Science Talk Q's

http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/108035/chapters/Procedures-for-Classroom-Talk.aspx

Handouts from BaySci PD

Great tools for inquiry and expanding on approaches to teaching science.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/workshops/fundamentals/index.html

Inst. for Inquiry

http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/

Conceptual Shifts in the Next Generation Science Standards

 May 2012 Draft Page 1 of 5 

This historical document is already obsolete as the feedback window has closed and the performance expectations 

are in revision by the NGSS Lead States and writing team. 

Conceptual Shifts in the Next Generation Science Standards 

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) provide an important opportunity to improve 

not only science education but also student achievement.  Based on the Framework for K–12 

Science Education, the NGSS are intended to reflect a new vision for American science 

education.  The following conceptual shifts in the NGSS demonstrate what is new and different 

about the NGSS: 

1. K–12 Science Education Should Reflect the Real World Interconnections in Science.  

“The framework is designed to help realize a vision for education in the sciences and 

engineering in which students, over multiple years of school, actively engage in scientific 

and engineering practices and apply crosscutting concepts to deepen their understanding 

of the core ideas in these fields.”1 

The vision represented in the Framework is new in that students must be engaged at the nexus of 

the three dimensions: 

1. Science and Engineering Practice, 

2. Crosscutting Concepts, and 

3. Disciplinary Core Ideas.   

Currently, most state and district standards express these dimensions as separate entities, leading 

to their separation in both instruction and assessment.  Given the importance of science and 

engineering in the 21st century, students require a sense of contextual understanding with regard 

to scientific knowledge, how it is acquired and applied, and how science is connected through a 

series of concepts that help further our understanding of the world around us.  Student 

performance expectations have to include a student’s ability to apply a practice to content 

knowledge, thereby focusing on understanding and application as opposed to memorization of 

facts devoid of context.  The Framework goes on to emphasize that: 

“…learning about science and engineering involves integration of the knowledge of 

scientific explanations (i.e., content knowledge) and the practices needed to engage in 

scientific inquiry and engineering design. Thus the framework seeks to illustrate how 

knowledge and practice must be intertwined in designing learning experiences in K–12 

science education.”2 

                                                 

1 

 (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. (p. 10). Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165 

2 

 (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. (p. 11). Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165 

 May 2012 Draft Page 2 of 5 

This historical document is already obsolete as the feedback window has closed and the performance expectations 

are in revision by the NGSS Lead States and writing team. 

2. Using all practices and crosscutting concepts to teach all core ideas all year.     

As stated previously, past science standards at both the state and district levels have traditionally 

treated the three dimensions of science as separate and distinct entities leading to preferential 

treatment in assessment or instruction.  It is essential to understand that the emphasis placed on a 

particular Science and Engineering Practice or Crosscutting Concept in a performance 

expectation is not intended to limit instruction, but to make clear the intent of the assessments.   

An example of this is best illustrated in two performance expectations from the high school 

physical sciences May 2012 draft.  The practice of modeling is a significant change on its own.  

Models are basically used for three reasons; 1) to represent or describe, 2) to collect data, or 3) to 

predict.  The first use is typical in schools since models and representations are usually 

synonymous.  However, the use of models to collect data or to predict phenomena is new, for 

example:  

Construct models to explain changes in nuclear energies during the processes of fission, 

fusion, and radioactive decay and the nuclear interactions that determine nuclear 

stability.  

and 

Use system models (computer or drawings) to construct molecular-level explanations to 

predict the behavior of systems where a dynamic and condition-dependent balance 

between a reaction and the reverse reaction determines the numbers of all types of 

molecules present. 

In the first performance expectation, models are used with nuclear processes to explain changes.  

A scientific explanation requires evidence to support the explanation, so students will be called 

upon to construct a model for the purpose of gathering evidence to explain these changes. 

Additionally, they will be required to use models to both explain and predict the behavior of 

systems in equilibrium.  Again, the models will have to be used to collect data, but they will be 

further validated in their ability to predict the state of a system.  In both cases, students will need 

a deep understanding of the content, as well as proficiency in the ability to construct and use 

models for various applications.  The practice of modeling will need to be taught throughout the 

year—and throughout the entire K–12 experience—as opposed to during one two-week unit of 

instruction.   

The goal of the NGSS is to be clear about which practice students are responsible for in terms of 

assessment, but these practices and crosscutting concepts should occur throughout each school 

year.   

 May 2012 Draft Page 3 of 5 

This historical document is already obsolete as the feedback window has closed and the performance expectations 

are in revision by the NGSS Lead States and writing team. 

