K-7 Science Content Expectations MSTA Governors Hall March 17,2007

National Trends Congressman Ehler’s Bill of 2006 “Standards to Provide Educational Achievement for Kids” (SPEAK) Act National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP)

Built from AAAS and NSES AAAS Atlas 2 The sun warms the land, air and water. (4E, K-2 level) NAEP Content Statement The sun warms the land, air, and water and helps plants grow. (E4.7)

NAEP Content Statement The sun warms the land, air, and water and helps plants grow. (E4.7) Built from NAEP 2009 K-7 GL Content Statement The sun warms the land, air, and water and helps plants grow. (E.ES.02.1)

National Assessment Evaluation Program (NAEP) and National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS) National Science Education Standards (NRC) Achieve, Inc. TIMSS, PISA, SREB Course/Credit Content Expectations Aligned with national standards and recommendations

The “Community” Social PoliticalEconomic International/National/State Standards Local Context The Committees The Curriculum Cultural

The Charge Purpose – To develop GLCE for science to complete the Math, Social Studies, and ELA GLCE Timeline – Started January 25, 2007 – Finished March 10, 2007

Who is involved? Group of Scholars Co-Chairs Larry Casler, Genesee Math Science Center Liz Niehaus, Niehaus and Associates, Inc. Other representative members Local and Intermediate School Districts (next page) Small Group Review MDE (March 19) Professional organizations (March 20) Web Review (May 14- June 24) National Review (July 4 – August 14) Plan for presentation to SBE November 2007

Who is involved? Nancy Karre Charles Bucienski Liz Larwa Michele Svoboda Eileen Byrnes Mary Carlson Jan Coratti Hope Beringer Geri Elliston Margaret Griffin Jason Henry David Bydlowski Barb Armbruster Deborah Peek-Brown Jane Levy Carol Gutteridge Herm Boatin Connie Crittenden

Who is involved? May 17 Mason-Lake-Oceana MSC May 22 Allegan MSC May 22 Battle Creek MSC May 22 Jackson MSC May 22 & 23 Oakland MSC May 24 Lapeer MSC May 29 CASM May 29 Wayne RESA MSC May 30 EUP MSC May 30 GVSU Regional MSC

Who is involved? or

What is process? 1. NAEP to Content Statements 2. Organize Content Statements (L-E-P and K-4 and 5-7) 3. Content Statements to Content Expectations 4. Content Statements to Grade Level 5. Draft GLCE for review

Draft Documents State Board of Education Review months prior to requesting approval Web Review of Draft 30 – 90 days to review, process comments Draft Documents National Review Edited Draft to Achieve or other Final Documents Dissemination 3 Regional 10 Localized Curriculum Protocol Flowchart Draft Documents Work Group Edit draft based on National Review Draft Documents MDE Internal Review Group MDE Management, PR Draft Documents Small Review Group MDE & representative practitioners Document Development Work Group of Scholars Chair and 5 – 8 appointed members OSI Convened Draft Documents Work Group Reconvened Edit based on Reviews Final Documents Superintendent Final Documents State Board Approval Legislative Review MDE

Criteria for Our Work RIGOR: What is the level of intellectual demand in the standards? challenging enough to equip students to succeed at the next grade level essential core content of a discipline; its key concepts and how they relate to each other

Criteria for Our Work CLARITY: Are the standards clearly written and presented in a logical, easy-to use format? more than just plain and jargon-free prose widely understood and accepted by teachers, parents, school boards and others who have a stake in the quality of schooling including university faculties that will prepare teachers to convey the standards and later receive those teachers’ students

Criteria for Our Work SPECIFICITY: Are the standards specific enough to convey the level of performance expected of students? enough detail to help teachers design their courses address the given teachers’ time for instruction

Criteria for Our Work FOCUS: Have tough choices been made about what content is the most important for students to learn? priorities of facts, concepts and skills that should be emphasized at each grade level

Criteria for Our Work PROGRESSION: Do knowledge and skills build clearly and sensibly on previous learning and increase in intellectual demand from year to year? move from simple to complex, from concrete to abstract prevent needless repetition from grade to grade

Criteria for Our Work COHERENCE: Do the standards convey a unified vision of the discipline, and do they establish connections among the major areas of study? reflect a coherent structure of the discipline and/or reveal significant relationships among the strands and how the study of one complements the study of another. States should eventually be able to “back-map” from the high school Academic Standards to a progression of benchmarks that middle and elementary school students would need to reach in order to be “on track” for college and work.

Constraints : Timeline Draft ready for review by May Final document to Superintendent Flanagan for recommendation to SBE in November 2007 Tradeoff: sharing ideas vs. setting parameters quickly Tradeoff: originality (i.e., writing ourselves rather than adapting other models) vs. quality and consistency of product Tradeoff: consultation vs. getting the job done (aiming for process that is transparent but based on what those of us in the room now bring to the table)

Negotiables Integrated or Discipline specific Degree of Spiraling Degree of Interconnections Number of Expectations Names of Standards

Non-negotiables Grade Level Coding NAEP as Foundation Prerequisites Number of Standards

A closer look – Four Standards Science Processes (S) Inquiry and Reflection (IR) Physical Science (P) Motion of Objects (MO) Energy (EN) Properties of Matter (PM) Changes in Matter (CM)

A closer look – Four Standards Life Science (L) Organization of Living Things (OL) Heredity (HE) Evolution (EV) Ecosystems (EC) Earth Science (E) Earth Systems (ES) Solid Earth (SE) Fluid Earth (FE) Earth in Space and Time (ST)

Hierarchy of Document Discipline Standard Content Statement Content Expectation

Hierarchy Coding L.OT.04.2 Discipline Standard Grade Level Content Statement

Hierarchy Coding L.OT Discipline Standard Grade Level Content Content Statement Expectation

The Documents Content Statements with Content Expectations Grade Level Content Expectations Across the Grades for discipline.

Questions? Contact: Kevin Richard Science Education Consultant Office of School Improvement Michigan Department of Education