October 2014 – Vol. 27 No. 2

Responding to NGSS Critiques – Anticipating the Final Release

Posted: Friday, March 1st, 2013

by Laura Henriques

As you likely know, the final version of the Next Generation Science Standards will be released at the end of this month. The timeline for the adoption of new science standards in California is based on that release date. With the new standards not yet finalized and released, it is a bit premature for CSTA to take a public position on the standards. It is not too early, however, to respond to some comments and concerns voiced in the press. Two in particular are worth noting here as they contradict each other and force us to consider what is important for California students to understand and be able to do. The Fordham Report and an editorial in Science by Janet Coffey and Bruce Alberts level opposing criticism at the second public draft of the standards.

In their response to the second draft of Next Generation Science Standards, the authors of the Fordham Report discuss two overarching concerns. The first is a criticism of the lack of content and the second is disagreement with the linkages between the engineering/scientific practices and content as found in the performance expectations.  Throughout the 71 page report, Fordham Report authors lament specific content areas that are underemphasized or missing. They recommend areas in each of the disciplines that ought to be added so that students have a rigorous, quantitatively based science experience. They are not opposed to students doing labs – “Science cannot be taught effectively without carefully designed and content-matched laboratory and field activities to augment textual materials” (p.64), yet they do not like the fact that these same practices are linked to the performance expectations. It seems as if the authors would prefer to have the practices decoupled from the content, much the way our current state standards have Investigation & Experimentation standards separate from content standards. As we have seen, decoupling the practices and content results in assessments that focus on the easier to assess content without finding out if students can actually do science. The Fordham authors, in their concern about assessment boundaries accurately note that “Lesson planners and already burdened teachers are unlikely to occupy themselves assiduously with material that will never be tested” (P14). While this quote was in reference to assessment boundaries, the upper limit required for all students, the sentiment is true when looking at the doing of science. If the practices are not explicitly linked to content via performance expectations it is very unlikely that assessments will hold students (and therefore teachers and schools) responsible for engaging in the practices of science/engineering.

In contrast, Coffey and Alberts appreciate the possibilities that the practice/content linkages allows but they are concerned with the amount of content that the draft includes.  Coffey and Alberts see great potential in coupling the practices with content. The “emphasis on science and engineering practices could lay the groundwork for productive shifts toward helping students understand how science helps us make sense of the natural world, instead of just what science has learned” (p. 489). They are well aware of the assessment challenges this creates and urge the states/nation to pay careful attention to their development. Their bigger concern lies in the sheer amount of content incorporated into the second draft of NGSS.  They were pleased to see the intent of NGSS to be aligned with the Framework and to focus more deeply on fewer concepts. What they found in the second draft was too much content, which would force more superficial, than deep, learning.

At the heart of the debate is what and how we want students to learn and engage in science.  CSTA supports standards which actively involve all students in learning the content of science.  We concur with the Framework’s vision of science education. “The overarching goal of our framework for K-12 science education is to ensure that by the end of 12th grade, all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science; possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues; are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives; are able to continue to learn about science outside school; and have the skills to enter careers of their choice, including (but not limited to) careers in science, engineering, and technology” (NRC,. 2012, p. 1). A set of standards that engages students in academically rigorous content and performance is necessary for California. Like Coffey and Alberts, we support science/engineering practices being linked to content knowledge and the direction that this will drive instruction and assessment. Certainly there is work to be done before we get there but it is work we anxiously await as it will move California’s schools and students in a direction that will help create students ready for employment, citizenship, and lifelong learning.

It will be interesting to see which direction the authors move in response to the more than 10,000 comments received on the second draft. Like all of you, we are eager to see the final draft of the Next Generation Science Standards!

References:

Coffey, J. & Alberts, B. (2013). Improving education standards. Science 1 February 2013: Vol. 339 no. 6119 p. 489. DOI: 10.1126/science.1225590 Available online at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6119/489.full.

Gross, P., Buttrey, D., Goodenough, U.,  Koertge, N., Lerner, L.S., Schwartz, M., Schwartz, R. , Schmidt, W.H., Wilson, W.S. (2013). Commentary  & Feedback on Draft II of the Next Generation Science Standards. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Available online at http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/commentary-feedback-on-draft-II-of-the-next-generation-science-standards.html

National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012. Available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.

Written by Laura Henriques

Laura Henriques

Laura Henriques is a professor of science education at CSU Long Beach and president of CSTA.

