Monday, December 24, 2012

Next Generation Science Standards (Video; Links, Draft and Comments submitted by James Emmerling)



Next Generation Science Standards (Video)
http://www.mistreamnet.com/vidflv.php?who=ngss121112.n01

Next Generation Science
http://www.nextgensicence.org


James Emmerling posted a new message:
Comment on New DRAFT Science Standards

To understand how your work can fit in the K12 system and to offer comments to the writers of the DRAFT Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) please view the following video and complete the survey.

The resources that I mentioned in our meeting for building a basic understanding of the Framework on which the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is built can be found here,. The 34 minute video also contains a timeline for possible state adoption, a possible transition timeline, and "how to read the standards". I put it together for teachers and other interested parties to watch prior to commenting on the 2nd public draft. The NGSS documents and the survey will be available for commenting to the writers during the first week of January. These documents will be found at www.nextgenscience.org . The input window will only be open for a three week period.


Published on Next Generation Science Standards (http://www.nextgenscience.org)
Home > Why Science Standards? > The Need

The Need for New Science Standards

In 2007, a Carnegie Foundation commission of distinguished researchers and public and private leaders concluded that "the nation’s capacity to innovate for economic growth and the ability of American workers to thrive in the modern workforce depend on a broad foundation of math and science learning, as do our hopes for preserving a vibrant democracy and the promise of social mobility that lie at the heart of the American dream"1. However, the U.S. system of science and mathematics education is performing far below par and, if left unattended, will leave millions of young Americans unprepared to succeed in a global economy.



Reduction of the United States' competitive economic edge

Lagging achievement of U.S. students

Essential preparation for all careers in the modern workforce

Scientific and technological literacy for an educated society

Reduction of the United States' competitive economic edge 
  • Shrinking share of patents: Foreign competitors filed over half of U.S. technology patent applications in 20102.
  • Diminishing share of high-tech exports:  Our share of high-tech exports is on the decline, while the European Union’s has held steady and China’s has surpassed us3. Correspondingly, the United States has a growing high-tech trade deficit4.
[back to top]
Lagging achievement of U.S. students 
  • The U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in mathematics on the 2009 PISA assessment. Less than ten percent of U.S. students scored at one of the top two of six performance levels5. 
  • The United States is 12th in high school graduation rate among the 36 OECD countries for which data is available6.
  • Over a third of eighth-graders scored below basic on the 2009 NAEP Science assessment7.
  • 78% of high school graduates did not meet the readiness benchmark levels for one or more entry level college courses in mathematics, science, reading and English8.
[back to top]
Essential preparation for all careers in the modern workforce
When we think science education, we tend to think preparation for careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, which are wellsprings of innovation in our economy. Why then is ensuring scientific and technological literacy for all students of equal concern? Over the past decades, demands have shifted in favor of skilled jobs requiring more education than the unskilled jobs they replaced. Moreover, many of the fastest growing occupations are those where science and mathematics play a central role.

The National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium, grouped all occupations into 16 career clusters9. Fourteen of the 16 career clusters call forfour years of science, with the remaining two clusters calling for three years. All 16 called for four years of mathematics. The inescapable message: to keep their options open and maximize their opportunities, all students should follow a rigorous program in both science and mathematics.
[back to top]
Scientific and technological literacy for an educated society
Beyond the concern of employability looms the larger question of what it takes to thrive in today’s society. Citizens now face problems from pandemics to energy shortages whose solutions require all the scientific and technological genius we can muster. Americans are being forced to increasingly make decisions—including on health care and retirement planning—where literacy in science and mathematics is a real advantage. Contrast these demands with the results of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Fewer than one in three college graduates can perform tasks such as interpreting a data table about blood pressure and physical activity10.
[back to top]

1. Carnegie Corporation of New York-Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education Executive Summary, p.1 [1].
2. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/all_tech.htm#PartA1_2a [2]
3. Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010.  National Science Foundation.  http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c0/c0s11.htm [3].
4. Our Nation’s Surprising Technology Trade Deficit. Center for American Progress.  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/high_tech_trade.html [4].
5. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development- High School Graduation Rates [5]
6. http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1653 [6]
7. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011451 [7]
8. ACT Readiness Benchmarks [8]
9. National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium, Sample Plans of Study, http://www.careertech.org/career-clusters/ [9], [9] 2006. (Career clusters are as follows: Agriculture; Architecture & Construction; Arts, A/V Technology & Communication; Business; Education; Finance; Government; Health Science; Hospitality & Tourism; Human Services; Information Technology; Law, Public Safety; Manufacturing; Marketing, Sales, Service; Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics; Transportation.)
10. National Assessment of Adult Literacy [10], 2003.
Source URL: http://www.nextgenscience.org/overview-0
Links:
[1] http://opportunityequation.org/uploads/files/oe_report.pdf
[2] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/all_tech.htm#PartA1_2a
[3] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c0/c0s11.htm
[4] http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/high_tech_trade.html
[5] http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_46635719_1_1_1_1,00.html
[6] http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1653
[7] http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011451
[8] http://www.act.org/news/data/10/benchmarks.html?utm_campaign=cccr10&utm_source=data10_leftnav&utm_medium=web
[9] http://www.careertech.org/career-clusters/
[10] http://nces.ed.gov/naal/


