techno-scientific societies.He pointed out that the “Failure by researchers to recognize the specific policy agenda of policy-makers [and the classroom realities of teachers] leads to a situation where the ideas and thinking of science education researchers are ignored.” (p.18). Sarmant, Saltiel, and Léna (Chapter6) examined an inquiry-based science program entitled La main à la pâte (LAMAP) that was initiated by the French Academy of Sciences and three physicists. This case illustrated the influence scientific leaders can have on policy within the highly centralized educational system. The developers of LAMAP recognized and embodied the well-established context and traditions of French primary schools’ emphasis on “fundamental skills of speaking, reading, writing and counting” and in convincing politicians that it would enhance literacy and the understanding of science (p. 169).Kahle and Woodruff (Chapter 3) explored the impact of policy decisions such as the National Science Education Standards (NSES) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that specified types of content and pedagogical knowledge leading to curriculum design and to defining highly qualified teachers. However, “research does not provide support for the proposition that teachercontent knowledge translates directly to student achievement” (p. 69) since much of the research on content knowledge did not consider the mediating effects of school environment and classroom practices, which points to the need to consider pedagogical content knowledge and end-user friendly ways of reporting results.Chapters 4,5,and 7 outline the influence that major foundations, federal funding agencies,and state departments of education, have had on US science education. Cheek and Quiriconi (Chapter 4) provided historical and current perspectives,described policies, and identified institutionsdirectly linked with the work of tax-exempt foundations (especially the Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller foundations). “Many major reform efforts in science education were initiated by the Book review 653prompting of foundations or supported by foundation dollars long before any governmental entity was willing to extend support.” (p.112). Earle (Chapter 5) examined federal funding agencies and focused on the overall structure, goals, and mission of the National Science Foundation(NSF),its relationship with other federal agencies, and how it has influenced policy.“The prioritiesthat NSF establishes through the budget development process,the development of programsolicitations that call for particular kinds of work addressing national needs, and through the proposal submission and award process are all mechanisms that, over time, can result in incremental shifts in policy direction.”(pp.141-142). Cheek and Quiriconi (Chapter 7) described the constitutional relationships and early history of public education, which is delegated to the states and means that educational policy and practices vary within the uniqueness of all 50 states. They noted that there is a “paucity of research on state education agencies and K-12 science educationpolicy to draw upon” (p.175).Chapters 8 and 9 focus on the central efforts and strategies to implement science educationpolicy. Bybee (Chapter 8) discussed how assessment became the influential driver of educationpolicy (including science); he stated that, “science education requires a consistent and coherent system that has a clear and coordinated set of purposes, policies, programs and practices” (p.215). He described the structures and functions underlying the Programme for International StudentAssessment (PISA) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress, reviewed their intended and unintended impacts on educational systems and policy, and pointed out how international assessments, state tests, and end-of-course evaluations influence future policy. Peterson(Chapter 9) reviewed the political process as to how scientific organizations, in this case the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), influence politicians, policymakers, and bureaucrats.“Advocacy and the more specific type of advocacy known as lobbying are important activities in a democratic society” (p. 254); however, she is careful to delineate key differences betweenadvocacy and lobbying in the legal sense regarding federa