NORTHWEST

EDUCATION

SPRING 2005 / VOLUME 10. NUMBER 3.

A PUBLICATION OF THE NORTHWEST REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY

SCIENCE

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

Reforming science instruction 6

Meeting NCLB demands 12

Making a case for physics first 16
ON THE COVER

A photomicrograph captures the abstract beauty of a

dinosaur bone. Under polarized light, thin sections of

the bone produce brilliant colors. You can find more 

fascinating images of ordinary and unusual objects,

recorded through an optical microscope, on an extensive

Web site maintained by Florida State University at

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/index.html

Photo © 1995–2005 by Michael W. Davidson and the Florida

State University. All Rights Reserved.
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 1

Web exclusives at nwrel.org/nwedu

6

26

34

16

FEATURES

6 A Meeting of Minds

A unique partnership in northwest Washington aims to shake up science

instruction in both K–12 and university classrooms.

Q&A: Charting a new course with George “Pinky” Nelson at Western

Washington University.

12 Measuring Up to Standards

With NCLB requirements looming, Northwest states refine science standards

and assessments.

16 Putting Physics First

A national movement is pushing to make physics an introductory, rather than

a capstone, course. An Idaho teacher helps us see why.

20 Igniting the Spark

Some of the region’s top scientists reflect on their past educational

experiences and offer advice for teachers today.

Igniting the Spark: Another Look

22 In the Middle

Montana leads the nation in eighth-grade science scores. Two award-winning

middle school teachers share strategies for engaging this unique age group.

26 Science on Ice

A university geophysicist turns to Alaska schoolchildren to help him carry out

key research in remote locations.

30 Building a Legacy, One Teacher at a Time

Field-based professional development helps K–8 teachers draw lessons from

the landscape.

In the Lab, Discovering the “REaL” World

34 Through a Wilderness

Camping out in the forest, Oregon sixth-graders discover bear scat, “fungus

aerobics,” and why environmental literacy is important.

Lunchtime Science: Reaching Underachieving Girls

A university researcher and a high school biology teacher team up for a lunchhour class for girls who are failing science.

NORTHWEST

EDUCATION

CONTENTS / SPRING 2005 SCIENCE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE VOL. 10 / NO. 3
2 nwrel.org/nwedu

DEPARTMENTS

3 Forum

4 Editor’s Note

40 Voices

From the Kitchen to the Classroom

41 Research Brief

Launching Science Education Into the 21st Century

43 Resources

Resource Annex

44 Region at a Glance

What the Statistics Say About Highly Qualified

Science Teachers

45 End Note

An Eminent Native Son

Expert Opinion

Nationally known educator David Heil gets families

engaged in science

Money Matters

Reaching out to public and private sources for science

program funds

Q&A

The head of NWREL’s Northwest Eisenhower Regional 

Consortium for Mathematics and Science talks about

science instruction, NCLB, and resources in the region

On the Web

Northwest Education is available online in both 

PDF and HTML versions at www.nwrel.org/nwedu.

Look for Web exclusives, marked with .

Northwest Education is a quarterly magazine of the Northwest

Regional Educational Laboratory. Past and current issues of the

magazine are available at www.nwrel.org/nwedu/.

ISSN 1546-5020

Chief Executive Officer

Dr. Carol F. Thomas

Deputy Executive Officer

Dr. Robert E. Blum

Administrative Director, Development and Communications

Dave Wilson

Communications Director

Karen Lytle Blaha

Editor in Chief

Denise Jarrett Weeks

Issue Editor

Rhonda Barton

Assistant Editor

Bracken Reed

Technical Editor

Eugenia Cooper Potter

Contributing Writers

Marilyn Deutsch, David Heil, Ian McCluskey

Design

a.k.a. design, Seattle

Denise Crabtree

Data Analyst

Richard Greenough

Resource Development

Jill R. Oppenheim

Library Support

Linda Fitch

Webmaster

Vicki Jean Beauchamp

Circulation

Lorelei Aldridge

Statement of Purpose

Northwest Education aims to promote a regional dialogue and to elevate teaching and learning by giving readers the best information,

ideas, and personal stories from practitioners, researchers, and other

experts. 

Copyright © 2005, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

This publication is based on work sponsored wholly or in part by

the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED-01-

CO-0013. The content of this publication does not necessarily

reflect the views of the department or any other agency of the U.S.

government. This publication was not printed with government

funds. Articles and information in this publication may be reproduced and distributed without permission for nonprofit educational

and professional development purposes. Please acknowledge

NWREL as the source.

NORTHWEST

EDUCATION 
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 3

Photo Facts

I worked in the REACT (Relevant Educational Applications of Computer

Technology) program from 1969 to

1973 at NWREL. I, for sure, remember

the teletype machines. How far we have

come! I can tell you two of the people in

the photograph on page 45 (of “Online

Schools: A New Frontier in Public

Education,” winter 2004). The tallest

man in the back is Cliff Winkler who

was on the REACT staff. The furthest

right (with his arms folded) is Chet

Hausken, who at the time directed the

Small Schools Program.

Winston Addis

Vice President, External Relations

City University 

Bellevue, Washington

Nurturing Native Students

Kara (Briggs) has hit home with a very

serious issue: high school dropouts (in

“Slipping Through the Cracks,” spring

2004). This has been a concern for educators for many years. As readers and

educators, we need to respond to how

we can stop this, raise the self-esteem

of our Native children, let them believe

that they are worthy, start the healing

process of our past, and enrich the

futures of those yet to become who

they should or aspire to be.

I am a Quileute Tribal Member. I

worked at our tribal school for nine

years and then went back to college as a

single mother of three. I persisted and

now have my bachelor’s degree in

speech and hearing sciences. I found

Kara’s article to be an outcry to our

educators, teachers, administrators, and

parents. We must start the healing

NOW, move forward to brighter possibilities, and not let any more children

slip through the cracks. 

Joanne Harrison

Research Assistant

University of Idaho

Moscow, Idaho

On the Trail of Lewis and Clark

Excellent article (“Many Nations,”

summer 2003). [I] appreciate information on the methods of teaching and

the approach being taken toward bringing Lewis and Clark to older students

of a diverse nature. The study of the

Lewis and Clark expedition seems to

have no bottom as historians, educators, authors, and speakers, such as

myself, dig deeper and continue to find

new avenues of understanding and

learning. I belong to the Lewis and

Clark Trail Heritage Foundation, both

the national organization and the

Philadelphia chapter. Our annual

meeting is set for Portland, Oregon,

August 6–10, 2005. I’m referring the

article to both organizations as an FYI

since the Oregon chapter is mentioned

in the article and they are hosting the

meeting in August. Thanks again for

posting a wonderful article.

Lorna Hainesworth

Baltimore County Library & Senior Centers

Randallstown, Maryland 

We want to hear from you! Send your

letters to the editor, article ideas, and

tips on places where good things are

happening to nwedufeedback@nwrel.

org. Letters may be edited for length or

clarity.

FORUM

NWREL BOARD OF DIRECTORS

John Pugh (Chair)

Chancellor, University of Alaska Southeast

Sharon Parry (Vice Chair)

School Board Member, Idaho Falls School District #91

Dennis Haverlandt (Secretary-Treasurer)

Teacher, Great Falls School District (MT)

Jerry Colonna (Member-at-Large)

Superintendent, Beaverton School District (OR)

Rubén Degollado (Member-at-Large)

Assistant Principal, Hillsboro School District (OR)

Kay Purcell (Member-at-Large)

Principal, St. Rose Parish School, Longview (WA)

Dr. Terry Bergeson

Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction

Susan Castillo

Oregon Superintendent of Public Instruction

Dr. Marilyn Howard

Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction

Linda McCulloch

Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction 

Roger Sampson

Alaska Commissioner of Education and Early Development

Dr. John Davis

Superintendent, Bering Strait School District (AK)

Dr. Joanne Erickson

Assistant Professor, Montana State University–Bozeman

Jeff Estes

Manager, Office of Science Education Programs, 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (WA)

Dr. Larry Harris

Dean, Idaho State University

Steven Jacquier

Teacher, Southwest Region School District (AK)

Jerry Keane 

Superintendent, Post Falls School District (ID)

Nancy Larsen

Teacher, Coeur d’Alene School District (ID)

Richard Mauer

Chair, Alaska State Board of Education and 

Early Development

Dr. Richard McCullough

Superintendent, Snoqualmie School District (WA)

Dr. Bill McDiarmid

Professor, University of Washington

Dr. Geoffrey Mills

Dean, Southern Oregon University 

Ted Popplewell

Principal, Oregon Trail Elementary School, Twin Falls (ID) 

Dr. Jan Rauth

Teacher, Longview School District (WA)

Barbara J. Riley

Community/Business Representative, Missoula (MT)

Perla Rodriguez

Principal, Cornelius School District (OR)

Dr. Timothy Skinner

Superintendent, St. Ignatius School District, Ronan (MT)
4 nwrel.org/nwedu

On a recent rainy day visit to a

Northwest science museum, I

watched toddlers happily navigate

an exhibit called the “Science Playground.” Armed with a pail and

shovel, one child explored the

physics of sand, intently watching

as the grains rearranged themselves

each time he dipped into the sandbox. Across the room, a little girl experimented with a water wall, spinning wheels and

turning valves as the stream flowed over, around, and

through the obstacles. 

“Young children are more scientist than anything else,”

observed the late Herbert Zim, a professor and editor of the

Golden Nature Series of small books that introduced countless youngsters to the wonders of the natural world. Indeed,

from the earliest age, children are actively manipulating and

interacting with their environment, trying to make sense of

things. The barrage of questions seems endless: How does

this happen? Why does this happen? What happens if I

change things around?

Albert Einstein warns us, “The important thing is not to

stop questioning.” But, that’s exactly what occurs as the child

grows older and loses that natural curiosity. One study asserts

that 57 percent of our students get “turned off ” to science by

the time they reach seventh grade. 

Why is that such a troubling statistic? One reason simply

is that developing scientific literacy is critical today and will

become increasingly so. Not only does science personally

affect our lives through the physical world, medicine, and

technology, but it’s also at the heart of some of the thorniest

ethical issues we face as a society. From global warming to

stem-cell research, nuclear capabilities, and the depletion of

fossil fuels, the citizens of the 21st century will be called on

to make decisions that require an understanding of the basic

laws of the universe and the capacity to weigh evidence-based

arguments.

Underscoring the importance of science education, the

U.S. Department of Education is training a spotlight on the

subject. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, states must

develop science standards by 2005–2006. Beginning in the

2007–2008 school year, states are required to administer

annual science assessments at least once in elementary, middle, and high school. These assessments must be aligned with

state standards and involve multiple measures, including

higher order thinking and understanding.

In this issue of Northwest Education, we look at how our

region is preparing to meet the NCLB challenge. “Measuring

Up to Standards” describes Oregon’s unique “claims-evidence” approach to science instruction and assessments that

incorporate work samples. We also see how Washington,

Montana, Idaho, and Alaska are setting their own course. 

On the campus of Western Washington University we’re

introduced to a bold initiative to transform the way students

and teachers are taught scientific principles. We travel to

frozen Alaska—where polar bears are just one of the complications of field trips—to find out how students are collecting

important data for a university geophysicist. And, at one of

the nation’s oldest outdoor education programs, we camp out

in an Oregon forest where sixth-graders learn enduring lessons about the environment and themselves.

In interviews with some of the Northwest’s outstanding

scientists, we’re reminded of the role that teachers play in

nurturing groundbreaking biologists, geologists, physicists,

and chemists. Someday—with any luck and good teaching—

that young child who marvels over the way sand particles filter through a sieve may turn out to be the next Newton,

Watson, or Curie.

—Rhonda Barton, bartonr@nwrel.org 

EDITOR‘S NOTE

Photo courtesy OMSI
5

NORTHWEST EDUCATION FEATURES

SCIENCE UNDER

THE MICROSCOPE

SPRING 2005 / VOL. 10. NO. 3

A broad partnership tackles science education reform 6

States take different routes to setting and testing standards 12 

A case is made for putting physics first 16

Scientists talk about inspiring lifelong passions 20

A pair of science teachers overcomes middle school challenges 22

Students help a university researcher track climate change 26

Arid lands provide a rich laboratory for rural teachers 30

In the forest, science comes alive 34
Lisa and Craig Harpel—a married

couple who both teach science at Mt.

Vernon High School—team up for a

physics lesson at Western Washington

University. The summer academy showed

Lisa, “Rigor doesn’t have to mean more

vocabulary words. It can be asking

students what their fundamental

understanding of a concept is: asking them

to go to the edges of their thinking and

explore what they do and don’t know.”
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2004 7

A Meeting of

M

With a focus on inquiry-based methods, an ambitious partnership 

INDS

sets out to transform science education in northwest Washington.

BY RHONDA BARTON

BELLINGHAM, Washington—It looks more like a preschool setting

than a university classroom: Little plastic tubs of thick yellow dishwashing detergent are lined up at each seat, with red- and whitestriped plastic straws just waiting to dip into the sticky liquid. At the

signal, everyone leans in and begins to blow. Bubbles—large, small,

pink, clear, and iridescent—start gurgling up, filling the containers,

and escaping into the air.

Dorothy “Dottie” Simpson, a small woman with a large presence,

paces in front of the blackboard and asks, “What questions do you

have?” The “students”—actually elementary through high school

teachers—excitedly shout out: Where does the color come from? Why

are some bubbles small and some large? Why do some pop and others

don’t? Why are they hexagonal? What makes bubbles last? 

Photo © WWU Publishing Services/David Scherrer

Welcome to introductory physics.
8 nwrel.org/nwedu

The bubble lesson is one exercise in a two-week academy held this summer on the campus of Western

Washington University. It’s the opening volley in a

five-year, $12 million effort—funded by the National Science Foundation—that seeks to improve science teaching

and learning in both the K–12 school system and higher education. Called the North Cascades and Olympic Science

Partnership—or NCOSP for short—the unique project

unites 28 predominantly rural school districts, two educational service districts, three community colleges, Washington State LASER (Leadership and Assistance for Science

Education Reform), Northwest Indian College, and Western

Washington University.

According to NCOSP leader George “Pinky” Nelson, the

partners are set to attack a systemic problem. Few elementary

teachers graduate from university ready to teach science

effectively while secondary teachers have substantial content

knowledge but little experience with research-based curricula. Nelson—who heads Western Washington’s SMATE

(Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education) program—believes, “You can’t separate the content and the pedagogy. You have to focus on learning science, but in a context

of teaching it better.” 

