This was the headline this morning when I read the news on my iPad NZ Herald app from the NMSSA (National Monitoring Study of Student Assessment) report. I wanted to share my thinking about the report.
The NMSSA reports are what NEMP used to be. People head around the countryside testing students in various curriculum areas and then these results are assessed at Otago University.
The article quoted Chris Duggan, House of Science, as stating that primary teachers lack confidence in teaching science and there is a 'huge lack of resources'. It was great to see that the study clearly disagreed with this. Teachers are confident, believe they have the resources they need, and are teaching science regularly. I was disappointed to see her also saying that science advisors are 'long, long gone' -we're not! The job description has changed a little ('facilitators' rather than 'advisors') and all across the country there are skilled, enthusiastic and able facilitators working with every type of school! Although in the 'old days', you simply rang up an advisor and one came out to support your teaching, there are still those opportunities today. Yes, it's a little more lengthy, but every school can apply every term for as many hours and as long as a period as needed for PLD customised to their needs.
The article stated that there are no assessments in science. NZCER have been doing a great job, first with the science engagement tool, and then with creating a Year 4-6 online assessment Science Thinking with Evidence (STwE). The Years 7-10 STwE continues to be useful to intermediates and secondary schools. Using the STwE, schools I have been working with have seen achievement being far higher than the '20%' NMSSA are suggesting are behind curriculum levels at a Year 8 level. NZCER also have the Assessment Resource Banks with a range of activities to support teachers in assessing science.
So what might be happening? Students are keen on science and reasonably confident. Teachers enjoy teaching science and believe that they are focusing on the nature of science strands as well as being confident in the context strands.
I know that the House of Science are doing a great job at getting science kits into schools and ensuring that everything in the kit is ready to go... rather than the good ol' electricity kit on the shelf with flat batteries and blown bulbs! The Sir Paul Callaghan Science Academy is working with teachers developing capability, as well as providing science resources. The Royal Society's Science Teaching Leadership Programme is also available supporting teachers in developing an understanding of how science works and then supporting teachers back in the classroom. Doesn't sound like there's a lack at all! Oh, and there are people like Anne Barker and myself working with schools too!
I left the Science Learning Hub until last on purpose... because I really like the changes they've made to become more effective in supporting teachers. You see, I'm not sure kits, unit plans and lesson ideas on their own are going to help teachers. It's about shifting pedagogies. The folk at the SLH not only share great resources, but they also host webinars and can give one on one advice. I think this is one of the big keys -we must be about the how we teach science, as well as the why, before focusing on the what!
So it's not going to work with just resource kits or people heading off for courses. It also won't work with just getting in great facilitators (!). And this is the second key -the doing science. The article talks about the crowded curriculum as well as the focus we've had on literacy and numeracy. So how do we ensure science is happening? Can we integrate it with reading and writing? Can maths lessons incorporate some science? This year, I've noticed a clear difference between the schools that are deliberately doing science and the schools that haven't had the time. The STwE results clearly show a better improvement to schools who set aside the time for science. Even though I might be working in both sorts of schools, the PLD and resources are simply not enough. We need to be clear about the need for science, the purpose of science and setting aside the time to do science. I'm happy that even the schools I'm working with who don't manage to do a lot of science still see improvements in student achievement -it's just not as marked as schools that set aside time for science.
Finally, teachers need to know what science looks like at different levels. With a curriculum that has Levels 1 and 2 the same and Levels 3 and 4 the same or similar, as well as a set of science capabilities with no levelled expectations, it can be difficult to know what science might look like at different levels. The Assessment Resource Bank (arbs) and STwE can help with this. I tend to use the Progressions for literacy and mathematics as a starter, as well as getting teachers to look at the STwE questions to get some idea of what science might look like at different levels. Talking to the Year 9 science teachers can help too -what are their expectations? What would they like children to come 'ready and able' with?
I must admit being surprised at the results, particularly the Year 8 data but it does reflect international monitoring as well. I hope that it isn't quite that bad and certainly my work with schools doesn't show averages quite that low. I do think we need to be setting aside specific time to teach science, using resources (unit plans, kits, and people!) as well as understanding why we teach science, to continue to improve the achievement. Integration is part of the answer but not the only one. The most important one is already there: you teachers!
So, have a great break!
Thank you for reading these posts (if you're still here of course!) and I so appreciate your support, encouragement and enthusiasm as well as comments! Here's to a great 2019!!!
Paul
