American education is plagued by a fundamental confusion--a mismatch between goals we claim to value and the strategies we use to achieve them. This confusion is rooted in the seemingly simple idea that education should prepare students for the future. For some, this preparation is about good citizenship and a satisfying life. For others, it's about a scientifically and technically skilled workforce. Each vision is clear and compelling, but each requires a different educational strategy. To prepare citizens, we should base our educational strategy on an understanding of life--in particular, the role played by in life. To prepare a scientific workforce, we should ensure that students have the skills and knowledge to pursue advanced training in scientific and technical fields. We claim to value civic engagement and literacy, but our education system is more suited to producing a scientific workforce. Because we like the idea that education prepares students for the future, we take for granted that any good education can make us capable of leading interesting, responsible, and productive (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1990, p. 1). Yet as hard as we try, we will never reach citizenship goals with a workforce strategy. What's the alternative? American educators have long nourished an interest in ways that affects our daily lives (Aikenhead 2006). In the past, our ability to design an education system around everyday was limited by how little we actually knew. Now, because of a critical mass of research in the young, multidisciplinary field called Science, Technology, and Society, we finally have a strong intellectual foundation for that education system. As we begin to envision what a rigorous classroom looks like, the challenges and the true promise of that vision become clear. INSENSITIVE TO RHETORIC Classroom practice--what teachers actually do--is surprisingly insensitive to changes in political rhetoric. Science education is no exception. For the past century, whether the political spotlight was shining on international competition or domestic social problems, lessons have been built around a core set of scientific facts and principles. With few exceptions, these facts and principles were chosen because they were central to biology, chemistry, or physics--not because they were relevant to daily life. Everyday has typically been relegated to alternative instructional paths or consigned to the dusty shelf of enrichment activities, only to be taken down once the facts and principles are covered. One of the clearest signs that we aren't pursuing a citizenship-oriented version of education is our apparent disregard for concrete, real-life outcomes. Do students with a good education make better health- and career-related decisions? Can they correctly interpret scientific news (or science-related policy) and understand its implications for them? We don't know--and not because the research is equivocal. We don't know because we haven't asked. No large-scale studies, and precious few studies of any sort, have tried to connect school with substantive, real-life outcomes. WHY TODAY IS DIFFERENT Given our track record, we shouldn't be surprised that the more recent enthusiasm for hasn't transformed America's classrooms. The shiny new content standards and science curricula almost never start with a serious consideration of life. Instead of peering over the shoulders of ordinary Americans as they watch television, visit the doctor, and talk politics, today's curricula rely on 'experts,' often scientists, to tell them what's really important and useful for students to know. In other words, all of the talk about literacy is starting to look like new paint on an old car. …