The Next Generation Science Standards, like the Mars Rover or even some new and strange
space ship hovering above a farmer’s cornfield, are about to land here in
Washington and in many states across our country. Our job as educators? Let’s hijack that spaceship. I mean that in a positive way: let’s grab
those standards, make them our own, and use them to improve student learning
and our science education system.
The final version of the standards will likely be released this month, and probably be adopted
soon thereafter by our state. Some
changes from the earlier drafts many are hoping to see? Hopefully, some increased
clarity in language and a reduction in the overall scope of the standards,
avoiding the “mile-wide and inch-deep” problem.
As one reviewer said, “We're
here to produce learners, not people who have been exposed to a lot of content." Possible opposition to reduced scope in
standards? One person mentioned the “Julie Andrews” curriculum problem: what does
an individual want to include? “These are a few of my favorite things”—and it
is not possible to include everyone’s favorite things.
Why do I say the Next Generation Science Standards resemble a new
and strange spaceship?
Each performance expectation includes three major components: a
practice, a content piece, and a cross-cutting concept. These three components are in a three-way “marriage”
to each other in a way we haven’t seen before.
Here’s an example from high school: “Synthesize and produce technical
information about the processes by which stars produce new elements over the
changing lifetimes.” The practice is in
blue, the disciplinary core idea (content) in orange, and the crosscutting concept
in green. These colors are used in the
standards, and the arrangement and appearance of the standards is novel. Please note this specific example is a draft—format
and wording may well change when the final version is released!
What else is new with these standards? Well, quite a bit. For starters, engineering is integrated in a way that does not currently occur in
Washington state, or in most other states for that matter. Earth science also plays a major role, and compared to other
science disciplines, many schools do seem to be lacking in earth science
teachers or existing earth science classes, either stand-alone or integrated.
Other challenges? One person I spoke to noted, “The opponent to NGSS is not a person, the opponent is the sheer mass of other education initiatives.”
The Teacher Principal Evaluation Program and the Common Core State Standards
come to mind here. There is competition
for a limited amount of professional development time and other resources. How
can educators and education systems handle all of this?
So what can drive us forward? Like I said, it’s time to
hijack that spaceship. We as teachers
need to take those standards and make them work in our classrooms. However, because it is a new and strange
spaceship, not one that has landed here before, we’re going to need some
support.
As a state, we are moving from standards review
to adoption and implementation. What do you
think needs to be considered as our state and our schools implement this new
set of science standards?
Tom, you have a good point–teachers are often excluded, or only marginally included, in important decisions affecting schools. That’s why I chose to use the word “hijack” in this post–when it comes to new standards, I think they will be more successful if teachers are fully involved–in order for that to happen, we may need to do a little hijacking!
My take on the new standards and all things Common Core is a little different. I teach fourth grade, and in the elementary schools we tend to be very “materials-driven.” People at the district level are responsible for selecting materials that align with the standards and they essentially ship them out to those of us in the field, where we put them to use.
I don’t mean to sound like a drone, because we make many critical decisions in regards to implementing the materials, which hopefully are aligned with the standards, but for the most part, deciding what to teach is done centrally.
This is an exciting time in education. As an elementary teacher, I am anticipating further integration of the NGSS with other curricular areas. Now seems to be the time to further project based learning based on the NGSS and incorporate Math and ELA Common Core Standards.
It would seem that there could be many partners in this work.
Taking ownership is key. We hear so much about the swinging pendulum of education… the only reason the pendulum swings back is because people stay at in the middle and refuse to consider the “new direction.” I’m also glad that you’re being solution oriented rather than sitting on the sidelines.
I’ve never resented new standards rolling out. As a humanities teacher, our literacy/social studies standards seem to change every five years. We went from district to state and now we’re aligning nationally.
I think it’s a good thing.
I remember you mentioning the color coding in an earlier post when you were providing feedback on the new science standards. Is that a helpful component? I think sometimes standards can be so tangled it’s hard to see the forest for the trees.
I remember decoding the five inches of instructions and rubrics and standards for our National Boards Portfolios, and how just getting through that was hard. Teachers should have a set of standards for their content area that are clear, useful, and build on what happened in earlier grades.
I like that you’re being positive about taking ownership!