DOCUMENT EESUME

,ED 104 689 SE 018 940

AUTHOR Whitla, Dean K.; Pinck, Dan C.TITLE Lively Elementary Science Programs. A Handbook of

Suggestions for Introducing and MaintainingInnovative Science Activities.

INSTITUTION Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. Faculty of Arts andSciences.

SPONS AGENCY Massachusetts Advisory Council on Education,Boston.

PUB DATE Jan 74NOTE 66p.; Related documents are ED 091 159 and 160

EDRS PRICE. MF-$0.76 HC-$3.32 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Curriculum; Curriculum Development; Curriculum

Research; *Educational Research; ElementaryEducation; *Elementary School Science; Guides;*Instructional Improvement; *Science Education;Teacher Education

ABSTRACTThis handbook contains several suggestions for

introducing and maintaining innovative science activities. Itsupplements the published research findings of the Harvard StudyCommittee ("Essentially Elementary Science") as well as the summarycf those findings ("Something of Value") by offering teachers,administrators, school committee directors, teacher training leaders,and State Department of Education personnel a description ofimportant management alternatives that can be selected and pursued tobring the benefits of NSF programs to elementary students. Topicspresented include research programs developed related to teachereducation, implementation of science curricula related to use ofskilled teachers to train others, teacher-directed centers for theadvancement of teaching and learning, the need for informationrelating to attitudes and resources, and the need for trials or pilotprograms for new curricula. (Author /EB)

O&RAR trAENt Of HEALTH,EDUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTN.) 00CUVEST P4A) BEEN REPRODuCED EXACTI.v AS RECEIVED FR)?

PER 0/.4 :AR DR.A%iTATOOPIDIN..T.44 CF OQ OP.N.0%SSTATED DO NOT *.e, ft...N:4744,r REPRF,Ey or t-(AL qAT ONA, TE 04E0J(Ar.0.4 P.7)S T OR PO. ('F

A HANDBOOK

OF SUGGESTIONS

FOR INTRODUCING

AND MAINTAINING

INNOVATIVE

SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

Submitted to the MassachusettsAdvisory Council on Education. byDean K. Whitla, Project Director,and Dan C. Pinck, Associate ProjectDirector .4= Office of InstructionalResearch and Evaluation, Facultyof Arts and Sciences and TheHarvard Graduate School of Edu-

cation =1-- Harvard University,Cambridge, Massachusetts

January 1974

PROJECT STAFF

Dean K. Whitta, DirectorCharles McArthurMarvin C. GrossmanNancy S. LindsayL. Wallace ClausenKristi MooreM. Joseph BastianGeorge T. LaddMary Sheffield RutherfordDan C. Pinck

This han.lbook Has printed Iv ith the generous support ofthe Godfrey L. Cabot Charitable Trust

Printed at the Harvard 1.)niversity Printing Office

3

Lively Elementary

Seim ProgramsA HANDBOOK OF SUGGESTIONS

FOR INTRODUCING AND MAINTAINING

INNOVATIVE SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

SUBMITTED TO THE MASSACHUSETTS ADVISORY

COUNCIL ON EDUCATION BY DEAN K. WHITLA,

PROJECT DIRECTOR, AND DAN C. PINCK,ASSOCIATE PROJECT DIRECTOR

OFFICE OF INSTRUCTIONAL RESEARCH ANDEVALUATION

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCESAND

THE HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATIONHARVARD UNIVERSITY

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

JANUARY 1974

"In explaining to a child the general phenomena ofNature," T. H. Huxley wrote in 1869, "you must. asfar as possible. eie reality to your teaching by object-lessons; in teaching him botany. he must handle theplants and dissect the flowers for himself; in teachinghim physics . . . don't be satisfied with telling himthat a magnet attracts iron. Let him see that it does;let him feel the pull of the one upon the other for him-self. And. especially, tell him that it is his duty to doubtuntil he is compelled, by the absolute authority of Na-ture, to believe that which is written in books."

PREFACE

Extensive research by the Harvard Study Committeefunded by the Massachusetts Advisory Council onEducation indicates that the National Science Founda-tion elementary science programs represent a significantimprovement over other programs and other ways com-monly practiced in introducing science to young chil-dren. These national programs offer a change fromreading about science to a discovery-by-doing approachthat is more effective in developing critical thinkingskills and more enjoyable for both students and teachers.

This handbook supplements the published researchfindings of the Harvard Study Committee (EssentiallyElementary Science) as well as the summary of thosefindings (Something of Value) by offering teachers,administrators, school committee directors, teachertraining leaders. and State Department of Education

personnel a description of important managementalternatives that can be selected and pursued to bringthe benefits of NSF programs to elementary studentsIn addition, regardless of which alternatives a groupmight select or even invent for themselves, four majorthemes stated or implied in this presentation deservecareful attention. These themes are:

1. Collaborative efforts can usually be more effective andeconomical than isolated efforts in offering fine scienceprograms to elementary school students

2. Inservice staff members represent a critical resourcein arranging such collaborative efforts.

3. Individual leadership is a necessary catalyst to imple-menting and maintaining an effective elementary science

program.

iii

4. The previous three themes Deserve serious considera=tion for evoking a high quality of curriculum service tostudents in other areas besides science.

Considering these four themes, this handbook im-plies ,.ery important questions well beyond the area ofscienc. questions for state legislators and educationofficers and for college and university officials as wellas for directors of local school districts:

1. Are our laws and State Department of Education pro-grams designed to offer strong encouragement and .upportfor collaborative efforts?

2. Do college and school district administrators cooperatein arranging ways to utilize the exchange of talents andinformation among inservicc staff members from schooldistricts?

3. What programs and working conditions exist at stateand local levels to encourage and reward individual lead-ership?

4. Are efforts at collaboration on elementary scienceperceived as an example of a process that might be profit-ably extended to many other areas of service to studentsand taxpayers?

To summarize, this brief handbook raises importantmanagement considerations for everyone interested inimproving educational service.. It is, therefore, morethan a handbook on the development of lively elemen-tary science programs.

DR. RONALD J. FITZGERALDDirector of ResearchMassachusetts Advisory Council.

on Education

INTRODUCTION

The Massachusetts Advisory Council on Educationcommissioned the Office of Instructional Research andEvaluation at Harvard University to conduct a studyto determine the extent to which the new elementaryscience curricula are being used in Massachusettsschools, to make a broad appraisal of the quality ofinstruction in elementary science; to determine theeffects and utilization of the innovative curricular pro-grams Aid' particular emphasis on American As-sociation for the Advancement of Science (AAAS);Elementary Science Study (ESS); Science CurriculumImprovement Study (SCIS); and Minnesota Math-ematics and Science Teaching Project (Minnemast),each of the four initially supported by funds from theNational Suence Foundation; and to make recommen-dations and suggestions to further the sound use ofelementary science in Massachusetts schools.

In thz committee's previous reports ' on elementaryscience in Massachusetts schools, the findings of theresearch study and the interpretation of them indicatedhow powerfully the elementary science course contentimprovement projects were in changing a rather statictextbook-oriented classroom into a lively one with agreat deal of pleasure by students and teachers inmaking their own scientific investigations of the worldabout them. Compelling reasons for expanding theuse of new curricula were presented in the variousdiscussions concerning each of the science programs.

' Something of Value. A Summary of Findings and Recom-mendations for Improsing Elementary Science in Massachu-setts. The Office of Instructional Research and Evaluation,Harvard University, March 1973.

Essentially Elementary Science. A Report on the Slams ofElementary Science in Massachusetts Schools. The Office ofInstructional Research and Evaluation, Harvard University,March 1973.

V

8

A summary of some of the findings presented in theappendix of this document.

The Committee's intention in this handbook is tooffer suggestions about expanding the use of the pro-grams; it is not a blueprint for change in any sense.Elementary science works best when its use fully re-flects the dynamics and idiosyneracies of the individualschool and when the teachers are treated with greatrespect and are given some time and help to solvetheir particular problems. Even five years ago, such ahandbook would have focused .solely on devising ambi-tious and relatively costly training programs and im-plementation strategies, in ok Mg federal programmingassistance; however, with the downturn in federalsupport for education in the past few years, such a tackwould be as foolhardy and unrealistic as it would beremiss. Accordingly, this handbook is addressed tosuggesting relatively inexpensive strategies and notionsthat require collaboration and cooperation amongschools and school systems.

There may be a narrowing of choices as a result ofdecreasing federal aid, but, in facing low-cost alter-natives in teacher training, for example, the perceptiveand ingenious educator knows, and his observationscan be reinforced in the two previous reports, that ahidden and little used resource, the classroom teacher,can make important contributions in effecting newpatterns of training in the future. In the long run, theschools are responsible for their own strengths andweaknesses; the suggestions made in this report mayassist teachers and administrators to utilize their ownstrengths that can make them more self-reliant.

DEAN K. WHITLADAN C. PINCKOffice of Instructional Research

and EvaluationUniversity HallHarvard University

vi

ContentsPREFACE Ronald J. Fitzgerald

INTRODUCTION Dean K. Whit la and Dan C. Pinck

I SCHOOLS SCIENCE COLLABORATIVEPROGRANIReduced-cost alternatives in teacher education andstaff development may result from consortia ofschool systems utilizing skilled science coordinatorsand teachers to encourage the wider use of newcurricula in elementary science (and in other sub-jects) in systems that are now using the new pro-grams and to assist in the sound introduction of thenew programs m systems presently using traditionalscience curricula. The program is modelled some-what on the League of Cooperating Schools inCalifornia (eighteen systems work together on staffdevelopment in elementary schools). Similar effortsare suggested for Massachusetts schools, and manypros and tons are presented about this suggestion.

II A COMPREHENSIVE TITLE III EFFORT 9

An implementation plan that urges the considera-tion of using Title III funds and centers to providestaff development and other services over at leasta five year period. The comprehensive and con-certed attack on implementation of new sciencecurricula possibly within the present-day financ-ing potential of the state and local school systems,offers the possibility of directing sustained work inscience. The emphasis, as in the Schools ScienceCollaborative Program, is on using skilled teachersto train others and on effecting decisions that wouldallow funds to he directed in improving elementaryscience instruction throughout the state.

