The scientific method

When I first learned about the "scientific method", I was a student in the same building where I now teach. I learned about it in a very definite way. There was no room to wiggle, no gray area. Every time we did it, we started and finished in the same way; ask a question; do research; develop a hypothesis; experiment; analyze data and communicate results. That was it. (Now, sure, the terms might have been slightly different from teacher to teacher, but they always meant the same thing). Then, in college, 'collect and analyze data' may have been split apart, but even their gist was always the same: there was a definite start and a definite finish.

Fast-forward to 2010: Now, the scientific method is no longer a beast with a definitive beginning and ending. Instead, it’s now a free-flowing entity that jumps back and forth, or can skip steps altogether. That’s right, folks - for almost 2,500 years, the scientific method was fine and dandy...but, suddenly, the Florida Department of Education decided it needed tweaking. (Aristotle, long thought to be the father of the scientific method, probably wouldn’t be pleased).

I asked another science teacher what the deal was - why were they switching up the scientific method after following it had led to TIVO, air conditioning and the peanut butter cup - (the three greatest inventions known to man) along with all the other scientific breakthroughs we currently enjoy? "Where were the steps...the order..." I asked, "and how can we skip doing 'research' and go straight to 'experiment' "? He kind of shrugged his shoulders and scrunched up his face, and replied, "Chris, I learned it the same way as you did, and this is the first year I am teaching it the new way; but I do what I am told".

"It's science", I replied. "If people would have done what they were told, we would still think that the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and I shudder to think what peanut butter would taste like. Come on now", I continued, “ 'just because' is not what science is about".

"Well..." he began, "I think it's because it’s easier this new way. When kids have to put things in order, they can miss a step or mix the steps up". He scrunched up his face and shrugged his shoulders at the same time. I nodded that I got it, and what I got was that the 'everybody-gets-a-trophy' folks (who had somehow become in-charge of education's big picture) had decided to dumb-down the scientific method in order to make sure more kids could get that question right on the F-CAT. That’s what I got.

Folks, I know it’s ironic that I use a tool, the scientific method, (that tells us things can constantly evolve and change) to make my point - but my point is that there are some things we shouldn’t evolve or change. I get it, but at the same time, I really think there are some things that shouldn’t change unless it’s a manifest necessity. We shouldn’t change just for the sake of change and we definitely shouldn’t make changes that dumb education down. We should be moving forward, not back.

Education experts talk about the need for rigor, and also call for students to take advanced classes like Algebra II and Chemistry; but, then, at the same time, they dumb-down the Science portion of the F-CAT by getting rid of the short-answer questions. That makes it all multiple-choice, and it lowers the passing grade requirement on the Writing portion of the F-CAT from a 3.5 to a 3. An English teacher friend of mine said that a 3 on the F-CAT basically means being able to hold a pencil. I have another friend who told me only about 30% of his Algebra II students could pass a legitimate Algebra I class. Wouldn’t a better idea be to make sure students have mastered a skill and can do it well, rather than pushing them along and hoping they miraculously pick it up somewhere? In short, wouldn’t it be better to make sure students can do some things well rather than a lot of things half-assed? We shouldn’t be afraid of rigor, we shouldn’t be afraid to challenge students, and we shouldn’t be afraid to fail children, either, as long as, in the end, they have the skills they need. Education is not just a destination, but it is a journey, as well.

Education currently finds itself in a precarious position. We’re caught between what we say ("we want to prepare all children for a post-secondary education"), what we have done (created the reality of a nobody-can-fail environment), populated by who we have, (a significant portion of children who aren’t prepared for school; who should either be held back to get the skills they need or, sadly, will never get the skills society wants them to have). That doesn’t mean they can’t be successful; it just means we have to be realistic.

Education has reached a tipping point where something has got to give - and, because of the dichotomous nature of education, 'pass them at all costs - regardless if they are successful or not' - means, in the end, numerous children will be robbed of a proper sense of how society works and society itself will suffer.

The system has made it nearly impossible for teachers to fail children; "the kids aren't doing the work", or "the kids are doing substandard work" aren’t good enough reasons anymore. If a teacher fails a child now, the teacher's ability and credibility are questioned. Now, I am not saying that we shouldn’t have safeguards in place like tutoring after school and summer school opportunities. What I am saying is when we differentiate instruction to the point where three different levels of work from three different students can get the same credit and when we initiate learning recovery that any child can take (regardless of why they need it; unexcused absences, behavior or a lack of effort), we pervert the whole system.

What’s going to happen when these children join the workforce or go to college? Are their employers and professors going to dumb-down what they have to do, or have different requirements for the same class or for the same job? No, they are not - and after a lifetime of being pushed along or having things altered to fit not just what they can do but what they want to do, then cold reality is going to slap them in the face. They are going to get a wakeup call that they are not prepared for.

When education meets students where they are, it prevents education from getting students to where they should be. I would argue that when we dumb-down the scientific method, we’re not doing the kids any favors. Sure, it might be easier; sure, our test scores might go up, and a school grade might get better - but what’s the real benefit? Is there a real benefit? I doubt Aristotle would think so