Frequently Asked Questions

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Don’t see your question listed here?  Contact Us
Purpose of Next Generation Science Standards
Why new science standards? Why now?
Science—and therefore science education—is central to the lives of all Americans, preparing them to be informed citizens in a democracy and knowledgeable consumers.  It is also the case that if the nation is to compete and lead in the global economy and if American students are to be able to pursue expanding employment opportunities in science-related fields, all students must all have a solid K–12 science education that prepares them for college and careers. States have previously used the National Science Education Standards from the National Research Council (NRC) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to guide the development of their current state science standards. While these two documents have proven to be both durable and of high quality, they are around 15 years old.  Needless to say, major advances have since taken place in the world of science and in our understanding of how students learn science effectively. The time is right to take a fresh look and develop Next Generation Science Standards.
Contents and Research Background of the Standards
How will critical thinking and communications skills, which are fundamental to student success in today’s global economy, be addressed in the Next Generation Science Standards?
It is important to understand that the scientific practices defined by the NRC include the critical thinking and communication skills that students need for postsecondary success and citizenship in a world fueled by innovations in science and technology. These science practices encompass the habits and skills that scientists and engineers use day in and day out. In the Next Generation Science Standards these practices will be wedded to content. In other words, content and practice will be intertwined in the standards, just as they are in the NRCFramework and in today’s workplace.
How will the standards take into account current research in cognitive science?
Research on how students learn science effectively has been a long-term interest of the National Research Council, which published How People Learn, How Students Learn, and most recently, Taking Science to School.  Findings in cognitive science permeate the Framework for K–12 Science Education and will be central to developing the Next Generation Science Standards.
Back to Top                                     
Will the standards be internationally benchmarked?           
Yes. Achieve undertook a study of 10 countries’ standards to determine their overall emphases in the expectations they have for all students (grade spans 1–6 and 7–10), as well as emphases in Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Earth/Space courses in upper secondary. The comparison countries were generally those whose students performed well on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) or the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS): Ontario Canada, Chinese Taipei, England, Finland, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. Achieve’s study consisted of two parts: a quantitative analysis of the knowledge and performances included in each country’s standards; and  a qualitative in-depth review of five of the ten countries that offered the most guidance for constructing useful and meaningful standards.  
The quantitative analysis enabled Achieve to detect patterns of emphases in major categories of knowledge and performances. Major findings for grade span 1-10 were as follows: Seven of 10 countries require general science for all students through grade 10, prior to students taking discipline-specific courses; Physical science (chemistry and physics taken together) receives the most attention; Biology receives somewhat less attention, and Earth/space science much less; Crosscutting content, such as the nature of science and engineering, and the interactions of science, technology and society, and environmental sustainability also receives significant attention. Achieve's qualitative analysis revealed exemplary features that we hope to incorporate in the Next Generation Science Standards, such as: the use of an overarching conceptual framework; multiple examples to clarify the level of rigor expected and connect concepts with applications; concrete links between standards and assessments; and development of inquiry and design processes in parallel to facilitate students engaging in both science and engineering practices. (Additional information regarding the study can be found at www.Achieve.org.)
What are core ideas in science?
The NRC defines disciplinary core ideas as those that focus K–12 science curriculum, instruction and assessments on the most important aspects of science disciplinary content knowledge. In order to identify the relevant core ideas for K–12 level science, the NRC Framework Committee developed and applied a set of criteria.  To be considered "core", the ideas should meet at least two of the following criteria and ideally all four: Have broad importance across multiple sciences or engineering disciplines or be a key organizing principle of a single discipline; Provide a key tool for understanding or investigating more complex ideas and solving problems; Relate to the interests and life experiences of students or be connected to societal or personal concerns that require scientific or technological knowledge; Be teachable and learnable over multiple grades at increasing levels of depth and sophistication. Design teams working in four domains – life sciences, physical sciences, earth and space sciences, and engineering and technology – supported the work of the committee on core ideas, examining related research and key documents. These included recent research on teaching and learning science, much of which has been summarized in previous reports from the NRC—How People Learn, Taking Science to School, Learning Science in Informal Environments, Systems for State Science Assessment and America’s Lab Report. The Committee and design team members also reviewed the NAEP 2009 Science Framework, the College Board Science Standards for College Success, NSTA’s Science Anchors initiative, and such seminal documents as the National Science Education Standards developed by the NRC and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy developed by AAAS.
What are scientific practices?
Scientific practices are the behaviors that scientists engage in as they investigate and build models and theories about the natural world. The NRC uses the term practices instead of a term like “skills” to emphasize that engaging in scientific inquiry requires coordination of both knowledge and skills simultaneously. Use of the term practices helps avoid the interpretation of skill as rote mastery of an activity or procedure. Part of the NRC’s intent is to better explain and extend what is meant by “inquiry” in science and the range of cognitive, social, and physical practices that it requires.
