Last week in this column, I addressed the success of Minnesota in mathematics with its decision to have a curriculum that was deep and not wide. Many science educators have been pushing for this approach for years, and the movement is gathering momentum.

Simply stated, science educators are claiming that too many topics are covered in science classes with too little attention to mastery of the topics. In a recent study published in the Science Education Journal, high school students who focused more intensely on core topics within their biology, chemistry and physics classes fared better in first-level college classes than students who had been exposed to many topics in those fields. This idea is not new. A former colleague of mine, the late Dr. Walt Farmer of SUNY at Albany, used to ridicule science teachers who, as he expressed it, believed "to name it is divine."

He claimed that some science teachers offered courses that for all intents and purposes were science vocabulary courses. The students coming out of these courses had heard about science, but they couldn't do science, and they didn't understand it. Dr. Farmer, one of the foremost science educators in the U.S., believed that we needed hands-on, minds-on science instruction where students "did science" with laboratory experiences that allowed them to experiment and then analyze what they had just observed. That is just what we have taking place in our schools in the Susquehanna Valley, and I believe the test results from the latest PSSA Science Test supports this claim.

At the end of the day, irrespective of what educators claim, tests drive the curriculum even though we all know it should be the other way around. The required tests that are given do indeed affect the way we teach and what we teach. Anyone who claims otherwise will probably lie about other things too.

The College Board, author and publisher of the Advanced Placement Exams in physics, chemistry and biology, has announced that they are redesigning these tests to emphasize depth and scientific reasoning. If the U.S. is to remain competitive in global markets, it must produce students who can compete with students from other nations, or it will lose out economically. One of the benefits of encouraging students to focus more deeply on a few key concepts is they will develop a stronger grasp of science overall and will be more likely to pursue factual knowledge in future studies and in their work.

This year, Pennsylvania required schools to administer the PSSA Science Test to fourth-, eight- and 11th-grade students, and this was the first year that schools received feedback on the results of this test. In the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit, of the four areas tested, "The Nature of Science" was identified as an area of weakness in member schools. We will be addressing this need for improvement this summer and this coming school year with member schools working together and with consultants to improve science education in our schools.

I continue to be impressed with the CSIU and the role that it plays in the improvement in the operation of its member schools. Our intermediate unit is the envy of the other IUs in the state. Francis Eberle, the current executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, recently stated that: "Our traditions are strong. Our system is designed for breadth, and any time you change the system for teaching science, parents will say, That's not the way I had it.'"‰"

Well, the world is different now than it was when today's parents were in school, and I would hope that we are not teaching science the same way we did before Al Gore invented the Internet. When America teaches science and math with a curriculum that is deep and not broad, I believe we will once again rank high in any international testing.

n Wesley Knapp, Ph.D., is superintendent of the Midd-West School District in Snyder County.