III CENTERS FOR THE ADVANCEMENTOF TEACHING AND LEARNING 12

Teacher-directed centers in which faculty may as-semble easily and counsel one another is not a newidea, but it is one that continues to offer benefits.

vii

10

The Committee found that faculty using the NSFprograms spend muLh moretime meeting informallythan do teachers of textbook science programs. Bysimply providing teachers with a facility in whichto meet, some common and perplexing problemsmight be resolved. There are more than fourhundred teacher centers in England. There is onein Massachusetts, in Pittsfield. The Centers are oneway in which systems can have an organized andsystematic way of placing sonic of the responsibilityfor making innovations in the hands of the class-room teachers. With the downturn in federal fund-ing for making innovations and for teacher training.it will increasingly become the responsibility ofsystems to provide staff development for themselves,The Committee notes how desirable it may be forstandards to be set and teaching practices to be de-termined locally.

IV AN INVENTORY OF ATTITUDES ANDRESOURCESBefore a system embarks on a new science program,it is important to know the feelings and attitudesof the faculty first and to discover also what tech-nical and physical resources already exist. A sampleof questions that might be asked "f teachers ispresented.

V TRIALS OR PILOT PROGRAMSCustomarily, many systems have used the new Pro-grams first on a trial basis, with a few teachers ina few schools using the new materials. The changeeffort can be strengthened by having trials in allclassrooms in one or more schools, thereby reov-ing to some degree the isolation of the trial teacherwhen he or she is using a new program but whenthe rest of the teachers are using textbook-orientedscience programs. The NSF curricula have beentested and piloted by a number of systems, beginningin the development phase of the curriculum pro-grams in the early sixties. Change takes time. butsonic of the trials and plans for implementationneed not now require as much time to develop. TheCommittee suggests having a co-alignment of de-cision making about using new programs; the co-alignment exists at two levels, the administrative

viii

11

17

26

(well-supported NSF programs which will formthe basis for the science program) and the faculty(which curricula they would like to use and howthey would like to use them).

VI SOME NOTES TOWARD A DEFINITION OFAN IDEAL TRAINING PROGRAM 30

The Committee rightly states that there is no idealtraining program and that too much teacher train-ing is simply the mechanical use of materials, Uni-fying what is taught with how it is taught is adesirable goal, and this cannot be achieved withouta sensitise approach and components that somehoware a reflection of what the teachers would like tosec happen in the classroom. In addition to the con-sideraton and mix of knowledge of subject matter,know ledge of children, and an awareness of someof the inhibitions caused by various teaching meth-ods, equally pertinent consideration should be givento removing sex-role stereotyping (that says thatgirls and women cannot do experimental work) andthe use of new science programs with children withspecial learning problems. The new elementaryscience programs offer :, sound way to give all chil-dren more options and opportunities for growth.Again, the Committee advocates making greater useof the skilled teacher in conducting training pro-grams and in addressing what appear to be so:fie ofthe common problems, even including storage anddistribution of science materials.

VII EVALUATION. CONSIDERATION OFWhile each of the new program has or suggests anevaluative scheme or frame of reference. an eclecticapproach may he the most felicitous and useful one.Evaluation should be an integral part of the

implementation process from the beginning and notbe added as a required afterthought after a cur-riculum has been adopted. There are many ways toevaluate learning and to be accountable. They arcand should be broader than objective tests.

VIII A NOTE ON UNDERGRADUATEEDUCATION IN SCIENCEThe suggestion is presented that more exposure andexperience with the new curricula may be helpful

ix

12

33

34

to the prospective elementary teacher. these ex-periences might consist of being able to use the newmatcuals %%Rh children, inure laboratory experiencesin science, and opportunities to investigate variousteaching strategies that accommodate themselvesmore effectively to the NSF programs.

IX SCIENCE INFORMATION SERVICESScience Bulletins for the schools and their con-stituencies are useful in gaining informed supportfor the science activities, In the implementationphase, the publication of progress reports to admin-istrators and parents may help a great deal: notmerely praise from teachers but thoughtful descrip-tions by them of the new science activity and itseffect on their students.

36

X SAFETY IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM 38Because severe accidents haven't occurred, and per-haps are not likely to. is no reason to forget somesimple but essential precautions.

XI INITIATIVESThe concept of the "prime mover" may be out-of-date, but beneath the formal operations of getting agood science program moving in the schools, thedevotion and skill and especially the leadership ofone person or several is always present. An exampleis shown of the initiative taken by a science educatorin another state in developing a stateunion plan based upon the findings and reammendations in the Committee's report, Somethingof Value.

XII A FURTHER NOTE ON THE NSFCURRICULAThe comments of a science coordinator about theelementary science program in his system shouldperturb anyone who is still bound to a textbookprogram.

39

40

APPENDIX: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF "I HESTUDY 42

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 49

X

13

I Schools Science Collaborative Program

THE BROAD AINIS

1. Reduced-cost alternatives in teacher training andstaff dev elopment may be possible in new voluntaryconfederations of school systems that want to sharetheir expertise on elementary science. School ScienceCollaborative Programs can be started by the schools_Such programs will encourage the wider use of thenew curricula in systems that are now using them andassist in the sound introduction of the new programsin systems that presently are using traditional ap-proaches. The focus of the program is on staff develop-ment in a shared role among groups of five or morecooperating school systems beginning with summerworkshops and carrying on caring the school year.The program is modelled somewhat on the League ofCoop rating Schools in California (eighteen systemswork together on staff development in elementary

schools). These could become regional instructioncenters in the schools and work in voluntary partner-ship with university scientists and members of certaingroups, such as the Massachusetts Association ofScience Supervisors. The program attempts to promotea process of which the essential elements are as follows:

(a) An introductory experience at a summer workshopis a sensible way to allow teachers and principals to becomeimmersed in the techniques and philosophies of the newelementary science programs. and this expetience isheightened when elementary age students attend, for aportion of time. the summer workshop. The kind oflaboratory experience offered at a summer workshopwhen the opportunity exists to become familiar with themethods and materials in a comparatively informal atmos-phere is conducive to effecting more adequate imple-mentation practices during the regular academic year.The summer workshop, moreover, offers a shared starting

1

14

point for teachers and principals starting a Schools Sci-ence Collaborative Program.

(b) Centers of excellence exist in all sections of Massa-chusetts. Schools successfull} using each of the new pro-grams can be found in all counties, in these schools, thereare skilled teachers and administrators, familiar with thescience programs and past attendees at National ScienceFoundation summer and academic }ear institutes, a nu-cleus of able teachers of teachers. Forty-five out of 244school systems in the state with elementary schools havedesignated K -12 or K-6 science coordinators, the majorityof the systems with such people are using NSF programs( IS systems have designated K-6 science coordinators andeach of these systems uses NSF curricula) and they canbe identified as central systems that can reach out toother systems. This combination of resources skilledteachers and science coordinators provides knowledgeand informed judgment and experience in implementingthe science programs.

(c) Planning teams in systems considering joining aSchools Science Collaborative Program should consist ofadministrators, teachers and the science coordinator. Oneschool district might stimulate discussion of the possibilityof forming such a collaborative by requesting the appro-priate Regional Education Center of the Department ofEducation to publicize and host an initial meeting. Or, insome cases, the structure of an existing collaborativeformed for other purposes might be utilized. Then theteam members will develop specific plans on how theirsystem will cooperate with other systems and as the workprogresses they will prepare their own implementationschemes. The key factors are the continuing responsibil-ities of the planning team throughout the implementationprocess, from program selection, monitoring trials, arrang-ing feedback, devising a flexible long-range plan allconsonant with the aims of the Schools Science Collabora-tive Program.

(d) The notion that people in the schools take the re-sponsibility for staff imr-cvement is not new (the normalschools in some cities more than sixty years ago did thisand from most accounts did it well); but perhaps it needsto be re-invented at this time.

2

15

(e) Much has been written about the isolated teacher,less about the isolated schools and school systems. It seemswasteful to live with this hind of isolation, especially whenthe notably responsive Athens of a school system may becontiguous to the Sparta. In the past, innovative pro-grams have often been initiated in leading systems, andthe "lighthouse" systems' exemplary practices were in-tended to induce similar practices in the more conservativeand hesitant systems. To a considerable extent, the resultof funding lighthouses" appears that the maintenance ofthe superior system is ensured, but that little spillover isevident in the less innovative system. It seems that ineducation opposites do not attract each other and pos-sibly for good reasons. It is desirable that collaboratingsystems in the School Science Collaborative Program re-flect a rather common background. As the Committeediscoi.ered in its research. even in spite of depressed eco-nomic conditions of some school systems, whether in thecity or town or country. superb elementary science pro-grams are offered.

SOME PRACTICAL. CONSIDERATIONS

2. A demonstration or target school in which soundprograms are apparent is selected in the central systemwith this school as a focal point for training and sum-mer workshops among the five or more collaboratingsystems. Each of the systems will select two or moreteachers from each of two schools within the stem towork in the program, with their principals, from thebeginning. At least twenty or more teachers and theirprincipals and science coordinators (or the p..Ison mostresponsible for science) will plan the summer work-shop. At least seventy students from grades .one throughsix would attend the summer school for .hree of thefour-week summer program.

3. Pre-planning for the program will be done byteachers and science coordinators; this group will de-cide how large a part elementary scieno.:. will play inthe summer school's curriculum (a range of subjectofferings and activities will be offered) and they willdecide their strategies for the summer and during the

3

16

academic year. ungraded classes, team teaching, grad-ing, activity centers or self-contained teaching arrange-ments, the space needed, equipment and materials insubjects other than science. They will present theirplan in the spring to the respective school administra-tions for the consideration of superintendents andschool board members. The plan essentially is a firststep in implementing new science curricula, and it

should meet the Committee's primary considerationthat the motive power should come from local groupsof teachers and science coordinators accessible to oneanother and operating with sensitive administrativesupport to break through the harmful isolation that nowimpedes cooperative work.

4. An NSF institute training experience for teacherscosts the federal government more than $700 for eachparticipant. To reach only the 28,800 elementaryteachers in Massachusetts schools would cost over $200million. With the decrease already in governmentfunding for teacher training and the likelihood that thealready minute funding will be cut back even furtherduring the next few years, alternative schemes shouldbe considered to provide teachers the equivalent ex-perience. (Roughly 300,000 high school science andmathematics teachers attended NSF institutes in theUnited States; less than 40,000 elementary teachershave been able to do so.) Since training is an impor-tant component of implementing the elementary scienceprograms and since several hundred or more skilledelementary science teachers and science coordinatorsin Massachusetts have participated in NSF programs, itwould seem wise to exploit their skills and experiences.Certain points need to be raised about the financialimplications of new confederations within the schools;some of them are:

(a) The Schools Science Collaborative Program is pre-dicated on the sharing of facilities, materials, and the ex-pertise of teachers and administrators by many cooperat-ing systems. At the present time, it is still possible thatthe costs of trial packages of elementary science curricu-

4

17

la can be reduced by cooperative use of NDEA Title IIIfunds (as t:-.ey become available) for dementary science.For example, through this Title the state reimburses a lo-cal system one-half the cost of materials purchased forthe summer program. If one system. for example, wants tospend S4.000 on the new curricula not regular class-room quantities but enough to start an experimental ortrial program. NDEA Title III will reimburse the systemwith 52,000. If five systems collaborate on a summer pro-gram, the actual cost for each system would he S100 inmaterials outlay. Addiuonal expenditures might be needed.of course. additional expenditures on travel and sometimessubsistence costs for teachers during the summer and atgroup meetings during the aLademic year may be someof the requirements. It may well be that the costs forthis kind of support would add very little more thanmany systems now budget. Similarly, thL additional costsfor science coordinators may make a comparatively smalladdition to the salary structure. (Naturally. man} systemsregularly otTer summer programs now, to a certain extent,the Schools Science Collaborative Program is an elabora-tion upon existing practices.)

