“If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” Abraham Maslow
I was interested to observe a vigorous discussion of kits on the NSTA list serve which left me with the impression that using kits was inevitable for many school districts, despite the cost and difficulty of using the kits as they were designed. I see the issue of kits as one which demands that they are tailored to a district’s curriculum, are maintained and stored in a central area, and come with proper inservice time before they go out to teachers. Having custom kits for your curriculum presupposes that a comprehensive and integrated curriculum development process has been undertaken in the recent past. When was the last time that happened in your district or state? I’m concerned that many of the pre-teaching components and vocabulary for science are non-existent in a kit based culture of teaching elementary science. Developing a rich language and culture of science can't wait until the kit comes on the scene. I do give FOSS credit for having a coherent internal curricular flow in their kits, but they are only meant to supplement a comprehensive and pervasive science curriculum. What is the answer? Ideally, science specialists should be as prevalent as art and PE teachers to provide continuity, expertise, and depth to a comprehensive program. Relying on kit based science is akin to solving all of our medical problems with handy pharmaceuticals rather than getting in shape and improving our diet. Why get caught up in the fine points of kit based education when a cadre of science specialists could do the job with expertise, passion, and creative use of real science tools?
No comments:
Post a Comment