High School Science Content Expectations: Setting the Stage

1. High School Science Content Expectations: Setting the Stage Work Group Meeting January 9, 2006 MEA Building Office of School Improvement Michigan Department of Education

2. High School Content Expectations – External Variables Why are we doing this now? • NCLB – Assessments aligned to rigorous standards • K – 8 GLCE – response to NCLB, set the stage for transition • Michigan Merit Exam • National attention to high school reform – Achieve and state curricular/course standards • Cherry Commission – Michigan’s economic future depends on postsecondary engagement • Postsecondary “remediation”

3. High School Content Expectations – External Variables • MDE’s High School Redesign – 6 Action Teams: Content Standards, Assessment, Promising Practices… • High School Graduation Requirements • National Governor’s Association – $1.8 million grant awarded over 2 years; Enrolled Michigan in American Diploma Project • Request from the Practitioners – Define high school expectations

4. Competencies for High School Completion Academic Core Electives Post-secondary Preparation Core Academic Environment for Delivery Policy needed for Reform Content Standards Mathematics English Science Social Studies CTE Integrated Instructional Design & Delivery Infrastructure School Redesign Policy-making State Board Legislature Incentives Requirements Postsecondary High School Redesign Information Gathering: Presentations Position Development: Group discussions, advisory input Position Dissemination: Roll out, publications

5. Who are the key players? • CAO lead on High School Redesign • Office of School Improvement lead on curriculum • Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability lead on Michigan Merit • Charles (Andy) Anderson and Robert Poel, Science Co-chairs • Betty Underwood, Assistant Director, OSI • Sue Codere Kelly, Project Coordinator, OSI • Kevin Richard, Science Consultant, OSI • Work Group is the “Academic Review”

6. Who is OSI? • Curriculum & Instruction • Curriculum – ELA, Math, Science, SS, the Arts • Reading First • Academic Support – PSAs, Migrant, ELL, Homeless, CSR, AP, GTC, Dual, Alternative, Blue Ribbon, Boarding • School Improvement • Field Services – 5 Regions • Title 1 (and others) • NCLB/AYP • High Priority Schools

7. OSI… • 73 FTE Civil Servants • 40 + contracted/on loan consultants • $15 million budget • $900 million flow-through • Director, 2 Assistant Directors • 3 Supervisors • 2 Manager Consultants

8. Roles of Key Players • Andy Anderson and Bob Poel • Convene and facilitate work group(s) • Provide content/process expertise and direction • Review final documents • Hub for all issues • Represent the MDE when requested • Betty Underwood • Represent OSI and director • Convene and facilitate next steps • Budget authority • In the loop on committee decisions

9. Roles… • Susan Codere/Kelly • Responsible for production in an organized, efficient, and timely manner for final Board approval • Serves as the central collection point of the project – NGA related • Responsible for logistics of project • Ensures an "expectations" path as opposed to repackaging our current "standards“ and keeping the next part of the project in her scope • Convene the meetings for subsequent layers of review teams • Serves as a valuable resource for researching information on behalf of the committees • OSI's point person for activities that relate to high school curriculum in general • Support for Andy and Bob, has the latitude to make suggestions on formatting and process • All other duties as assigned by the director • reports directly to Director on this project and works in tandem with Betty regarding the day-to-day operations of high school content expectations development

10. Roles… • Kevin Richard • Serves as MDE Science representative • Provides statewide perspective • Provides content expertise • Lead on dissemination and companion documents • Works with Sue on subsequent layers of review • Provides input to Betty/Sue on feasibility

11. Your Role • Collaborate as a member of a team • Understand your “commission” • Be sensitive to the political nature inherent in doing work for a statewide initiative • Accept the fact that this is an iterative process • Reach consensus, support group decisions • Skate to where the puck is going…

12. Your Mission • As a team, develop a draft of high school course content expectations - consideration of variables that impact our work • Virtual, face-to-face, topical groups • Do not “re-package” previous work • Forward thinking…curricular format options, companion documents, instructional support, assessment • Work group chairs are responsible for the product

