Repositioning science reform efforts: Four practical recommendations from the field

Abstract

Appeals to reform science education by policy makers are not new phenomena. To be sure, while science reform efforts have been ongoing occurrences for nearly six decades, perpetual educational reform efforts as a whole have been evolving and gaining momentum in number for more than a century. The general motivation for continual reform appears to focus on unifying educational outcomes that can be implemented globally. Relentless clarion calls for science reform appear to parallel the mergers of corporations whose constituents wish to gain access to national education systems and their methods of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Accordingly, scientists and science educators must reconsider what is taught in science classes at all levels. In this article, the authors examine the research on reform efforts in science education and several past science education reform initiatives, which are then placed in the context of the time when each was endorsed and sanctioned. Based on unifying strands of inquiry regarding past science education reform efforts, the authors conclude with four general recommendations for progressive reform that are believed to be beneficial to authentic science learning experiences.

Keywords

Assessment curriculum science education reform science standards student achievement

For nearly six decades, appeals to reform science education by policy makers have been frequent occurrences (Alberts, 2013; Drew, 2015). The rationale is unequivocal: just as the business world seeks out personnel who possess creative thinking stratagems and decision-making skills, so too should specialists in science and science education place greater emphasis on critical thinking and innovation as a part of the transition from student to professional. To this end, scientists and science educators must reconsider what is taught in science classes at all levels. Though this message is encouraging and should be embraced, many specialists in science-related fields, mathematics, and education who have been practicing for more than a few decades have experienced similar clarion calls on multiple occasions by numerous leaders in the sciences, education, and public policy with few, if any, lasting outcomes. Thus, without a closer examination of concomitant reforms in the art of teaching and assessment, especially at the college level, the realities of constructive systemic change seem all the more remote.

In this article, we examine both the research on reform efforts in science education as well as several past science education reform initiatives, and place them in the context of the time when each was endorsed and sanctioned. Based on unifying strands of inquiry regarding past science education reform efforts, we conclude with four general recommendations for progressive reform that we believe will benefit students’ authentic science learning experiences.

What is past is prologue

The literature is replete with past attempts to reform science education and modify standards with the intention to increase science literacy (National Research Council, 1995; National Science Foundation, 2005). In 1989, the landmark report ‘Science for All Americans’ detailed the grim sentiment of policy makers, educators, and the general public regarding the condition of science education. As stated in the report, ‘A cascade of recent studies has made it abundantly clear that both by national standards, and international norms, US education is failing to adequately educate too many students – and hence failing the nation’ (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989). Similar headlines implored the need for education reform: Observations shortly after the launching of Sputnik in 1957 (Fitzpatrick, 1960; Hurd, 1958; Withey, 1959); commentaries from the 1980s both for and against the publication of ‘A Nation at Risk’ (Blank & Engler, 1992; Walberg, 1986), and recent analyses and op-ed pieces on comparisons of test results from Trends for International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assessments (Bybee & McCrae, 2011; Provasnik et al., 2012). Time-honored reports, commentaries, and news items of this type seem to continually flood the education press.

It is often the case that with the inaugurations of reforms in any curriculum area come an onslaught of standardized assessments. These situations lead to a paradox: in discussion and even on paper, new reforms emphasize the need for progressive student learning; however, in terms of action, the administrators of these reforms either leave current assessments in place – those that are mismatched with a new curriculum – or use new assessments that, although aligned with the new curriculum, are essentially forced through channels in a top-down manner – from law maker to teacher – thereby causing anxiety and tension at the classroom level.

While there is always room for improvement in the teaching of science, the crises in science education may be more about the interpretation of test scores from mismatched assessments that allude to a failure of the education system rather than evidence of what students can actually do in science (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Farenga, Joyce, & Ness, 2006; Johnson, Johnson, Farenga, & Ness, 2005). Anderson (2012) explained that current testing strategies do not support new research-based reform methods. The high-stakes tests that students are required to take and pass are costly for at least three reasons. These assessments take up instructional time, consume a large part of the education budget, and contribute to the lack of motivation in students and their interest in science (Griffith & Scharmann, 2008; Johnson & Johnson, 2006; Osborne & Dillon, 2008).

