The Science Crisis in America

The federal government has stated that our students are not doing well in science so much to a point that "(America is) not producing the science excellence required for global economic leadership and homeland security in the 21st century. This is hard to digest, especially for me, an aspiring psychologist. The solution is to "ensure schools use research-based methods to teach science" and to achieve that school districts must team-up with universities to educate teachers on how to teach science. I keep hearing how schools must use "scientifically proven" methods of teaching, but yet the tests scores are still dangerously low. I think if the government just found some excellent methods and implemented them in schools on a federal level, this issue won't be as bad as it currently is. These statistics are not pleasing, with the average twelfth grader's knowledge of science being significantly behind other developed nations. The issue is being solved by telling and giving money to school districts to team up with the real-world of science and to help increase proficiency. But where school district "A" finds the good methods for teaching from school district "B" may put one at a disadvantage. I think this problem can be solved if teaching methods were nationally distributed.

The Questions I ponder:
1. What are the "scientifically proven" methods of teaching that the SDUSD has, and with what institutions?
2. Are my scientific skills up to par with other students in other developed nations?
3. What sciences are they measuring?

"The short answer? It depends."

(This article concerns the law right when it came out, this article is an excellent representation of how the law was greeted by educators and administrators.)
This news source specifically geared towards educators and school administrators takes a neutral side to the law, seeing its pros and cons. A spokesperson for a teachers' union does see how now a teacher is accountable for the performance of their students, but trying to make sure that a school can scape up the money and time to certify teachers to not get caught red-handed by the government is time-consuming. When it comes to the assessments for yearly improvement, there is a metaphor that it is similar to getting a a physical exam, a check-up to catch academic struggles sooner. Low test scores equal lowered federal funding, and to raise the scores better teaching strategies must be installed, which are "scientifically based". However, the strategies that are available are for teaching reading/phonics; math, science, and other subjects have no official sponsorship from the government. The tests scores can also very by demographics and environments, like how in rural areas, where there are less students in a school, as little as three or two can completely throw off the balance of the school's test scores.

Questions I ask myself:
1. How has this law been changed to close the loopholes and exceptions?
2. Are the "scientifically proven" methods still being added, and where can I find them?
3. Has the performance of students improved from the yearly assessments?