3. Science Concepts Build Coherently Across K–12. 

The focus on a few Disciplinary Core Ideas is a key aspect to a coherent science education.  The 

Framework identified a basic set of core ideas that are meant to be understood by the time a 

student completes high school:  

“To develop a thorough understanding of scientific explanations of the world, students 

need sustained opportunities to work with and develop the underlying ideas and to 

appreciate those ideas’ interconnections over a period of years rather than weeks or 

months [1]. This sense of development has been conceptualized in the idea of learning 

progressions [1, 25, 26]. If mastery of a core idea in a science discipline is the ultimate 

educational destination, then well-designed learning progressions provide a map of the 

routes that can be taken to reach that destination.  Such progressions describe both how 

students’ understanding of the idea matures over time and the instructional supports and 

experiences that are needed for them to make progress.”3 

There are two key points that are important to understand: 

 First, focus and coherence must be a priority.  What this means to teachers and 

curriculum developers is that the same ideas or details are not covered each year.  Rather, 

a progression of knowledge occurs from grade band to grade band that gives students the 

opportunity to learn more complex material, leading to an overall understanding of 

science by the end of high school. Historically, science education was taught as a set of 

disjointed and isolated facts.  The Framework and the NGSS provide a more coherent 

progression aimed at overall scientific literacy with instruction focused on a smaller set 

of ideas, but with an eye on what the student should have already learned and what they 

will learn at the next level.   

 Second, the progressions in the NGSS automatically assume that previous material has 

been learned by the student.  Choosing to omit content at any grade level or band will 

impact the success of the student toward understanding the core ideas and puts additional 

responsibilities on teachers later in the process.  

  

4. The NGSS Focus on Deeper Understanding and Application of Content.  

The Framework identified a smaller set of Disciplinary Core Ideas that students should know by 

the time they graduate from high school and the NGSS are written to focus on the same.  It is 

important that teachers and curriculum/assessment developers understand that the focus is on the 

core ideas—not necessarily the facts that are associated with them.  The facts and details are 

important evidence, but not the sole focus of instruction.  The Framework states, 

“The core ideas also can provide an organizational structure for the acquisition of new 

knowledge. Understanding the core ideas and engaging in the scientific and engineering 

                                                 

3 

 (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. (p. 26). Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165 

 May 2012 Draft Page 4 of 5 

This historical document is already obsolete as the feedback window has closed and the performance expectations 

are in revision by the NGSS Lead States and writing team. 

practices helps to prepare students for broader understanding, and deeper levels of 

scientific and engineering investigation, later on—in high school, college, and beyond. 

One rationale for organizing content around core ideas comes from studies comparing 

experts and novices in any field. Experts understand the core principles and theoretical 

constructs of their field, and they use them to make sense of new information or tackle 

novel problems. Novices, in contrast, tend to hold disconnected and even contradictory 

bits of knowledge as isolated facts and struggle to find a way to organize and integrate 

them [24]. The assumption, then, is that helping students learn the core ideas through 

engaging in scientific and engineering practices will enable them to become less like 

novices and more like experts.”4 

5. Science and Engineering are Integrated in Science Education from K–12. 

The idea of integrating technology and engineering into science standards is not new.  Chapters 

on the nature of technology and the human-built world were included in Science for All 

Americans (AAAS 1989) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS 1993, 2008).  Standards 

for “Science and Technology” were included for all grade spans in the National Science 

Education Standards (NRC 1996).  

Despite these early efforts, however, engineering and technology have not received the same 

level of attention in science curricula, assessments, or the education of new science teachers as 

the traditional science disciplines have.  A significant difference in the Next Generation Science 

Standards (NGSS) is the integration of engineering and technology into the structure of science 

education by raising engineering design to the same level as scientific inquiry in classroom 

instruction when teaching science disciplines at all levels, and by giving core ideas of 

engineering and technology the same status as those in other major science disciplines. 

The rationale for this increased emphasis on engineering and technology rests on two positions 

taken in A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2011).  One position is aspirational; 

the other practical.   

From an aspirational standpoint, the Framework points out that science and engineering are 

needed to address major world challenges such as generating sufficient clean energy, preventing 

and treating diseases, maintaining supplies of food and clean water, and solving the problems of 

global environmental change that confront society today. These important challenges will 

motivate many students to continue or initiate their study of science and engineering.  

From a practical standpoint, the Framework notes that engineering and technology provide 

opportunities for students to deepen their understanding of science by applying their developing 

                                                 

4 

 (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. (p. 25). Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165 

 May 2012 Draft Page 5 of 5 

This historical document is already obsolete as the feedback window has closed and the performance expectations 

are in revision by the NGSS Lead States and writing team. 

scientific knowledge to the solution of practical problems.  Both positions converge on the 

powerful idea that by integrating technology and engineering into the science curriculum 

teachers can empower their students to use what they learn in their everyday lives. 