While educators prepare students for these assessments, they sacrifice time and effort that would otherwise be used to fulfill performance standards, specifically in research. In addition to standards focused on research and assessments that do not represent the goals of high-stakes tests, there has been an increase in time spent on instruction in math and reading as a result of the disconnect between the recently introduced Common Core State Standards initiative and high-stakes testing. Added pressure to increase instructional time on mathematics and reading runs the risk of at best curtailing and at worst eliminating the time spent on science learning and instruction, especially at the elementary and middle school levels (Farenga, Ness, & Sawyer, 2015; Klein, 2007). While mathematics and reading skills should be expanded in the classroom, these subjects should be utilized as part of the science curriculum and not in its place. This procedure would help alleviate some of the stressors of high-stakes test preparation, especially for scholastic assessments such as the SAT and PISA, which include science-based reading passages.

In addition to time constraints, another reason for the high sacrifices of high-stakes testing has to do with where policy makers wish to place emphasis in terms of human capital. As a result of the added pressure to increase mathematics and reading instructional time, students are limited in terms of the number of experiences they would encounter in a science-rich curriculum. Providing rich contexts of science for active learning allows for increased student interest and motivation, which may lead to contributions in scientific related outcomes in career-based settings after college graduation. However, the reduction or outright elimination of science programs limits human capital, and thus diminishes both social and economic development (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).

In response to these national crises, policy makers, educational administrators, and school faculty have attempted to overhaul curriculum, retain teachers, increase graduation requirements, develop scope and sequence programs, create new standards, and increase the number of state-wide assessments (Johnson et al., 2005; Johnson, Johnson, Farenga, & Ness, 2008). However, a closer examination of many of these initiatives demonstrates more of an agenda to reformat education, not reform it. The present movement to increase science achievement by ushering in yet another set of science standards (Next Generation Science Standards) may only reinforce the view that we are modifying dicta and various terminologies rather than changing the culture of teaching and learning science. Therefore, we question the argument that current science education reforms will bring about different results from those of the past, and question whether a set of reforms will have increased success rates than those posed by the National Research Council (1995, 2001) or the reform movements of the 1980s and 1990s.

Past and current reforms are similar in that they have been structured in a top-down format and have attempted to impose systemic change on their participants. Top-down approaches have been the dominant prototype for educational reform and have been judged largely ineffective. The pitfalls in the top-down approach come from the policy makers who are largely out-of-touch with science instruction and curriculum. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) represents a strong example of a top-down approach. An organization with 34-member countries, the OECD was founded on the mission of advancing global economic and cultural development. However, the OECD has expanded beyond this mission to issue educational policies for numerous member countries. Given that OECD seeks uniformity over vast geographical areas such as the Americas, Europe, and Asia, this example draws attention to the pressures of globalization on local policy makers. As a result, education policies in one country are exported to another, thus having the effect of either informing or replacing local policy. This exportation of education policies oftentimes have adverse outcomes with unintended consequences (Ozga & Lingard, 2007).

Fensham (2009) makes the appropriate claim that those responsible for policy reform are naïve in three very important aspects: ‘1. development of new curriculum materials; 2. not recognizing the contested nature of science in the curriculum; and 3. exaggerating the generalizability of research findings’ (p. 1078). Recently, science education policy makers seem to be in agreement that students should be engaged in conducting research in the science classroom. However, their pedagogical policy changes have not been fully supported by educational research. When issuing new policy, lawmakers should be required to demonstrate the efficacy of the policy changes, prior to wide-scale implementation.

