Contemplating criteria for science education reform: The case of the Olympia school district

School Science and Mathematics, Nov 1998 by Tippins, Deborah, Weiseman, Katherine, Nichols, Sharon E

Proposals for current reform in science education elaborate national standards and a plethora of state-- level interpretations commonly labeled as curriculum or learning frameworks. The purpose of this case study was to examine the dynamics of the science curriculum reform process in one of the first school districts to use the Georgia Framework for Learning Mathematics and Science as a basis for their reform initiative. The paper describes the ways in which members of the Olympia School District's Science Curriculum Committee participated in the science curriculum reform process, as well as their personal beliefs about the criteria needed for reform to take place. The results highlight the nature of metaphors guiding reform efforts; the influence of social, historical, economic, and political forces on the reform process; the use of local and professional languages as discourses for communicating about reform; and the complex power relations that influence the micropolitics of reform in the Olympia School District. This study has important implications for other teachers and school districts engaged in standards-based science curriculum reform. It points to the need for reform to include reflection and analysis of the role of teachers in the reform process and consideration of the purpose of science education reform in society.

Studies of science education reform have demonstrated the complexities of situations mediating reform and the diverse forms of constraints which can have physical, political, and cognitive dimensions. Czerniak and Lumpe (1996) emphasized the need to further examine teacher's beliefs about reform: "Since teachers possess beliefs regarding professional practice and since their beliefs impact their actions, teachers' beliefs may be a crucial change agent in paving the way to reform" (p. 251). While little has been done to consider teachers' beliefs about reform, even less has been said about general assumptions underpinning science education reform. Kyle (1996) has raised criticism of the ideological underpinnings of reform and asserted the potential for systemic reform to serve as a means for sustaining privileged, hegemonic views in science education. These researchers' comments encourage a closer look at the purposes of reform, participants in reform, participants' beliefs about reform, and what is learned as science educators engage in reform.

Rationale and Purpose of the Study

Several researchers (Fullan, 1993; Gallagher, 1991; Murphy, Evertson, & Radnofsky, 1991; Smith, 1994; Tobin & Dawson, 1992) have expressed concern about the origins and intentions of reform and school change: Who identifies the areas of need? How will these areas needing reform be addressed? Murphy et al. (1991) perceive a general pattern that "reformers are speaking for teachers, but [there are] few cases of teachers describing their own visions about what the schools of the future should look like" (p. 136). Gallagher (1991) points to the historical omission of teacher and student knowledge of teaching and learning in the reform rhetoric, and Smith (1994) posits that real change is unlikely unless empowered teachers confront assumptions about traditional schooling.

Upon the instigation of Georgia's National Science Foundation-funded Statewide Systemic Initiative in 1993, the Georgia Initiative in Mathematics and Science (GIMS), a group of university educators, science supervisors, and over 100 teachers, worked for more than 2 years to write a state curriculum framework called The Georgia Framework for Learning Mathematics and Science (hereafter referred to as Framework; GIMS, 1995). This document was not intended as a mandate for instructional practice, but rather as a guide to facilitate local decision making about curriculum. In 1995, the Olympia school district engaged in science education reform involving the Framework as a springboard for change.

The purposes of this study are to (a) document a case of district-level science curriculum reform; (b) describe stakeholders' personal criteria for reform; (c) consider the contextual aspects mediating stakeholders' perspectives and actions in the reform process; and (d) generate recommendations to assist others negotiating science education reform.

Theoretical Perspectives

In this study, a critical theoretical framework helps to (a) bring issues of power into the foreground of inquiry; (b) legitimize and value the voices of all stakeholders involved in reform; (c) include teachers' insights and practical knowledge in "the discourse of possibility" (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994, p. 139); and (d) fuel researchers' "awareness of [our] ideological imperatives and epistemological presuppositions that inform [our] research, as well as [our] subjective, intersubjective, and normative reference claims" (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994, p. 140).

In this case, the interpretation of curriculum serves as a primary theoretical referent. Two concepts of curriculum inform thinking about science education reform. Pinar's (1975) notion of "currere" suggests that curriculum is an active, ongoing, and continuous process, rather than solely a product or prescription. At the root of this definition is the idea that curriculum is personal, individual, existential, and focused on the experience of the individual learner. Also, it is recognized that knowledge construction is not isolated from the social milieu. Accordingly, in this article Goodson's (1990) definition of curriculum as social construction is embraced. These interpretations of curriculum call for a close look at how reform is negotiated among various stakeholders.