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

The micropolitics of science curriculum reform involves complex power relations. Although SCC teachers were astutely aware of these power relations, there was evidence that these teachers did not hold a shared belief that they had the power to enact change. The curriculum director's reference to keeping teachers like "genies in a bottle" suggested that a hierarchy was being maintained through administrative power. The interplay of social and political forces discussed in the fourth theme worked to sustain an imbalance of power within the educational community.

Theme 4: The discourses of local language and professional language were used to communicate professional experiences associated with participation in a reform initiative.

Even as the SCC negotiates to refine a final form for their district philosophy and vision statement, there is an awareness of the challenge of communication and probability of multiple understandings. If we're having so many different interpretations in our small group, what will a larger group do? (Geraldine, interview)

Teachers have their own specialized form of discourse, what Freeman (1993) describes as their "local language." Freeman's work suggests that teachers' local language explanations may differ significantly from professional language explanations. SCC members used both local and professional language to communicate in the context of the science reform initiative. When both local and professional languages are interspersed without a unified discourse, communication can become problematic.

SCC members had many synonyms for the professional language used in the Framework (i.e., less is more, habits of mind, vehicles for understanding, and big ideas). SCC members' interpretations of the term less is more, for example, were extremely varied. At the elementary level, a common perception was that "less" represented all that has to be taught or included. Conversely, Conrad, a middle school teacher, associated the less-is-more idea with the relative quantity of concepts and the notion of spiral curriculum:

"Less is more" will become our credo as we teach fewer concepts in more depth. Gone will be the layered model of science that is the model of science instruction in middle school. It will be replaced by a spiral curriculum that has concepts introduced and built upon from grades K- 12. (Reflective letter)

Teachers in this initiative did not seem to share the same perceptions intended by Framework authors that "less" is to serve as baseline, not as a cap for approaching curriculum development.

During the spring, when introducing the SCC members to the Framework, a GIMS representative posed a series of questions: "What processes and skills are absolutely necessary [for students to have]? What should they know-content, big ideas, concepts-- when they finish your school level? What are overarching and organizing themes that connect science knowing and doing into meaning?" Indicating they did not understand, four middle schools teachers asked her to rephrase this last question. Later, in their grade-level discussions, the consensus from the third-- through fifth-grade teachers was, "this third one's got us....We're not certain we even understand what `overarching themes' are." At the end of the week-long summer meeting, teachers were still confused about the meaning of vehicles for understanding. As Lois wrote in her reflective letter, "I've got no idea why they called the third component, `Vehicles for Understanding and Doing.' My guess is for lack of a better name, but that's just me."