Michigan’s New Content Expectations for K-7 Science

1. Michigan’s New Content Expectations for K-7 Science Monday, January 28, 2008 Kellogg Hotel and Conference Center East Lansing, Michigan

2. ContentExpectations • Provide a foundation for curriculum and assessment development that represents rigorous and relevant learning for ALL students.

3. ContentExpectations • Provide a description of what students should know and be able to do in Scienceby the end of seventh grade to prepare them for a successful high school experience.

4. Built on Current Research “ The next generation of Science standards and curricula at the national and state levels should be centered on a few core ideas and should expand on them each year, at increasing levels of complexity, across grades K-8.”

5. Current Research “Today’s standards are too broad, resulting in superficial coverage of science that fails to link concepts or develop them over successive grades.” • Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 by National Research Council

6. Draft Documents MDE Internal Review Group MDE Management, PR Draft Documents State Board of Education Review 5 - 6 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 Draft Documents Work Group Reconvened Edit based on Reviews MDE Legislative Review Final Documents Superintendent Draft Documents Work Group Edit draft based on National Review MDE Curriculum Protocol Flowchart Draft Documents Small Review Group MDE & representative practitioners Document Development Work Group of Scholars Chair and 5 – 8 appointed members OSI Convened Final Documents Dissemination 3 Regional 10 Localized Final Documents State Board Approval

7. Overview of Process • Academic Work Group – January, 2007 • Liz Niehaus (Niehaus and Associates), Co-Chair • Larry Casler (Genesee Math/Science Center), Co-Chair • Sub-committees for Physical, Life, Earth • Sub-committees for K-2, 3-4, 5-7 • First Draft to State Board – May 8, 2007 • External and Internal Reviews – May 2007 • Public/Web Review – May 14 – June 28, 2007 • National Review – July – August, 2007 • Presentation SBE – November 13, 2007 • SBE Approval – December 11, 2007 • Statewide dissemination - January, 2008

8. Development of Expectations Academic Work Group • Liz Niehaus (Niehaus and Associates), Co-Chair • Larry Casler (Genesee Math/Science Center), Co-Chair Work Group divided into content and then into grade level – “a different lens”

9. Development of Expectations Reviews • May – MDE Internal and External Review • May & June – Web/Public Review (over 900 completed surveys and over 100,000 comments) • July & August – National Review • November – State Board of Education Review • December – State Board of Education Approval

10. Public/Web Review Process • M/S Center Network Director’s meeting • Protocol and PowerPoint for site presentations • Information posted on BaP, MDE, and MSTA sites • Math/Science Centers hosted 38 organized reviews

11. Public/Web Review • May 14th – June 28th • Responses reviewed by Academic Work Group and Internal Reviewers • Over 3000 site visits • More than 900 completed surveys • More than 100,000 individual comments

12. Preparing for National Review • Web responses were reviewed by Academic Work Group • Developed protocol for review and editing • IF changes were made, justifications were provided in writing

13. Insert Kevin’s Picture

14. Science Academic Work Group • Larry Casler, Co-Chair, • Genesee M/S Center • Hope Beringer, Romeo • Herm Boatin, Dearborn • Barb Armbruster, Forest Hills • Charles Bucienski, Olivet • David Bydlowski, Wayne RESA • Eileen Byrnes, Warren • Mary Carlson, Grand Ledge • Jan Coratti, Plymouth • Connie Crittenden, Williamston Liz Niehaus, Co-Chair, Niehaus and Associates Inc. Geri Elliston, Charlotte Margaret Griffin, Detroit Carol Gutteridge, Fenton Jason Henry, New Branches PSA Nancy Karre, Battle Creek MSC Liz Larwa, Brighton Jane Levy, Ann Arbor Deborah Peek-Brown, Detroit Public Michele Svoboda, Comstock Park

15. Internal Review • Science Leaders representing science content areas • Reviewed the entire document • Made recommendations for any change based on NAEP 2009 Framework or learning progressions

16. Science Internal Review Group • Theron Blakeslee, Ingham ISD • Gary Cieniuch, Livonia • Robby Cramer, Grand Haven • Betty Crowder, Rochester • Paul Drummond, Macomb MSC • LaMoine Motz, Oakland MSC • Robert Poel, WMU • MDE Science Consultant • Kevin Richard, MDE

17. External Review • Science Leaders representing various professional organizations • Reviewed the entire document • Made recommendations for any change based on NAEP 2009 Framework or learning progressions