(b) Broadly stated, while exact estimates about the costsof operating Schools Science Collaborative Programs can-not be made, we feel that even without outside funding,the benefits likely to accrue over a period of time areworth the investment of the individual school systems.

GETTING STARTED

5. As in most innovative programs, the initiativecomes from someone woo cares deeply and wants tohelp people in the schools. And, as we have seen inthe study, this person can be a teacher, a sciencecoordinator, a principal, a school board member, asuperintendent. While elementary science programsapparently run without the obvious virtuoso perfor-mances by individuals (this is revealed by an accumula-tion of statistical data and the interpretation of it)beneath the surface, there is evidence of a specificpresence (however quiet and imperceptible they mayat times be) of a "prime mover." Should a numberof persons wish to investigate the development of the

5

18

program, one caveat seems to be in order: educationalfads have come and gone with the seasonableness ofexternal program funding, a particular new programit can be differentiated stalling, behavioral objectives,modular scheduling, and the like lasts a year or two,then ceases. Long-range commitment is desirable:collaborating school systems ought to be committed tothis new science confederation for a minimum of five

years. Otherwise, it may be the wisest course not toinstigate such a consortium. The Committee's hope isthat teachers' hopes will not again be raised and thenlowered, as has happened with so many "crisis pro-grams." The Schools Science Collaborative Programaims to build self-reliance in systems. Change takestime, and as teachers in the program become moreadept in the new materials they will train other teachersin their own systems. The program is not a one or two-year effort. Without the possibility of gaining sustainedsupport and institutional commitment it may be thesounder decision aot to embark on it at all.

WHAT CRITICS MIGHT SAY

6. Even though cost reductions might be made bycertain joint practices among school systems, the ideaof collaboration among them is uncommon in theextreme (when the school systems themselves managetheir programs). Important questions can be raised.What is so compelling about the proposed program towarrant collaboration? Under existing statutes, col-laborating school systems would have to submit in-dividual proposals to NDEA Title III. Wouldn't sucha process be too cumbersome? Who would coordinateit? Wouldn't it be better if such training services wereoffered in the fifty-four colleges and universities in thestate that prepare teachers? Teachers in the schools arenot scientists, but aren't the professionals able to help

them? Joint programs of one sort or another have beentried across the state for the past twenty years, butnone of them, so far as we know, has been managedby the teachers and science coordinators in the schools.

6

19

'Why should we assume that teachers and administratorswant to engage in such a program now? Teachercenters in each system might accomplish the same tasks.Wouldn't they be less expensive? Elementary sciencehas a low priority in the schools. Why should schoolsystems embark on this program when reading andmathematics have higher priorities?

Answer:This program stresses people, not money. For toolong, innovation has stressed building costly admin-istrative devices to transplant curriculum trainingprograms from one system to another, via outside-the-classroom direction, without emphasizing the fit

between programs and local needs. There are nownetworks of "innovative" systems and agencies toencourage joint work; but too many of them offerminimal services to the classroom teacher; e.g., oneagency offers the ERIC microfiche service to col-laborating systems, another offers computer servicesin personnel selection.

Answer:Of course it would be helpful if teachers of sciencein colleges and universities offered help regularly toteachers in the schools; but they don't. Furthermore,there aren't enough "experts" available to serve allthe schools simultaneously. And teachers in thestudy reported some dismay with their undergraduatepreparation in science. Consequently, the Commit-tee recognizes that inservice training must oftenprovide the necessary exposure to elementary science.And skilled teachers in the schools are able to do

this.

Answer:There is a cost saving in sharing materials; but, evenmore importantly, there are immense benefits in

sharing interest and expertise. And skilled teachersare experts.

7

20

Answer:This collaborative program could be the mechanismto support innovation in smaller systems, many ofwhich spend less than $700 per pupil and are notcommitted to taking new directions in elementaryscience.

Answer:The program offers benefits in the teaching of othersubjects and activities; it is not limited to science;elementary science offers a way to give teachers andstudents pleasurable and worthwhile experiences thatmay affect learning in other subjects. The program isa sound way to help create responsive learningatmospheres.

Answer:The program is one way to remove some of theisolation in the schools, a desirable and healthy goal.

8

21

11 A Comprehensive Title III Effort

7. An alternative way of developing a comprehensiveimplementation program in the state is possible withinthe present-day financing potential of the state andlocal school systems. There are Title III Centerslocated regionally in Massachus,its; these centers en-gage in varied activities, from planning and developingnew programs to aiding systems implement the onesthey have. Most subjects are dealt with in varyingdegrees by the Centers. Allocated for various purposes,Title III funds do not represent large sums of money forany one program and, as a matter of fact, they arequite restricted. However, taken into a cumulativeamount, the monks represented are considerable.What is needed is the development of an implementa-tion system for elementary science which utilizes thesefunds, without asking for additional funds.

8. The science implementation system would be com-posed of perhaps fifteen regions, each representinggeographically the area served by selected Title IIICenters. Within each of these regions target schoolswould be selected to serve as demonstration and im-plementation centers. These schools would receiveconcentrated support during the first year of operation.Little or no attempt would be made to work withschools or systems outside the designated target schools.During the first year, the target schools would beginto develop exemplary training programs. Trainingwould be pros ided for teachers in these schools whileat the same time teachers in these schools are develop-ing training programs for others, to be used in thefuture. The Title III Centers would work with systempersonnel and selected science coordinators in design-ing the program that would serve particular areas.These Title III personnel already exist and are paid for

9

22

under current funding. Competent help could beselected from the schools and universities.

9. Target schools would receive a major portion ofavailable funding to train staff and future sciencetrainers. During the second year of operation auxiliaryschools would be selected to work with elementaryscience programs. A teacher, trained in a target school,would thus be seconded for a year at the auxiliaryschool. A teacher from the auxiliary school, selectedbecause of his or her skills in science and at workingwith others, would be sent to the original target school.Consequently. the teacher from the auxiliary schoolwould be working with a team of experts in the targetschool. In the meantime, the teacher on leave fromthe target school would be having an influence on theauxiliary staff, in elementary science and teachingstrategies. During the third year, the teachers involvedwould go back to their original schools. The teacherfrom the auxiliary school could now continue theleadership role previously shown by the target schoolteacher. By the fourth year, the auxiliary school couldthen be considered a target school with trained per-sonnel available for assignment to new auxiliary schools.During the fourth year, the target schools would havemultiplied considerably. It would take four or fiveyears to make durable inroads in full-state implementa-tion of NSF elementary science curricula. The Com-mittee feels that this plan is workable because thereare already many able elementary science teachers andscience coordinators in systems throughout Massachu-setts. Admirable target schools are now in operation.

10. A statewide implementation plan is desirable.This plan would arrange a pooling of resources in theschools and state agencies. Not only would it help toremove the provincialism of systems, but it would alsoserve to infuse useful new approaches in other subjectsand activities along the way. To make it work, a read-justment in priorities must be made. Instead of spray-shooting rather small grants on disparate projects on

10

23

a number of fronts, it means that a concerted effortand commitment be made to targeting work in elemen-tal.) science, perhaps having Regional Education Centerresources arranged to contact and support all Title IIIcenters interested in joining this commitment. Theprocedural model could then be addressed to othercurriculum areas in the future.

FURTHER FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

I I. Target teachers might receive additional stipendsfor both training and demonstrating from the Title IIICenters. Teachers moving from one community toanother on loan" would receive regular salaries fromtheir local school systems, plus increases as they earnthem. Additional stipends for travel and per diem mightbe provided by Title III funds. (This outside supportwould be minimal in relation to the total effort.)

12. It is not realistic to expect large increases inmoney during the next few years; what must be donemust be done essentiall:. within the constraints of fundsthat are currently available.

11

24

III Centers for the Advancement of Teachingand Learning

11 In an editorial in The Christian Science Monitor,on September 25, 1968, advocacy of several attemptsto build in the public schools teacher-directed Centersfor the Advancement of Teaching and Learning wasmade. The editorial discussed how "a school system'sbest teachers, plus experts they invite from elsewhere,would help set community teaching standards." Further,the editorial noted that "It makes a good deal of senseat this time, when teachers like students and othergroups feel resentful of pressure from the top, thattheir best energies be utilized for self-reform. The uni-versities will not have to give up the research andmaterials role they now hold, but the moment doesseem ripe for a switch in emphasis from campus theoryto classroom results." Many teachers feel that in thepast proposals for change have emanated from admin-istrative or other non-teaching sources, and the powerto initiate change has remained the almost exclusiveprerogative of administrators. As a result many pro-posals are most likely to be framed in terms of admin-istrative efficiency and evaluated in terms of adminis-trative problems. with the teachers often feeling thatthey have been "used" for the benefit of someone else.Great gains are to be had by shifting some of theemphasis for change and implementation more to class-room teachers. Productiv ity of whatever nature appearsto increase when those on :ile firing line feel that theyhave had a hand in shaping the institution's directionand when they arc consulted about policy and notperemptorily directed to implement it. (It is notessential to refer to the pioneering work about the socialattributes of effective organizational governance of

12

25

F. J. Roethlisberger and Elton Mayo, but it may beextremely illuminating =)

14. The Centers may have many purposes, in curric-ulum implementation and teacher training; the Centerscan be supplementary and complementary to otherprogressive institutional arrangements. Regardless ofwhether a system decides to join a collaborative effortwith other systems. strong teacher centers should bestarted; the Committee believes that they will play anincreasingly important role in raising standards andperformance. Among the proposed activities and ser-vicLs of the Centers focused initially on elementaryscience are the following:

(a) The Centers will provide teachers with the oppor-tunities to develop their ideas and share their thoughts oncurricular matters. they may come together and counselone another informally on a variety of topics. As theCommittee's research noted, teachers of the NSF curriculaspend a lot more time talking to one another about scienceand teaching than do teachers of the traditional textbookprograms.

