Thanks for the information - I really appreciate it. You’re right, that does help ease my concerns somewhat. I still have some concerns, for example with the weighting of the material. I was just sent a survey about this issue, and filled it out. At the end it tells me that astronomy is only 10% of the E&SS curriculum material tested on, just equal with any one of plate tectonics, structure of the earth’s interior, etc. Basically, when you do the math, geological processes get over 40% weight, astronomical processes about 10%. And I’m sorry, but as an astrophysicist, I find that unacceptable and not justifiable. Especially when you consider how much the two are built on one another.

I think I might be able to ease your concerns a bit. I am not sure what NECSI is (superficial googling takes me to the New England Complex Systems Institute) but I have been involved with the FDOE (through Pearson) in Tampa helping to write and validate the earth/space science Florida teacher certification exam (FTCE). I have gone to several of the meetings in Tampa during different phases of the process, missing only the question writing sessions. The final session will be taking place in late November for the final validation process. I will be attending.

Yes, we have been given pretty short notice for some of the meetings. In fact, the last sessions were rescheduled due to lack of positive response. However, I can assure you that in the meetings I have attended, the level of scientific scrutiny has been very high. Several of us participating were also writers of the new standards and therefore feel particularly protective of our previous efforts.

It is painful for me to take time out of my high school classroom but I am strongly committed to participating in the process. If nothing else, being involved absolves me of ever saying “who wrote these stupid standards, anyway” or, “what group of boneheads put together that pathetic certification exam”.

I am confident that, at least for earth/space science, the certification exam is scientifically rigorous and integrates very well the new standards.

I am just worried about possible legislative shenanigans in the coming months.

Over the last few months I’ve had a number of emails from and to NECSI, the contractor company overseeing the teacher accreditation process. What they’re doing is contacting scientists like me for the validation of questions, as well as the overall balance of material, represented in the accreditation tests. All well and good, except that the three times I was contacted, it was in such a way that there was almost no way I could participate.

What they did each time was to tell me that I was invited to a 2-day meeting in Tampa to do the validation. The meeting was only a few days in the future — the first time, I was contacted late Thursday afternoon and the meeting was to begin Monday morning. The second time was the next week, after they could not find enough people to do the meeting, they did a similar thing except that the meeting was to be over both days of a weekend. The third time I was given a little more warning (still just 5-7 days) only to find that the meetings were scheduled over Yom Kippur (I’m Jewish).

My point here is that each time the schedule was so short that many, if not most scientists could not participate. It’s very difficult to reschedule my teaching commitments on such short notice. That means colleagues have to substitute, which they usually want more lead-time for. Usually the only time you give such short notice is for a family emergency. Basically, they set it up in such a way so that only the committed activists who want something changed, would find the time to do it. Interesting, no?

Joe