3 Responses

  1. My concern is not so much the content of the standards but that California will, once again, botch implementation.

    I have been in education since 1970. A number of radically new subjects and approaches have been imposed on elementary level teachers during those decades with the blithe assumption that elementary teachers know enough to teach practically anything with little or no preparation.

    Specific subjects include Spanish, Music, ESL, Chemistry, and Statistics.

    Somewhat more care was given to changes in approach: diagnostic teaching, individualized instruction, learning stations, cooperative learning, the Madeline Hunter structured lesson, Thinking Maps, journaling, and on and on.

    However, in my experience, most of these reforms in pedagogy have been badly implemented due to insufficient training, misunderstandings of their nature, emphasis on shallow compliance, and lack of follow through by administrators and resource persons responsible for the implementation.

    This time, the changes seem to be in both approach (inquiry – an approach that most teachers lack time and expertise to teach) and content (engineering!!). To do the implementation right, several weeks of summer preparation at the district level is necessary.

    What we’ll get is probably more of the usual – kind of like tossing seeds on the ground, leaving them there, doing nothing further, and wondering why they never sprout.

  2. While I applaud Dr. Henriques for attempting to write a balanced article regarding the two significant sources of national feedback on Draft #2 of NGSS, I hope the readers of this article know that the “team” who contributed to the Fordharm report includes 2 notable Californians, Richard & Martha Schwartz, who also played significant roles in the development of the current CA Science Standards and Framework.

    I am merely pointing out that the Fordham review reflects the educational as well as political biases of their authors, which should be taken into account. And the Fordham Institute also has its biases, as it has consistently given the CA Science Standards its highest ratings, in comparison to the science standards of other states.

    To be fair, it should also be noted that Dr. Alberts, co-author of the editorial “review” of the NGSS, 2nd draft, is the past-President of the National Academy of Sciences. During his tenure, he encouraged and fully supported the development of the National Science Education Standards (NSES), which many consider to be the current “national” Science Standards.

    During the development of the current CA Science Standards, Dr. Alberts, among other notable scientists and science educators, made a formal presentation to the CA Standards Commission, recommending that the NSES be used as the basis for developing the CA Science Standards. His presentation was shamefully treated by several members of that Commission, including Richard Schwartz. Unfortunately, his recommendation was totally ignored; there is very little correlation between NSES and the current CA Science Standards – or the Framework.

    I realize that this is “ancient” history to many, having occurred in the late-1990s. However, I worry that some of the same issues that were paramount then, will re-surface in the near future, as California decides what to do with the NGSS.

    Gary Nakagiri

  3. Thank you Susan and Gary for taking time to read and respond to the editorial.

    Susan – I share your concern about implementation and the need for professional development. You specifically mention the need for elementary folks to get PD. I believe that PD will be needed for all of us — teachers, administrators, teacher preparation faculty and beyond. There are several challenges ahead — first we need new standards, new curriculum, PD, and assessment . It’s a big task but one that could be net really exciting results for California students.

    Gary – I was trying to point out the criticisms that both groups levy against the standards along with the position that CSTA takes regarding science education in general, that content and practice should be intertwined. I do recognize the political agendas that different groups may bring to the table. I wrote this editorial for folks who have not been reading what NSTA, Fordham, or Coffey & Alberts have written in regards to the draft. Every group responding to the latest draft of NGSS has its own agenda (I am guessing AAPT or ACS would lament some of the physics or chemistry content that is not included). What I thought was interesting to point out was the fact that we have diametrically opposed criticism and that the stance of CSTA is more closely aligned with Coffey & Alberts. Certainly I would argue that we want kids doing science in ways that are meaningful. Too often we see science taught as a clerical work — kids simply writing notes and memorizing information that is easily looked up as opposed to doing science investigations and critically making sense of the natural world.

    There will be several opportunities for us to make our opinions heard once the final draft of NGSS is released and a recommendation is made to the State Board of Education. Please take advantage of those opportunities to let your voice and thoughts be heard.

    Laura Henriques

Leave a Reply

LATEST POST

Last Days to Register for Amazing Pre-Conference Field Trips

Posted: Tuesday, October 7th, 2014

October 31, 2014 is the last day to register for one of two amazing pre-conference field courses being offered by CSTA. The field courses will take place on Wednesday, December 3, the day before the NSTA Long Beach Area Conference.