6. Science Standards Coordinate with English Language Arts and Mathematics Common 

Core State Standards. 

The timing of the release of NGSS comes as most states are implementing the Common Core 

State Standards (CCSS) in English Language Arts and Mathematics.  This is important to science 

for a variety of reasons.  First, there is an opportunity for science to be part of a child’s  

comprehensive education.  The NGSS are aligned with the CCSS to ensure a symbiotic pace of 

learning in all content areas.  The three sets of standards overlap in meaningful and substantive 

ways and offer an opportunity to give all students equitable access to learning standards.   

Some important work is already in progress regarding the implications and advantages to the 

CCSS and NGSS.  Stanford University recently released 13 papers on a variety of issues related 

to language and literacy in the content areas of the CCSS and NGSS.5   

                                                 

5 

 Stanford University. (2012). Understanding language. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/papers.  

Next Generation Science Standards Website

http://www.nextgenscience.org/

Third Grade Websites!

My Wonderful Students Enjoy these websites during weekly computer time:


www.aaamath.com
http://animal.discovery.com/animals/ 
(note: some videos need parental guidance)
www.brainpop.com
username: storiescreek    password: stories
SFUSD epgy website (students given access through password from Stanford)
www.kids.gov/
http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/kids/

Against Cuts Website has important Powerpoints and Flyers to Print OUt

http://againstcuts.org/

*Special Written Assignment on School Mandates

It Is Hard to See How Mandates Are Supporting Us

By Sunny Dawn, Cleveland Elem., San Francisco, CA.

            My K-5 elementary school is on the East Side of San Francisco where we experience a population of students who are disenfranchised and have huge disparities in relation to the West Side of the same city.  This paper will give a brief overview of how district mandated quarterly assessments are not serving the students at my elementary school’s in San Francisco or serving as proper tools for teachers to gain an understanding of students’ educational needs especially in schools such as mine who have students “of color” or bilingual schools.  Furthermore it will present the idea that current administration is also unaware how to serve the needs of the teachers in creating tools for proper instruction.

My class is a good representation of the half the school’s population,  which is 80% of low socioeconomic background English language learners.  The range of ethnicities include; Chinese, Filipino, African American as well various type of Latino students from Central American to Mexican.  There are over 5 different home languages represented in my class and half of my class travels regularly out of the country to visit a majority of their extended families.  The other half of the school is the bilingual strand, which experience a wide range of issues from immigration, to high poverty, as well as various health issues.

Although we have dedicated teachers who are committed to social justice in education it is hard to see how the current district administration is supporting us.  We are given release time once a week to talk with our grade level about educational strategies but, instead of teachers being able to lead the discussions a majority of meetings are led by a district appointed “Instructional Reform Facilitator” or (IRF). This IRF then reports back to the principal and district administrations about the  “discussion” which is always results or application of the quarterly district mandated assessment (or CLAs).

I recently went to a Union meeting discussion about district mandated assessments in October of 2011.  At this meeting over 20 elementary teachers from a wide variety of schools were present and furious about how the district mandated assessments are developmentally inappropriate for K thru 2^nd and in 3^rd thru 5th grades material is often unaccessable for many students especially English Language Learners.  When the Head of Achievement Assessments, John Burke,  was asked at that October meeting, how are these assessments were helpful to teachers his reply was,”well hopefully we will be able to make the tests align to the curriculum especially with math this year,” A follow up question to this district official was asked by another elementary teacher, “If these assessments are not aligned with the standards, if it is wasting the student’s time because it’s not testing them on what they are supposed to have learned then why can’t we halt that until it is perfected?” His response, “Right now, again we are trying to serve two purposes with it. Some to inform instruction some for the benchmarking. So right now that’s what we have. This year it’s much more of a compromise, last year towards the benchmarking….The CLAs are mandated by Richard Caranza so the expectations is that  everyone…..”

Finally my staff was given anonymous polls using the website, www.pollseverywhere.com , to find out their feelings on district mandates.  The first question given was, “I feel like I have enough time to go over data from mandated assessments and implement action in my classroom?” 87% of the 15 staff who participated in the survey said, “NO” Also my staff participated in two more surveys in which 57% of the staff (who participated) reported “we have too many assessments”.  The final question given to staff, “The district mandated assessments my students take are on material we have had a chance to cover in class prior to the date required to give test?” 100% of the staff disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement (see attached graphs or go to www.msdawnsturntospeak.blogspot.com to see poll results).

In conclusion, elementary teachers educated and trained observations are that district mandated assessments do not serve their classroom pedagogy and are actually damaging children instead.

National Board Test Chat for EC/GEN.

://ecgen.org/2012/03/nbpts-assessment-center-season-almost-here/

Stop The Monkey Business!