You can tell kids about electricity, or you can turn them loose with capacitors and resistors to learn about it.

There's more to science than theory. A deeper understanding comes from discovering how the world works through feel and touch and smell. And yet that hands-on process doesn't happen often enough in California schools, and soon may become rarer.

This week , the state Board of Education is set to vote on standards for science education that could substantially limit that hands-on approach in elementary and middle schools. At issue are the criteria for approving science textbooks and materials. At stake is whether the next generation of California children views science and technology as a joy or a bore.

A panel of the California Curriculum Commission is recommending that K-8 texts be written with no more than 20 to 25 percent hands-on instruction in mind. Most material would be in the form of readings and lectures, though optional hands-on material could be included in the back.

Proponents of the restrictions argue that hands-on learning frequently is disorganized and unproductive. Scientific understanding is built only upon a solid knowledge of facts. Students must already understand the concept and know what to look for; otherwise, it is child's play.

To critics, this is like giving away the answer to a riddle before letting kids figure it out. Hands-on learning not only fosters a love of science; it also teaches critical thinking, the scientific method.

Those critics include the national and state science teachers' associations, the chancellors of the UC system, and prominent high-tech CEOs and scientists who remember what turned them on to science when they were young.

Led by Lawrence Woolf, a San Diego physicist, they warn that the standards will produce numbingly dull textbooks. Imaginative and effective materials like Great Explorations in Math and Science, produced by the Lawrence Hall of Science at UC-Berkeley, and materials of the National Science Foundation will vanish from the classroom. Without state certification, cash-strapped districts won't buy them. The curriculum commission advises the state board, which has the final say over which materials qualify for state funding.

The board of education need not choose sides. Instead, it should trust teachers and local districts to choose the materials that best suit their needs. That means certifying good hands-on materials and making the criteria more flexible. Certifying a handful of stultifying textbooks -- and nothing else -- is a sure way to smother an interest in science.