2014 Long Beach Area Conference — CSTA Pre-Conference Field Courses

Marine Science Adventures on Catalina Island

© Anne Maben – Photo courtesy of CSTA member Anne Maben.

Located on Catalina Island just 20 miles off the coast of Los Angeles, Big Fisherman’s Cove is the site of the famed USC Wrigley Marine Science Center, an international research and teaching facility. After a general tour of the facilities and touch tanks, teachers will participate in an ecology and island history walk and hear the latest research on sharks from world-renowned expert, Dr. Chris Lowe. Teachers will also tour and learn about the hyperbaric chamber that saves divers’ lives and explore tiny critters in the plankton lab. Participants may jump into a wetsuit and enjoy a guided snorkeling tour in pristine kelp beds, under the guidance of USC dive instructors or venture on a guided kayak tour off the beautiful coast of Catalina. What a day! Please wear slacks, close-toed shoes, a jacket, sunscreen and bring a bathing suit and towel if you plan to snorkel or kayak – cameras, binoculars and hats are a big plus! If you are prone to seasickness, please bring medication.

Wednesday, December 3, 6:30am – 5:30 pm

CSTA Member/Nonmember Fees: $60/$75 Learn More…

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

Sessions for All Grade Bands and Disciplines at NSTA Conference on Science Education in Long Beach

Posted: Tuesday, October 7th, 2014

Here are some of the many exciting events you can expect at the NSTA Area Conference on Science Education in Long Beach this December 4–6:

Register today for the most savings! Our Earlybird Deadline ends October 24.  – Remember CSTA members: Select the “NSTA Affiliate Member Rate” when registering to save $90 on registration.

Register Learn More…

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

NGSS Science & Engineering Showcase – Call for Proposals

Posted: Tuesday, October 7th, 2014

CSTA Members: You are invited to submit a proposal to showcase your classroom-tested NGSS, STEM, or Engineering unit, lesson, or project at the CSTA Night at the Aquarium. Submit a proposal for the Showcase today and share your experience with your colleagues. Showcase presenters receive a free ticket to the event! Submit a proposal today!

Proposals will be accepted September 24 – October 20. Notifications regarding the status of proposals will be distributed via email on October 27, 2014.

Proposal Guidelines and Information:

  • You must be a member of CSTA to submit a proposal.
  • We are looking for educators who can showcase an engineering/STEM/NGSS unit, lesson(s), or project that directly apply to classroom instruction. Preference will be given to those proposals that integrate the three dimensions of NGSS.
  • You will be provided with a 6’ table top.
  • You are expected to post your handouts on the event’s Edmodo site. This must be done a week prior to the event.
  • The evening will be divided into two, 90 minute “shifts.” Each shift will allow for 20 minutes of set-up, 60 minutes for “presentation,” and 10 minutes for clean-up. If accepted, your showcase will be assigned to one shift, allowing you the other 90 minutes to enjoy the evening’s events as a participant.
  • If possible, bring hands-on supplies/manipulatives (not handouts) or examples (videos, photos, student work, other) for attendees to see/use during your discussions.

Submit a proposal today

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

Call for Nominations for the 2015-2017 CSTA Board of Directors

Posted: Tuesday, October 7th, 2014

Right now is an exciting time to be involved at the state level in the California Science Teachers Association. The CSTA Board of Directors is currently involved in implementation planning for the Next Generations Science Standards and implementing its new strategic plan. If you are interesting in serving on the CSTA Board of Directors, now is the time to submit your name for consideration.

Nominations for the following positions on the CSTA Board of Directors are now being accepted:

Directors (with the exception of the president-elect) will serve a two-year term beginning July 1, 2015, and ending June 30, 2017. Learn More…

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

NGSS PD Coming to Fairfield and Walnut

Posted: Tuesday, October 7th, 2014

CSTA_CASCD

CSTA and CASCD have teamed up to bring you and your curriculum developers a one-day professional learning opportunity. Both CSTA and CASCD members may register at member rates. Event dates and location are:

Introduction to the Next Generation Science Standards: A Paradigm Shift in Teaching and Learning
This full-day workshop will highlight the many shifts required of both teachers and learners under the Next Generation Science Standards. In the morning session, participants will engage in an overview of the NGSS and its Three Dimensions. During the afternoon sessions, participants will be invited to experience either a K-5 or 6-12 session. Each of these sessions will further explore the NGSS with an emphasis on the impact it will have within K-5 and 6-12 classrooms. Learn More…

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.