Like previous editions of science standards from the NRC and AAAS, science practices will also include practices of engineering, which are the behaviors that engineers engage in as they apply science and mathematics to design solutions to problems.  Although engineering design is similar to scientific inquiry there are significant differences. For example, scientific inquiry involves the formulation of a question that can be answered through investigation, while engineering design involves the formulation of a problem that can be solved through design. Strengthening the engineering aspects of the Next Generation Science Standardswill clarify for students the relevance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (the four STEM fields) to everyday life. And engaging in these practices help students become successful analytical thinkers, prepared for college and careers.
What are crosscutting concepts?
The NRC Framework describes crosscutting concepts as those that bridge disciplinary boundaries, having explanatory value throughout much of science and engineering. Crosscutting concepts help provide students with an organizational framework for connecting knowledge from the various disciplines into a coherent and scientifically based view of the world. These are as follows: Patterns; Cause and effect: Mechanism and explanation; Scale, proportion and quantity; Systems and system models; Energy and matter: Flows, cycles, and conservation; Structure and function; Stability and change. The Framework also emphasizes that these concepts need to be made explicit for students because they provide an organizational schema for interrelating knowledge from various science fields into a coherent and scientifically-based view of the world.
What is the difference between the Common Core State Standards for Literacy in Science and the NGSS?
The CCSS Literacy Standards were written to help students meet the particular challenges of reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language in their respective fields-in this case, science. The literacy standards do not replace science standards-they supplement them. The NGSS will lay out the core ideas and practices in science that students should master in preparation for college and careers.
Standards Development Process
How is the development of the Next Generation Science Standards different than the development of the Common Core State Standards?
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is following a different developmental pathway than did the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts and mathematics. The process for the science standards development takes into account the importance of having the scientific and educational research communities identify core ideas in science and articulate them across grade bands. That is why the NRC took the first step by constructing a Framework for K–12 Science Education—to ensure scientific validity and accuracy. A committee of 18 experts in science, engineering, cognitive science, teaching and learning, curriculum, assessment and education policy, was responsible for writing the Framework. The Framework describes a vision of what it means to be proficient in science. It also  presents and explains the interrelationships among practices, cross-disciplinary concepts and disciplinary core ideas. The NRC released a draft for public comment during the summer of 2010 and the final report in July of 2011.
Achieve will facilitate the next step: a state-led process where state policy leaders, higher education, K–12 teachers, the science and business community and others will develop science standards that are grounded in the Framework. This second step recognizes the importance of state and educator leadership in the development of the actual standards. Moreover, all stakeholders can expect that there will be multiple opportunities for public feedback, review and discussion just as there were in the CCSS process.
Is the federal government involved in the development of the Next Generation Science Standards?
No. The federal government is not involved in this effort. It is state-led, and states will decide whether or not to adopt the standards. The work undertaken by both the NRC and Achieve is being supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.  No federal funds have or will be used to develop the standards.
Who will be involved in the development of the Next Generation Science Standards?
The development of the Standards will be a state-led effort. In addition to states, the NRC, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), AAAS, and other critical partners will be active in the development and review of the new standards and will provide significant strategic support to states.  Writing and review teams will consist of K–12 teachers, state science and policy staff, higher education faculty, scientists, engineers, cognitive scientists, and business leaders. Achieve will manage the development process on behalf of the lead states.
Will there be an opportunity for the general public to submit feedback on the standards during the development process?
Yes. The Next Generation Science Standards will have two public web-based feedback periods prior to the finalization of the standards. In addition, state leaders, teachers, scientific and educator organizations, higher education faculty, scientists and business community members will review drafts at specific intervals.
What is the timeline for completing the Next Generation Science Standards?
The current timeline is designed to complete the standards by the end of 2012.
Will there be an alignment of the Next Generation Science Standards to the National Research Council’s Framework for K–12 Science Education?
During development, a feedback loop between Achieve and the National Academies will ensure fidelity of the standards to the Framework.
Next Steps for the Standards and Framework
Will the new standards be the Common Core State Standards for Science?
In the end, the decision to adopt the standards and make them consistent between states will lie in the hands of the states themselves. The goal is to create robust, forward-looking K–12 science standards that all states can use to guide teaching and learning in science for the next decade. Thus, the National Academies, Achieve, NSTA, and AAAS are working collaboratively with states and other stakeholders to help ensure the standards will be of high quality—internationally benchmarked, rigorous, research-based and aligned with expectations for college and careers.
How will states use these standards documents?
To reap the benefits of the science standards, states should adopt them in whole, without alteration. States can use the NGSS, as they are using the CCSS in English language arts and mathematics, to align curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional preparation and development.
How will states use the NRC Framework?
The NRC Framework articulates a vision for science learning and teaching. States can start implementing changes to their systems for professional development and pre-service teacher training based on a deep understanding of this vision. They can also begin to think about ways to align curriculum, instruction and assessment with this vision. Once the Next Generation Science Standards are developed, the process of alignment can begin in earnest.
Will there be science assessments aligned to the NGSS?
States will decide whether to create assessments aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards.
Don’t see your question listed here?  Contact us

