Elizabeth Buttner, Science Education Consultant Jeff Greig, Assessment Consultant

1. Next Generation Science Standards and Assessments Elizabeth Buttner, Science Education Consultant Jeff Greig, Assessment Consultant Connecticut State Department of Education August 2012

2. Reflections on Change Change is the law of life and those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.~ John F. Kennedy People are always telling me that change is good. But all that means is that something you didn't want to happen has happened. ~ Meg Ryan

3. Today’s Topics STANDARDS ASSESSMENT • NRC Framework– key “shifts” • Next Gen Science Standards May 2012 Draft • Format, Feedback and Forecast • Science matters • Enhanced system of assessments

4. “All students should have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science; possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions…are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives…” Framework, p.1 A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas

5. Standards Development Process • Phase1: National Research Council develops a K-12 Framework. Published 7-18-11 • Project description - http://nas.edu/BOSE • NRC Framework download: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165 • Phase 2: Achieve Inc. coordinates standards writing; Completion early 2013 • NOT called “Common Core” • Standards written first; then states choose to adopt • No federal money to entice adoption

6. Key “Shifts” in the NRC Framework • INTEGRATION: Content, Practice and Crosscutting Concepts are always integrated • ENGINEERING: Engineering Design, Technology and Applications of Science are integrated within science lessons • PRACTICES: Shift from “inquiry” to “practices” : • More emphasis on higher order thinking (e.g., modeling, designing, making evidence-based claims, critiquing arguments); • Less emphasis on experimenting, naming variables, process skills • COHERENCE: • DEEPER UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF CONTENT:

7. Development Overviewwww.nextgenscience.org

8. Standards Development Process 26 Lead States provide guidance; critique early drafts 40 writers from different states (mostly educators) Spring 2012 – 1st public draft review; feedback to writers. Fall 2012 – 2nd public draft review; feedback to writers. Feedback will be published PROJECTED COMPLETION EARLY 2013

9. Key “Shifts” in the NGSS Performance expectations linking PRACTICES, CORE IDEAS, and CROSSCUTTING CONCEPTS Performance expectations as the “assessable component” of the Standard Connections within the grade; to earlier and later grades; to Common Core ELA and Math Engineering performance expectations for every grade New content introduced at different grades, especially in physical science

10. Anatomy of a Standard Grade and Topic Performance Expectations Framework Foundations Directly from Framework The Perf. Expectation it supports Science Connections Common Core Connections

11. Feedback to Achieve-May 2012 Too much content Lack of clarity Learning progressions not evident Some science inaccuracies Beyond what every high school grad must know

12. CSDE NGSS Review Committee

13. Science Assessments Now and the future …

14. Science Transition Timeline TENTATIVE PROJECTIONS: DEPENDENT ON STATE LEADERSHIP, BUDGET, ESEA REAUTHORIZATION, NCLB WAIVER APPLICATION STANDARDS: • 2004 CT Science Framework, GLCs & GLEs in effect until at least 2013 • 2013: CT may adopt NGSS CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION: • Too early to rewrite district curriculum now; wait until NGSS published • 2013-15: Districts transition to NGSS ASSESSMENTS: • CMT and CAPT Science assessments stable through at least March 2015 • 2013-15: Development of new NGSS assessments • 2016: New science assessments? Funding source and developer to be determined • End-of-Course tests? Task Force studying issues; recommendations due Jan 2013

15. CMT and CAPT Science Score Range = 100 – 400 Raw scores also reported for content strands and two dimensions Refer to CMT and CAPT Science Results handout

16. Guidelines for InterpretingCMT and CAPT Science Results Scale scores are equated from year to year within a generation of the CMT and CAPT. Raw scores for content strands and dimensions in science are not fully equated.  Valid comparisons can be made regarding average scale scores and performance levels within a grade, content area and generation of the test. Making comparisons across grades or content areas will result in invalid interpretations. Making comparisons using raw scores may result in invalid interpretations.

17. Sample Interpretations of CMT and CAPT Science Results “On the CAPT Science, the overall trend shows an improvement in student performance from 2007 to 2012.” How would a similar statement about the CMT Grade 5 Science results (2008-2012) be viewed? What trends are shown? “In Science, students in CT are performing better at Grade 5 than in grades 8 or 10.” “On the CMT Grade 5 Science test, students are performing better in the Content Knowledge dimension than in Scientific Inquiry, Literacy and Numeracy.” “On the CMT Grade 5 Science test, students are performing better in Life Science than in Physical or Earth Science” How might a school or district interpret how their students are performing on the content strands or dimensions?

18. NCLB Waiver:New School Performance Index Step 1: Calculate Subject-Specific SPI SPI (Subject) = (%Below Basic x 0.0) + (%Basic x 0.33) + (%Proficient x 0.67) + (%Goal or Advanced x 1.0) Step 2: Calculate Aggregate SPI Across Subjects SPI for high schools: SPI = (SPIMathematics + SPIReading + SPIWriting + SPIScience)/4 SPI for elementary or middle schools with grades in which science is tested: SPI = (SPIMathematics x 0.3)+ (SPIReading x 0.3) + (SPIWriting x 0.3) + (SPIScience x 0.1) SPI for elementary or middle schools with grades in which science is NOT tested: SPI = (SPIMathematics + SPIReading + SPIWriting)/3

19. NCLB Waiver:New State Performance Index Targets

20. Current CMT and CAPT Science • Designed as: • Summative, criterion-referenced assessments • Periodic checkpoints of student progress after multiple years of instruction • Provide “big picture” view of school, district, and state performance • NOT designed to inform timely curricular and instructional decisions, diagnose student learning difficulties or evaluate teacher quality.

21. Future of Science Assessment Development Future unclear…many possibilities: CT could continue to develop its own state science assessments; make improvements. CT could purchase or modify “ready-made” science assessments from testing contractors. CT could join an existing or newly-formed science assessment consortium.

22. Context for Future ofScience Assessments in CT No Child Left Behind Waiver: • Transition to Next Generation Science Standards • Inclusion of science assessment results in school and district accountability • Development of a more comprehensive assessment system (end-of-grade and end-of-standard benchmark science assessments) PEAC Guidelines: • Inclusion of results from student assessments in teacher evaluation

23. Discussion Questions How will the transition to NGSS affect curriculum & instruction, teacher PD & evaluation and district & state assessments? What science assessment needs do districts have? What district assessment practices are currently in place to meet these needs? How do we develop and use a more comprehensive assessment system to serve multiple purposes?

24. CSDE Contacts: • Elizabeth Buttner, K-8 Science Standards Phone: 860-713-6849 E-mail: Elizabeth.buttner@ct.gov • Jeff Greig, CMT/CAPT Science Assessment Phone: 860-713-6854 E-mail: jeff.greig@ct.gov