(b) The Centers wil; plan and conduct inservice train-ing programs to implemem the new science courses.

(c) The Centers will help to assemble materials forclassroom use and by offering help they will assume infor-mal advisory functions.

(d) The Centers will serve as liaison forces to marshal!the resources of the system for the benefit of the teachers:some teachers especially in large systems may often beunaware of the many services the system itself offers toteachers. The Centers will serve as useful channels ofinformation.

(e) The Centers will sponsor system-wide conferenceson elementary science, offer symposia, and invite scientificexperts in for short periods of time.

Elton Mayo, The Social Problems of An Industrial Civiliza-tion. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Ad-ministration, Harvard University, 1945.

13

26

(t) The Centers w ill work in close cooperation with theprincipals, in planning science programs, as well as withscience coordinators and other administrative officers. TheCenters will serve in the planning and development oflong-range system goals in elementary science. If plan-ing teams are formed by systems that are considering

adopting new science curricula, the teams might workthrough the Centers, science coordinators, administratorsand teachers all members of the planning teammight use the Centers as a focal point to initiate their de-,liberations.

LOCAL SUPPORT OF THE CENTERS

15. The costs are unlikely, in relative terms, to begreat; the growth of the Centers will vary from com-munity to community. Part-time services of a directorwilt be needed in one community, full-time in another.Space in a building not in the schools seems preferableto running Centers in the schools. Centers may belocated in "found" space rather inelegant facilitiespresently lying fallow, in the community. More thanfour hundred teacher centers exist in England and tilefacilities in which they're located range from factorybuildings, gantjes, office buildings, to local libraries;and the centers grew out of the local implementationplanning for new elementary science programs. Theone teachers center in Massachusetts that operates inthe fashion outlined in this handbook is in Pittsfield; thesuperintendent there is Dr. Thomas J. Whalen. (TeacherRenewal Centers was an aborted federal project ofrecent history: planned were four hundred teacher cen-ters across the United States. None was begun, andthe program folded.) Local support is essential tomove this good idea.

STRUCTURAL IMPLICATIONS

16. The Centers would be directed through a boardof ten or more members appointed by the superinten-dents of the associated systems. The board would

14

27

include especially teachers, principals, and the personmost responsible for science. Authority would naturallyderive from the superintendent and the school board.Centers would work closely with the systems' presentcurriculum department to prevent duplication. Thestructure of the Centers will vary, but it is desirablefor them to be run by small steering committees, andno complex machinery should be necessary to makethe Centers run smoothly.

SELF- RELIANT TEACHERS IN SELF- RELIANT SCHOOLS

17. The Plowden Report in England (published in1963) and considered by many critics as a landmarkin suggesting improvements in elementary educationnoted ". . . The only uniformity of practice that theBoard of Education desires to see in the teaching ofelementary schools is that each teacher shall think forhimself, and work out for himself such methods ofteaching as may use his powers to the best advantageand be best suited to the particular needs and condi-tions of the school. Uniformity in detail of practice(except in the mere routine of school management) isnot desirable, even if it were obtainable." Balance thisstatement with the observation of an elementary prin-cipal about the need for teacher-directed centers: aprincipal said, "It has become quite apparent that ourlocal institutions of higher learning either do not havethe inclination or do not have the demonstrated rapac-ity to assist in training teachers in the new mode. Asa result, it will fall upon our shoulders to locate, invite,and evaluate educational practitioners who have mademeaningful gains." An administrative board made upof teachers, principals and perhaps central office ad-ministrators who would run a center through a directorof their own choice ,.,,%., a sound practice, according toa superintendent. He said, "This would place teachersand other instructional people in a position of makingpolicy through staff development in a way that is notpossible in the present institutional form of schooladministration. It might make possible a consolidation

15

28

of all inservice training into a new, creative and ener-getic approach to educational problems." In short, itwill be up to the community to set its teaching stan-dards, to raise them, and to respect the quality andability of its present instructional staff to help do this."Only when training programs are created by teachersfor their ov,n clear purposes will the efforts, encouragedby minimal funding, survive," Fletcher G. Watson, theHenry Lee Shattuck Professor of Science Education atHarvard University, saki recently. "When teachers planand act for their own purposes, they'll get the job done."

16

29

IV Beginning Again: An Inventory ofAttitudes and Resources

18. Is it desirable to gain a bedrock of informationabout the attitudes of faculty and classroom resourcesbefore embarking upon a new science program? Whatdoes a system already have that gives wrong evidenceof the need for a change in program and how can asystem evaluate a new one? The Committee feels thatan inventory is a useful way to begin assessing the needfor a new program, how well it might be received andwhat help teachers might desire. The following ques-tionnaire lists some of the concerns. Someone needsto delete questions that may be inappropriate and addothers which are pertinent.

THE HARVARD ELEMENTARYSCIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire may be helpful to you in making a pre-liminary assessment and inventory of experiences, atti-tudes, materials, and expectations among the teachers inyour elemental) schools, in schools that arc trying out newcurricula as well as those in which the textbook is thepresent mode of instruction. We hope you will deletequestions that you feet are not perthient, add others ofyour own choosing that are, and feel that the final docu-ment is your own.

School

Grade(s) or grade equivalents you are teaching:. Kindergarten

Grade: I

23456

Number of children in class.Other teachers involved:

17

30

1. How many years have you taughtin this system _I )in total

How many college science courses nave you taken?I) none 4) 5-6

_.1) 5) more than 6

3. How many of the above courses were laboratorycourses')

4. Teachers naturally differ in their attitudes toward sci-ent.e and science teaching. Please indicate how youfeel about each of the following statements. Rankthem:

I strongly agree2 agree3 tend to agree4 tend to disagree5 disagree6 strongly disagree

a. Teaching science is satisfying becausechildren who are weak in skill subjectsoften succeed in science

b. Science is too complex a subject to betaught at the elementary level

c. Teaching science gives me a chanceto be more flexible and try out new ap-proaches with children

d. Teaching science makes me uneasybecause I'm never sure what, if anything,children are learning

e. Teaching science is fun because Ilearn as much as my students

f. Teaching science makes me uneasybecause I'm never sure what will hap-pen and what questions will be asked

g. Science is the one subject where allchildren are highly motivated

h. Teaching science is enjoyable be-cause I like the subject matter

18

311.

1 1 3 4 5 6

1 1 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 1 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

COMPARISON OF SCIENCEAND OTHER SUBJECTS

5. Compared with other subjects, I like science1) more)) the same3) less

6. Compared with other subjects, my teaching skill inscience is ______1 ) better

)) the same3) not as good

7. Compared with other subjects, the progress of chil-dren in science is 1) better

)) the same.3) not as good

8. Compared with other subjects, I feel children gen-erally like science 1) more

)) the same3) less

9. What science program(s) have you used:a) AAAS (SAPA) Science A Pro-

cess Approachb) CIS Concepts in Science with

labs

_1)_1)

2)--2)

c) EIS Experiences in Science 1) --2)d)e)

ESS Elenientaty Science StudyMINNEMAST Minnesota Math &

_1) __2)

f)Science Teaching ProjectSCIS Science Curriculum Improve-

_1) --2)

ment Study 1) 2)g) Text (publisher: ) 1) --2)

Text & Lab Kit ( )h) 1) 2)Lab Kit ( )i) 1) _2)Local curriculum guidej) 1) 2)

k) Units I developed myself 1) 2)10. How long have you been using your current science

program? 1) first year2) 2 years3) 3 or more years

19

1 I. Did you volunteer to start using this program?.._ ____ I ) yes

1) no

12. Were you among the first teachers in your system tovse this program?

I) yes1) no

13. Please characterize your current program on the fol-lowing dimensions. Consider the four lines as gra-dations between each pair of statements. Please checkwhere you feel y our program falls on each dimension.

I 2 3 4a) Requires much

preparationb) Adequate teaching

guidec) Repeats topicsd) Suitable for all

pupilse) Very structured _f) Produces unacceptable

noise andactivity

Requires littlepreparationInadequate teachingguideVaries topicsNot suitable forall pupilsVery flexibleProduces acceptablenoise and_ activity

14. If you has e previously used other science programs,how do they compare with your current program? (Pleaseindicate which programs you are discussing.)

15. How do you feel about present science programs?I) Very satisfied2) Fairly acceptable3) Rather dull4) Very disatisfied

16. Teachers have suggested many factors that make itdifficult for them to carry out an effective science pro-gram. Which of the following do you see as ob-stacles to you in teaching your science program?Rate them: I causes great difficulty

2 causes some difficulty3 causes little or no difficulty

20

33

MATER! L.S.1.1f.xt SmuCLattleNo

a) Lack of equipment I 2 3b) Need to share materials with other classes I 2 3c) Difficulty in replacing materials 1 2 3d) Poor quality of equipment often faulty

or doesn't work I 2 3e) Lack of suitable textbooks 1 2 3f) Lack of storage space for materials I 2 3g) Lack of space and facilities for scicncc

in my room I 2 3h) other

1 / 3

SYSTEMa) Lack of time for science in our schedule 1 2 3b) Lack of time to attend inservice sessions I 2 3c) Time consuming innovations in other

subjects I 2 3d) Lack of support from principal I 2 3e) Lack of active assistance from principal I 2 3f) Lack of help from science consultant;

specialist I 2 3g) Community resistance to scicncc program I 2 3h) other

I / 3

17. Have you attended any science workshops, institutes,or courses conducted outside your system? (e.g. at alocal college or another school system)

I) yes1) no

IS. In the past 3 years, approximately how many hoursof science workshops have you attended?

hours

19. What hclp in teaching science has been available toyou? (Check an applicable.)a) an "on-call" consultant, coordinator, or

specialist--_-_____b) scheduled time to meet with others using

the programc) demonstration classes conducted by a quali-

fied persond) literature on scicncc methods. concepts, etc.