The launch of NCOSP comes at a time when pressure is

mounting to improve student science achievement in Washington. Starting in 2010, students must pass the 10th-grade science WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning) to

earn a diploma. This year, a science assessment will be

required, for the first time, for students in fifth grade; last year,

tests were mandated at the eighth- and 10th-grade levels.

Through its efforts during the next five years, the partnership expects 90 percent of students in participating school

districts to meet or exceed the state science standards. And,

they’re forecasting other ambitious outcomes as well: 147

teacher-leaders will complete 360 hours of professional

development, another 1,000 teachers will receive 86 hours of

training, and 90 percent of teachers will use research-based

curriculum as intended. In addition, new science content and

methods courses will be in place at the university and community college levels and the number of preservice teachers

from underrepresented groups will double.

Behind all those numbers is a mission to fundamentally

change teachers’ ideas about science. “At the extreme, it’s a

movement away from thinking about science as a collection

of facts, vocabulary, and formulas into a deeper understanding of the whole nature of science: the use of evidence to

support ideas, a questioning of observations to make meaning of the natural world,” says Project Director Carolyn Landel. “It’s a real paradigm shift in terms of [moving from]

teaching science’s terms and words and descriptors to teaching a way of thinking and knowing and exploring the world.”

I

n Dottie Simpson’s classroom, the exploration of bubbles

has segued into an animated discussion of inquiry learning.

“Give a situation that gets [students’] curiosity going,”

Simpson exhorts the class. “Ultimately, you want them to ask

the questions. If you’re in the habit of telling them stuff,

instead of directing the questioning, then get over it!”

Simpson, a retired physics and math instructor who’s part

of the NCOSP faculty, gives the teachers plenty more advice:

Work on your “wait time” and don’t rush in to fill the gaps;

discourage questions that elicit one-word answers; emphasize the evidence for ideas and thoughtfulness about observations; ask “checking questions” to determine the class’s

thinking at the moment; and respect all students’ ideas. She

concedes that “you can’t use inquiry all the time—you have

to pick and choose.” But, by engaging the class in asking

questions, you can turn them into “active listeners” when the

lesson calls for a lecture. 

Sue Claypoole-Brooks, a Lynden middle school teacher

who’s been in the trenches for 18 years, comes away from the

session with renewed empathy for her seventh- and eighthgraders. “It’s so valuable for a teacher to become a student—

to reflect and grow from that,” she remarks. “I can start

thinking about what my kids are going through.”

That role reversal surfaces again and again as clusters of

teachers work their way through experiments with

magnets, electricity, and motion. For many, physics is a

foreign language—which is precisely why it was chosen as

the focus of the first academy.

“The most important thing we wanted our participants to

have was the opportunity to truly experience learning and

more deeply understand the process they’ve gone through to

help them develop new ideas and establish a deeper conceptual understanding of some fundamental ideas,” says Landel,

“It’s a real

paradigm shift

in terms of [moving

from] teaching science’s

terms and words and

descriptors to teaching a

way of thinking and

knowing and exploring

the world.”

—CAROLYN LANDEL
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 9

a former cancer researcher. “The more they understand

about their own learning, the more it helps us make that next

step to how their students learn.”

Landel strolls through a lab where teachers puzzle over the

effect of force on two different masses. Intense concentration

mixed with just a hint of frustration emanates from the

room. Michael Shapiro and John Lahey, two elementary

school teachers from Mt. Vernon, wonder if the way they’ve

distributed weight has something to do with how two small

containers move along a track. More tinkering and knitting

of brows follows this theory. Maybe, Shapiro speculates, the

position of a nearby fan is affecting their results.

Like their colleagues, Lahey and Shapiro are encouraged to

make predictions, figure out how to test them, observe the

results, come to conclusions, try new experiments, make

more observations, and modify their conclusions in a continuous cycle. It’s a constructivist approach where learners are

asked to examine their preconceptions and then construct

new, more accurate knowledge. 

The plan is that Lahey, Shapiro, and other “teacher-leaders” at the academy will return to their own schools and share

such constructivist, inquiry-based models with their peers.

The teacher-leaders will continue to receive training in summer academies and during the academic year. They’ll also be

able to tap into Western Washington’s resources and get support from higher education scientists and six full-time Teachers on Special Assignment (or TOSAs) who serve as liaisons

between the university and school districts.

Bainbridge Island was one school district that wasted

no time in sharing the lessons of the summer academy. The 4,000-student district sent nine teachers to

the NCOSP training. Joining them for a special one-day session were three high-level district administrators and 10

principals and assistant principals. It was the largest contingent of any district.

Associate Superintendent Faith Chapel says the experience was especially timely as Bainbridge Island prepares to

introduce an all new K–12 science curriculum this year. “It

was valuable for all our administrators, as they oversee implementation, to be on the same page as the teacher-leaders. As

a group, we had a chance to hear some of the critical messages about eliciting students’ thinking and activating prior

knowledge. Also, it meant a lot to our teachers that (administrators) felt it was important enough to attend.”

Just two weeks after the NCOSP gathering, Bainbridge

Island held its own professional development training with

materials from Western Washington. According to Chapel,

100 percent of the district’s high school science teachers and

90 percent of the middle school teachers were there. “It’s

changed the level of our conversation,” says Bainbridge

Island High School Principal Brent Peterson. “In a general

way, (NCOSP’s) brought more focus to the discussion.” 

Throughout classrooms in the Olympic Peninsula and

Whatcom and Skagit counties, the seeds planted by

NCOSP are beginning to take root and grow. At Mt.

Vernon High School, biology teacher and science department

chair Craig Harpel reports that he’s been working on his

questioning skills. He’s changing his instruction so there’s

more time to challenge individual students to think about

“what they know, what they think they know, and why they

think they know it.”

“This hasn’t been easy,” Harpel admits, especially in a

school where 44 percent of students qualify for free or

reduced-price lunch. “This approach with large class sizes

and very heterogeneous populations sometimes makes a

teacher feel like a Superball in a box being shaken by a very

unhappy gorilla. But under all the pressure there are those

frozen moments when a truly surprised student says, ‘Oh! I

get it!’ That makes me stop and think, ‘Oh! I get it, too!’” 

As for reaching low-achieving students and making those

“aha” moments bubble to the surface, “NCOSP doesn’t have

any illusions that this is going to be an easy process,” Harpel

believes. “But (it’s) convinced that with the application of

education research, engagement, and collaboration at all levels, as well as sufficient resources, this can and will happen. I

think they are right. ... If we don’t use the knowledge that is

out there to teach more effectively, we are going to fail our

students. It’s as simple as that.” ■

A MEETING OF MINDS

Photos © WWU Publishing Services/David Scherrer
10 nwrel.org/nwedu

CHARTING A 

NEW COURSE:

George Nelson and Science Education Reform

BELLINGHAM, Washington—George “Pinky” Nelson is a veteran of three space flights who’s spent 411 hours hurtling

through the far reaches of the universe. But if you ask the

former astronaut what his toughest mission has been, the

answer is firmly earthbound. Glancing around his small corner office at Western Washington University, he confesses,

“Actually this is the hardest thing I’ve ever tried to do—by

far.” This is overhauling how educators teach K–12 science

and how universities prepare them for that job (see preceding story, “A Meeting of the Minds”). The boyish-looking

Nelson, who holds a doctorate in astronomy and directed

Project 2061 for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, talked to Northwest Education Editor Rhonda

Barton about the importance of effective science education.

Q:

Reflecting on your own experience, what ignites a passion

for science?

From the time I was little kid—maybe four years

old—I wanted to be an astronomer. It was genetic, so I don’t

expect students to be like me. My interest in education comes

from going to lots of schools, seeing lots of kids, talking to

lots of people, and seeing the impact of their ignorance on

personal and political decisions. If our species is going to

maintain its standard of living and survive, it’s absolutely critically important that we have a foundation in science: just

like it was critically important to know how to read at the

turn of the 20th century. Prior to that, you didn’t have to have

a real understanding of learning or acquire new skills because

you could still have a job for life. That just isn’t true anymore. We don’t know what to teach our kids to be productive

10 years from now because we don’t know what jobs they’ll

do. We only know they won’t be the same ones we have

today. So, we need to teach people how to learn. 

What can good science education accomplish that other subjects can’t?

In schools, reading and writing tend to focus on the creative aspects—reading novels, developing expository materials, doing good creative writing—when in life, most of the

reading and writing we do is not fiction. It’s reading directions, writing instructions, and writing down ideas. In science,

there’s a big focus on communicating verbally and especially

on communicating precisely in writing. That’s an aspect that

science demands. So, by doing good science, we can add to

the language arts this component of learning to be precise.

And you can’t write precisely if you don’t think precisely.

What about training the mind to question and observe?

That’s a part of it: to develop these metacognitive skills, to

say “I observe something, do I really understand what I saw?

Does my mental model fit? Does it make sense? Do I have to

revise what I think about something?” That’s what science is

all about. Those thinking skills are what we’re trying to lead

our teachers through so they know they need to do the same

kind of thing with their students. A lot of people view science

as just learning vocabulary, formulas, and facts. Certainly you

have to do some of that, but that’s a small part of understanding how the scientific enterprise works and how we

learn about the world. 

One of the goals of the North Cascades and Olympic Science Partnership is to reach all learners and help them succeed in challenging

science curriculum that’s aligned with state standards. How do you

begin to achieve that lofty goal?

Slowly. I would claim today that 80 percent of the students

who graduate from high school know almost nothing about

science—probably a comparable percentage has similar math

skills. Five years out of school, they will have forgotten every

concept they learned. The 20 percent who do remember, I’m

not so worried about—they’re going to go on to college and

do more work. But those who don’t end up majoring in 
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 11

science or in engineering, the science they learned in high

school—because it was a collection of facts or algorithms—

will just fade away. They’re going to fall back on their preconceptions. They aren’t going to know why we have

seasons, why we have phases of the moon, how we know the

world is made up of atoms, or what evidence is. So, I’m really

interested in curriculum that focuses on reaching all students—not just the top 20 percent, but the forgotten majority who we’ve kind of written off in terms of really learning.

Our work with these teachers is focused on identifying

good curriculum and implementing it in a way that they’re

constantly monitoring the learning of all their students. As

you said, it’s a lofty goal, but I believe it’s possible. Not

tomorrow or the next day, but maybe many years down the

road. It can’t be done by individual teachers—that’s why it’s

a partnership. We have to create these teams of players—the

teachers in the schools, the university faculty, the communities—who are working together with the same notion. It’s the

good part of No Child Left Behind: We really don’t want to

leave any child behind. The community has to agree to that,

and it has to do the hard work necessary to achieve that goal.

Given the advances in scientific knowledge and technology, how do we

keep up or should we even worry about that?

Don’t worry about it. What we really want to know is how

does science work? What are some of the fundamental ideas?

At the national level, we’ve got that down pretty good. It isn’t

necessary to know what’s at the cutting edge. It’s the same

reason that we don’t worry about what’s at the cutting edge

of novels in English today or what’s at the cutting edge of

thinking about history or linguistics. We’re trying to give

people the literacy core, the basic understanding that will

allow them to read the newspaper, to appreciate an article

about what’s going on at the cutting edge, and to see if it

makes sense or not. I know what’s going on in my field of

astronomy ... barely. But I couldn’t tell you what’s at the cutting edge of geology or biology. I can read an article in the

newspaper and appreciate what’s going on. That’s the level

we want people to be at: to be able to understand statistical

claims about drugs, politicians’ arguments about environmental issues, or whatever to make an informed decision

about their personal life.

So, do you think in 50 years, good science teaching will look like it

does today?

Yeah. We’ll have learned a lot more, so it will look different in that respect because we’ll know more about how people learn, how to talk to people, and how to build good

curriculum. Cognitive science has really been coming along

in the last 20 years: We’re starting to understand some things

that are going to be enduring. ■

Read more about the North Cascades and Olympic Science Partnership at www.ncosp.smate.wwu.edu. The Web site includes a number

of literature reviews on topics such as new teacher support, teachers as

tutors, school leadership, and staff development.

“We’re trying to give people the literacy

core, the basic understanding that will

allow them to read the newspaper, to

appreciate an article about what’s going

on at the cutting edge (of science), and

to see if it makes sense or not.”

Photos © WWU Publishing Services/ David Scherrer
MEASURING UP

TO STANDARDS

Across the region, states hone their science standards and assessments.

BY MARILYN DEUTSCH

PORTLAND, Oregon—If physics is how things work, then the

physics of how students work and learn in Bonnie Magura’s

eighth-grade physical science class can be summed up in

these four words: motion, energy, thought, and creativity.

Magura rarely sits or stands behind her desk lecturing.

Rather, the 2003 Presidential Award Winner for Excellence in

Math and Science Teaching spends the bulk of her instructional time alongside her students teaching them how to “do”

science. Today, the lesson is on energy transfer and conversion: The students are building wind turbines based on their

own designs. 

While across the United States science educators are

feverishly grappling with the challenges, demands, and time

constraints of creating science standards and assessments

mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act, there is no such

panic in Oregon. NCLB requires states to have their science

standards in place next school year and to test students on

these standards by 2007–2008. Students must be tested at

least once in grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12.

Oregon adopted new science standards back in 2001,

although they’re frequently reviewed and revised in a continuing process of raising and rising expectations. Educators

in the state believe they’ve found a successful formula for

K–12 science education, based on the claims-evidence

approach to “inquiry-based” science.

INQUIRING MINDS 

Inquiry-based instruction is more than just hands-on learning. Proponents say this teaching approach encourages critical thinking. Before starting any scientific inquiry, teacher

and students write “claim statements.” For example, this is

the claim statement for the wind turbine project in Bonnie

Magura’s classroom:

“Energy cannot be created nor destroyed but only changed

from one form to another. Mechanical advantage plays a role

in how efficiently energy can be transferred or converted to

new forms.” 

12 nwrel.org/nwedu

Photo by Jostein Hauge
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 13
Teachers like Magura say the claim statement is key to students developing deep scientific understanding. The claim

gives students a concept to test and guides them as they collect and analyze their data. 

Dave Hamilton—who has taught science for 26 years—

has worked with teachers around the state on implementing

the claims-evidence approach. A teacher at Portland’s

Franklin High School, Hamilton says the claim statements

are “powerful because they anchor the entire investigation,”

so that students look for evidence that either supports or

refutes their claims. 

For teachers, inquiry-based science may require more upfront planning, but it is the only way Magura has ever taught.

She says, “You have to let go and let students struggle and do

it, fail, pick it up again, and do it ...” and in the process, help

them learn that it’s OK not to succeed the first time. Magura

provides the point-to-point checks that keep her students

focused and on track.

