Is there a place for demonstrations in today's science classroom?

At a recent meeting, I learned that a local high school in our district had several science teachers who were achieving exemplary scores in the state standards tests. As it turns out, these teachers found their success through the elimination of all laboratory activities in their classroom. Instead of spending time on hands-on lab work, these teachers devoted all classroom time to direct, rote instruction followed by the answering of hundreds of worksheet questions. Apparently, the studies I have heard about are true: direct instruction is the most effective instruction for acheiving high test scores.
I frequently have visits from another chemistry teacher's students who inquire about labs and activities that we are doing. They are usually asking me to intercede - to convince this other educator to do some of the demonstrations and creative labs that my co-teacher and I are doing. When the students ask this educator to do these activities, they receive answers like "demonstrations have nothing to do with the standards" and "blowing stuff up has nothing to do with chemistry".
I do not give even a moment's thought to ignorant statements like this. What does concern me, though, is that this same teacher has sat on and chaired state-level committees regarding the contents and direction of the science standards.
The number of college graduates in the sciences, especially chemistry and physics, has been on the decline for the last three decades. In 1966 the number of college graduates majoring in chemisty was 1.86%; by 2004 that number had declined to 0.66 %. This decline has taken place while the percentages in other countries like India, Japan and China have dramatically increased. Our nation's science teachers should be focusing on exposing students to the fascination and promise of science - not eliminating any interest in the field by boring them with abstract theories and abtruse worksheets.
Recently, I took a few minutes at the end of each period to show my students a sample of ferrofluid, an amazing magnetic fluid developed by NASA. As they watched, I revealed a petri dish containing a liquid that resembled dirty automobile oil. As the dish was brought over a magnet, a multi-spiked form appeared to come to life from within the fluid. In each class, questions and exclamations of wonderment filled the room. All eyes were on the demonstration as I explained how it contained nanoparticle sizes of magnetic iron particles and described its many uses from hydraulics to seals to advanced audiophonics. As the period bell rang, the students left the room with a refreshed appreciation of the fascinating nature of science.
What a pity that a simple activity like this can be view by so many teachers and administrators as having no place in the science classroom. It is a shame that teachers must constantly be on the lookout for demonstrations and activities that have a direct tie to the standards, at the exclusion of everything else that brings excitement, motivation, and fascination to the learning of science. I, for one, will quit teaching on the day that a student enteres my classroom with an interest in science, yet leaves disallusioned in the subject.
Perhaps my outlook on the direction of science education is a result of the years I spent in the "real world" as a pharmacist. Would I have ever entered that field, or the field of education, if higher education was driven only by test scores? I seriously doubt it. I recall how in both fields I was most excited by the courses where I received practical, hands-on instruction and experience. Sure, the lecture and textbook information was critical - but with the understanding that it went hand-in-hand with the direct clinical application of the information. It is one thing to learn about circulatory hemodynamics and drug effects in cardiac disease. It is another to stand at the bedside of an intensive care patient and use pharmacologic knowledge in those areas to expidite their recovery.
The science classroom is no different. Is there a way to explain a combustion reaction without actually witnessing one? Can a student understand what a precipitate is without being shown one?
As the Holidays approach, my students are gearing up for a week of "Holiday Labs" in chemistry. They will be growing crystals on pipe cleaners to make ornaments, making snow globes with benzoic acid, making scented candles, and silver-plating the inside of glass ornament balls. Do these activities address the standards? Yes. They teach ionic compound crystal structure, temperature effects on solubilities, hydrocarbon properties, and oxidation-reduction reactions with metals. Will these activities increase their test scores? I don't know; perhaps. Will these activities generate excitement and interest in science and provide a life-long memory of its application - most definitely.