21

34

e) publishers' repres6ntatives1) other

20. How often do ),0iteachers using theideas?

often

_et together informally with otherprop am to discuss problems and

21 seldom 3) never

21. Which best describes how you usually fit science inwith your teaching? (Check one)_1) teach it as a separate subject

).j teach it correlated with other subjectsteach it incidentally as need and interestarise

4) teach it as enrichment for children who areinterested

5) other11. How are your science classes') 1) fantastic

ok3) mediocre4) disastrous

23. What comments can you make about how science isgoing in your classroom?

24. How would you prefer to have science classes op-erate?

25. What help would you HO° have?

26. How many minutes per week do you teach science?minutes(approximately)

27. Some science programs include a lot of materials andequipment. If you use materials in science, whichbest describes how you organize and store them?Check one.)

materials are kept in school storage areauntil needed for a specific lessonmaterials are stored in my room safely outof reachmaterials are stored in my room where chil-dren can get them

4) materials are kept out and around theroom

5) other

22

35

28. Some people find that teaching science has influencedcertain ideas and methods of teaching in general.What has been your experience?

29. Would you please list the materials in your classroomthat pertain to science, noting the quantity.

Item Quantity

30. Would you please list the different textbooks and thequantity that you have now and would you pleasenote the publisher's name and the date of the publi-cation of the books.

Textbook Quantity

31. Would you make a diagram of your classroom notingthe desks or tables and windows.

32. Do you have a sink?I) yes1) no

33. What kind of storage space do you have and how ade-quate is it?

34. Would you prefer to have a summer workshop in sci-ence as a way of becoming familiar with the tech-niques and methods of a new program, or would yourather have school-year training programs held afterclasses? (Pleace check one)

I) summer program1) after-school program

35. If you prefer summer workshops would you also liketo be able to teach children during the summer, us-ing the new science materials?

I) yes2) no

36. Please indicate:the frequency with which students undertake experi-mental work in science in your class at present.Every, or nearly every, science lessonRegularlyone or two periods per week onaverageSometimesRarely or never

23

36

.37. Please indicate:the frequenc with which. in our opinion. science les-sons should undertake experimental work if ideal wa-di:ions prerailed.Every. or nearly every, science lessonRegularly one or two periods per week onaverageSometimesRarely or never

END OF SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE

19. Information elicited by this questionnaire is a

helpful beginning for setting the stage for deciding howto decide about making a successful exploration in theNSF science programs and in implementing a programonce it has been selected. The right questions must beasked before the system begins and not after thedecision has been made to use a particular program.Continual improvising is not conducive to success. Asystem that initiates a ncw program without being ab-solutely certain of its background will not easily be ina position to know at a subsequent date whether, infact, it has made the right decision or more impor-tantly, why and where it went wrong. The kind ofinformation gained through this questionnaire may helpin setting community goals and expectations in elemen-tary science. Hating this information, the system maybetter ask whether it's willing to make a sustainedcommitment to science.

20. Likely, discernible differences will apear in differ-ent schools within a system when the information fromthis questionnaire is analyzed. When such differencesdo appear, one's interpretation of the data may reflectdifferences in a philosophical point of view. Somepeople may feel there is an irreducible minimum levelof consistency which should be found in the schoolcurricula and practices. Reinforcement permits easytransfer of students and teachers from school to school;it is often motivated by the hope that it will insure at

24

37

least a minimum of aLhievement. We tend to support,as more realistic and L IfLLtive, the school of thoughtthat it is not possible to obtain consistency and con-formity in the teaching 1 i1/4)gram. that teachers mightwish to adapt any makrials or programs to their indi-vidual styles. Clearly, if wide differences appear, itmay be harmful to try to impose a uniform pattern onall schools and it may be wiser to effect better waysof delegating responsibility to the individual schools.Although a high Llegree of cooperation and coordinationis desirable to maintain among the various schools inthe system, the Committee feels that curricula decisionsrespecting the rights and inclinations of individual teach-ers in all classrooms in all schools is a sine qua nonof managerial competence. The Committee noted inthe previous research reports that the strongest elemen-tary science programs occurred in schools in whichteachers had the privilege of making choices amongcurricula themselves.

25

V Trials or Pilot Programs

21. The Committee feels that the change effort canbe strengthened by not having the customary trials ofnew programs in a few classrooms in several schoolsand that it is preferable to concentrate the trial effortsthroughout all of the appropriate classrooms in theschools involved. This practice can remove some ofthe isolation a trial teacher presently haf. when shealone or with two or three others is using the newprogram in a school, by increasing the opportunity forteachers in a building to share their experiences witha new curriculum Information travels more readily andevaluation is easier to effect when all of the teachersare working toward a common teaching goal.

EXPLORING NEW PROGRANIS TAKES TIME

22. The quick decision may often be the wrong bne.It's desirable to see how people fare with differentprograms before deciding on one particular program.(Forty systems in the state use several programs as amatter of policy, and the trial becomes in them a con-tinuing search for a more responsive environment.) Abrief outline of curriculum implementation in elemen-tary science by a Massachusetts system follows:

1963-1964 Seven staff members at ESS in Watertown forsummer unit development conference.Trial teaching.Inservice training ftg 80 teachers using available printedmaterials.

1964-1967 Continued use of existing materials as supple-ment to existing traditional curriculum.Waiting for more materials to become available.Inservice training on limited scale.

1967 (summer) Mrs. at ESS for four-weekteacher training institute.

26

39

1967 1968 Inservice training on a limited scale.Selling idea of ESS foi school, wide adoption.Development of system philosophy.Development of K-6 sequence and Preliminary Guide.Devising model for implementation ..ad inservice train-ing.

1968-1969 Mrs. made full-time Elementary Sci-ence Coordinator.l'ilot program. use of total K-6 sequence in six schools.Inservice training for teachers on particular units.Leadership training in 28 schools, one person primarygrades, one person intermediate grades.Acceptance of program.Equipment purchased: 52,000 per school.Schools accept cost of supplies at 70 cents per pupil.(This compares to 5 cents and 10 cents a year ago.)Equipment and supplies placed in warehouse.Six hours inservice training for principals.

1969 (summer) Revision of Guide by Science Coordina-tor and selected teachers.

1969-1970 Leaders conduct inservice programs in 28schools during the school year.Each teacher in system receives 12-20 hours of inser-vice training.Pay for leaders, credit for participants.Leadership training for balance of schools.Equipment purchased.Science textbooks eliminated from approved list.Leaders conduct inservice training in 23 schools.Equipment and supply storage system developed for allschools.Articulation meetings, secondary and elementary teach-ers.

1970-1973 Developing equipment replacement proce-dures.Help teachers loosen up classroom atmosphere and pro-vide a wider variety of activities and materials.Develop list of quality reading books to support pro-gram.Provide variety of evaluation strategies to he used vol-untarily.Give teachers detailed assistance in reporting studentprogress to parents.

27

40

BUT HISTORY DOESN'T HAVE To REPEAT ITSELF

23. Trials no longer need be conducted by the schoolsto find out whether the new science programs are good

they arc, and the Committee's work confirms this;rather they should be conducted to sec how the peoplein the schools fare with different programs. Changedoes take time, but the schools know a lot more aboutthe programs than they did even five years ago. Whatseems desirable, as systems plan implementation strat-egies, is for them to develop ways to provide for con-tinuous and flexible master planning and not, be-come locked into a plan.

FIRST DECISIONS

24 An effective atmosphere for _making innovationsin elementary science can be fostered by the co-align-ment of decision making,at two levels, the administra-.tive and the faculty. It seems desirable at this time forthe school committee and administrative policy decisionto be that well-supported NSF curricula will be usedin the system; once this decision has been made, thenthe teaching faculty possibly at the individual build-ing level should decide, following experiences withthe curricula, which ones they would like to use andhow they would like to use them. This recommenda-tion, to a certain extent, recognizes a customary butinexplicitly-formulated policy. To recognize formallythis procedure can lessen the confusion, resistance andfrustration that sometimes results from not having aclearly-stated policy, with decision making shared bythe two groups.3 It is important to recognize that

'Some educational historians might consider that this Com-mittee was reverting to the progressive faith of the twentiesthat called for developing a curriculum, a standard one, to fitlocal requirements that would be sifted through learning ex-periences in each classroom, and come out without any cur-riculum at all but rather an unchoate faith in everyone doinghis own thing, as it's described today. But the Committeewould claim that this is a wrong and facile interpretation of

28

41.

superior programs are .Mailable and that greater andmore responsive use is made of them when faculty sharein the decision. This is the first decision to have aco-alignment of deciF;on making..

this handbook. What is salli.d for is the kind of respwisibilityfor the public school teacher as is found in leading universitiesand in many of the best schools.

29

42

VI Some Notes Toward A Definition of AnIdeal Training Program

25. Of course there is no ideal training program; someobservers claim that we can transport packaged mate-rials, concepts and training programs from one systemto another, but so far no one has devised a way totransplant generous attitudes, feelings and beliefs fromone community to another. To impose a training pro-gram upon a group of teachers would be as wrong-headed as imposing a specific curriculum. The Com-mittee feels that one must first discover the feelingsbeneath the surface before even considering the devel-opment of training programs: where do the teachersbegin? what do they know? what do they want to know?and how do they want to go about learning? The Com-mittee's research revealed that untortunately much ofthe present training in science is antithetical to the aimsand techniques of the NSF elementary science pro-grams. And, equally important, teachers are greatlydissatisfied with their training programs and isolatedthe primary reasons for their discontent as being toldhow to discover something in a lecture-demonstration.(Eighty-four percent of the teachers in the sample re-ported that the workshops they attended consisted ofdemonstrations, and 54 percent reported that the work-shops seldom or never dealt with the units they wereteaching, and 68 percent of the teachers said that theworkshops seldom or never gave them the opportunityto try out materials with children.) But considerablesuccess has been demonstrated in systems in whichscience coordinators invite the participation of skilledscience teachers to conduct inservice programs withthem. Because cadres of skilled teachers of scienceexist in many school system now, the collaborativeprograms mentioned earlier in this paper offer unusuallyfine opportunities to give vital and pertinent training

30

43

programs. Teachers teaching teachers whether in aSchools Science Collaborative Program, a Center forele Advancement of Teaching and Learning, or thesingle school is one way to maintain adequate train-ing in science. In an ideal world, most of the trainingwould occur at summer workshops where the oppor-tunity to try out materials with children informallyexists. But the world is not ideal, and, moreover, toperpetuate the notion that only an elementary knowl-edge of science is necessary to teach science well, mightbe injurious; so training, as well as the possibility ofhaving consultant help available during the school year,ought to go on all the time.