PUTTING INQUIRY TO THE TEST 

To find out how well Oregon science students are doing, the

state has devised two sets of tests. There’s the traditional

multiple-choice test given in fifth, eighth, and 10th grades

with both a paper-and-pencil format and a Web-based version. However, a second test defies traditional A, B, C, or D

answers. Students must submit work samples that demonstrate whether they can clearly and concisely pose a scientific

question, state their hypothesis, proceed with an experiment,

show data and results, graph tables, and reach a conclusion.

Work samples are scored on a scale of 1–6. A score of 4 meets

standards while scores of 5 and 6 exceed standards.

One work sample provided by a fifth-grader looking into

the nature of magnetism and magnets asks, “Does the edge of

a circular magnet have the same strength/magnetic force as

the north and south pole of that same magnet?” The student

hypothesizes that he doesn’t think the edge of the circular

magnet will be equal in force to the north and south magnet

poles. The question and hypothesis rate a “5” from the scorers because they’re stated clearly and show that the student

understands what he’s doing.

Another student looks into the relationship between sunlight and the growth of seeds, but never poses a clear question. Instead, the student writes, “For my question, I am

going to do sunlight and no sunlight.” This work sample

rates a “2.”

Teachers—not state testers—evaluate these samples, looking for a student’s understanding of science that goes beyond

content. Hamilton says, taken as a whole, Oregon’s assessment tests give teachers, students, and parents a “more complete picture of student achievement.”

But does this work? In the two years of testing, science

achievement has actually slipped a couple of percentage

points, from a high of 71 percent of fifth-graders meeting

and exceeding state standards in 2001–2002 down to 69 percent in 2003–2004. Eighth-graders and 10th-graders slipped

one percentage point to 58 percent and 59 percent, respectively. Oregon’s Science Assessment Specialist Aaron Persons

says with just two rounds of testing, there aren’t enough data

to draw any conclusions.

However, preliminary testing elsewhere across the nation

suggests that inquiry-based science teaching not only

improves students’ scientific knowledge, but also has other

benefits: Students who learn this way show marked

improvements in their reading and math scores.

Still, it is estimated that 80 percent of schools across the

United States take a more “textbook” or direct approach to

science instruction. And some researchers and educators

believe this more “direct style” of teaching is best suited for

complex science lessons. 

As NCLB focuses on science, the critical discussion will

continue over the best ways to teach science to elementary

and secondary school students: inquiry/discovery, the direct

approach, or a combination of both. In Oregon, however, the

road ahead is already charted. At West Salem High School in

Salem, Oregon, science teacher Steve Holman sums it up.

Science, he says, is “a process, where the critical thinking you

learn from science will stay with you longer than your ability

to recall the periodic table.”

For more on Oregon’s benchmarks and standards, see

www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/subjects/science/

standards/.

Around the region, the states are taking various

approaches to developing standards and assessments. Here’s

a brief round-up:

ALASKA

www.educ.state.ak.us/ContentStandards/Science.html

By spring 2005, Alaska’s Department of Education and Early

Development should give its stamp of approval to new science

content standards. Educators have come up with a two-page

draft that focuses on science as inquiry and knowledge. It lists

concepts every child should learn in the following areas:

• Physical, life, and earth sciences

• Science and technology

• History and nature of science

• Relationship of science to cultural/personal perspectives 14 nwrel.org/nwedu

Kate builds a wind turbine in Bonnie Magura’s eighth-grade class.

Photo by Marilyn Deutsch
Educators are now developing grade-level expectations.

Teachers are encouraged to use “inquiry-based” science but

that teaching approach is not mandated. Alaska favors local

control, so each district is responsible for its own curriculum

based on statewide standards. Currently, there are no

statewide science assessments although some of the state’s 53

local school districts do conduct their own tests. 

No decision has been made yet on how to assess these

standards for Alaska’s 135,000 public school students. Assessment Administrator Cathy Anderegg says Alaska is considering both multiple-choice and “constructed response” items

(short and/or long written answers) for the science assessment. Anderegg promises, though, that Alaska will meet the

2007–2008 NCLB assessment deadline.

IDAHO

www.sde.state.id.us/dept/standards.asp

Like Oregon, Idaho has had its science standards in place

since 2001. Carissa Miller, assessment program manager for

the Idaho State Board of Education, says the state is not

changing these standards in light of NCLB. But assessments

are another matter. 

The state has contracted with Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) to come up with a 64-question, computerdriven multiple-choice test.

State Science Coordinator Kevin Collins explains that a lot

of work has gone into “filtering” the state standards and

deciding which ones to test. Given that it takes a minimum

of six questions to determine if a student has mastered an

individual standard, Idaho will only be able to test 10 standards. Collins was given the gargantuan task of identifying

those 10 “power standards” that were so important they had

to be tested and that were used by NWEA to come up with a

blueprint for the state assessments. Teams of Idaho teachers

drafted questions on the power standards that will be used in

the assessments, along with questions already in NWEA’s

item bank.

Idaho plans to test students two or three times a year. In

the fall, they’ll be given a “levels” test that works like this: If

a student answers a question correctly, the computer will

then ask the student a tougher question—and on and on—

until the tester gets a good idea of the limits of the child’s

knowledge. In the spring, students will take a blended test

with 40 questions that conform to NCLB reporting requirements and another 24 levels-type questions. 

Miller says “performance-based tests” such as Oregon’s

work samples are expensive and difficult to do, and she questions the reliability of those assessments.

It’s a “give and take,” she says. Idaho educators think their

computerized multiple-choice test will give teachers information they need on each child’s progress quickly, and teachers can use the results prescriptively to guide instruction.

MONTANA

www.opi.state.mt.us/pdf/Standards/ContStds-Science.pdf 

Montana’s current science standards were developed prior to

the passage of NCLB as part of a comprehensive effort by the

Board of Public Education and the Office of Public Instruction (OPI) to ensure a comprehensive alignment of state standards and assessments, and district curricula, assessments, and

instruction. In the first phase of the project, K–12 content and

performance standards were developed for all the curricular

areas, including science. Benchmarks were designed at three

grade levels—fourth, eighth, and upon graduation—to measure progress toward meeting those standards.

According to Judy Snow, the state assessment director at

OPI, the process gave districts and schools the opportunity to

participate in a local dialogue—both in the education community and the community at large—to determine the

essential learning for students at each grade level to meet

state benchmarks and standards. “It was designed to promote

and ensure the development of local curriculum that would

be aligned to the state standards,” Snow says.

Montana then moved to align the standards with statewide

assessments, mandating that districts use the Iowa Tests in

grades four, eight, and 11. Acknowledging that Iowa Tests are

limited in measuring how students apply their skills, Montana

is now in the process of developing a criterion-referenced test

(CRT). Snow says that with the passage of NCLB, the timeline for accomplishing that task has been accelerated. The

reading and math components have been developed and were

used for the first time in grades four, eight, and 10 in spring

2004. The science component is now under construction. 

The state has contracted with Measured Progress of New

Hampshire to help develop the CRT. The company has

Aligning Assessment and Standards

States across the country are scrambling to develop assessments, yet there’s little guidance in this difficult process. As

Project 2061 of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), points out, there is “no useful synthesis of the latest thinking on assessment, much less

practical advice on how to judge alignment of assessment

with learning goals.”

Project 2061—named for the year when Halley’s Comet

will be visible on earth again—is now engaged in developing

such guidance. With a grant from the National Science Foundation, Project 2061 is drafting criteria and an analysis procedure for judging alignment. 

In an earlier publication—Blueprints for Reform: Science,

Mathematics, and Technology Education—AAAS set out the

following general recommendations for assessments:

• Include different techniques

• Encourage students to go beyond memorizing facts

• Include problem-solving opportunities 

For more, see www.project2061.org/research/assessment.htm

MEASURING UP TO STANDARDS

NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 15

See STANDARDS, page 39

PUTTING

PHYSICS 

FIRST

An award-winning Idaho teacher 

explains why students should start 

their high school education with physics.

STORY AND PHOTOS BY DENISE JARRETT WEEKS

BOISE, Idaho—The first place Larry Neznanski ever held class

was underneath Lake Superior in the 1960s. He was in a copper mine, with the lake bed hundreds of feet above, when he

found himself sharing a lunch hour with a group of seasoned

electricians. They worked for the White Pine Copper Company, a massive mining and smelting operation that included

its own power plant.

The industrial compound was beautiful to Neznanski’s

eyes. He’d just finished the undergraduate program at Michigan Technological University in electrical engineering and

would be heading to graduate school at Purdue University at

the end of the summer. Until then, White Pine had given

him a summer job.

He remembers that day when a bunch of electricians

stood around eating and began asking him questions. They

were interested in this budding engineer, a kid really, and

they struck up a conversation with him, asking about the science behind the electricity that they worked with every day.

“Guys were always asking about transistors and things,

and they’d say, ‘Well, we know how to use this stuff, but we

don’t know how it works.’ So I thought, ‘Well, I know how it

works.’ So I took out some of my texts and started putting

stuff together. I’d go down there and these guys would be

eating sandwiches, and I’d have my little board and I’d start

teaching solid state physics. They loved it. So I did it for a

whole summer.”

From briefing room to classroom

After that summer, Neznanski went on to earn a master’s

then a doctoral degree in electrical engineering from Purdue

and followed that with a high-flying military career in Cold

War technology. It was thrilling and demanding, the life of a

suitcase jock who researched, designed, built, and monitored

satellite and missile systems for the United States Air Force.

But 25 years after teaching those electricians in the mine,

Neznanski found himself once again using his lunch hour to

teach in an unlikely place: the physics lab at Boise’s Bishop

Kelly High School, Idaho’s only Catholic high school.

It was 1990, and it seemed he’d stepped directly from the

briefing room to the classroom. Still in his 40s, Neznanski

had retired that spring as an Air Force lieutenant colonel, just

as the Cold War was ending. By fall, he and his family had

moved from Los Angeles to Boise and he was teaching

physics and math, and coaching football at Bishop Kelly, or

BK as it’s known here.

That year, the Idaho legislature had passed a law providing

an alternate route to teacher certification for industry professionals who wanted to go into teaching. Neznanski was the

first to go through the program and BK snapped up his application, willing to take a risk that this military man would be

a good addition to the faculty. Neznanski launched into his

second career, calling himself a “retread” and soaking up all

that he could from his teaching mentor, Henry Krewer, a

much-loved chemistry and physics teacher at BK.

When Krewer retired, Neznanski inherited the physics

lab. In short order, his lunchtime lessons began. The room

would be empty at that time of day but for a clutch of inquisitive students and “Doc Nez,” as the students had dubbed

him. They’d be huddled at the blackboard or around one of

the tables, talking about optics or thermal dynamics, or probing the incongruities of electromagnetism—things not normally covered in such depth in the regular physics course.

Neznanski sensed that these kids, many not necessarily 

NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 17
18 nwrel.org/nwedu

academic stars, could go much farther than the basics. So, he

made an open invitation: Any student who wanted to plumb

the deeper mysteries of how the world works could come to

Room 17 at the lunch hour.

Physics first

Today, 15 years later, Neznanski teaches physics from first to

last bell. He no longer teaches math or coaches football.

Instead, in addition to teaching regular physics, he parlayed

that lunchtime class, which he led for four years, into a twoyear Advanced Placement physics course. And he persuaded

his science colleagues—not to mention the BK administration—that conceptual physics needed to be taught to freshmen, before they study chemistry and biology. So,

Neznanski—who was named a Micron Outstanding Science

Teacher in 2003 and was selected the American Physical

Society Distinguished Physics Teacher from Idaho in 1999—

now teaches three levels of high school physics, and the

number of physics students has gone from 14 to 125.

Creating the conceptual physics course for ninth-graders

was a radical change to the curriculum. (Freshmen are now

required to take either conceptual physics or earth science.)

Neznanski was midway through the school year in

1993–1994 when he got the idea, and by fall he was teaching

it. Credit the lightning-speed progress to willing colleagues,

a private school’s relative freedom to make curricular

changes, and to one Paul G. Hewitt, says Neznanski.

Paul G. Hewitt is a retired physics professor whose widely

used textbook Conceptual Physics promotes teaching physics to

all students—not just to the top achievers—and teaching it

earlier. Hewitt’s views validated something Neznanski knew

to be true from his own experience but that is still under-recognized in education: An understanding of basic physics

ideas should form the foundation for studying chemistry and

biology. In fact, some say the traditional sequence of teaching

first biology, then chemistry, then physics has it backward.

It’s long been believed that students need advanced algebra and calculus skills to do physics, but Hewitt, as well as

such prominent physicists as Leon M. Lederman—a Nobel

laureate who supports the “physics first” movement—

believes that the basic laws of nature can be learned with

minimal mathematical foundation.

As Hewitt tells students in the opening pages of his textbook, “Physics is about the rules of nature—so beautifully

elegant that it can be neatly described mathematically. That’s

why many physics courses are treated as applied mathematics. But introductory physics that emphasizes computation

misses something essential—comprehension—a gut feeling for

the concepts.” 

Neznanski puts it this way: “It makes little sense to teach

biology, chemistry, and then physics. Biology is the most

complex of the sciences; it’s the study of life. And we are

chemical-based life forms, so you want students to understand physics and chemistry before studying biology.

“Chemistry is essentially the study of chemical bonding,

but the forces and the atomic stuff behind that is pure

physics. If you understand forces, it’s easier to understand

why particular atoms or molecules will bond the way they

do. ... If you understand vectors then you understand something about forces and that they have directions, and that will

help you understand chemistry.”

Guy Hudson teaches chemistry at BK. Before going back

to college to earn a teaching degree, he worked as a scientist

with Micron Technology in Boise. He says, “What I notice is

that the kids who have taken Nez’s class in conceptual

physics, and have done reasonably well in there, are more

prepared for my class because they’re used to a little more

critical thinking. They can relate several concepts and put

them together, which is really the crux of chemistry. It’s a

really good prep course for those kids.”

Taking physics before and concurrently with courses in

algebra, precalculus, and calculus creates a wonderful synergy between the science and the math, says calculus teacher

Wendy Dalrymple. As part of her graduate work in mathematics, she took several courses in physics, and she and Neznanski feel particularly in synch, regularly reinforcing the

concepts each is teaching in their classrooms.

“The kids that have had conceptual physics and then go on

to take further physics and are taking the math that goes with

that ... seem to have a bigger curiosity about how math works.

Not to just find the number answer, but why something

occurs,” she says. “Especially in calculus, if I can do a physics

problem and show them a method to find a number answer,

and then show them the math, then we get to meld our disciplines together, and that’s what works. Absolutely, it makes

you a better math student to practice and have applications.”

