Teachers Think Kids Need Science And Social Studies-But Still Focus On Reading And Math

Educators think it's important to teach science and social studies to young children. But few spend much time on those subjects-and they often waste a lot of time when they do.

Significant majorities of kindergarten-through-3rd-grade teachers-along with school and district leaders-believe that spending time on science and social studies sets kids up for success later on, according to a recent survey. Among the benefits they saw were improved reading comprehension and learning; a better chance of developing interests in those subjects; and the ability to explore topics in greater depth. Over 50% of those surveyed thought daily instruction in science was important in the early elementary grades, and around 45% thought the same of social studies.

And yet, for decades, little time has been devoted to anything other than reading and math at early grade levels. A study done between 1999 and 2001 found that social studies and science each got only 5% of classroom time in 3rd grade, while math got 28% and reading a whopping 48%.

In the recent survey-conducted by ACT, an organization that administers college entrance exams-teachers reported that each of the marginalized subjects got less than two hours a week, or about 25 minutes a day, with only one exception: teachers in Arkansas reported spending three hours a week on science in 3rd grade. Perhaps not coincidentally, Arkansas was testing 3rd graders in science.

ACT only surveyed educators in Arkansas and Kentucky, and the response rate was too low to allow for confident generalizations even for those two states. Still, when combined with previous evidence, the findings on the narrow curriculum carry some weight. What this survey adds is the information that many teachers and administrators believe it's important to teach young children about the world around them-and there's plenty of data from cognitive science to back them up.

So why don't they do more of it? The Arkansas science data provides a clue: what gets tested, they say, gets taught. Although the elementary curriculum has always been dominated by reading and math, that's truer than ever in this era of high-stakes reading and math tests. Especially when scores are low, the reaction is to double down on those subjects.

Indeed, the ACT survey found that most teachers and administrators see "the need to prepare for state tests" as a major barrier to teaching science and social studies in K-3. The pressure was felt even though state reading and math tests don't begin until 3rd grade; kids in K-2 are subjected to a barrage of assessments designed to predict how they'll do on state tests later on.

While educators and administrators bemoan the need for test prep, they don't seem to realize their focus on reading won't actually boost test scores, at least in the long run. Reading tests appear to assess skills like the ability to "find the main idea" or "make inferences." Partly for that reason, teachers focus on practicing these and other "skills and strategies" rather than on building knowledge of any particular topics. (Most teachers use the terms "skills" and "strategies" interchangeably.)

That approach may boost scores a bit at lower grade levels, when passages on reading tests-designed to focus on random topics-often don't assume much background knowledge and vocabulary. But as students progress through school, that changes. If you don't have enough knowledge to understand the reading passage on a test, you won't be able to demonstrate your skill at "finding the main idea," no matter how much you've practiced it. Nor will you be able to find the main idea of a chapter in a high school textbook on, say, world history, if you don't have a mental framework for the information-if, for example, you don't know what Europe is, or the difference between a country and a continent. As the authors of the ACT report say, "Paying too little attention to younger students is like focusing antismoking efforts on 70-year-olds because teenagers rarely get lung cancer or emphysema."

The situation is even worse than the ACT survey suggests, for two reasons. One is that the focus on reading and math continues long beyond 3rd grade-often through middle school, if test scores remain low. Struggling readers are routinely pulled out of what science or social studies there is to get extra "help." Many students arrive at high school without having had any systematic exposure to history, science, or the arts.

The second reason is hinted at in the report's finding that most teachers surveyed teach social studies and science by "integrating" them into other subjects. Generally, that means the teacher is supposed to incorporate them into the time allotted for math and reading. In practice, because of testing pressure, that may not happen. And even when teachers do ostensibly cover science or social studies, many still put comprehension "skills" in the foreground.

One 4th-grade teacher, charged with teaching both literacy and social studies, told me she'd like to focus more on social studies, "but there are no consequences attached to understanding or misunderstanding the content." Students "need their strategies," she explained.

To get an idea of what this looks like in practice, it's helpful to browse through a website for teachers called Bookpagez-one of many online resources that nearly all teachers turn to for classroom materials. (You'll have to pay a fee to see what's in Bookpagez, but if you're curious about what goes on in elementary classrooms, it may be worth it.) The lesson plans are based on a variety of commercially available children's books, including some covering topics in science and social studies. Even with those books, the site guides teachers to focus on "skills and strategies" rather than content. There isn't even a way to search for books by topic-only by skills, strategies, genre, grade level, and the like.

A biography called Martin's Big Words, classified at the 2nd-grade level, describes the lives of Martin Luther King, Jr., and "several other equal rights leaders." Bookpagez suggests that teachers use the book to teach the strategy of "Asking Questions," among other possibilities. Students are directed to stop periodically while reading to think about things like "What questions do you have about Rosa Parks?" and "What have you noticed about Martin?" As with other lesson plans, the teacher's role is minimal; students are supposed to talk with a classmate or write their thoughts in a notebook. The point of the lesson isn't to acquire information about historical figures. Rather, it's to learn to ask questions as you read, on the theory that such a strategy will help you understand any text. At the end of the lesson, students are to reflect on "what types of questions helped you the most." But if students don't know anything about Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks to begin with, none of their questions may be much help because they can't answer them.

On the science side, a 3rd-grade level book called Deadliest Animals is paired with strategies such as "Identifying the Author's Purpose." That popular strategy comes with three choices: to persuade, inform, or entertain. The lesson plan guides students to decide which purpose applies to the book (it's assumed only one will) and think about why the author chose to include "text features" like a "caption box" and a glossary. When it's time to reflect, students are to tell a partner "what this book made you think about" and ponder how identifying the author's purpose helped them be better readers. True, they need to draw on information from the book to answer some questions, like one that asks how polar bears and crocodiles are the same or different. But that information isn't the focus of the lesson. The kids who end up absorbing information from the book are likely to be those who have already acquired the necessary background knowledge-most likely at home rather than at school.

There's evidence that some strategies can boost comprehension-albeit not "Identifying the Author's Purpose." But none will work if a reader doesn't have enough background knowledge to understand the text. And there's no evidence to support the standard approach of putting a particular skill or strategy in the foreground rather than focusing on the text's content.

The ACT survey suggests that many elementary educators sense that something important is missing from their classrooms. Several have told me they wish they could spend more time on science and social studies because they know kids "like that stuff." But their training has led them astray, as have policies that have mistakenly turned reading tests into guides for instruction. It's a deeply rooted and complex problem, but change is possible. It should begin-as the ACT report recommends-with giving educators accurate information about what goes into reading comprehension, adopting literacy curricula that focus on building kids' knowledge, and de-emphasizing tests that prioritize short-term gains at the expense of long-term outcomes.