As the new science curriculum coordinator for Downingtown School District, Ed Smith has spent the first three months conducting a needs assessment through interviews with the superintendent, principals, and teachers throughout the district. He finds wide dissatisfaction with the current science program. A majority of high school students in the district are struggling in class and on standardized tests. About 20 percent of the students are doing well on SAT IIs in science, and a respectable number are going on to major in science in college. But many parents of these students are complaining that the curriculum isn't sufficiently interesting or challenging.

Today, Smith is meeting with the science department of Wilson High School, where he will test their reactions to a new curriculum plan he would like to implement. He would like to move the district's high schools away from a traditional lecture–and–textbook approach to a more "inquiry–based" approach in which students pose questions and then design experiments to find explanations based on data. He tells the group that he would like to see the district adopt inquiry–based curriculum materials, which he believes will provide more relevance for the top students and help motivate many others. "The traditional approach drains the life out of science," he tells the group. "Science is about experimentation and discovery, but the only experiments our students do are to verify what they already know."

Ms. Leon (to Mr. Smith): "If I understand what you mean by 'inquiry–based,' I think I like it. There is so much content crammed into these textbooks that we can't teach anything in any depth. I'd rather teach fewer concepts more deeply. Get students excited about a few big scientific ideas. Help teach them how to think better, not how to score better on a superficial test."

Mr. Smith: "I think that gets at the heart of what I mean by inquiry-based. But I don't think we can ignore the reality of standardized tests . . . "

Mr. Miller: "Parents won't let us ignore them. They care about the tests—much more than they care about 'scientific inquiry' or 'big ideas.' They want their kids to pass the course, score well on the test, get into a college and do well, get a decent job . . . I think our scores would plummet under the kind of curriculum you're describing."

Mr. Smith: "There are risks with any change. We also need to recognize that there's risk in making no change. I haven't spoken to anyone who is enthusiastic about the current curriculum—or our test scores."

Mr. Jones: "You don't know the community here very well, Mr. Smith. Parents and school board members are very suspicious of 'education reform.' They want something that looks familiar to them—textbooks, lots of homework, tests. How do you plan to sell the idea to the community?"

Ms. Lee: "What if we went with a two-tiered system? We could use an inquiry–based curriculum with students who are struggling under the current program, and keep the traditional curriculum for the students who can handle a more rigorous science program."

Ms. Leon: "Why do you assume that the traditional curriculum is more rigorous? I would argue that a good, inquiry–based curriculum is more rigorous because it gives students space to develop their own ideas."

Mr. Miller: "No curriculum teaches itself, Carla [Leon]. I've taught science for 20 years, and I don't feel prepared to switch to an inquiry–based approach—even if I wanted to. [to Mr. Smith] Have you thought about how much professional development and release time we are going to need to make a change like this?"

Mr. Smith: "I've thought about it, but I need your help to figure out the answers. These are all good questions . . ."