Physics for all

Not only are the kids who are taking physics at BK these days

more diverse in their academic abilities, but also in gender.

There are more girls participating than ever before. Fortyfive percent of this year’s entire freshmen class has elected to

take Neznanski’s conceptual physics course. Fifty percent of

them are girls. While this is significant progress in getting

more girls into this boy-dominated subject, girls’ participation dips as the courses get more advanced. In regular

physics, 30 percent of the students are girls, and in AP

physics, that number drops to about 20 percent. Neznanski

has observed that girls are often more interested in pursuing

advanced biology than physics, but he can point to more than

a few who have pursued physics and even gone on to study

engineering in college.

And both boys and girls can be enthusiastic advocates for

physics, and they struggle and triumph equally.

“I really don’t like math and science usually,” says Lilly, a

freshman. “It’s really not my thing. But physics is not so

much a science and a math as a way of understanding ... what

happens [in everyday life]. So I think it’s really interesting

because it can be applied to almost anything. I can take this
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 19

and make it more advanced into chemistry and biology and

all those other more complex sciences. Physics is, I think, a

really good basic building block.”

Roland is also a freshman this year. He doesn’t consider

himself a “science whiz” like his older brother, so he was surprised to find just how much fun physics could be in Doc

Nez’s class.

“When I came here I just got the crap kicked out of me. I

mean, I did horrible at first, but once Doc kind of started to

explain it, it got a lot easier. I like it a lot. I think it’s really fun.

He makes it so that something you see everyday, he compares

it to that. Like we’re doing atoms right now [and] he’s kind

of comparing it to planets and stuff like that. So it makes it a

lot easier.”

One thing’s for sure, these students are beginning to see

their world very differently.

“Everything else in life used to be simple!” says freshman

Laura. “Everything’s more complicated now because he just

makes me think more.”

Peter, an upperclassman, agrees, and tells an anecdote that

sends him and his classmates into fits of laughter: “Rachel

and I went to see the Nutcracker and for the first half of the

ballet they were doing their dances, and I was thinking, ‘OK,

the center of mass is over their footprint. Their dresses are

coming up because of differences in pressure—Bernoulli’s

Principle.’ She leans over and says, ‘Hey Peter, look: rotational inertia.’ ‘Yep, I been thinking of that the entire play!’

Three years of physics ruins ballet, watch out!”

Science Olympiad

By turning the “regular kid” on to physics, Neznanski has

helped to generate a lot of excitement about science in this

school of some 600 students. About 45 students compete

every year in the Science Olympiad, and five teachers and

some steadfast parents devote considerable time coaching

and traveling with them to competitions. Neznanski started

the program at BK 11 years ago, and BK students have won

the state competition nearly every year. When they make it to

the national competition, they are frequent medalists and

they were awarded the Spirit Trophy in 2002. Last year, the

BK team brought home four national medals. 

While some schools that participate in Science Olympiad

recruit only the kids with high SAT scores, he says, “they’re

missing the kid in the middle, and they’re the ones who need

it the most. What I was looking for was something that an

average kid could do that would turn them on to science. I’m

not looking for your top students only. I don’t care if a student is a hellion or has D’s. I just want someone who’s interested. They may not get A’s, but they won’t quit once they see

they belong somewhere.”

He continues: “The thing that makes a great scientist is

that single-minded, total persistence and incredible dedication to work. Being able to do that hard work and do good

science over many, many years and stay with it is not 

PUTTING PHYSICS FIRST

See PHYSICS, page 39

In “Doc Nez’s” second-period physics class, students gather for a quick group photo before breaking into teams to do an activity involving centripetal force.
FRANKLIN STAHL—

Construct Your Own Hurdles

James Watson was chatting with Francis Crick and some colleagues, when

he pointed out the window, toward a

lawn across the street, where one of his

new summer students was mixing,

selling, and drinking gin and tonics.

“See that,” he said, “That’s Frank Stahl.

He thinks he’s pretty hot stuff.”

The year before, Watson and Crick

had published their seminal paper on

the replication of DNA. That summer,

in 1954, Watson and Crick were visiting researchers at the Woods Hole Laboratory in Massachusetts. Watson was

teaching a physiology course, and the

young man across the street, Franklin

“Frank” Stahl, was his new student.

Watson continued, “Why don’t we give

him a really tough experiment and see

what he can do with it?”

“The poor guy,” thought Matthew

Meselson, who was working as Watson’s assistant and was standing with

the group. He wondered, “Who was this

student who had caught the eye of the worldfamous Watson and Crick, and why would

they want to throw him such a ‘hot potato?’”

So Meselson decided to go down and

meet Stahl. The two struck up a conversation about Watson and Crick’s

new theory on the proposed double

helix structure of DNA, and the possibility of designing an experiment to

learn how DNA replicates.

Previous ground-breaking studies

had focused on organisms such as garden peas, fruit flies, and mice. Stahl

became interested in bacterial viruses.

With a countable number of atoms,

bacterial viruses demonstrate all the

basics of genetics, such as mutation,

replication, and recombination. “People said it was just a fad, not something

for professional biologists to study,”

recounts Stahl. His advisors told him

there was no future in microbiology.

“It wasn’t just unexplored, but flat out

denied,” Stahl insists. “I saw a door. It

wasn’t clear to many, but it was to me.”

Though Watson and Crick had

cracked open the door with their landmark 1953 paper on the structure of

DNA, the double helix model did not

gain wide acceptance until Stahl and

Meselson published the results of their

experiment in 1958. Their experiment

gave physical validity to a model that

many scientists saw as speculation.

Today, the double helix is an internationally recognized symbol of modern

science. For his lifetime of work in

DNA research, Stahl was awarded a

MacArthur Fellowship, also known as

a “genius award.” 

“The whole point of science is to

overthrow conventional understanding

to reach a deeper understanding,”

states Stahl, now an emeritus professor

of biology at the University of Oregon.

Reflecting back on his career, he has

some strong advice for today’s students: “Pursue your interests without

regard to what others think you should

do. Construct your own hurdles and

jump them, rather than the ones placed

in front of you. Question a teacher to

the point you can understand a concept

in your own terms. If you don’t understand, keep questioning.”

Stahl feels teachers can help start the

process by getting students to ask questions. If he could offer one piece of

advice to today’s teachers, it would be to

show students the experiments that fell

apart, not just the successes. “The failed

ideas are valid,” he says. “Many failed

ideas sounded promising when they

were put forth. An experiment showing

that a ‘good’ idea was, in fact, wrong

frees us to look for a better one.”

Igniting the Spark

BY IAN MCCLUSKEY

What lessons can we learn from outstanding scientists in our region? The path to a career in science—and even a Nobel Prize—is often guided by a curious nature, the ability to seek out challenges, and willing mentors—with a dash of serendipity. Some leading Northwest researchers

share their stories and suggestions for teaching tomorrow’s scientists.

20 nwrel.org/nwedu
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 21

LINDA BUCK—

Encourage Obsessions

When Linda Buck’s pet hamster died,

the young girl buried it. She then tried

to dig it back up to “see what it looked

like.” When her cat miscarried, she

fetched her microscope from the basement. “I was always curious,” the 57-

year-old scientist explains. 

Her father, an electronics engineer,

was always trying to get his three girls

to put down their dolls and build toy

motors, operate amateur radios, and

learn Morse Code. Her mother was a

homemaker who loved puzzles, especially crosswords. Not surprisingly,

Buck is known today for her analytical

skills. “My mother used to complain I

had a one-track mind,” Buck recalls.

When Linda Buck was a teenager,

she knew she wanted to help people,

but she didn’t know if science was the

way to achieve that goal. When she

graduated from Seattle’s Roosevelt

High School in 1965, her high school

biology teacher wrote in her yearbook

that she would make a “fine biologist

one day.”

Little did that teacher know how

prescient her prediction was: This past

December, Buck flew to Sweden to

receive a 2004 Nobel Prize in the category of physiology or medicine. Buck,

along with her colleague Richard Axel,

has helped unlock the science of smell.

In 1991, Buck—who was then a

postdoctoral fellow working in Axel’s

laboratory—discovered a family of

genes that encode the odorant receptors of the olfactory epithelium, a patch

of cells on the wall of the nasal cavity.

Made up of some five million olfactory

neurons, the olfactory epithelium

sends messages directly to the brain,

where they are processed as distinct

scents, tastes, emotions, and memories.

The discriminatory power of the olfactory system is immense; even a slight

change in the structure of an odorant

can alter its perceived odor, for example, from a hibiscus flower to sea salt. 

Instead of hunting for the receptor

proteins directly, Axel and Buck looked

for genes that contained instructions

for proteins found only in the olfactory

epithelium. Their efforts produced

nothing at first. Finally, Buck came up

with what Axel calls “an extremely

clever twist.” She made three assumptions that drastically narrowed the

field, allowing her to zero in on a

group of genes that appear to code for

the odorant receptor proteins. 

Based on scattered evidence from

other labs, Buck made the decision to

narrow her search to a family of proteins called G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Making use of a

recently developed gene amplification

technology, Buck then decided to conduct an exhaustive search for GPCRs

in the olfactory epithelium. Further

analysis narrowed the search to one

candidate and Buck had found precisely what she had been looking for.

Buck’s cut-to-the-chase instincts obviated the need to sort through thousands of genes and, according to Axel,

“saved several years of drudgery.”

“I had tried so many things and had

been working so hard for years, with

nothing to show for it,” explains Buck,

who is a member of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and an

affiliate professor at the University of

Washington in Seattle. “So when I

finally found the genes in 1991, I

couldn’t believe it! None of them had

ever been seen before. They were all

different but all related to each other.

That was very satisfying.”

Having persisted in her quest to

unlock the secret of scent for so many

years, Buck tells students: “Pick a

problem that you’re extremely interested in. That sounds kind of simplistic

maybe, but it’s not, because you don’t

want to just do a problem because it’s

easy to solve, you want to do something that you’re obsessed with, that

you just have to understand.” 

Since making the first discovery in

the olfactory epithelium, Buck has

unlocked the complex mapping of the

olfactory balls and the olfactory cortex—at each step, placing one more

piece in a larger, more complex puzzle.

She’s been pursuing the path of scent

and perception for the past 16 years,

and says she’s “just scratched the surface” so far. 

“That’s where the joy comes from,”

says Buck, “and that also, I think, is

where the great discoveries come

from—from people who are really trying to figure out things that they don’t

understand. And they don’t necessarily

know how to do it, but they try very

hard and then they succeed.” ■

Meet cancer researcher Grover Bagby,

marine biologist Brenda Konar, microbiologist Peter von Hippel, and nurse-scientist

Jeanne Quint Benoliel in the Web exclusive.

Igniting the Spark: Another Look
The three R’s—relationships, rigor, and relevance—

help two Montana science teachers triumph 

in the difficult middle school years.

22
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 23

EAST HELENA and GREAT FALLS, Montana—The news hasn’t been good. In

1999, results of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study

(TIMSS) showed U.S. eighth-graders

not only lagging behind their international peers, but also scoring poorly in

relation to U.S. fourth-graders. Many

critics began to speak of a middle

school “dip”—a downturn in student

achievement that begins in the middle

school years and leads to further struggles at the secondary and postsecondary

levels. William H. Schmidt, a professor

of education at Michigan State University and the U.S. research coordinator

for TIMSS, was particularly critical,

claiming that “the middle school is the

crux of the whole problem and really

the point where we begin to lose it.” In

a comment sure to raise the hackles of

most middle school teachers, Schmidt

called the middle grades “an intellectual

wasteland” when it comes to challenging math and science curriculum.

The results of the most recent

TIMSS (now called the Trends in

International Mathematics and Science

on students’ needs we have failed to

challenge them academically. These

critics often call for wholesale grade

reconfiguration and the abandonment

of what they see as a “warm and fuzzy,”

child psychology–based approach in

favor of more academic rigor. Finding a

balance between these two opposing

viewpoints continues to be at the center

of the middle school debate.

As M. Hayes Mizell, the director of

the Program for Student Achievement

at the Clark Foundation, observed,

“People seem not to be able to hold

those two concepts in their minds and

in their practice simultaneously.” Until

we learn to do so, he implied, we will

fall short of meeting either goal.

Other criticisms of the current system are less philosophical and more

pragmatic. Teacher certification programs, for instance, are a frequent target. In many states, preservice

programs are designed for K–8 or 6–12

certification. Few are designed to prepare teachers for the specific content

knowledge and teaching strategies

Study), conducted in 2003, showed

some improvement in eighth-grade

science scores, but U.S. students continue to trail behind their peers in most

other industrial countries. Despite

encouraging signs, middle schools still

find themselves the focus of intense

scrutiny and criticism.

Looking for Answers

Researchers, educators, and parents

agree that the middle school years are a

crucial time in a student’s life and can

often determine future academic performance. Research has shown that

most students who lose interest in

math and science do so at the middle

school level, which is typically the first

time they are exposed to higher level

thinking skills and abstract concepts. 

Why so many are failing to make the

transition, and what can be done to

improve the situation, is less conclusive. Some observers focus on the

unique social and psychological needs

of middle school students and our persistent inability to meet those needs.

Others claim that by focusing too much

in the

MIDDLE

STORY AND PHOTOS BY BRACKEN REED
24 nwrel.org/nwedu

needed to be successful in the typical

grade 6–8 middle school. As a result,

middle school math and science classes

are often taught by teachers with elementary certification who may be

unfamiliar with the course curriculum

and uncomfortable working with this

challenging age group.

Meanwhile, teachers often speak of

the dearth of professional development

opportunities at the middle school level

and of a perceived lack of respect or

prestige for middle school teachers,

who are often treated as somehow inferior to their high school counterparts. 

High-Quality Teachers

In the midst of this soul-searching and

finger pointing, one state has gained

attention for its success. Every five

years the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) includes a

science assessment of fourth-, eighth-,

and 12th-grade students. On the 2000

NAEP, the state of Montana had the

highest eighth-grade science scores in

the nation. 

With a high poverty rate and predominantly rural population, Montana

faces the same problems as many other

states, including severe budget cuts and

a shortage of highly qualified teachers.

For Montana, however, this last concern is deceptive. If a single factor

stands out as the driving force behind

the state’s success in middle school science, it is its wealth of dedicated and

knowledgeable teachers, many of

whom, paradoxically, fail to meet the

federal requirements of a “highly qualified” teacher as defined by the No

Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). 