Education reforms are reinforced by mandated high-stakes tests that place great pressure upon students and educators at the K to 12 levels. The results from poor performance on science assessments at these levels are interpreted as teacher or student failure (Farenga, Ness, Johnson, & Johnson, 2010; Koretz, 2009). Such consequences lead to punitive outcomes that negatively impact both the perception of science and the attitudes toward the study of science by prospective students (Farenga & Joyce, 1999; Klieger & Yakobovitch, 2011). This problem is compounded by additional top-down pressure from public policies that ignore the experiences of outstanding teachers. Since most policy makers are disconnected from classrooms, they are frequently unable to realize the implications of the policies they enact. What is often debated or lobbied to be ‘innovative’ for teaching of science may be ineffective. Many policy makers are quick to support new policies only to abandon previous ones for the purpose of currying favor for any alternative to the status quo. Typically, this occurs without consulting the teachers who are charged with the task of classroom implementation.

Fensham (2009) has argued that the phenomenon of abandoning educational reform policies is demonstrated by the constant promotion and branding of new standards and curricula – a pandemic problem. In 2007, the Queensland Studies Authority in Australia terminated its context-based curricula approach to teaching chemistry and physics. After two years of implementation, teachers struggled greatly with the new approach. This resulted in a drastic curtailment of the program. In its place, the Queensland Studies Authority authorized a new policy that implements the goals of context-based science to extend over the course of many years; however, the Authority did not attempt to determine the precise cause of dissatisfaction among teachers with the original context-based program (Fensham, 2009, p. 1090).

A disconnect between philosophy of science content and reform implementation

In addition to science reform for reform’s sake, institutions often (mistakenly) interpret the study of science as purely content-based, thus ignoring the social implications, historical contexts, and the integration of science and technology as essential parameters in the development of scientific thinking. Mueller and Bentley (2007) explain that science education should be focused on real-world science that directly involves the students and the contexts of their natural environment. In addition to placing students into the context of their surroundings, they stress the importance of culture, gender, and community in science education (p. 324). If science courses remain solely content based and high-stakes-test driven, meaningful reform in science education will fail to occur.

As a means of implementing science reform, Karno and Glassman (2013) suggest that a greater emphasis should be placed on the integration of technology in the classroom. The advent of the Internet has provided unprecedented access to scientific data and research possibilities to young students. Karno and Glassman (2013) explain how teachers can utilize the web as a way to keep students engaged through inquiry-based problem-solving learning opportunities. Students will be able to make inquiries about their local environments as well as those around the globe without leaving the classroom. However, the implementation of technology to deliver curriculum in this way will occur only with change in the current approach of high-stakes assessments. While science reforms have attempted to wrestle with problems having to do with the apparent lack of science learning, there has been little change in terms of student outcomes. The possibility of achieving systemic reform must be addressed in an intellectually honest manner. The questions of whether a one-size reform movement is appropriate for all students do not appear to be supported by the plethora of past reform movements that indicate apparent lack of success.

Science reforms ignore the environmental press

Combined, prior science education reform efforts have failed to recognize the impact from the environmental press on learning. More recently, the constraints with which teachers have grappled are increased pressure – resulting, in part, from time constraints for assessments – and an overwhelming focus on mathematics and literacy at the elementary levels (Farenga et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2008; Ravitch, 2013). As a result of high-stakes testing, too little time is allocated toward the instruction and assessment of the science curriculum. Teachers spend more time on mathematics and reading at the elementary level to fulfill requirements on these exams. As a result, science learning, knowledge, and motivation suffer (Anderson, 2012, p. 119). Suggestions to improve and increase content should be proposed by individuals who have spent a considerable amount of time working or teaching in K to 12 classrooms – a task that might provide a better understanding of the environmental constraints that are found in the K to 12 setting.

Reform in science education and science teaching implies significant infrastructural transformation of some type with regard to both K-12 and postsecondary programs. However, traditional program paradigms still remain fully in place despite the launching and decline of several reform efforts within the last few decades. This very condition, then, demonstrates the increasingly widening gap between pre-postsecondary and postsecondary science teaching. Current science education practice suggests that students should work in groups, use inquiry, and engage in long-term research projects. Yet, despite what seem to be progressive reform efforts, students are still assessed by individual multiple-choice tests. This discrepancy between practice and assessment leads to a problem in the validity of the assessment. The methods of instruction do not match the methods of assessment (Farenga, Joyce, & Ness, 2002).

