Beyond the Bold Rhetoric of Reform: (Re)Learning to Teach Science Appropriately

It is so easy to speak strongly about what ought to be done in science classrooms and so difficult to match words with appropriate actions. This is the crux of the reform problem in science education. For as long as we have had formal education it seems as if we have had well-intentioned others wanting to enact reform (e.g., Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990). Recommendations have taken many forms but usually have several common aspects: those with power prescribe changes for others with less power, and the changes recommended usually apply to all teachers and students within a system (e.g., "all standards for all learners" [National Research Council, 1996]). I have done my fair share of exhorting others to enact science curricula in improved ways (e.g., Tobin, 1987). However, recently I have experienced first hand the enormous difficulty of teaching science in urban schools in ways that make a difference to the lives of students (Tobin, 2000). In this chapter I want to draw attention to a folly that has permeated exhortations of reform in myriad national-level reports that followed the wakeup call embodied in A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). This folly is to present goals for science education as master narratives that do not acknowledge the centrality to teaching and learning of science of issues concerning who, where, what, when, and how. It can be exhilarating to draw attention to the plight of the underdog and exhort science