Alyson Mike is an eighth-grade science teacher at East Valley Middle

School in East Helena. In the past three

years Mike has had a flurry of recognition: In 2002 she was a Presidential

Award winner; in 2003 she received

one of Montana’s two $25,000 Milken

National Educator awards; and in 2004

she was the Montana Teacher of the

Year and was awarded an I CAN LearnNEA Foundation Award for Teaching

Excellence. Ironically, Mike would not

be considered a highly qualified

teacher were it not for her national

board certification.

“I have a biology degree,” says Mike,

“but I only have minors in chemistry

and physics. Under NCLB I would be

considered unqualified because I don’t

have majors in those areas.” As Mike

sees it, there is a definite need for

teachers with content area knowledge

at the middle school level, but to say

that everybody has to have a major in

any field they teach is stretching the

spirit of the law beyond the breaking

point. “When I started out I taught

biology, chemistry, physics, and sometimes earth science, too,” says Mike.

“Well, where are you going to find people who have four majors and then are

willing to start at a $22,000-a-year job

in Circle, Montana?”

Two hours to the north, at East

Middle School in Great Falls, Mike’s

friend and colleague Beth Thomas is

another example of a highly qualified

teacher who challenges the literal

interpretation of the term. Thomas has

been teaching middle school science

since 1993 and is also a Presidential

Award winner and 2003 Montana Science Teacher of the Year. But, similar to

Mike, she might not be considered a

highly qualified teacher based solely on

her educational training.

“When I went into education I was

told that a general science or ‘broadfield’ degree was the way to go in Montana, particularly if you wanted to work

in a rural setting,” says Thomas. “They

said that if you wanted to teach you

shouldn’t get too specific because you

could be teaching the whole gamut,

from seventh grade to high school. I

still think that’s very appropriate for

middle school, with the integrated

types of curriculum that we see.”

A Shared Philosophy

What Mike and Thomas have in common goes far beyond nitpicking interpretations of the No Child Left Behind

Act. The two met several years ago at a

Montana Education Association conference and discovered that they shared

a common approach to teaching and a

similar temperament. Both are highenergy, motivated, passionate teachers

who manage to find the balance that

Mizell believes is missing in so many

middle school educators: They challenge their students academically while

also being supportive, warm, and caring adult role models for them. They

love science, have a deep understanding of their curriculum, and never stop

trying to find fun and engaging ways to

present it to their students. At the same

time, they love working with middle

school students. From their first meeting, Mike and Thomas recognized

these qualities in each other. As the

Beth Thomas
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 25

years have passed, they’ve continued to

stay in contact, exchanging e-mails and

meeting up at conferences, sharing lesson plans and advice. 

In person, Mike and Thomas are

both as different and as similar as East

Helena and Great Falls. A visitor to

their separate classrooms will notice

subtle differences in approach, emphasis, and classroom environment, but

the overwhelming impression is that

their similarity as teachers extends

beyond a shared philosophy and down

to the nitty-gritty of everyday teaching

strategies. Both are award-winning

teachers for a reason. Both could, and

do, serve as model teachers.

A Personal Approach

Both Thomas and Mike are adamant

about taking a personal approach to

teaching. As Thomas says, “With all my

students, one thing I think is critical is

to let them know you care about them.

I try to get to know them—their interests, backgrounds, family situations. If

they know you care, they will work for

you and they will behave for you. It’s

essential to their success.” 

Mike admits that such a personal

approach can be difficult to sustain

“when you run 130 kids through your

classroom everyday,” but she has built

in small strategies for making one-toone connections with her students. “I

try to connect with every kid, every

day,” she says. “I use notebooks and

other things so that they have to come

talk to me at least once during the class

period. That way, even if it’s just a

‘great, now go do this’ kind of thing, at

least we’ve made a small connection.

There are days that the nature of the

lesson just doesn’t lend itself to it, but

I really try to do that every day. Otherwise there are just too many kids that

get lost in the shuffle.”

Another approach that both teachers

are passionate about is making science

relevant to their students’ lives.

“You’ve got to teach for meaning,” says

Thomas. “You’ve got to find a way to

make it connect to their lives or else it’s

like, who cares? I wouldn’t care if I

didn’t think something connected to

my life in some meaningful way.”

For Mike, this often includes drawing on the immediate surroundings. “I

think a subject can be especially meaningful if you can tie it in to something

local,” she says. “It can be something

that’s going on in town or something

about the local landscape.” An example, she says, is the local lead smelter

that until recently was the lifeblood of

the East Helena community. “That’s

played in so well to some of things

we’ve done,” says Mike. “We’ve talked

about the different elements and so

we’ve talked about sodium metal, and

then we’ve got two railroad cars of

sodium metal sitting just up the road.

The kids get curious, and that’s what

science is about: being curious about

the world around you.”

Encouraging curiosity is at the heart

of the inquiry-based approach that

both Mike and Thomas espouse. It’s an

approach that requires patience, they

both counsel, and it does not always

show immediate results on a typical

standardized test. “If you’re going to do

true inquiry,” says Mike, “you give

them guidance, but you don’t answer

things for them. It’s more like, ‘Well, I

don’t know, see what you think, try it

out.’ Kids can get very frustrated with

that. And for a teacher, it’s a different

way of doing things. Let’s face it, most

teachers like to have control, and

inquiry is much less controlled, much

less structured.” 

“It’s a process,” Thomas says about

inquiry-based instruction. “It’s something that you weave continually

throughout every lesson that you

teach. It doesn’t always have to be a

full-blown inquiry-based activity or

project, although you certainly want to

do those. But it’s more about a continual process—continually engaging students in their own learning.”

“The ultimate goal is that you create

a scientifically literate group of people,

right?” Mike asks rhetorically. “And the

only way you do that is to have them

think through ideas for themselves.”

For both Mike and Thomas, the

beauty of teaching middle school–age

students is that their minds are still

open and their curiosity and enthusiasm are still intact. “I really believe that

this is an age group where you can

make more impact than with any

other,” says Mike. “They’re still at an

age where they want to get excited

about things and they’re willing to

show that. They’re very curious about

things.”

“It’s a critical time to hook them on

science,” Thomas agrees. “For some of

them, with certain topics, you can just

see the lightbulbs go on, and that’s very

powerful. That’s what it’s all about.” ■

IN THE MIDDLE

Alyson Mike
26 nwrel.org/nwedu

Science on

ICE

Fractures in the ice at the Anvil City Science Academy pond in Nome.
A far-flung network

of teachers and 

students helps a 

university researcher

track lake ice and

climatic change

throughout Alaska

By Rhonda Barton

FAIRBANKS, Alaska—Tim Buckley totes a shotgun when he takes his ninthgrade general science students out to do fieldwork once a week in Barrow,

Alaska. “I’d be a damn fool not to take a gun with me and parents would be

upset,” says Buckley. After all, his students are engaged in measuring lake ice

and snow at Imikpuk Lake, a mere 100 meters from the Arctic Ocean and

from polar bear habitat.

To the southwest, Todd Hindman’s middle school students are also observing and collecting data on snow and ice. They climb aboard their snowmachines for the half-mile ride to their study site: an old gold mining dredge

pond near the original claim that started Nome’s gold rush back in 1899. 

Far to the southeast, Marc Swanson’s sixth-graders are participating in the

same research project at Seward’s Bear Lake. But their data look different. It

turns out that Seward’s milder maritime climate produces lake ice that’s

almost as thick as Nome’s, but it grows upward instead of downward. That’s

because of “overflow,” standing water on top of the ice that eventually freezes.

All three teachers are part of the widely scattered Alaska Lake Ice and Snow

Observatory Network or ALISON. They’re using their own backyard as a laboratory for rigorous scientific exploration that holds important clues to the

variability of Alaska’s lake ice and winter climate. From Barrow, Nome, and

Seward to Poker Flat, Denali, and Shageluk, students are mastering scientific

procedures and instruments to determine how much heat flows out of the

state’s lakes through the blanket of snow and ice. Best of all, the information

they’re gathering is part of a genuine research project—funded by the

National Science Foundation, the International Arctic Research Center, and

the University of Alaska—that could help predict the effects of future climatic

change.

Photos by (left) Martin Jeffries, (right) Marc Swanson

NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 27
28 nwrel.org/nwedu

POLAR EXPLORERS

At the hub of ALISON is Martin Jeffries, research professor

of geophysics at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Though

Jeffries grew up in Northern England, he’s spent most of his

professional life in close encounters with glaciers, ice shelves,

icebergs, and sea ice. A map of Antarctica looms above the

desk in his orderly office on the UAF campus, while skinny

snow probes lean like pickup sticks against the wall.

In October, just as Alaska starts to freeze up, Jeffries begins

his travels to the 14 schools that comprise the ALISON network. He helps each teacher set up an observatory at a nearby

lake or pond: A 100-meter line of wooden stakes, spaced

every five meters, marks the sampling and measuring transect

for the rest of the winter. In the months to come, teachers

will visit the sites—sometimes weekly—with their students,

measuring the depth of the snow, the snow density, the temperature at the bottom and top of the snow cover, and the ice

thickness. 

Jeffries reaches around and grabs one of the probes,

demonstrating. “We have a snow probe with a metric tape on

the outside—it’s 1.2 meters—that gets pushed into the snow

to the ice surface so you can read the snow depth,” he

explains. “On the bottom, in a metal tip, there’s a

thernistor—basically an electronic thermometer—that

allows you to measure the temperature down there.”

Using samples and data collected at 21 points along the

transect, students calculate the temperature gradient, or the

rate of change in temperature, as well as the thermal conductivity of the snow. Multiplying the two numbers gives you

the conductive heat flow: the amount of heat that comes out

of the ice and snow and escapes into the atmosphere. The

information, meticulously entered into spreadsheets, is sent

to Jeffries at the Geophysical Institute. It’s checked and

posted online (at www.gi.alaska.edu/alison) so all the sites

can compare results.

Jeffries stresses that ALISON partners are contributing to

a lake ice database that has long-term value—especially at a

time when the consequences of environmental change are

being observed throughout Alaska and the Arctic. “We didn’t

create a set of measurements just because it was something

(students and teachers) could do. They really are scientifically useful,” he emphasizes. “Lake ice has tended to be kind

of an orphan in terms of scientific interest and support. We’ve

set out to try to change that.” 

The data document how lake ice thickness is changing

now; they also help researchers test computer models to predict what might happen in the future. Already the students’

measurements are challenging some assumptions. So far, says

Jeffries, he’s seeing less variability in ice thickness around the

state than he anticipated.

BUILDING ON

“It was a surprise for me and Martin how different our data

were than expected,” says Marc Swanson, who recently retired

from Seward Elementary but remains active in the project.

“We got meter-thick ice, despite Seward’s warmer climate.

When our kids realized they were competing with Nome and

Barrow, they said, ‘This is cool: We’ve got good ice!’”

Swanson wasn’t content to stay within the original confines of the ALISON project. Together with Cheryl Abbott

of Wasilla High School, he created an activities book that

translates the central concepts of ALISON into a classroom

laboratory setting. Ten activities, all linked to National Science Education Standards, explore topics from thermal

resistance to latent heat, the insulating properties of various

materials, and the speed of heat transfer. 

In their book, Abbott and Swanson note, “ALISON allows

students of all ages to better understand the concept of heat

flow. Students already come into the classroom with a pretty

good understanding of heat. They know if they touch something hot they’ll get burned. If they touch their tongue on a

metal gate post on a ‘balmy’ winter day in Fairbanks, they’ll

become quite attached to their project. They already have an

intuitive understanding, and interest, in conductive heat flow.”

“It is our job, as teachers, to tap into the students’ interest,

preexisting knowledge, and misconceptions to create a unit

of study that builds on practical knowledge and moves

toward conceptual and scientific understanding.”

IN THE FAR, FAR NORTH

Tim Buckley has seen how ALISON engages students who

otherwise might not be turned on to science. The dozen

freshmen in his general science class are enrolled in basic

math and identified as at risk of not passing the state’s high

school qualifying exam. “Rather than putting them in physical science where algebra is required—and setting them up

for failure—we use general science to patch holes. It covers

everything,” he says. 

Buckley uses ALISON as the class’s annual project for the

school’s science fair. “The whole class collects data and keeps

track throughout the year, checking Jeffries’ Web site every

week to see how we’re doing relative to other sites,” he

Martin Jeffries

Photo by Rhonda Barton
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 29

reports. It soon becomes obvious that Barrow’s rate of ice

thickness is greater than everybody else’s. 

Just how cold does it get at the Arctic Circle? Buckley

dryly notes, “Let’s say if it’s 20 below and not windy, it’s a

pretty darn nice day. We’ll go out even when it’s 30 below.”

Using grant money, Buckley purchased 18 insulated

Refrigerwear suits and surplus military “bunny boots” to

protect his students in the field.

Back at Barrow High, the class loads the data into computers, creates graphs, and comes up with hypotheses. Buckley says his students—70 percent of whom are Alaska

Native—already can make fine distinctions in snow and ice.

He tells how an Inupiat elder visited the classroom and was

able to name 12 different types of ice in a single core that students had drilled. But through ALISON, their understanding expands. “My goal is to have the kids learn how to use the

scientific method to solve a problem. They get a good feel for

that, and the fact that it’s okay to go off in one direction and

then backtrack and go off in another.”

HANDS-ON DISCOVERY

At Anvil City Science Academy, a charter middle school in

Nome, Todd Hindman views ALISON as a great way to get

parents involved. Dads who usually don’t volunteer in the

classroom are willing to help out, ferrying kids to the site by

snowmachine or sled. 

This year, Hindman is using a nearby pond to teach his

fifth- through eighth-graders about the properties of water.

He relates the heat of the water to how the pond freezes over

and how it melts.

“Many of my kids may not understand all of the science

they’re doing,” Hindman remarks, “but that’s fine with me.

What I think is important is giving the kids the opportunity

to get outside the classroom and collect meaningful data that

they can easily see is being used by a science researcher, who

obviously enjoys the work he’s doing and working with

them. It’s been a great experience for the kids, myself, and

Martin as well.” 

A HELPING HAND

ALISON teachers agree that one of the main reasons the

project works so well is Jeffries’ “inquisitive nature” and his

strong desire to help K–12 teachers bring polar science into

the classroom. Besides visiting the sites and personally engaging in scientific inquiry with network partners, Jeffries gathers the teachers together at the end of the school year for a

five-day workshop in Fairbanks. Attending these sessions and

sharing data throughout the school year forges a professional

learning community and helps reduce the isolation that educators in remote areas can sometimes feel.

“The teachers really seem to appreciate they’re working

with a university scientist,” says Jeffries. “Some of the feedback we’re getting [shows] it’s certainly helping them with

their science and their confidence. The fact that someone is

providing them with activities and materials and encouragement seems to make a difference.” 