College-level science teaching is not fraught with the same complications as those found at the K to 12 levels. However, the power of academic freedom at the college level provides most professors with the providence to develop their own assessments. When students do not perform as well as anticipated, numerous remedies – extra work, grade curves, or course incompletes in the subject – can be applied. These options are not as effective at the K to 12 levels where the teacher and students are evaluated by district, state, or federal measures that carry immense pressure. For teachers, poor outcomes on assessments can lead to a reduction in program funding, review of tenure status, income penalties, or the implementation of scripted lessons. All of these measures are designed to usurp the decision-making capabilities of teachers at the local level and lessen one’s autonomy – a valued condition for scientific inquiry.

Recommendations

Based on our observations of previous science education reform movements, we propose the following four recommendations for improving the possibilities of genuine reform in science education and science literacy.

1. Given that a one-size-fits-all reform package does not provide the flexibility needed to bring about authentic change, a new paradigm is needed that integrates both bottom-up and top-down approaches. The top-down approach should include an overall strategy that provides funding and direction for teaching and service to the field as a means of increasing scientific literacy. In contrast, the bottom-up approach requires a grassroots effort that involves the collaboration of individual stakeholders. This approach recognizes the diversity, challenges, and individual differences that can be either apparent or hidden within the school setting or learning environment. Due to the pluralistic cultural landscape of the classroom and the natural environment in which it exists, it is important to allow students a full representation of the life they will enter outside of the classroom (Mueller & Bentley, 2007). Effective reform measures need to respect situational autonomy and treat each classroom as a learning environment that comes with its own challenges and opportunities. A successful model of a bottom-up approach that recognizes the individual differences found in classrooms is the Pasadena Cal-Tech Pre-College Science Initiative, developed by James M. Bower and sponsored by the California Institute of Technology (Bower, 1996).

Our first recommendation is founded on the notion that teaching science in the elementary school, middle school, high school, or college is different from conducting scientific research. Teaching science and a career engaged in scientific exploration involve two distinct contexts and skill sets. The former involves the development and knowledge of how people learn (cognition), content, process, product, and attitudes. These five variables in some combination, arguably, may lead to success in teaching and possibly success in learning science. However, the formula for teaching is complex, and the science teacher must know how and when to modify it in order to maximize student achievement. Unlike a laboratory scientist, the science teacher cannot hold all the variables constant, except for the experimental variable. The students, their environments, science content, and the teachers’ own qualities all impact science learning and achievement. One may come to realize that change will only occur one classroom at a time, and that greater emphasis on teaching and learning is an answer for improving science literacy.

2. Reform requires the integration of curriculum, instruction, and assessment – three components involved in the teaching of science from kindergarten through college (Bybee, 1995; Farenga et al., 2002, 2006). The integration of these three components are at the core of systemic change at the classroom level. At present, the problem of learning and teaching science, in our estimation, is not a matter of standards and testing, but the alignment of assessment policies that reinforce instruction and curriculum practices (Farenga et al., 2002). Ironically, an examination of previous science education standards, frameworks, and curriculum guides reveals that much of the basis for concern about the direction of science education has been identified and addressed by multiple programs (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Carey, 1986; Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Clement, 1982; Clement, 1987, p. 84-97).

While there seems to have been a general transition from an emphasis of the teaching and learning of busy facts to one of concepts, science assessments still remain focused on the former. This problem highlights a key complication for many reform efforts where the methods of instruction do not match the methods of assessment. For example, teaching through inquiry and working in teams does not parallel the assessment strategies that are currently used in most states from which achievement results are made (Farenga et al., 2006). The incongruity of teaching methods and assessment procedures lead educators to teach what is valued by test makers and not what students know in science. The result of widespread assessment practices minimizes much of what is taught in science education programs for teachers. Furthermore, the current methods used in teacher evaluation appear to be the antithesis of inquiry-based learning and teaching. What is being underestimated, then, is the overwhelming impact of assessment policy on all factors of science education. A realignment of assessment practices with curriculum and instruction goals must be achieved in order to yield positive outcomes.

