We hear complaints. Here's my take.
The ESSA specifies testing for reading, math, and science.
Then it goes on at length about reading and, to a slightly lesser extent, math. Science is in third place for discussion, and often when it is discussed it's in the context of a host of other topics--history, art, technology, engineering. Sometimes the list is mostly STEM; sometimes it's more expansive.
Take away: First two priorities are reading and math. Science is in third place.
I say this as a science teacher in high school. If the kids can't read--and many can't read appropriately--then it's harder to learn science and math. I can't assign them something to read. They miss test questions and instructions because they can't or won't read. In some cases it's hard to tell which: They way they're taught to deal with complex literature is to guess. Good luck guessing in a science text. "Gee, I wonder what vector means. I know, I'll assume it's just a number. It sort of makes sense."
If they can't do the math, science is harder. I spend a lot of time teaching math and getting them around math hurdles instead of over them.
You can't do science if reading and math aren't job 1 and 2. So the way ESSA is built makes a certain sense. It also means that science again comes in #3.
Now, the complaint is that the DOE is saying science isn't a priority. Wording is important here. Does the DOE say that science isn't the top priority? A top priority? One of the two top priorities? Not a priority at all, but perhaps something like beading is? Don't know what the article's actually claiming. Default reading: Advocates are advocating.
= new reply since forum marked as read