Abstract
This research examines the impact of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act on elementary science education within a Midwestern state possessing strong national education measures. Elementary teachers (N=164) responded to an online survey, which included both closed-ended and open-ended questions pertaining to science instruction and changes made in science instruction since the implementation of NCLB. More than half of these teachers indicated they have cut time from science instruction since NCLB became a law. The reason given for this decrease in science education was mainly the need to increase time for math and reading instruction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Center on Education Policy (CEP). (2006, March).From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act summary and recommendations. Retrieved May 29, 2008, from www.cep-dc.org/_data/global/nidocs/NCLB-Year4Summary.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. (1998).Quality inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Finson, K. D., & Beaver, J. B. (1994).The status of science education in Illinois scientific literacy target schools, K-6 (Report No. SLPN-E70222). Macomb: Western Illinois University, College of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED389523)
Froschauer, L. (2006, September 8). Should science be included in adequate yearly progress?NSTA Reports. Retrieved May 13, 2008, from www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=52550.
Fullan, M. (1996). Professional culture and educational change.School Psychology Review, 25(4), 496–500.
Fullan, M. (2001).The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t.Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744–753.
Kirst, M., Anhalt, B., & Marine, R. (1997, March). Politics of education standards.The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 315–329.
Klentschy, M. (2006, April).Student achievement through active science learning. Paper presented at the National Science Teachers Association annual convention, Anaheim, CA.
Lee, C. A., & Houseal, A. (2003). Self-efficacy, standards, and benchmarks as factors in teaching elementary school science.Journal of Elementary Science Education 15(1), 37–55.
McAdams, R. (1997). A systems approach to school reform.Phi Delta Kappan, 79(2), 138–143.
Mundry, S. (2006). No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for science education. In J. Rhoton, & P. Shane (Eds.),Teaching science in the 21st century (pp. 243–255). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000).Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Plourde, L. A. (2002). Elementary science education: The influence of student teaching—where it all begins.Education, 123(2), 253–259.
Shamos, M. H. (1995).The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Vasquez, J. A. (2006). Foreword. In J. Rhoton, & P. Shane (Eds.),Teaching science in the 21st century (pp. ix-x). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Vasquez, J. A., Teferi, M., & Schicht, W. (2003). Science in the city: Consistently improved achievement in elementary school science results from careful planning and stakeholder inclusion.Science Educator, 12(1), 16–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Griffith, G., Scharmann, L. Initial impacts of No Child Left Behind on elementary science education. J Elem Sci Edu 20, 35–48 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174707
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174707