When you’re checking your back for polar bears, braving

temperatures that dip well below freezing, and maneuvering

around snow drifts, it also makes a difference to know you’re

pursuing an important scientific mission. Students can warm

themselves with the realization that they’re helping to fill in

important gaps in our understanding of the rapidly changing

Arctic environment. ■

COLLABORATIONS

Three of the ALISON teachers—Cheryl Abbott, Marc

Swanson, and Todd Hindman—received a $10,000 Toyota

Tapestry grant last year to further develop collaborative

lake ice activities among their schools. Abbott and Swanson will report on “Project Sikuvik” (Inupiaq for “ice

time”) at the National Science Teachers Association convention in Dallas in March 2005. 

Abbott realizes that teachers in the lower 48 might not

be able to investigate ice and snow, but the bigger lesson

is that “forming a partnership with a research scientist is

so valuable and the motivation for the kids is so important.” Abbott says all she has to do is remind her class

that Jeffries is counting on them. “There’s validation in

that; they don’t want to just write down anything and

send him information that could be faulty.” 

In partnering with a scientific researcher, there are a

few things to keep in mind: 

• For the project to be successful, there must be real buyin from the scientist.

• Measurements have to be meaningful to the students;

they can’t be so sophisticated that kids don’t understand the numbers.

• It helps if the project relates to core scientific phenomena

that the teacher has to cover as part of the curriculum.

• “Money is good,” Swanson, Abbott, and Hindman

agree. Getting funds or in-kind contributions of equipment and materials to support the project helps a lot in

these days of tight budgets.

SCIENCE ON ICE
30 nwrel.org/nwedu

Building a Legacy,

ONE TEACHER AT A TIME

STORY AND PHOTOS BY BRACKEN REED

RICHLAND, Washington—One by one

the teachers and scientists begin to

arrive, driving in from the south

on the wide, sycamore-lined

streets, past the manicured lawns

and industrial office buildings of

the Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory (PNNL) campus. A few of the teachers miss the

turn, pass by, circle back, squinting in the early morning sunlight, looking for the designated building. 

PNNL is operated by the Battelle Corporation for the U.S.

Department of Energy. Designed in the 1960s, the campus is all

right angles and functional efficiency, with an earth-toned

sameness to its buildings. For those who don’t work here every

day, it’s easy to get lost. 

At this early hour, most Battelle employees have yet to

arrive, and rush hour has yet to begin in earnest for those heading farther north, out to what the locals call “the area”: the old

reactors, laboratories, processing facilities, and storage tanks

scattered across the 560-plus square miles of the Hanford

Nuclear Reservation. An eerie quiet hangs over the stark landscape, broken only by the random calls of songbirds. There is a

sense of life going on in the morning shadows, of coyotes moving swiftly through the sagebrush, just out of sight.

Many have called this area a wasteland—empty, desolate,

barren—and its status as one of the most toxic, radioactive

spots in the country might bear them out. But those who

take the time can find another reality here: a landscape teeming with wildlife and rare plant species; the last free-flowing

stretch of the Columbia, one of the West’s greatest rivers;

petroglyphs and ancient village sites; and the largest remaining area of the shrub-steppe ecosystem that once flourished

in the Columbia River Basin.

One of the great ironies of Hanford’s nearly half-century

role as part of the nation’s nuclear defense program is that

much of the site remained virtually untouched—used mainly

as a buffer zone around the main reactor areas. As a result,

while crews continue to clean up what the U.S. Department

of Energy likes to call “legacy waste,” others have been working hard to create another, parallel legacy: to save the

untouched areas from development; to draw public awareness

to their beauty and ecological importance; and to use them as

a model for returning some of the disturbed areas to a semblance of their original glory. 

On this summer morning the PNNL campus is the meeting ground of an unlikely group: 20 elementary and middle

school teachers, a handful of Battelle scientists, and a program manager, Karen Wieda, who is already moving at full

speed. Tall and thin, with the tanned, healthy look of one

who spends a lot of time outdoors, Wieda is obviously in her

element. She waves down those who mistakenly pass by the

parking lot of the Sigma V building, greets each new arrival

with an easy familiarity, and keeps things moving without

once seeming to be in a hurry. “Has everybody got sunscreen?” she asks. “Hats? Water bottles? Notebooks?” 

July in the semiarid country of Eastern Washington can be

physically withering, with temperatures often topping 100

degrees in the afternoon. An early start to a field trip is the

best antidote to fatigue, dehydration, and sunstroke, as Wieda

well knows. She quickly marshals the group toward three
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 31
waiting vehicles, and within minutes they are on the road,

passing through the north end of the PNNL campus and

onto the main road of the nuclear reservation. 

Every July for nearly a decade, Wieda has directed the

Partnership for Arid Lands Stewardship (or PALS)—a fieldbased, professional development project that matches K–8

teachers with Battelle scientists. The program recruits local

teachers who are already part of Battelle’s larger educational

project—Leadership and Assistance for Science Education

Reform (LASER)—and are using one of its recommended

science kits in their classrooms. For two weeks teachers are

immersed in the world of science and in the ecology of the

Columbia Basin. 

The program is based on a set of underlying principles

that some may find radical: that to learn about science, teachers need to occasionally have contact with actual scientists;

that the places we live, the landscapes that surround us every

day, are the most enlightening, effective, and inspiring

instructional “tools” that exist; and that science, far from

being a luxury or secondary subject, should be an essential,

core subject at both the elementary and middle school levels.

CONNECTING SCIENCE TO THE REAL WORLD

Every year, PALS is organized around a practical, real-world

scenario. This year, the scenario could hardly be more up-tothe-minute. In June 2000, then-President Bill Clinton designated significant areas of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation,

as well as 57,000 federally owned acres to its north, as a

national monument. The Act transferred control of these

areas from the U.S. Department of Energy to the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, and created the 195,000-acre Hanford

Reach National Monument. While not popular with everyone—especially those hoping for more local control and for

agricultural and industrial development—the move served as

a kind of marker between the old Hanford and the new. It

was the end of one era, and the beginning of another one.

Within two years, plans were under way to expand an

already existing museum, called the Columbia River Exhibition of History, Science, and Technology (CREHST), and to

create a Hanford Reach National Monument Interpretive

Center on land just south of the city on the west bank of the

Columbia River. The area, called Columbia Point, or simply

“the Point” in local parlance, is at the confluence of the

Columbia and Yakima Rivers, and has great cultural significance for area tribes. But while it is considered a sacred place

by many, it is also a highly disturbed area, popular for many

years with off-road motorists, anglers, illegal dumpers, and

underage drinkers. Before the interpretive center can be

built, which is slated to begin in 2005, the area requires significant study and rehabilitation.

This became the basis for the PALS scenario: The teachers are to imagine that they’re a group of scientists working

for a consulting group. They must study the area and make

recommendations for addressing cultural concerns, restoring

the natural habitat of the area, and building the center without causing further disturbance. As these would-be scientists

go about their two-week study, actual scientists are at work

on a real study that only differs in its breadth and depth. It’s

about as relevant and “close to home” as a science project

could be.

INTO THE FIELD

The convoy of Battelle vehicles turns right onto a dirt road

and heads toward the river. Since leaving the Sigma V parking lot, Wieda and one of the participating scientists, a retired

biologist named Bill Rickard, have been keeping up a constant, informative patter. Rickard first joined Battelle in 1965

and his knowledge of Hanford and the entire Columbia

Basin is encyclopedic. With his white hair, baseball cap, blue

jeans, and casual demeanor he gives an impression that is

both grandfatherly and eternally youthful. He wears his

knowledge lightly, never becoming the boring “dad” who

lectures about local history, while the “kids” in the back of

the car roll their eyes and wonder how much longer the trip

will take. His comments are seemingly offhand, spoken in a

quiet drawl, almost as if to himself. “Mulberry trees,” he says,

looking out the window, but not pointing. Beside him, Wieda

serves as a kind of foil, peppering him with questions, coax32 nwrel.org/nwedu
ing him to expand on his sometimes droll comments. There

is a remarkable timing between the two of them, a kind of

seamless back and forth interplay that is obviously based on

mutual respect, a shared love for the environment, and contrasting but compatible temperaments. 

“Those mulberry trees aren’t native,” Wieda says in a halfstatement, half-question, leaving the door open on a subject

she knows inside and out.

“No,” replies Rickard, still looking dreamily out the window, his hands folded in his lap. “They escaped. They were

brought in by farmers and they self-established.”

As the car bumps down the dirt road, the conversation

spools out in this casual way. Before they realize it, the teachers have probably learned that farming first began in the area

around 1903; that the farmers were displaced during World

War II, when the government turned the area into the Hanford Nuclear Site; that many of their orchards and windbreak

trees still dot the area; that black cottonwoods are the only

native trees along this stretch of the Columbia; and that

Lewis and Clark camped downriver from here and wrote in

their journals about the lack of trees—perhaps a subtle suggestion that the teachers should be writing some of this

seemingly idle conversation down in their journals. 

“Silkworms eat mulberries,” Rickard says to no one in

particular, wrapping up this line of conversation.

The convoy pulls up beside the river—the drivers taking

care that the hot undersides of the vehicles aren’t parked

directly over potentially fire-starting underbrush—and the

scientists and teachers pile out. Wieda gives the teachers a

preview of the day’s activities and their purpose within the

overall project. After a typically informal lecture by Rickard

about the specific area in which they are standing—and a

reminder to watch out for snakes, scorpions, and black widows—the teachers break into teams.

This is another consistent strategy of the PALS project.

Each year the teachers are divided into three groups that

broadly represent the work of actual scientists. Each team—

the terrestrial, the geologic, and the aquatic—is led by a 

Battelle scientist who is a specialist in that field. Rickard and

Janelle Downs take the terrestrial team, Duane Horton, the

geologic team, and Ted Poston and Sue Sargeant, the aquatic

team. Wieda jumps from group to group, keeping things on

schedule and providing support. All the scientists, along with

Shannon Goodwin who didn’t make today’s trip, have been

involved with PALS for several years. 

The teachers have already visited the Columbia Point site,

where they took soil and water samples and looked closely at

the features of a disturbed habitat. Today’s goal is to study a

habitat that, in contrast, is about as close to pristine as can be

found. To facilitate this, each team heads for a different part

of the designated area and begins to build transects. Using a

measuring tape, string, stakes, a hula hoop, and other tools,

each group creates a 100-square-meter plot. After setting certain parameters, such as the minimum height of plants to be

counted, they begin to note each plant within the transect.

It’s here that the real fun begins. 

The names of the plants flow like music from the mouths

of teachers and scientists alike: stork’s bill, burr sage, bitterbrush, and fiddleneck tarweed. Bunchgrass, sagebrush,

prickly pear, and turpentine parsley. Purple aster, needle and

thread grass, and snow buckwheat. It’s a sacred choir. 

Meanwhile, geologic team members are sifting the soil

within their transect. Medium sand, coarse sand, silt, sandy

clay loam, and animal scat, goes the song here. “How much

of that is there?” asks Horton. “Is it a trace?” The teachers are

on their hands and knees, sifting and grading the soil with the

fervor of lifelong specialists. “Let’s just say trace,” Horton

directs. “We’re overgrading again.”

As the day progresses, the teachers will visit several other

sites. They’ll eat lunch beside the old Hanford townsite

while grasshoppers chirp wildly in the brush. They’ll see the

stumps of an old apricot orchard still standing in neat rows.

They’ll look out across the river at the chalky White Bluffs

that loom over this free-flowing stretch of the Columbia.

They’ll see pelicans, kestrels, and greater egrets. They’ll hear

the distinctive songs of meadowlarks, horned larks, and lark

sparrows. They’ll watch a bright green praying mantis cling

to a slender plant. They’ll learn about soil types, plant

species, and the meaning of words like “eolian” and “fluvial.”

And this is only the third day.

By the end of the two weeks, the teachers will give presentations on their mock-proposals for the restoration of

Columbia Point and the building of the interpretive center.

They’ll develop strategies to integrate this kind of ecological

study into their instruction, how to access resources that can

support such activities, and how to share what they’ve

learned with their fellow teachers. But most important,

they’ll learn something about the power that comes with

fully investing yourself in the place where you live. It’s this

kind of knowledge that can lead us away from a legacy of

waste, toward one of stewardship. ■

In the Lab, Discovering the “REaL” World

NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 33

BUILDING A LEGACY, ONE TEACHER AT A TIME
34 nwrel.org/nwedu

WEMME, Oregon—The stillness of the Mt. Hood National Forest is broken by birdsong and the

distant rise and fall of children’s voices. As you thread your way through old growth Douglas

fir, your footsteps muffled by the thick carpet of decomposing leaves, you’re as likely to chance

upon a skittish fawn as a knot of squirrelly sixth-graders. Scurrying like termites over a rotted

stump, the boys and girls might be dipping into a fast-flowing stream for water samples, gathering spores, or peering underfoot for bear scat. 

Just as Oregon students have been doing for almost 40 years, these elementary and middle

schoolers are repeating a ritual that takes place every fall and spring: spending six days camping in rustic cabins; learning firsthand about animal and plant life, rivers and forest ecosystems;

and making self-discoveries along the way.

Surviving Hard Times

Founded in 1965 with a federal grant, Multnomah Educational Service District’s Outdoor

School has survived on local and state tax dollars and sheer determination. When the financially

hard-pressed Portland Public Schools decided to cut Outdoor School from its spring 2003 curriculum—threatening the whole program—volunteers went into overdrive. In six weeks, former campers and parents of current ones raised a half-million dollars to restore the session. The

following fall, Multnomah County voters approved a temporary income tax that filled school

district coffers and granted Outdoor School another reprieve—at least until June 2006.

A newly revitalized nonprofit group, Friends of Outdoor School, is working to secure

future funding from foundations, corporations, and private donors. In the meantime, though,

far from the hubbub of ESD offices, the traditions of Outdoor School continue to be handed

down to a new generation of campers.

Through a Wilderness

THE NATION’S LONGEST-RUNNING 

OUTDOOR SCHOOL OPENS EYES AND MINDS THROUGH 

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN A MAGICAL SETTING.

By Rhonda Barton 

Photo by Patricia Cordell
“The clearest way into the universe 

is through a forest wilderness.” 

—John Muir

NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 35
Leaving Behind the Familiar 

The yellow buses pull into Arrah Wanna on Sunday, one of

five camp facilities that the ESD leases from religious and

service organizations. Kids from eight different school districts—many of whom have never been away from their families or even their neighborhoods—tumble out into a totally

different world than the one they left behind. 