18. Science External Reviewers • Lois Doniver – American Federation of Teachers Michigan • Wanda Groeneveld – Michigan Elementary and Middle • School Principal Association • Christine Webster – Michigan Earth Science Teachers • Association • Drew Isola – Michigan Association Advanced Physics Teachers • Carol Jones – Michigan Science Education Leadership • Association • Rochelle Rubin – Michigan Science Teacher Association • Paul Drummond – Michigan Math/Science Center Network

19. National Review • Richard Vineyard, Ph.D., Council of State Science Supervisors, Review Coordinator • General review and summary report • States selected based on their recent adoption of elementary standards; elementary teaching experience; and geographic diversity • Followed Achieve criteria

20. National Review Provided • Positive feedback • Specific rewording suggestions • Suggestions for learning progressions to avoid redundancy • Support for grade level content • “Big Picture” vs. “Mile Wide and Inch Deep”

21. Final Revisions • Re-worded possessive format of some statements/expectations • Re-examined to eliminate redundancy • Re-evaluated the uniformity of the depth of understanding required or assessment grain size

22. Need for Grade Level Expectations • Student mobility • Cross-district professional development • Common equipment, kits, and lessons • Districts have a “common curriculum” • Consistency with other subjects • Integration with other subjects • Clarifies the distribution of learning

23. Research Driving the New Expectations • National Standards Alignment • NSES (National Research Council, 1996) • AAAS Benchmarks and Atlases (1993, 2001, 2007) • NAEP 2009 Framework Alignment • “Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8” (National Research Council, 2007)

24. Development of Expectations GLCE Selected Performance Verbs

25. Structure of K-7 Science • K-7 document includes grade level documents • Each grade document contains: • General Introduction • Grade Span Organization Structure • Grade Level Specific Narratives • Grade Level Specific Table of Contents • Grade Level Specific Expectations

26. Structure of K-7 Science Discipline Standard Content Statement Content Expectation

27. Structure of K-7 Science Discipline: Earth Science K-7 Standard E.ES: Earth Systems – Develop an understanding of the warming of the earth by the sun as the major source of energy for phenomenon on Earth and how the sun’s warming relates to weather, climate, seasons, and the water cycle. Understand how human interaction and use of natural resources affects the environment. Content Statement E.ES.E.2: Weather – Weather changes from day to day and over the seasons. Content Expectation E.ES.01.23 Describe severe weather events.

28. K-4 Organization, Example, p. 3

29. 5-7 Organization, Example, p. 50

30. Structure of K-7 Science Expectation Count

31. Overview of K-7 Science

32. Overview of K-7 Science

33. K-7 Science Coding Discipline Standard Content Statement Content Expectation P.PM.04.23 Discipline Standard (Grade Level) Statement Expectation

34. Acknowledgements • Internal and External Review Members • Fellow Educators K-16 • National Review Participants • State School Board Members • MDE • Academic Work Group

35. Break • Break 10:00 – 10:20 • Table Investigation Begins at 10:20

36. Table Investigation • First opportunity to review and respond to new Content Expectations • Become familiar with organization and content of the Expectations • Provide valuable feedback to MDE • Assist MDE in designing rollout sessions and companion documents

37. Table Investigation • Explanation (10:20 – 10:25) • Part 1 (10:25 – 11:10) – Individual analysis of expectations from one grade level • Part 2 (11:10 – 11:20) – Group Discussion • Part 3 (11:20 – 11:30) – Debrief

38. Table Investigation • Envelope includes • 1 investigation description sheet, and • 8 individual response sheets • Individual response sheets include directions. • Identify timekeeper for each table. • Facilitators available to answer questions about process.

39. Table Investigation Part 1 (10:25 – 11:10) • Read standards, content statements, and expectations. • Provide feedback. • Code each expectation (1, 2, or 3) using rubric. • Add comments as appropriate. • Review remaining expectations for your grade. • Estimate the percent of the expectations at your grade that you currently teach.

40. Table Investigation Part 2 (11:10 – 11:20) • Discuss findings as a group. • Collect individual response sheets and place back in envelope. • Facilitators will collect envelopes. Part 3 (11:20 – 11:30) • Debrief as time allows.

41. Code Expectations Use the 1-2-3 numbering system. 1 – I currently teach this content at this grade level and will need to make little instructional modification. 2 – I currently teach related content and will need to modify instruction to meet this expectation. 3 – I currently do not teach this expectation. This is new content for this grade level.