Mike S wrote:
[...]during a 4th grade science class
the teacher was asking the students
what they had planned for their science fair projects.

One young girl told the teacher "My dad and I built a Heathkit".
The teacher's response: "What's a Heathkit"
Girl: "We built a radio from scratch. We soldered all the parts
and adjusted everything to make it work"
Teacher: "Your science projects need to TEACH you something,
not just follow instructions from a kit..."
[...]I listened to the teacher
explain how to select a project from their textbooks.

It makes me angry that elementary schools
have done such a poor job of teaching Step 1 WRT Science:
For generations, Science classes have failed to define at the outset
**What is Science**.

The teacher was wrong
for the strict *copy something out of the book* approach.
That's kinda weak--but at least those are likely to be Science.

Go to the library. Look at the 500 section. THAT is Science.
(e.g. 537 will contain Fundamentals of Electricity.)
Now look at the 600 section. That is TECHNOLOGY.
(e.g. 621.319 is about how to wire a house.)
A willingness to conflate Science with Applied Science
shows that you (and the kid) don't know what Science is.

A proper Science project will *start* with The Scientific Method.
You will notice that a **Science** project
will begin with a question that needs to be answered.
http://www.rogers.k12.ar.us/users/eh...ficmethod.html

You will also notice that among the basics of The Scientific Method,
"build" is NOT listed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...entific_method

You were wrong with your support for the *build a kit* approach.
Unless that kit is then used to **analyze** something,
building a kit is NOT part of a proper **Science** project.