For the next six days they’ll follow a strictly structured

schedule that starts with a 6:45 a.m. wake-up call and goes

full tilt until the embers of the nightly campfire die out and

lights are snapped off at 9:15 p.m. There are no televisions,

computers, Game Boys, or CD players to distract these preteens and disturb the tranquillity of the forest. The four walls

of the classroom are replaced with endless sky, open meadows, and thickets of fir and alder. Even gym takes on a different flavor: An exercise routine is transformed into “fungus

aerobics” with kids breathlessly calling out “cap-gills-ringstem-mycelium” as they pound out jumping jacks and touch

their toes.

In between family-style meals, class meetings, and chores

like cabin cleanup, students delve into intensive, hands-on

field studies that focus on four key elements of the environment: water, soils, plants, and animals. Most of the activities,

which are aligned with Oregon’s eighth-grade benchmarks,

are learned and then taught by high school volunteers. Some

are taught by staff members with high school students assisting. All are so absorbing that students barely notice that

they’re learning hard-core science like the relationship

between soil pH and plant growth or how stream turbidity

affects sediment, water quality, and aquatic life.

In a state where environmental agendas often clash with

bread-and-butter economic issues, the Outdoor School tries

to veer away from a single political viewpoint. “We don’t

want to offend any families,” says Camp Arrah Wanna Director Andrea Hussey. “We can’t say things like ‘logging is terrible’ because there are students whose parents are loggers. So,

we’re very careful with our politics. What Outdoor School

really does is create a sense of reverence for the natural world.

... It opens their eyes to what’s out there and they take some

of that back to their communities.”

Life Lessons

For many kids, the most important lessons have to do with

finding their own place in the world. “Whenever kids experience disequilibrium they’re learning,” points out Lory Lauridsen, a Gilbert Park Elementary School teacher. “My kids

come knowing a lot of the science, but they’re learning who

they are, what they can do without Mom and Dad, and that’s

powerful. For teachers, (Outdoor School) shakes up your

stereotypes about students—which is always a good thing.”

“The learning that happens here is phenomenal,” adds

Sherry Russo-Card, a teacher from Mt. Tabor Middle

School. “We come back with a great sense of community.

36 nwrel.org/nwedu

ANIMALS—One student plays the spider, while the rest of the

group tiptoes through a web, trying not to set off vibrations and get

“caught.”

PLANTS—Using geometric triangulation and forestry tools,

campers calculate the height of a tree and the volume of lumber it

contains.

ANIMALS

PLANTS
Students relax and you form a whole new relationship with

them because they see you as a person, not just an authority

figure.” 

Russo-Card’s students reflect on the experience when

they return to the classroom, publishing a newsletter that

encapsulates what may be the most remarkable adventure of

their entire school career. Here’s what they’ll remember:

• “Soil field study is really fun. Students get to do critter

catch, make mud farms, make a mountain out of mud,

look at a rock collection, and soil compaction. It is good to

remember not to call the soil ‘dirt’ during the field study

because the leaders would get mad when they heard this.

They will always correct you, ‘Dirt is only misplaced

soil!’” —Michael

• “Letter writing is good if you are really homesick. It really

does help. You can write to anyone you want to, even your

pets.” —Jenna and Kaela

• “Water field study is one of the best field studies ever,

because you get to be by the water. You get to see if the

water is polluted or not by catching intolerant and tolerant

bugs. Another thing you get to do is test the water to see if

it is acid, alkaline, or neutral. We found out that the

Salmon River was neutral. Since the water was neutral, all

kinds of creatures could live (there).” —April and Vienna

• “Having to live in a cabin for one week was really different, sleeping in a bunk bed instead of your own. If you

were on the bottom you could always hear the person

NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 37

Facts and Figures

Number of students served each year: 7,000

Cost per student for one week: $267

Number of high school volunteers at the spring session: 

1,003

Number of eggs consumed during the spring session: 

41,940

Number of school buses used to transport sixth-grade

classes and student leaders to the spring session: 392

Why sixth-graders? “Kids are young enough that they still

can be kids, but they’ve started to develop their personalities and become young adults. It’s a great age, right on the

cusp where everything starts to change for them,” says

Andrea Hussey, Camp Arrah Wanna director.

For information on Outdoor School and other MESD 

environmental programs: www.mesd.k12.or.us

For Friends of Outdoor School: 

www.passonthememory.org

WATER—Students test the temperature and dissolved oxygen level

of water taken from the nearby Salmon River.

SOILS—Even geologic history can be creative: The kids act out

exploding volcanoes and flowing lava.

THROUGH A WILDERNESS

WATER

SOILS

Photos by Patricia Cordell
38 nwrel.org/nwedu

above you. Being on top, you had no

head board. I almost fell off the top

bunk. ... Living with your cabin

buddies was not always easy when

they did not follow the rules. For

one week your cabin was your family. You worked as a team for the

time.” —Sharie

• “To be chosen for the tree planting

ceremony (on the last night of

camp), someone must be an outstanding student during field studies.

... The field study staff begins with a

few words. Then the tree ceremony

participants walk up behind a baby

tree, which symbolizes growth in

friendship. Soil, which is collected

by every student at Outdoor School

(and brought to camp from a ‘special

place’ at home), is then placed in the

hole around the tree. This is to show

that there is at least one place on the

Earth we all have a connection. A

snail is placed next to the tree and

water is poured over it so it can be

healthy. Those involved in the planting also state their name, what school

they go to, and their favorite thing

about Outdoor School. When I (Allison) did this I started to cry, because

Outdoor School is so special.”

—Abby and Allison

For Abby and Allison and an

“alumni” group that now numbers

more than 275,000, the memories of

Outdoor School—the silly songs, cold

showers, fresh-baked snickerdoodles,

nature hikes, cool counselors, and

hours spent crouching beside the

river—will linger on, long after the

other lessons of sixth grade fade like

distant stars. ■

Bringing Out the Best

By Drew Peterson, High School Student Leader

Hui was the smallest of the sixth-graders in my cabin, and his high-pitched and

heavily accented voice made him a prime target of ridicule. His teacher warned

me that he was the most likely to try to bend the rules. The tone of the

teacher’s voice and the worry etched into his brow alerted me to the biggest

challenge he believed that this week of Outdoor School would present.

Hui grew up in a low-income neighborhood that my family and I had lived in

during part of my childhood. His middle school had been closed down one

year before due to air quality concerns that lingered unaddressed for years.

Not surprisingly, the school served mostly students of color. Because of this, I

was ecstatic to see the week of Outdoor School evolve into something

extraordinary for Hui. More than in any previous volunteer experience involving kids, I was truly able to connect with this sixth-grader. The personal “good

nights” I gave each student at bedtime were the first, Hui reluctantly told me,

he had ever received. He also shared with me that he now wanted to be a Student Leader in high school—perhaps this was part of the reason.

Halfway through the week, after saying our good nights, I stepped out of

the cabin into the fresh forest air. Closing my eyes, I could again hear all the

laughter and good cheer of the students during our activities that day. My

reflection came to an abrupt halt, however, as I suddenly noticed the complete

silence of my cabin behind me. My ears detected no trace of the whispering,

fooling, or running around so typical of sixth-graders. Perhaps the skeptics

were right. Maybe Hui and his cabinmates were strategically holding themselves back, waiting for the coast to clear. Eventually I heard a noise escaping

from the window. It was Hui, whose safe, calm snoring I recognized as it tiptoed through the night air toward me.

It was not my first time as a Student Leader, and I had seen before how Outdoor School brings the best out of the “worst.” But something was different

this time. At the end of the week, I could not help but laugh as I tried to convince Hui’s shocked teacher of the remarkable week I saw him experience—

that we experienced. Perhaps what made Hui different from the countless

undiscovered treasures of Outdoor School was what we had in common. That

cold, calm night in the woods, Hui reminded me of another curious sixthgrader who knew he wanted to come back five years later. I was reminded of

myself.

Drew Peterson wrote about Hui as his “most

unforgettable character” for a college application essay last year. Drew, a three-time volunteer

at Outdoor School, is now a freshman studying

biology and math at Stanford University.
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 39

worked with more than 20 states on various assessment processes and instruments. During the summer of 2005, Montana educators will review current science standards. It’s

expected that the science CRT tests will be administered in

spring 2008.

Along with developing the CRT, Snow notes, the state has

also facilitated the development of a continuous education

improvement process for all districts and schools. “[We’re]

confident that the time spent developing this improvement

process has been productive and will improve student

achievement in all areas, including science,” she says.

WASHINGTON

www.k12.wa.us/curriculumInstruct/Science/default.aspx 

Washington, like Oregon, is ahead of the curve when it comes

to science education and NCLB. Assistant Superintendent

for Assessment and Research in Washington’s Office of the

Superintendent of Public Instruction Greg Hall says standards and assessments are already in place and that NCLB is

not having an impact on the state’s teaching or testing of science. However, the science standards in Washington are creating the need to shift science education to ensure that

instruction, curriculum, and assessment are aligned.

Hall admits that science education in Washington’s elementary schools has been “spotty at best.” In fact, he says science education was pretty minimal in the state’s public

schools until the middle school level. But that’s changing.

During the last two years, the state implemented standards in

grades five, eight, and 10 and by 2010, Washington students

will have to meet the standard on the 10th-grade science test

to get their high school diplomas.

New testing started for eighth- and 10th-graders last year.

It was optional for fifth-graders but will be required in 2005.

Students take a 45-question multiple-choice, short answer,

and extended answer test. 

Hall says, “We have our work cut out for us.” According to

last year’s results, only 38 percent of middle and high school

students are meeting the state’s new, more rigorous standards. In elementary school, the results are even more dismal:

Just 28 percent of fifth-graders met the science standards.

Still, Hall says Washington public schools will hold firm on

these standards while the system catches up.

Washington is not currently considering scoring work

samples the way Oregon does. However, Washington teachers are directly involved in scoring the written response questions on the state tests. While inquiry-based science is

considered one part of the state curriculum, teaching

methodology is left up to the individual teacher or is guided

by the district. Hall observes that Washington “still has a long

ways to go” in meeting science standards but everyone is “off

and running and eagerly meeting the challenge.” ■

necessarily creative. It’s creative in a sense but it’s just hard

scientific work and it pays off.”

He points to several models of towers and boomilevers

made out of balsa wood that sit on a top shelf in his classroom. They are lovely to look at, these designs of simple

engineering. The objective in the tower-building competition in Science Olympiad is to build the lightest tower with

the most structural efficiency that can support a load of up to

15 kilograms—about 33 pounds. These designs won high

marks in the competition last year.

“Being an engineer, I can spot these kids, the kid who will

take something like that and focus on it and never quit. Some

of the projects have hundreds of hours put into them.”

“Retreads”

Moving from a professional science career into teaching isn’t

a piece of cake, but it does have its advantages. Twenty-five

years of experience with military bureaucracy taught Neznanski how to write terrific proposals, and he’s turned that

knack into successful grant-writing. When he set out to find

funds to build up the physics lab, “I shot for the sky,” he says.

His aim was true. The lab now is equipped with $80,000

worth of equipment—computers, software, probes, gauges,

calculators, you name it—thanks to the likes of HewlettPackard, the Wiegand Foundation, and the BK Booster Club.

But the best knack Neznanski brought with him into the

classroom was an innate talent for teaching young people,

says former mentor Henry Krewer.

“A lot of teachers want to do a job and they want to walk

out feeling good, forgetting how the kids walk out: They

walk out baffled, they walk out upset. If you feel like, ‘Oh, I

did a great presentation; that was clever and that was wonderful,’ the kids don’t know anything about that. Larry was

the other way. Larry wanted to know that every kid in the

room knew what he was talking about. I think that was the

biggest gift he gave to the kids.”

And the best way he’s found to teach is to relate physics

ideas to the real and sometimes exciting world of work,

where such things as repositioning a satellite in space is apt

to capture the imaginations of young minds.

“That’s one of the reasons why I think that ‘retreads’ are

worthwhile,” he says. “There is an element that you can

bring into the classroom that’s important, and that is what’s

going on outside [school] that students might want to do

someday.” 

That interest may play out for a lifetime.

“I think that’s where a lot of the motivation comes from.

If you can get a kid to do something in science that they

never thought they could do ... those are life forces that are

so valuable that you can’t quantify them.” ■

PHYSICS

Continued from page 19

Standards

Continued from page 15
Photo by Michael Heavener

40 nwrel.org/nwedu

VOICES

Josh Ziady looks like an indie

rock musician, which isn’t surprising because that’s what

he did before trading his bass

and his “day job” as a cook

for a classroom gig. The 33-

year-old Ziady is in his second

year as a science teacher at

Roosevelt High, one of Portland’s most diverse schools

where students speak 20 different languages. Roosevelt

also bears the label of a “failing” school after four years of

not making adequate yearly

progress. The 825-student

high school—which is roughly

one-quarter African American

and one-quarter Hispanic—

broke into small schools this

year. Ziady teaches in the

Spanish-English International

School, where students

divide their time between

Spanish language arts classes

and core subjects taught in

English. In a conversation with

Northwest Education Editor

Rhonda Barton, he reflects on

what it’s like to be a beginning teacher at a school with

multiple challenges.

You walk into a restaurant

kitchen as a line cook—like

I did—with a high-powered

bachelor’s degree from a

prestigious liberal arts college, and you’re next to

some guy who dropped out

of high school when he was

15 and some other guy who

might have been a physics

professor and another guy

who might be an ex-con.

You have to figure out how

to make burritos with these

people, so you have to relate

to them—no matter who

they are. ... That kind of

prepared me for dealing

with kids because there’s a

lot of that immediacy. You

need them to do something

or stop doing something.

You want them to understand what you need and

you have to understand

what they need—and

you’ve got to get that interaction done quickly or else

you’re doomed. 

Nine years after graduating from Oberlin, I went to

Portland State University,

got my master’s, and was

certificated in biology and

integrated science. Besides

three classes of biology, I

teach an interdisciplinary

senior inquiry class with an

English teacher. It meets

twice a week for three hours

and the kids also go to Portland State once a week for

two hours (where they earn

15 college credits and take

care of their freshman

inquiry requirement).

The theme of the course

is metamorphosis—we study

change. It’s the best class to

teach because the sky is the

limit, as long as we stay

within the university study

guidelines and the senior

English standards. We split

it into three sections: personal change, social change,

and broad-spectrum change

like how the earth has

changed and how humanity

has evolved. So, for example, we read A Place to Stand

by Jimmy Santiago Baca. It’s

about a guy who had a

tough time growing up,

went to jail, and now he’s a

famous poet. At the same

time, we studied crime in

Oregon and recent research

in teen brain development

and decisionmaking processes. We blended all that

together.