3. Educators need to implement both qualitative and quantitative reasoning skills. Engaging in higher levels of scientific inquiry involves the application of qualitatively related process skills to identify problems, plan strategies, solve problems, conduct investigations, and evaluate outcomes. These skills are not easily assessed by multiple-choice paper-and-pencil tests, and would best be evaluated by a practitioner-based model. Our position is supported by research in cognitive science, which suggests that scientists and mathematicians spend vast amounts of time solving problems through qualitative reasoning. Moreover, literature in cognition and learning demonstrates how highly skilled individuals or experts solve problems in a variety of domains (Bransford et al., 2000). Therefore, we would suggest a reemphasis in qualitative skills in undergraduate science to possibly increase the number of students who may initially enter science. However, this requires both a philosophical and pedagogical change in the manner in which most undergraduate science classes are taught. The development of scientific thinkers requires the curricula to go beyond the expected quantitative skills.

4. Science education reform must consider the importance of the social, historical, and psychological contexts in which students live. Considering these issues will not only help ameliorate societal constraints but will also aid in the efficiency and focus of contextualized science content. Hofstein, Eilks, and Bybee (2011) provide three systemic examples for critical examination – namely, the cases of Israel, Germany, and the United States. For example, in connection with the Common Core State Standards, the Next Generation Science Standards initiative suggests that students should work in collaborative groups, complete long-term research assignments, and develop argumentation skills. However, the assessments in science education do not evaluate these skills.

In general, national reports about the current state of science education concur when it comes to a particularly important factor with regard to student outcomes: current science education reforms do not take into account context. In other words, changes to science education that have led to discourse and curricula in present-day science classrooms have not taken into consideration the idea that science content provided to students may not be beneficial to them, especially when considering long-term goals and career options. Moreover, current reforms fail to address the importance of building a scientifically literate body of students, especially when considering that most students in schools throughout the world will not become scientists or engineers. Nevertheless, they must be scientifically literate in order to make informed decisions in everyday matters.

We conclude with an analogy. A physical scientist and biological scientist require different skill sets and work settings. Although both are scientists, and the research for each field may be guided by a similar quest for understanding, the actual work differs. So, too, is the case for the classroom teacher with respect to his or her colleagues. Although one can draw comparisons between teachers and their students, vast differences exist that cannot be addressed by simply implementing new standards and assessments. By drawing these comparisons, policy makers and administrators have ignored the physical constraints placed upon school personnel and students by the contexts in which they work. It would be much more important and worthwhile to identify which programs are not functioning optimally and focus our resources there. Doing so may be more cost effective and educationally sound than throwing the baby out with the bath water every 10 years or so.

References

Alberts

(2013). Prioritizing science education. Science, 340, 249.

Anderson

K. J. B.

(2012). Science education and test-based accountability: Reviewing their relationship and exploring implications for future policy. Science Education, 96(1), 104–129.

Berliner

Biddle

(1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. New York, NY: Perseus.

Blank

R. K.

(2012). What is the impact of decline in science instructional time in elementary school. Noyce Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.csss-science.org/downloads/NAEPElemScienceData.pdf.

Blank

R. K.

Engler

(1992). Has science and mathematics education improved since ‘a nation at risk?’ ERS Spectrum, 10(2), 18–26.

Bourdieu

Wacquant

L. J.

(1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bower

J. M.

(1996). Scientists and science education reform: Myths, methods, and madness. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science’s Resources for Involving Scientists in Education. Retrieved from http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg2a.htm.

Bransford

Brown

Cocking

(2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Bybee

R. W.

(1995). Science curriculum reform in the United States. In Bybee

R. W.

McInerney

J. D.

(Eds.), Redesigning the science curriculum: Report on the implications of standards and benchmarks for science education (pp. 12–20). Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.

10.

Bybee

R. W.

McCrae

(2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7–26.

11.

Carey

(1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41, 1123–1130.

12.

Chi

M. T.

Feltovich

P. J.

Glaser

(1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

13.

Clement

(1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.

14.

