National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, (Read entire text online).

Instructional Materials 

As found in numerous national surveys reviewed in this paper, instructional materials influence the curriculum. In most cases the textbook is the de facto curriculum. There is evidence of influence of the NSES on instructional materials. The Instructional Materials Development (IMD) program of the National Science Foundation has invested approximately 1 billion dollars in IMD projects since A Nation at Risk was published in 1983 (NSF, 1994a; Cozzens, 2000). Through the IMD program, curriculum developers have produced multiple comprehensive programs (complete materials for a set of grade levels or a course) at all levels K-12—elementary- school science, middle-level science, and all areas of high school and have produced a myriad of innovative modules in nearly every imaginable area of science. The reviews of IMD-produced materials by NSF (1997), Cozzens (2000), and AIBS (Morse, 2001) provide evidence of the quality of these materials. One might think of the reform of instructional materials as a journey toward the NSES without a road map, rather than as a construction project where they are the blueprint. The NSES define science literacy and some elements of the educational system required to achieve it. The NSES, however, are not a curriculum framework. 

At this point, there is no clear consensus of the design for “standards-based instructional materials.” Curriculum developers are producing a variety of designs based on the NSES, educational research, and wisdom of best practices. Little evidence based on student learning, however, is available that any one approach is better than another. So, while we do have examples of instructional materials that are moving toward standards-based practices, we do not have “exemplars” of standards-based curriculum. At this point, the educational community does not know what is exemplary, because it has not seen it yet. Textbook publishers provide the vast majority of science instructional materials adopted and used in K-12 schools (Weiss et al., 2001). Textbook publishers are aware of the national dialogue about the needed reform in science education, which is represented in the NSES. Even a cursory look at textbooks published in the past five years provides evidence that textbook publishers are acknowledging the influence of the NSES. Most provide a matrix of alignment of the content in their text with the NSES. Recommendations to textbook publishers in national reports, however, will not influence textbook publishers, who are accountable to their shareholders. Textbook publishers respond to market forces. If we want textbook publishers to produce and sell standardsbased materials to schools, then teachers, school districts, and states must establish the demand by purchasing only standards-based materials. Textbook publishers likely will be quick to respond to such demand. 

The research literature reviewed for this study, with the exception of the AIBS report (Morse, 2001), however, provided little evidence about the degree of influence of the NSES on textbook programs. The NSF study of the middle-level science materials limited its scope to NSF-supported materials (NSF, 1997), the OERI study of promising practices did not include textbook programs in its review (OERI, 1994), and major textbook programs failed to pass through the initial screening of instructional materials for the AAAS reviews (AAAS, 2001c, 2001d). Only the AIBS study (Morse, 2001) included any major textbooks in its review. The influence of the NSES on instructional materials, therefore, is difficult to determine without solid evidence from the literature. However, it is reasonable to say that the NSES have stimulated thinking about curriculum development and design, which is supported by the studies of the IMD program and by examinations of textbooks. The analysis of the reviews of instructional materials, however, provides complex, and perhaps conflicting, findings. All of the studies yield evidence of major features in the most recent innovative materials that are consistent with the NSES ideals. There is considerable disagreement among reviewers, however, as to where one sets the bar to determine whether a set of materials is considered to be standardsbased. Overall, the research supports the following findings: (1) progress is being made toward providing models of standards-based instructional materials; (2) the vast majority of materials being used by teachers, however, fall short of these models and have not been brought in line with the NSES; and (3) the difficulty of adoption and use of high-quality, standards-based instructional materials is a significant barrier to realization of the science education envisioned in the NSES.

 

State Level 

As seen from the several national surveys of states and evaluations of state systemic initiatives and state curriculum framework projects summarized in this report, considerable evidence is available about the influence of the NSES on state frameworks and curriculum frameworks. Overall, the evidence clearly supports the claim that states are moving toward the science education envisioned in the NSES. All states have developed or are in the process of developing standards (AFT, 2001) and at least 47 of these states have established standards for science education (Blank, Manise, and Brathwaite, 1999). The NSES and Benchmarks for Science Literacy have been key documents guiding the development of state standards (Humphrey, 1996; AAAS, 1997a; CPRE, 1995; VDE, 1996; Massel, et al., 1997; Adelman, 1998a, 1998b). However, states have not progressed as far with translating standards into science curriculum. States vary in how they exert control over the science curriculum. Twenty-one states have a state policy for the selection of instructional materials for the classroom (CCSSO, 2000a). The summary study by Clune (1998) of case studies of nine states involved in NSF SSI projects found that curriculum had the lowest rating of change when compared to reform and policy initiatives. Therefore, the evidence indicates that while change is taking place at the state level, state policies overall are slow to influence change in the curriculum.

 

Local Level 

Several studies investigated the impact of the NSES on the science curriculum used in districts and schools at the local level. The TIMSS reports (Schmidt, 2001a; Valverde and Schmidt, 1997; Stevenson, 1998; Zucker et al., 1997) and the national survey by Weiss et al. (2001) provide substantial evidence on what is taught in U.S. schools. The overall picture is of a lack of focus, coherence, and coordination in the science curriculum (Schmidt, 2001a) and for the vast majority of schools, commercial textbooks are the curriculum at the local level (Weiss et al., 2001; Zucker et al., 1997). Because there is a lack of studies of the degree to which commercial textbooks align with the NSES, it is difficult to judge the degree of their influence on the local science curricula. However, evidence from the studies by AAAS (2001c, 2001d) and AIBS (Morse, 2001) indicated, either by omission (in the case of AAAS) or by the lower ranking assigned to the textbooks included in the review (as in the AIBS review), that commercial textbooks overall are not considered to be fully standards-based. Other studies have investigated reform at the local level. 

NSF has funded several projects to stimulate reform at the local level, including the Urban Systemic Initiatives (USI) and Local Systemic Change (LSC). The NSF program guidelines and solicitation for the LSC projects (NSF, 1999) required that the project be based upon the implementation of high-quality, standards-based materials. This emphasis on standards-based practices was to guide the expert panels and program officers to recommend proposals for LSC awards. However, no studies have investigated the degree to which districts involved in these LSC projects ultimately limited their adoption process for K-12 science to standards-based materials, nor are there data to determine the degree to which these materials were in use by teachers in the schools. The NSF USI projects, however, have been studied (Blank et al., 2000; Foley, 2001; CPRE, 1996; Huinker et al., 1999; Singer et al., 2000), but there is conflicting evidence concerning curriculum implementation from which to judge the influence of the NSES on the science curriculum at the local level. 

The National Science Foundation required the USI projects to implement standards-based reform, including standards-based curriculum. Overall, the studies of the USI projects indicated mixed results in progress toward standards-based reform. The overall study by Blank et al. (2000) provides evidence of classroom practices that align with standards-based reforms in the science curriculum. Singer et al. (2000) report success at designing, developing, and implementing standards- based instructional materials in Detroit Public Schools, and Huinker et al. (1999) provide evidence that two-thirds of the elementary teachers in Milwaukee Public Schools were using kit-based materials (which arguably is a move toward standards-based curriculum). Other studies found that districts were making slow progress towards adoption and implementation of high-quality, standards-based materials (Foley, 2001; CPRE, 1996). Additional studies of changes in the science program and teaching practices are summarized in other papers in this overall study, which address teaching, learning, and assessment.