The one thing that drives

me crazy about teaching is

that there’s no guaranteed

output. No matter how

hard you work, sometimes

there are still kids who

aren’t succeeding. You try to

do everything you can for

them and you still have a

certain percentage of your

kids who aren’t getting

there. That’s tough—especially at a school like Roosevelt, which in the last few

years has gone through

some really hard times and

where it’s not uncommon

for a significant proportion

of kids to not meet the state

standards. You work and

work and work—and so do

your colleagues—and you

don’t get results. It’s also

hard to see kids in difficult

circumstances that are

beyond your control.

Ultimately I want my

kids to think like scientists:

to be able to look at something in the world, ask questions, make a prediction to

answer their questions,

devise an experiment to test

their hypothesis, and accurately interpret their results.

Realistically I don’t know

how many will get that, but

I hope they’ll get the seeds

of knowing there’s this

process of accumulating

knowledge and evaluating

information. So, if someone

says to them some day that

you have to vote on patenting genes, they’ll know what

a gene is and they can think

about whether that’s a good

idea. Should Monsanto be

able to patent my genes? My

goal is to instill that type of

scientific literacy. ■

A Teacher’s Voice: From the Kitchen to the Classroom By Josh Ziady
A 184-pound metal ball named Sputnik changed the course

of science education in the United States almost a half-century ago. When the Russians successfully launched the

world’s first satellite in 1957, it served as a flaming wake-up

call—speeding by at 18,000 miles an hour. America was losing the race for space, and if we didn’t step up our science and

technology efforts, we literally would be left earthbound.

The nation was galvanized, a new emphasis was placed on

science, and a mere dozen years later, Americans left their

footprints on the moon. However, that single-minded push

wasn’t sustained and the trajectory of U.S. students’ science

performance faltered.

The latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (or TIMSS), released in December 2004, shows

that U.S. eighth-graders scored better in science in 2003 than

in 1999, but still lag behind their peers in a number of other

industrial countries. Scores for fourth-graders, who also rank

behind their peers, declined over the four-year period. Of the

45 countries participating in the eighth-grade survey, the

United States placed ninth; among 25 countries reporting

fourth-grade results, the U.S. took sixth place.

Another international survey, the Program for International Student Assessment (or PISA), targets 15-year-old students and measures how well they apply knowledge to

real-life problems. According to PISA, the U.S. ranks about

in the middle of the pack in scientific literacy—scoring

higher than seven industrialized nations and lower than

seven others.

Perhaps a more depressing picture of the state of science

achievement is yielded by numbers from the National

Assessment of Educational Progress. According to NAEP, 29

percent of fourth-graders scored at or above the proficient

level in science assessments in 2000; eighth-grade scores

were only slightly better at 32 percent; and 12th-graders had

a dismal showing at 18 percent. 

Reflecting on such standings, the National Commission

on Mathematics and Scientific Teaching for the 21st Century

said that students’ science preparation was “in a word, unacceptable.” In its 2000 report, the commission—chaired by

former astronaut and Ohio Senator John Glenn—called for a

more rigorous curriculum, focused professional development, and above all, more highly qualified teachers. “[B]etter

teaching is the lever for change,” said the commission,

observing that 56 percent of high school students taking

physical science are taught by out-of-field teachers and nearly

one in five high school science teachers lack even a minor in

their main teaching field.

ON NCLB’S RADAR 

The No Child Behind Act, which requires Title I schools to

provide instruction by highly qualified staff, will extend to

science education during the next school year. All states must

develop science standards by 2005–2006 and must administer

annual science assessments at least once in three different

grade spans (3–5, 6–9, and 10–12) by 2007–2008. Although

the stakes aren’t as high as for reading and math—science

scores won’t be linked to adequate yearly progress—the new

mandates are adding immediacy to the debate over what constitutes good science education.

To date, there’s no single, research-based answer to that

question. As then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige pointed

out at the first Secretary’s Summit on Science in March 2004,

“Much more high-quality research is needed to determine

what methods, resources, and curricula are best for educating

students at all grade levels.” While progress has been made,

Paige remarked that “for the most part, we’re still blindfolded

and trying to find our way through a cluttered room.”

The National Research Council (NRC), a branch of the

National Academies chartered by Congress, is in the midst of

three studies that should shed more light on the subject. One

project—targeting kindergarten through eighth-grade students—is culling research from a variety of fields on how science is learned and what are the critical stages in children’s

development of scientific concepts. A second project aims at

providing practical advice on designing tests that tap into

Launching Science Education Into the 21st Century By Rhonda Barton

RESEARCH BRIEF

NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 41

Photo © Terry Healy
what students really know about science. And the third NRC

project focuses on the role of high school science laboratories

in promoting teaching and learning.

Some educators have expressed concern that in the rush to

meet national standards, schools are cutting back on the total

amount of time devoted to studying science and they’re

replacing laboratory experiments and other forms of inquirybased instruction with rote memorization. This is despite the

fact that inquiry science—which involves activities and skills

that focus on the active search for knowledge or understanding—has been endorsed by both the NRC and the American

Association for the Advancement of Science. Writing in Phi

Delta Kappan (April 2002), Olaf Jorgenson and Rick Vanosdall of the Mesa (Arizona) Unified School District state,

“Ironically, even as inquiry methods and science resource

centers stand poised to reinvigorate K–12 science education

in America, the national movement emphasizing reading,

writing, and mathematics instruction, as measured by highstakes standardized tests, threatens to suppress the effort to

make truly revolutionary progress in science education.” 

The authors go on to cite two Wisconsin studies and one

in the El Centro (California) School District that linked

improvements in science achievement scores to inquirybased science instruction. In the case of El Centro—a highpoverty district with a high enrollment of minority

youngsters—science scores among fourth- and sixth-graders

improved the longer they were taught using inquiry methods. Jorgenson and Vanosdall note that the students also

showed “impressive improvements” in writing proficiency

and SAT-9 mathematics and reading scores. 

A more recent study of an inquiry science program for

low-income urban youth tracked 8,000 middle grade students in Detroit for three years. As reported in the November 2004 issue of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the

study showed statistically significant increases on curriculum-based tests for each year of participation. Ronald Marx

and coauthors report, “The findings indicate that students

who historically are low achievers in science can succeed in

standards-based, inquiry science when curriculum is carefully developed and aligned with professional development

and district policies.”

COMPETING APPROACHES

Inquiry methods are eschewed by proponents of “direct

instruction” who believe that highly prescribed curricula and

classroom procedures are more effective in science education.

The National Institute for Direct Instruction, based in

Eugene, Oregon, weaves science content into its primary

grade reading materials and provides videodiscs for middle

and high school science classes. Administrative Director Kurt

Engelman expects the coming NCLB science requirements to

prompt more queries about the institute’s science products. 

Direct instruction advocates have been buoyed by recent

research by David Klahr, a psychology professor at Carnegie

Mellon University. Klahr and his colleague, Milena Nigam,

studied more than 100 third- and fourth-graders who were

asked to devise experiments with balls and ramps of different

sizes and materials. The children were randomly assigned to

two different groups. In the direct instruction group, students watched teachers conduct experiments and explain

principles before attempting experiments on their own. In

the discovery learning group, children designed experiments

with only a minimum of teacher intervention. As reported in

Psychological Science (October 2004), students in the direct

instruction group performed better, on average, than those in

the discovery group. They were also better able to transfer

their knowledge to a new situation at a later date.

While Klahr’s results are getting widespread attention,

other researchers note that the study exaggerated the teaching methods that were tested: Rarely is totally unguided

inquiry or discovery used in the classroom. Even Klahr himself told Education Week (November 10, 2004) that while

complicated science lessons often call for a more direct

approach, teachers should avoid strict adherence to one

method or the other. Rather, he said, “It depends on what’s

being taught.” Klahr and Nigam have called for additional

research to “generate an empirically sound basis for determining the most effective matches between topic, student,

and type of pedagogy.”

As the argument over how to teach science goes on—

whether it’s steeped in inquiry or direct instruction or a combination of both—no one is questioning the critical role that

science will play in the 21st century. At the March science

summit, Secretary Paige acknowledged that America’s

response to Sputnik in 1957 paved the way to putting a man

on the moon and shaped today’s world. “Now,” he said, “we

must prepare a new generation to choose its destiny. We do

so knowing that education is emancipation, and science the

source of dreams.” ■

RESEARCH BRIEF

42 nwrel.org/nwedu
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 43

Following is a list of recent research-based books and important national organizations. 

Constructing Science in Elementary Classrooms, by Norman G.

Lederman, Judith S. Lederman, & Randy L. Bell (Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2004).

Developing Inquiry-Based Science Materials: A Guide for Educators, by Herbert D. Thier with Bennett Daviss (New York,

NY: Teachers College Press, 2001).

Discovering Elementary Science: Method, Content, and ProblemSolving Activities (3rd ed.), by Marvin N. Tolman (Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2002).

Good Practice in Science Teaching: What Research Has To Say,

edited by Martin Monk & Jonathan Osborne (Philadelphia,

PA: Open University Press, 2000).

Inquire Within: Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Standards,

by Douglas Llewellyn (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,

2002).

Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide

for Teaching and Learning, edited by Steve Olson & Susan

Loucks-Horsley (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

2000).

Internet Environments for Science Education, edited by Marcia

C. Linn, Elizabeth A. Davis, & Philip Bell (Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004).

Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of

Mathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools, edited by J.P.

Gollub et al. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

2002).

Mixing It Up: Integrated, Interdisciplinary, Intriguing Science in

the Elementary Classroom, by the National Science Teachers

Association (Arlington, VA: NSTA Press, 2003).

The New Science Literacy: Using Language Skills To Help Students Learn Science, by Marlene Thier with Bennett Daviss

(Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002).

Rubrics for Assessing Student Achievement in Science, Grades 

K-12, by Hays B. Lantz, Jr. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press, 2004).

Transforming Teaching in Math and Science: How Schools and

Districts Can Support Change, by Adam Gamoran et al. (New

York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2003).

Organizations

National Science Teachers Association is the foremost professional organization for science teachers in the U.S. Along

with many classroom resources and professional development opportunities, it also publishes a journal for each grade

configuration. www.nsta.org

Science & Children

www.nsta.org/elementaryschool#journal

Science Scope

www.nsta.org/middleschool#journal

Science Teacher

www.nsta.org/highschool#journal

The National Teachers Enhancement Network (NTEN), operated by Montana State University-Bozeman and funded by

the National Science Foundation, provides online professional development courses for K–12 science teachers. Its

Web site has a useful resources page and an online discussion

forum for teachers. www.scienceteacher.org

Sites for Teachers is a gateway site that includes a science page

with lesson plans, instructional materials, and links to the

major science education organizations. www.sitesforteachers.

com/resources_sharp/index.html

For additional resources, see our Web exclusive.

Resource Annex

RESOURCES
NORTHWEST SCIENCE TEACHERS WITH SCIENCE MAJORS

The proportion of Northwest teachers whose main assignment was science and who majored in science dropped significantly from 1994 to 2000. The proportion remained static

for the nation as a whole.

Source: NCES Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999–2000 (in the Council of

Chief State School Officers’ State Indicators of Science and Mathematics

Education, 2003)

A STATE-BY-STATE COMPARISON OF NORTHWEST SCIENCE

TEACHERS (GRADES 7–12) WITH SCIENCE MAJORS

More than one in five Northwest middle and high school science teachers whose main assignment is science don’t have a

major in science.

Source: NCES Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999–2000 (in the Council of

Chief School Officers’ State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education, 2003) 

NATURAL SCIENCES COURSE-TAKING BY COLLEGE-BOUND SENIORS

College-bound seniors in three Northwest states are neither

lagging nor leading in natural sciences course-taking, when

compared to their peers in states with closely comparable

SAT participation rates of 49–56 percent.

Source: College Board, College Bound Seniors 2004: State Reports 

SCIENCE COURSE-TAKING BY SENIORS IN NORTHWEST STATES

Source: College Board, College Bound Seniors 2004: State Reports

44 nwrel.org/nwedu

REGION AT A GLANCE

What the Statistics Say About Highly Qualified Science Teachers By Richard Greenough

Biology Chemistry Physics SAT-Takers

Alaska 95% 70% 34% 53%

Idaho 94% 77% 43% 20%

Montana 97% 75% 45% 29%

Oregon 95% 75% 45% 56%

Washington 93% 78% 43% 52%

United States 97% 87% 50% 48%

Northwest United States

1994 81% 74%

2000 74% 75%

CORRECTION

In “Region at a Glance” in “Online Schools: A New Frontier in Public Education” (Northwest Education, winter 2004), Chart 1 should

have been titled: Percent of Northwest Students in Title I Schools (the chart includes all students in the Northwest, not just low-income students). Chart 2 asserts that only 89 Washington Title I schools are not meeting AYP. However, that is the number not meeting AYP for the

first time this year. Also, there are 957 schools meeting AYP and not in school improvement.
NORTHWEST EDUCATION / SPRING 2005 45

END NOTE

An Eminent Native Son

Native Oregonian Linus Pauling is the most famous scientist to come out of the Northwest and

some would argue the most important American scientist of the 20th century. Despite the fact that

he never earned a high school diploma—dropping out early in his senior year—he completed a

doctorate at age 24 and was appointed full professor at Cal Tech five years later. The only person in

history to win two unshared Nobel Prizes—one for chemistry and a second for peace—Pauling was

recognized for his work on the chemical bond and the structure of complex molecules and for his

battle against the spread of nuclear weapons. To mark the 50th anniversary of his chemistry prize,

the Oregon State University Libraries launched a Web site in 2004 that offers a documentary history of their distinguished alumnus: http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/coll/pauling/

bond/index.html. February 28, Pauling’s birthday, is observed each year as Linus Pauling Day at OSU.

Photo courtesy Ava Helen and Linus Pauling Papers, Oregon State University Libraries
NONPROFIT ORG.

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

PORTLAND, OREGON

PERMIT NO. 250

QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF THE 

NORTHWEST REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY 

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500

Portland, Oregon 97204

www.nwrel.org/nwedu

For questions regarding 

Northwest Education

call (503) 275-9515

For all other inquiries 

regarding NWREL 

call (503) 275-9500

Up next in the summer 2005 issue:

Coming to Terms With Accountability

NORTHWEST

EDUCATION

nwrel.org/nwedu

Northwest Education is available online in both PDF and HTML versions.

Look for Web exclusives.