ABSTRACT
There is a problem with the very idea of national standards (National Research Council, 1996) and goal setting that does not involve active formulation of those who are to accomplish them. The problem does not reside with the intentions of those who worked hard to arrive at consensus or with the idea that students should know and be able to do science as a means of improving the quality of their social lives. The problem involves the representation of standards as decontextualized, abstract texts and their remoteness from the practices and interests of those required to change. Exhortations for all Americans to accomplish specific standards have a democratic ring, an altruism that is difficult to critique because the associated rhetoric is so often positioned as above and beyond substantive analysis. When I argue about the pros and cons of standards, others implicitly position me as not advocating high standards, as expecting less from different segments of society, and as advocating continued oppression of underrepresented social and cultural groups by denying them access to a power discourse with the potential to change their social and economic lives. To be explicit on these points: I do not advocate low standards nor do I expect urban youth to benefit less from science education. Here I explore the historical, cultural, and social factors associated with teaching and learning practices (Bourdieu, 1990) when science curricula are enacted, especially in urban high schools.