Development Process

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Throughout the development process, the Next Generation Science Standards(NGSS) will go through several rounds of review with multiple stakeholder groups.  Each group will receive draft standards at least twice throughout the development process. Below is the general process and timeline for the development of the NGSS.

Michigan

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Michael P. Flanagan
Primary Point of Contact: Kevin Richard—Science Education Specialist
Partner Organizations: Michigan Science Teacher Association; Michigan Virtual University; Science Matters/Building a Presence; Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM; Michigan STEM Partnership.
Background:    Michigan requires students to complete three science courses, including one in biology and one in either chemistry or physics, in order to satisfy the Michigan graduation requirements. In 2008, Michigan restructured its science standards from grade bands to grade level standards K–7 and College and Career Readiness science standards for high school. Michigan is a local control state, where districts have the discretion to teach state standards in any order as long as they are taught before statewide assessments. The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) assesses students in grades 5, 8, and 11; however the grade 11 exam is a compilation of the ACT Science Reasoning component and a state developed supplement. While Michigan believes its science standards to be rigorous in content, it is aware of the advantages of multi-state collaboration and the benefits of common standards and is eager to work on developing, adopting, and implementing the NGSS.
Commitment:    Michigan has shown a strong commitment to standards based learning through its adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and its position as a governing state in SMARTER Balanced. The Michigan Department of Education has worked to develop a framework for universal implementation of standards, which include the CCSS and any future standards, to allow for equal implementation across the state. The framework will allow implementation structures to be in place for the NGSS for assessment development and improvement, professional development, infrastructure improvements, and communication. This dedication to development and implementation of common standards shows the commitment Michigan has to the adoption of the NGSS.
STEM Involvement:    Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are vital to Michigan’s economy, for the state must transform from a historically unskilled labor force to one comprised of skilled workers, specifically in the areas of science and technology. Michigan’s Science Teacher Association and regional Math/Science Centers have curriculum support models in these subjects that could act as models for other states. Additionally, the Michigan Virtual University (MVU) allows for an easily accessible database of science education tools, curriculum, and professional development. Working with the Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM, Michigan has formed a statewide STEM Partnership network of business and industry professionals, policy makers, and educators in order to enhance STEM education in Michigan. 
Alliances and Infrastructure:    There are strong professional alliances in Michigan that assist with science education advancement statewide. The Michigan Science Teacher Association puts on one of the nation’s largest annual conferences, and there are strong professional educator organizations in the following content areas, earth sciences, biology, chemistry, and physics, which result in strong professional development, communication, and educator resources. The Science Matters/Building a Presence network Michigan branch is one of the largest in the country with approximately 3,500 teachers representing over 60% of school buildings involved. These members receive a complete update on all national and state science education information, which again helps with communication and professional development within the state. 

Check back soon for more information on Michigan's state team and        implementation plans      
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)