Clement

(1987). Overcoming students’ misconceptions in physics: The role of anchoring intuitions and analogical validity. In Novak

J. D.

(Ed.), Proceedings of the second international seminar on misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics (pp. 84–97). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

15.

Drew

D. E.

(2015). STEM the tide: Reforming science, technology, engineering and math education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

16.

Farenga

S. J.

Joyce

B. A.

(1999). Intentions of young students to enroll in science courses in the future: An examination of gender differences. Science Education, 83(1), 55–75.

17.

Farenga

S. J.

Joyce

B. A.

Ness

(2002). Reaching the zone of optimal learning: The alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In Bybee

R. W.

(Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning (pp. 51–62). Washington, DC: NSTA Press.

18.

Farenga

S. J.

Joyce

B. A.

Ness

(2006). Adaptive inquiry as the silver bullet: Reconciling local curriculum, instruction, and assessment procedures with state mandated testing in science. In McMahon

Simmons

Sommers

DeBaets

Crawley

(Eds.), Assessment in science: Practical experiences and education research (pp. 41–52). Washington, DC: NSTA Press.

19.

Farenga

S. J.

Ness

Johnson

D. D.

(2010). The importance of average: Playing the game of school to increase success and achievement. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

20.

Farenga

S. J.

Ness

Sawyer

R. D.

(2015). Avoidance of equivalence by leveling: Challenging the consensus-driven curriculum that defines students as ‘average’. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(3), 8–27.

21.

Fensham

P. J.

(2009). The link between policy and practice in science education: The role of research. Science Education, 93(6), 1076–1095.

22.

Fitzpatrick

F. L.

(Ed.). (1960). Policies for science education. New York, NY: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.

23.

Griffith

Scharmann

(2008). Initial impacts of No Child Left Behind on elementary science education. Journal of elementary science education, 20(3), 35–48.

24.

Hofstein

Eilks

Bybee

(2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education – A pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in Israel, Germany, and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459–1483.

25.

Hurd

P. D.

(1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American Schools. Educational Leadership, 16(1), 13–16.

26.

Johnson

D. D.

Johnson

(2006). High stakes: Poverty, testing, and failure in American Schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

27.

Johnson

D. D.

Johnson

Farenga

S. J.

Ness

(2005). Trivializing teacher education: The accreditation squeeze. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

28.

Johnson

D. D.

Johnson

Farenga

S. J.

Ness

(2008). Stop high-stakes testing: An appeal to America’s conscience. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

29.

Karno

Glassman

(2013). Science as a Web of Trails: Redesigning Science Education with the Tools of the Present to Meet the Needs of the Future. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 927–933.

30.

Klein

(2007, July). Survey: Subjects trimmed to boost math and reading. Education Week, 26(44), 7.

31.

Klieger

Yakobovitch

(2011). Perception of science standards; affectiveness and their implementation by science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 286–299.

32.

Koretz

D. M.

(2009). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

33.

Mueller

M. P.

Bentley

M. L.

(2007). Beyond the “decorated landscapes” of educational reform: Toward landscapes of pluralism in science education. Science Education, 91(2), 321–338.

34.

National Research Council. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author.

35.

National Research Council. (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: Author.

36.

National Science Foundation. (2005). Systemic reform initiatives. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg3.htm.

37.

Osborne

Dillon

(2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections (Vol. 13). London: The Nuffield Foundation.

38.

Ozga

Lingard

(2007). Globalisation, education policy, and politics. In Lingard

Ozga

(Eds.), The Routledge Falmer reader in education policy and politics (pp. 65–82). New York, NY: Routledge.

39.

Provasnik

Kastberg

Ferraro

Lemanski

Roey

Jenkins

(2012). Highlights from TIMSS 2011: Mathematics and science achievement of US fourth-and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2013-009). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

40.

Ravitch

(2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York, NY: Vintage.

41.

Rutherford

F. J.

Ahlgren

(1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

42.

Walberg

H. J.

(1986). What works in a nation still at risk. Educational Leadership, 44(1), 7–10.

43.

Withey

S. B.

(1959). Public opinion about science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 23, 382–388.