TILE TRAINING MIX

26. The teaching situations of a training programshould be a model of what one would like to see happenin the elementary classroom. formal lecture and presen-tation kepi to a minimum and group-work and individ-ualized instruction emphasized. The content of muchof the beginning part of the training program may bedraw from classroom situations with which the teach-ers are coping daily. Other objectives should be:

(a) endeavoring to find ways in which children can as-sume greater responsibility for their own learning.(b) helping teachers to become more aware of their ownstyles of teaching and learning.(c) assisting teachers to organize and manage class-room learning for their students in a manner that enablesstudents to make choices of activity.(d) helping to individualize children's learn:ng and teach-ing practices.(e) gaining insights in alternative ways of learning theconcepts of the science curriculum.(f) imaginatively considering the use of the science ma-terials of all sorts, not pedantically ,,tressing the mechanicaluse of one curriculum.(g) drawing upon the experience of skilled science teach-ers and their administrators in illuminating how they suc-cessfully solved rather common problems that may seemmundane but that aren't. Storing and distributing ma-terials can be important considerations.

31

44

An elementary teacher in a training program said,"Since the freedom to be yourself in the classroom ispersonal, naturally no individual teacher will be forcedto do that which she doesn't 'feel'. If one stops to thinkabout it, the explanation is very uncomplicated. Wereone forced or directed to do this or that, the total effectwould be lost since it is in being oneself that any toolbecomes useful to the total environment."

REMOVING SEX-ROLE STEREOTYPES

27. The Committee found that the NSF programsstressing experiential activities could help to removethe sex-role stereotyping that is reflected in our society:the NSF programs permit girls as well as boys toconfront their perceptions directly with their personaldata. Clearly, girls can do experimental work, and fromthis work gain a new reinforcing sense of achievementand competence one needed by all students but es-pecially if the science door is to .ke opened to women.Accordin&ly, great gains are possible when the trainingmix includes discussions about attitudes toward sex-rolestereotyping.4

A NOTE ON SPECIAL EDUCATION AND CPILDREN WITHSPECIAL LEARNING PROBLEMS

28. Training programs in the future should deal withproviding skills at the early identification of childrenwith special learning problems sometimes severeones and how the school faculty and staff may func-tion effectively in concert in providing needed services.Elementary science especially experiential curriculacan offer a sensitive bridge to meeting some of the needsof children with special problems. In its report, HalfOur Future, the Central Advisory Council for Educationin England noted how experiential science programsbenefited children with unique learning problems.

' Sonic teaching suggestions and a bibliography may beobtained from the Women's Equity Action League (WEAL),538 National Press Building, Washington, D.C., 20004, in theirWEAL K-I2 Education Kit.

32

45

VII Evaluation, Consideration of29. Prime initiative for evaluation rests with teachersand with each school system. Despite widespread in-terest and support of national and even internationalstandardized testing, most school systems in the statehave approached it with considerable reluctance, andwisely so. The Committee believes that procedures andinstruments for evaluating pupil progress in elementaryscience should be based on the schemes suggested byeach of the NSF programs, but they must be geared tothe school's educational goals and how the teachers usethe various units and programs. National assessments,some behavioral objectives (those that encourage rotememorization rather than critical thinking) and stan-dardized tests in elementary science are weak and often-irrelevant to many of the Aims of the NSF curricula.Evaluation ideally ought to be an integral part of theplanning and implementation processes and should notbe appended on to a science program once it is beingused in the classroom. There are many ways to evaluate!Lamina and to be accountable; they are, and shouldbe, broader than objective tests. They should includethe use of orally conducted interviews, creative projects,demonstrations, experiments, written reports, classroomobserving and classroom environment checklists!

The reader ma gain added insight into dcvcloping pertinentand imaginative evaluation strategics from the book Evalua-tion Strategies. This book was based on intensive researchand evaluation of Man. A Course of Study, a social studiescurriculum developed with National Science Foundation sup-port at Education Development Center, Inc., in Cambridge,Massachusetts. Varied evaluation strategies .,re presented thatare directed to these concerns. How do teachers devise work-able techniques for evaluatmn? How do teachers make judg-ments about student learning? How do students gain aninsight Into their own masteries or problems in dcvclopingthe intellectual competencies and human understandings atthe core of the course? Many of the strategies are adaptableto the science programs.

33

46

VIII A Note on Undergraduate Education inScience

30. As the schools increasingly adopt the new elemen-tary science programs, some faculty in science andscience education departments in the state's collegesand universities sill consider offering more courses thatreflect the aims and techniques of experiential sciencecurricula in the elementary school. Obviously strongcollaboration among school districts can encourage andeven insist on this development. While some facultyhave been pioneers in developing such courses in Mas-sachusetts colleges and universities and a few havereceived grants from the National Science Foundationto run Cooperative College-School Science Programsit is probably useful to consider again what reforms andreaejustments might help the prospective elementaryteacher. Fifty percent or more of the teachers in thesample felt that their undergraduate science prepara-tion was not as helpful as it might have been; theynoted what they considered to be deficiencies in theircollegiate science studies:

(a) The lack of science courses and too much reliance onscience methods courses.(b) The lack of familiarization with less formal teachingstrategies and with the NSF elementary science programs.(c) The absence of sustained opportunities to use NSFmaterials with children.(d) The lack of laboriltory experience in their sciencecourses.'

"These criticisms in the report were made by teachers cur-rently in the schools and the reader is advised to note that theteacher who received his or her degree as late as 1967 wouldhardly have been exposed to the NSF elementary sciencecurricula in college because the curricula were either stillbeing developed or prepared for commercial distribution atthat date. (And the average number of years in teaching of

34

47

In School Curriculum Reform in the United States(1964), John I. Good lad said, "Tomorrow's teachers ofteachers are not being educated in the new curriculummovement." He also said, "The most pressing need forcurriculum reform today is in the four-year college."Some observers feel that this is relevant criticism today.In A Stud) On The Continuing Education Of Teachers,conducted several years ago at the Center For Coor-dinated Education at the University of California atSanta Barbara they reported, "In the making of ateacher, it is highly probable that inservice training isinfinitely more important than preservice training. Inmost instances, the presery ice preparation of a teachercannot anticipate what life m a particular classroomwill be like. Nor does it equip a teacher to keep pacewith rapid social and technological chances affectingeducation."

the sample group was seven.) For many teachers their under-graduate training occurred sozr.il years before the new

programs were widely available. .V.so, qualitative evaluationsof science methods course, are difficult to form. And, naturally,it is possible that many more science courses are available thanundergraduates take.

IX Science Information Services

31. Systems that are using the NSF programs mightconsider whether useful support can be gained by in-forming parents about their childrens' science activities.Although the research revealed that parents made nodemands one way or the other upon a school'sscience program, common sense advises that many pa-rents cannot help but be pleased to learn what teachersare doing and hovv their children are progressing. Atleast one Massachusetts public school system publishesscience bulletins for parents several times a year. Anintroductory paragraph reads as follows:

Our efforts to improve science instruction have been wellrece4ed by students,- parents, and teachers since tlie in-ception of the SCIS program in September of this year.We presently have all teachers in grades One, Two andThree (57 teachers) actively participating in either thephysical or life science segment of the program in a unitappropriate to their individual level. They anticipate amid-year switch. In addition, two 'special classes' are pur-suing this 'discovery approach to learning.' These classesespecially demonstrate the flexibility of the program.

Eight pages of comments by teachers followed, andmost of the comments by the teachers were verythoughtful, not encomiums. The science bulletins aresent to the school department's administration and toall of the elementary principals. The elementary sciencecoordinator also discusses in some detail, at the end,further implementation phases of SCIS. There's a no-tion that good ideas in education travel by themselves.They don't, and by giving some attention to providingreports of activ ities, then it's possible to gather sensitivesupport and understanding from the schools and theirconstituencies.

The following examples have been taken from thecomments of a number of teachers:

36

49

In preparing for the experiment of transferring the aphids

to the pea plants some children were impatient while Itransferred the aphids from the culture to the cups they

were to get their aphids from. I stopped and asked theclass if they preferred me to put the aphids on their peaplants out of class for them. A girl said No thin wouldnot be science we must prepare our own experimentsand manage them ourselves.

I think a mark of A to F. would defeat the purpose of thisprogram. Ealuation would he better as attitudes and be-haviors.

J. had been observing a vial of fruit flies for many days.

With the use of a magnify ing glass he observed that oneof the pupa did not develop into a full-fruit fly, as did his

others. Conclusion from others in class was that thisalso happens to human babies and all other living things.

Children are most enthusiastic. They are delighted to havetheir on n materials Aid opportunity to miipoiate7 Plant=

mg unit successful. A great boost to one of my perceptuallyhandicapped students who can really relate in the worldof nature.

Amazingly enough the initiative shown by the slower chil-dren is far more evident than in the other classes.

Children were at first hesitant to explore, wanted definiteinstructions. Once convinced none was forthcoming, mostproceeded to put everything in the water. (Next year Iwill wear hip boots.) Discovery began: the magnet workedthrough glass, the candies were coloring the water, etc.One boy discovered the picture turning green and insistedthis was impossible since his water was reddish-blue Andthe light bulb was finally lit by a girl working with thebulb facing the floor. Everyone screamed so loud when itwent on, she dropped everything.

37

5t,

X Safety in the Classroom

32. To the hest of the Committee's knowledge, veryfew serious accidents have occurred in elementary sci-ence classrooms in Massachusetts. Bat serious accidentshave happened in some other states. It is wise to reviewsome ordinary safety precautions, and not to forgetthem. Some precautions are:

a. Do not permit children to work around an open flamewearing braids, ribbons, ties, or long sleeves.b. Keep burning candles or alcohol lamps from beingtoppled over by mounting them on wide-bascd supports.c. Keep all materials on a metal tray or other fireproofsurface.d. Keep all combustible materials away from names.e. Keep a pail of water, a fire extinguisher, and a blanketon hand.f. Caution children not to touch electric hot plates. Theyremain hot for some time after they are turned off.g. Do not heat materials in glass containers other thanthe heat-resistant type such as the "Pyrex" brand. Tightlystoppered containers should not be heated.

And, in inserting a glass tube into a hole in a cork orrubber stopper, the following precautions should betaken:

a. The hole should be just a trifle smaller than the tube.b. The end of the tube should be smooth (fire polished).c. The tube should be moistened or greased and pushedinto the stopper gently with a twisting motion.d. The stopper should be held in such a way that, if thetube should break, the sharp, jagged edges will not piercethe hand holding the stopper.

Children should not be encouraged to taste unknownor hazardous substances.

