The argument that social studies and science require literacy and and math as prerequisites has long been advanced as a justification for the narrowing of the curriculum — or at least the narrower emphasis on math and reading tests.

But I think that your testimony supports the idea that the narrower focus on math and reading tests has not actually produced math and literacy improvements beyond the test gains. If the social studies test is “is basically an applied literacy test,” and ELA tests are reflective of true skill improvement — as opposed to merely teaching to the test — we should see social studies test score gains that mirror ELA scores gains. If what you say is true, we don’t need to look at NAEP scores to see a dearth of real learning. Rather, we can look at our own tests without having to address the appropriateness of the NAEP for our students.

I have not seen attempts to address the question of whether that argument that narrowing the curriculum/testing focus is a necessary precursor to wider learning gains, at least not any that look at the resulting achievement data. That has seemed fair to me, as I would think that it would take time for the math and literacy gains to take hold before we see social studies and science gains. But perhaps it is now time to check the pudding?

I, however, read this information a differently. As a NYC public middle school teacher I have had the pleasure of grading the 8th grade science and social studies tests several times over the past few years (unlike the ELA and Math tests, S.S. and science are grade in house, with principals often offering per session to staff members to help grade). One trend that I have noticed is that literacy is a major obstacle to success in both of these tests. This is particularly true of the social studies test, which requires very little historical knowledge is basically an applied literacy test. The real glaring gap in the state test is that between the tremendous results on the math test and the relatively mediocre scores on the ELA test. This weakness in literacy is magnified on the science and S.S. test which ask students to apply literacy skills to less familiar realms of knowledge. Yes, I agree the overemphasis on math and literacy is hurting our students. But we also have some serious strides to make in the teaching of reading and writing to students in New York City, particularly middle school students.

I see these gaps a bit differently than you do.

Generally, the city is about 16 points behind the state. However, in 4th grade math, the gap has been closed to 6 points, and in 8th grade science and social studies, the gap is *much* larger (about 33 points).

Another way to look at it might be that 4th grade scores show less of a gap (i.e. 6-17 points) than 8th grade scores (15-36 points).

But you group the four math & ELA scores against the four science/social studies scores. I don’t think that the data really supports that. Is there reason to believe that 8th grade science is being short changed by the same sort of mechanisms as 4th grade science? I mean, in middle schooo, with subject-specific class and teachers, wouldn’t be expect to see *less* of a science & social studies gap if this were a campbell’s law sort of thing?

Why not look for an overall trend in the data (15-20 point gap) and then deviations from the trend?

Common sense would say that gains in math would be more likely to be expected. Back in the day, how many elementary teachers had any background in teaching math.

The problem with ELA scores, as Core Knowledge and others stress, is they might improve decoding skills while not improving reading comprehension.

Real numeracy and reading comprehension are foundational skills. But if the kids are really learning more, at some point those reading and math skills should translate into evidence in regard to science and social studies.

If Klein showed any sign that he understood this, I’d feel differently. But when you consider how much more money has been invested for so many years, its time to draw conclusions on Bloom/Klein.