38

XI Initiatives

33. Who will lead Massachusetts schools in makinginnotations in elementary science? Disentangling theelements of dissemination and diffusion is a task ofsome complexity, but there is no doubt that over aperiod of time the main element is the personal com-mitment to help and to lead. Since the publication ofSomething of Value and Essentially Elementary Science,the Committee has learned about the initiatives of per-sons in other states to lead in expanding the use of NSFelementary science programs in their states. A profes-sor of science education wrote about the Committee'sreports. "Something of Value is a eery significant studyand set of recommendations. The booklet should becirculated widely to administrators, super. iwrs, con-sultants and other leadership personnel around thecountry. . . . In my own small state of New JerseyI hate initiated a modest dissemination project of thisreport through a network of twenty-one county super-intendents. I feel that this type of dissemination mightwell be carried out in each state. Certainly the findingsand recommendations in this report should be of valueto educators and interested citizens (such as boardmembers) beyond the confines of Massachusetts." Whowill lead in Massachusetts?

39

52

XII A Further Note on the NSF Curricula

34. Let p_op le in traditional, systems read the com-ments of a scicnee Loordinator who feels that his system

is not makiag, provess in elementary science. Thecoordinator wrote to the members of the Committee:

-At present, our science program might possibly challengea moron. It is so traditional and dated that it is a burdenfor me to even %bit the classes. The level of real studentinquiry is abysmal. Of the current staff, one is an en-thusiastic novice lacking any seal exposure to any innova-tive science programs and the other has the graceful sen-sitivity of a v%anton rhino and totally alienates most ofthe students.

The secondary super% isor considers the elementary pro.gram with disdain and to my knowledge has never observedan elementary science lesson. The school was built onlya lem, years after the formal founding of the town in 1826and has never been renovated.

Our science equipment is minimal. In addition, most ofit is rev er used. The students view 15-25 demonstrationsa year.

In short. if national scientific awareness were dependentupon a norm equal to ours, we would have a national dis-

aster.-

Some systems may be satisfied with their traditionalscience programs. for them, change is not inevitable.However, opportunities to give teachers and childreqenjoyable and useful science experiences is necessarilythe function of the NSF programs and not the conse-quence of this Committee's findings and recommen-dations. The odds of raising the level of real studentinquiry" are greatly increased when the new curriculaarc used, and it is our hope that this handbook willbe helpful to everyone who seeks to offer the highest

40

53

practical lo el of ser\ ice to children in Massachusettsschools. Let us all accept the opportunity and assumethe Lsponsibility for making desirable and, in someinstances, major changes in educational programs,so that we can say again "It is most gratifying to everycitizen in Massachusetts to know that her school systemhas serN ed as a model for the education of the wholenation". . . as the famous scientist, Louis Agassiz,said in a statement to the Massachusetts House of Rep-resentatives in 1859.

APPENDIX

Summary of Findings of the Study

The reader is advised to consult the full reprt, for a com-prehensive picture of the findings. Here, we present onlya brief selection of the findings reported in Something ofValue.

The people who use the NSF curricula find in them acapacity to make classroom instruction lively and inter-esting. This was as apparent from our research as it wasfrom our classroom observations. The NSF programsoffering an abundance of materials by which students andteachers may gain a firsthand, investigative experience inscience give schools a vehicle and a subject area thatcan transform a static classroom into a lively one, andmake possible a shift from the didactic lecture method toan interactive class mode, from reading about science todoing science. According to teachers and students, the newcurricula tend to be agents of change in themselves, andrather spiritless classrooms can become energized whenlaboratory experiences are possible.

Do the NSF curricula represent an improvement overother programs and other ways (that are now commonlypracticed in the schools) of introducing science to chil-dren in the elementary school? Our answer is that they do,for the following reasons:

PUPIL DIFFERENCES

The NSF programs allow teachers to become more re-sponsive to a wider range of pupil differences than the non-NSF programs. Forty-two percent of the NSF teachersreported that their programs were "very suitable" for useby all students, while only 23 percent of the non-NSF tear.1-ers felt this to be the case. In an NSF program the slowlearner can be reached mcp- readily while the ablest childis simultaneously being interested and challenged.

PUPIL PROGRESS

Since elementary science has a low priority in elementaryeducation, it is assumed by some observers that children

42

55

do not make as much progress in science as they do intheir other subjects. We learned that 62 percent of thenon-NSF teachers felt that their children made less progress in science compared to their progress in other sub-jects: yet only 33 percent of the NSF teachers felt thesame way about the progress of their children in science.

STUDENTS' LIKING OF SCIENCE

In the analysis of the responses from teachers. we foundthat a larger proportion of NSF teachers (61 percent)than non-NSF teachers (54 percent) felt that their stu-dents liked science more than other subjects. In theanalysis of student data, we learned that more of themchose science as their favorite subject (27 percent) thanany other subject. Senenty -six percent of them liked sci-ence either the same or more than their other subjects.(Only 5 percent reported that they liked science theleast.)

'DOING' SCIENCE AND 'READING'ABOUT SCIENCE

NSI classrooms more frequently offer opportunities to'do' science and not just 'read' about it than non-NSF class-rooms, according to the teachers. This is hardly unex-pected considering the supply of materials that come withNSF programs. Although there are no significant differ-ences between the two in the writing of reports and makingcollections and displays and models, other science activitiesshow a difference. NSF classrooms do more experimentsand record data from them than non-NSF classrooms.Apparently one effect of being more active is to encourageindependent learning: we found that activities such astaking home science materials and supplementary readings,and the like, occurred 25 percent more frequently in NSFclassrooms than in non-NSF classrooms.

TEACHERS' LIKING FOR SCIENCE TEACHING

We found that there is neither an overwhelming liking forscience teaching or an overwhelming dislike for science .teaching in the elementary grades. One-fourth of theteachers in our sample as a whole reported that they likedteaching science more than teaching other subjects; an-

43

56

other quarter said that they liked science teaching less.And one-half the teachers reported that they liked teach-ing science the same as teaching other subjects. However.we learned in another place in our survey that once a teach-

; er begins using an NSF program the odds were improved.a higher percentage of the NSF teachers (79 percent) likedteaching science more or the same than the non-NSFteachers (62 percent).

A NOTE ON SEX-ROLE STEREOTYPING ANDCHILDRENS' INTERESTS IN SCIENCE

Whiie 76 percent of.lhe children in a sample of fifth andsixth graders liked science the same or more than theirother subjects and they like the participatory-experi-mental mode of learning which is typical of the NSF pro-grams our data revealed that only 14 percent of thechildren in these grades felt that society wanted girls tobecome scientists. Children's attitudes about science aswell as the assumption that girls cannot do experimentalwork appear to be generated in the elementary years. Andfurther that the feeling of the lack of support for scienceas a possible career is marki,dly more evident among sixthgrade girls than among fifth grade girls.

If elementary teachers want to maintain the interest inscience among girls, they may want to address the Issuesof sex-role stereotypes both as the stereotypes influencetheir own behavior and expectations and as they limit thcoptions an their children. Not surprisingly, teacherswere found to have an impact on their students' interest inscience. The teacher and classroom zharacteristics whichtended to produce the positive science interests were. apositive attitude toward science, a responsive, flexibleteaching style, the use of experimental activities that en-courage individual experimentation, and thc belief thatan interest in scien:_ and the ability to perform scienceexperiments are not sex-linked functions. When teachers

men or women had these characteristics and wereusing science programs that encouraged individual experi-mentation, then girls had attitudes toward science whichwere as positive as that of boys.

By encouraging classroom discussions, about sex-rolestereotypes in science and by offering programs that al-low individual participation in experimentation, teacherscan help to offset the traditional view that virtually compels

44

57

elementary school students to question the ability of girlsto do science as well as the ploptiety of their being scien-tists.

ADEQUACY OF TEACHING GUIDES

More NSF teachers (80 percent) felt that the teachersguides were adequate than did the non-NSF teachers (65percent).

CLASS SIZE

There is no difference in class size between schools usingNSF programs and schools using other programs.

EFFECT ON STUDENTS' ATTITUDESTO LEARNING

According to the teachers, the effect of science instructionon students attitudes to learning was that students showedcuriosity. asked questions participated actively in con-ducting experiments and enjoyed science. The NSF pro-grams were more effective in bringing about theseconditions than non-NSF programs by ratios higher than2:1.

CLASSROOM PREPARATION

A higher percentage of the NSF teachers (38 percent)feel that their programs require 'much preparation' thando the non-NSF teachers (22 percent).

SCHOOLS CAN BE THE DIFFERENCE

In the sample of children the data revealed striking sig-nificant differences about the role of the school and theteacher in stimulating the interest of children in scienceDespite socio-economic differences and despite parentaloccupations, ranging from'the unskilled to the well-to-doprofessional. the home apparently plays a minor role, andthe school a major one in introducing science to children.Thirty-eight percent of the children advised us that theyfirst learned about science from a teacher and only 6..percent reported that the source was a parent, and brotheror sister (5 percent). Eleven percent of the children re-ported that they first learned about science from televi-

45

58

sion and 6 percent from a book. (Thirty-one percent saidthat they didn't remember Vb het e they first learned aboutscience.)

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT AND DISCIPLINE

Some observers belies e that interactne classroom environ-ments especially those that may be encouraged by theavailability of materials that allow each child to engagein his on experimentation and to discuss hiL work withhis peers create classroom management and disciplineproblems. Yet from our data we can infer that the NSFcurricula do not create undue problems. A larger per-centage of NSF teachers (60 percent) than non-NSFteachers (46 percent) felt the 'noise:' and activity in theirclassrooms were in no way disruptive of teaching andlearning. Teachers prefer, apparently, to see students in-volved and working with one another in busy, activeclassrooms. (At the extreme, only 4 percent of the NSFteachers and 3 percent of the non-NSF teachers felt un-comfortable.)

SHARING IDEAS

Thirty-seven percent of the NSF teachers meet togetherinformally and often to discuss science, while only 18percent of the non-NSF teachers do.

SCIENCE SPECIALIST HELP

Thirty-one percent of the systems committed to NSFcurricula have some specialized science teachers. Only19 percent of the non-NSF systems provide this kind ofhelp. The customary teaching approach in 51 percent ofthe NSF systems is a classroom teacher with no assistancefrom an elementary science specialist or consultant. Thispercentage rises to 94 percent in non-NSF systems.

TEACHER INVOLVEMENT IN INNOVATION

Seventy-six percent of the teachers felt the need for a newprogram (whether NSF or text) before they began usingtheir current program, but only 12 percent of the teachershelped select the new program in their system and only20 percent in their schools. Forty-one percent were among

46

59

the first teachers in the system to use the new programand thirty-nine percent volunteered to use the new pro-gram.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ANDINNOVATION IN SCIENCE

A striking correlation exists between per pupil expendituresand the use of NSF curricula. Ninety percent of thesy stems using these programs spend more than $900 perpupil Only 30 percent of the systems spending less than$600 per pupil use the new curricula.

The average amount spent on elementary science ma-terials in the systems is less than $1.00 per pupil yearly.Systems using NSF programs spend S3.00.

The more per pupil expenditure on elementary science,the more outside funding that system receives, and withthe exception of National Defense Education Act Title IIIfunds (76 percent of the systems) and Elementary andSecondary Education Act Title 11 funds (64 percent),little use has been made of federal programs to supportelementary science activities. Twenty-two percent of thesystems have used Elementary and Secondary EducationAct Title III funds to help establish supplementary sciencecenters and innovative programs. Thirty percent of thesystems have used Elementary and Secondary EducationAct Title I funds to organize innovative science programs.Twenty-four percent of the systems have never used anyoutside federal funds to allay the costs of science innova-tion. The proportion of systems using local funds andgeneral state aid to the use of federal funds is 84 percentlocal and state to 16 percent federal.

Where we found problems they tended not to be inoperational areas; e g. classroom management and dis-cipline, nor in the curricula themselves. Rather the prob-lem areas concerned inservice training, consultant helpand storage space. The elementary school, however, canbe a sufficiently flexible institution to accomodate the

47

60

problems of teacher specialization and training, and webelieve that it can become even more responsive to scienceteaching needs. Instituting any new program, especiallythose with equipment, can be expensive, and the NSFprograms are not cheap. These programs arc also filledwith expendible items, such as batteries and bulbs, andthey too cost money. But the costs relative to school bene-fits are very minimal and appear from all the data wehave been able to collect worthy of the cost.

48

61

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

During our stud) we were aided in special ways byman) persons in our schools and unisersities and in govern-ment agencies. We acknowledge their contribution toour work. Some of them are: Gerald Hoar. Rose LeaCrowley. Martin Pancratz. Daniel Kehoe. Grace Fraser.Paul Scopa, George Smith. Frank Riberto, Edward M.Purcell. Charles Johnson. Joseph L. Becker. Sophie J.Chnira, Richard E. Dragon. Morris R Seigal, MalcolmA. Letts. Robert H. Anderson. Joseph A. Keefe. MargaretF. Sulli%an, David Solomon. Barbara %mei Paul W.Lemire, Dasid Parfit. Frederick W. Hartnett. BarbaraOlson. Marcel J. Gionet. John P. Cirelli, James G. Colan.Lawrence Barrett. Robert Hageart), George T. Higgins,James Baker. Dorothy L. Beckwith, Max Bogart. John J.Corcoran. Dais S. Martin. Paul J. Heffernan. William T.Egan. Jr.. James Pa lasras. Stanley Darmofal. James V.Bruno. Norman W. Mason. Richard F. McGrail. Doris A.Tappin, Bart O'Connor. John Ferrick, Robert Karp lus,Harry Bovio, Robert W. Rivnan. Rosemary Clarkin,Edward Kelle), Donald F. Eldredge. A. E. Samborski,Charles P. Chicklis. William F. O'Neill. Ann Valle ly,George F. Stowe. Barbara P. Cooper. Gordon 1V. Michell.Lindsay Johnson. Barbara Waters. John H. Quintablic,Victor L. Brunette. Sr. Lina Nadeau. Robert F. Weiss,Patricia Ellis. Mary Ann Dodge. Thomas J. Verice.Charles D. Bird. Richard A. Armstrong. Howard A.Libby, Louis J. Pearlstein, John M. Marion. Evelyn M.Shanahan. Charles J. Hanes. Edwin L. Borsari, MargaretBurns. Edmund J. Callahan. John J. Couture, Joan Claf lin.R. Morel!. James A. Griffin. William F. Read, E. A.Dodge, Earl D. Brow. Richard H. Dustin. George F.Latffiner, Francis T. Walsh, Gilbert L. Simmons. TassosP. Filledes, Lawrence S. Stevens. William J. Ferreira.Frank D. Conte. Phyllis A. Dupee. Joseph R. Manella,John Dushku, Paul C. Bassett, Lorraine Ide, Patsy V.Bucca. Daniel Kelliher. Richard J. Silsa, Laurence White.Thomas W. Eastman, Robert L. Loretan, Robert Young,Walter R. Crowther, Jr.. Robert Morrison, Henry C.Shelley. A. C. Murdock, Burnham P. Miller, Robert

49

62

Lynch, David A. Walsh, Peter J. Fiala, Jr., Nancy A.Jodrey, Ronald J. Lay iolette, Mary E. Pinder, Warren C.Re..d, Willard J. Chiasson. Margaret E. Farrell, LouisGeorge, William J. Sullivan, Jr., Herbert A. Wolfer,Thomas J. MacDonald, H. Lloyd Burghart, Guido Risi,Emily H. Shannon, Russell E. Teasdale, Ruth E. Mayo,John L. Griffin, Joseph J. Balsanta, Robert F. Couture,Leonard M. Walsh, Jr., Wendell F. Bennett, George N.Moore, Sara Gibbons, Richard M. Clifford, Curtis B.Simpson, Robert W. Chapman, Manning Case, Maxine S.Broderick, BarbaraE. Stone, Adolph Turzyk, J. MarvinGangemi, Derek R. Little, Thelma Spicer, Michael M.Fortunato, Bertha Bana, George Bush, C. Richard Love,Marion Tracy, Denis J. Duquette, Wayne Elinc, LawrenceCreedon, Vincent Sullivan, Charles Bernazzini, EdwardConley, William Hung, Armand LaSelva, David Hughes,Ruth Hubbard, John Oser. Clem Perkins, Francis M.Pipkin, Roy Yarnell, Barbara Herzstein, Alexandra Pinck,John Oser, Fletcher G. Watson, John R. Mayor, EverettRockwell, John Tyrell, Mary Ann Goldberg, Donald W.Oliver, Paul Perry, Bruce Collier, Sharon Curry, Charles\V. Coffin, R. Victor Jones, Ruth Hubbard, Frank Harvey,James E. McNally, Jr , Helen Jaques, Robert Kilburn,Russell H. Stanhope, William T. Connor, Donald C. Free-man, William Callas, Leo Chareth, Francis A. Carbone,Charles R. Varrey, George Wald, Charles T. Pinck, JosephL. Carroll, Jr., Florence L. Mahon, Gerald C. Gowen,Francis X. Finnigan, John Huston, William C. Gaige,Sylvia Kovitz, Robert Gilbert, Raymond A. Kelliher, PaulA. Vatter, Edmund Bakon, Charles Crisafulli, JeanneChall, Mitchell Batoff, William T. McWeeney, GeorgeSites, Peter Imrie, James D. Bryant, Charles D. Bird, RuthB. Marzec, and Sarah F. Carter.

Massachusetts business and industry has generously con-tributed to the research study in various phases of its de-velopment: among the firms making grants are. EasternGas and Fuel Associates, The Boston Globe, The EalingCorporation, American Science and Engineering, Inc.., theGilbert H. Hood Memorial Fund, the Arthur D. LittleFoundation and the Godfrey L. Cabot Charitable Trust.

50

63

ADVISORY STUDY COMMITTEE

Louis Amadio Marilyn MurphyHenry J. Barone David NewtonHelen Bowditch John Packard

Randolph Brown Martin PancratzRose Lea Crowley Guido J. Risi

Susan Erlanger Donald SchmidtDaniel Kehoe James W. Skehan, S.J.

Irene Kingsbury George SmithJoan Leonard Verne W. Vance, Jr.Iry Marsden Robert Watson

Willard McLeod, Jr. George A. WeygandAllan S. Hartman

5I

64

SOME onnIR micENT sTuDnis OFTHE NIASSACHUSEITS ADVISORY

COUNCIL ON EDUCATION

The Here, Nos and l'omorrms of Cable Toby H. LevineTelevision in Education

Higher Edut.anon in Massachusetts. Sidney G. 'nektonA New I.00k at Some Major Policy Issues

Strengthening the Alternatne Post- George J. No IfiSecon Jar) Education Systcm. Continuing Valerie I. Nelsonand Part-Time Study in Massachusetts

Essentially Elementary Science. A Report Dean K. Whit laon The Status of Elementary Science in Dan C. PinckMassachusetts Schools

S9inething of Value. A Summary of Dean K Whit laFindings and Recommendations for Dan C. PinckImproving Elementary Science inMassachusetts

Massachti,t.tts Schools. Past Present and Richard H. deLoncPossible

Richard RoweChild Care in Massachusetts. ThePublic Responsibility

Modernizing School Governance forEducational Equality and Diversity

Massachusetts Study of EducationalOpportunities for I Iandicapped andDisadvantaged Children

Organizing for a Child's LearningExperience: A Report of a Study of SchoolDistrict Organization in Massachusetts

52

65

Paul W. Cook, Jr.

Burton BlattFrank Garfunkel

Donald T. Donley

MASSACHUSETTS ADVISORYCOUNCIL ON EDUCATION

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

Mrs. Mary Warner, Chairwoman, Engineer, SunderlandMr. Morton R. Godine, Vice Chairman; Vice President,

Market Forge Co., EverettMr. Philip C. Beals, Trustee, WorcesterMrs. Shirley R. Lewis, Attorney, Lewis & Lewis,

TauntonMr. Verne W. Vance, Jr., Attorney, Foley, Hoag &

Elliot, BostonMr. Felix H. de C. Pereira, Financial Consultant,

Retired Senior Vice President, First NationalBank, Boston

Mr. Walter J. Ryan, Business Manager, InternationalUnion of Operating Engineers, Local No. 4,Roslindale

Dr. Nina E. Scarito, Obstetrician, MethuenDr. Gregory R. Anrig, Commissioner of Education,

cx officioMr. Patrick E. McCarthy, Chancellor of Higher

Education, cx officioMr. Oliver W. Kerr, Manager, New England Telephone

and Telegraph

STAFF

Dr. Ronald J. Fitzgerald, DirectorDr. Ronald B. Jackson, Associate DirectorDr. Allan, S. Hartman, Associate Director

Miss Joan Fitzgerald, Administrative Assistant

The Elementary Science Study (ESS) is published by the Webster Divi-sion, McGraw lull Book Company, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, NewYork, N. Y., the Science Curriculum Imprmcmcnt Study (5CIS) is pub-lished by Rand McNally & Company, P. 0. Box 7600, Chicago, Illinois,the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ispublished by Xerox Education Company, 555 Gotham Parkway, Carlstadt,N. J., and the Minnesota Mathematics and Science Teaching Project(Minnemast) is published by the Project, 720 Washington Ave. S. E.,Minneapolis, Minnesota.