13. 2. Throughout the High School Experience Integrated Sequence of Content Expectations with CTE EXAMPLE Curricular Format Options 1. Traditional Course/Grade Specific – CTE Integrated 9th Grade ELA Overview Algebra I or Geometry 10th Grade American Literature Geometry or Algebra II 11th Grade British/World Literature Algebra II or Pre-Calculus or Statistics 12th Grade ELA/Overview Pre-Calculus or AP Statistics or AP Calculus 3. By the End of High School Set of Content Expectations Mathematics ELA Social Studies Science CTE Integrated Transparency, Specificity, Pacing

14. Draft Documents MDE Internal Review Group MDE Management, PR #2, 3 Draft Documents State Board of Education Review 5 - 6 months prior to requesting approval # 4 Draft Documents Web Review 30 – 90 days to review, process comments #5-A, 6 Draft Documents National Review Edited Draft to Achieve or other #8 Draft Documents Work Group Reconvened Edit based on Web Review #7-A, 7-B Draft Documents Work Group Edit draft based on National Review #8 Final Documents State Board of Education Request for Approval #9 OSI Curriculum Protocol Flowchart Draft Documents Small Review Group MDE & representative practitioners # 1 Document Development Work Group of Scholars Chair and 5 – 8 appointed members OSI Convened Final Documents Dissemination 3 Regional 10 Localized # 10

15. Developing Science Content Expectations: Key Issues • Constraints on development process and product • Timeline • Expectations and review process • Capacity of system to teach for student learning • Possible criteria for science expectations that support useful and connected knowledge • Content to be included • Specifications for form of expectations, criteria for student understanding • (Setting boundaries)

16. Constraints: Timeline • We must have a draft ready for review by April • 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) • We must agree to specifications then write to those specifications

17. Constraints: Expectations and Review Process • Flanagan recommendations: Biology, chemistry or physics, one other course • We will need to develop recommendations for 4 courses in grades 8-12 • First step: Essential and advanced expectations for end of high school • Internal review • Achieve review (Achieve.org)

18. Questions for ACHIEVE Review (from Website) • Are the standards as rigorous as those of highly regarded states and nations? Is there a clear progression of knowledge and skills as students grow older? Do the standards include samples of student work to illustrate the quality and complexity of student expectations? • Are the standards clearly written and easy to understand? Are they specific enough to provide clear guidance to students, teachers, parents, administrators, and curriculum and assessment developers? Do they focus on measurable content, knowledge and skills? • Are the standards teachable, or do they sacrifice breadth for depth? Do the standards balance mastery of knowledge with conceptual understanding? Are connections among the disciplines emphasized?

19. Constraint: Capacity of the System to Teach for Understanding • Tradeoff: Procedural display vs. useful and connected knowledge • Tradeoff: content coverage vs. practices associated with useful and connected knowledge

20. Procedural Display • Definition: Learning to manipulate words and symbols without fully understanding their meaning • Antonym: Useful and connected knowledge • Useful for explanation, prediction, technological design • Connections among observations, patterns, models and theories • Connections among different representations (words, equations, graphs, tables, drawings, etc.)

21. An Example of Procedural Display: The Montillation of Traxoline It is very important that you learn about traxoline. Traxoline is a new form of zionter. It is montilled in Ceristanna. The Ceristannians gristerlate large amounts of fevon and then bracter it to quasel traxoline. Traxoline may well be one of our most lukizes snezlaus in the future because of our zionter lescelidge. Answer the following questions in complete sentences. • What is traxoline? • Where is traxoline montilled? • How is traxoline quaselled? • Why is it important to know about traxoline

22. Research Findings and Personal Experience • Procedural display is the dominant form of science learning in American high schools • College-level examples from my experience (senior science majors) • What determines the mass of a sealed bag and its contents? Does changing the density change the mass? • Where does the mass of a tree come from? Does knowing the chemical formula for photosynthesis help you to answer this question?

23. Development of an Inquiry-Based Science Curriculum • Where to start? What standards and benchmarks? • Developers expectations and Classroom realities. • Importance of field testing and revision. • Covering content or uncovering concepts. • The nature of scientific inquiry. How scientist make claims and persuade others? • The tyranny of large population states with state wide adoptions. • Researched-based decisions versus practical realities. • The pedagogical contract. Who establishes it?

24. Conclusion • We need to push for useful and connected knowledge of carefully selected content • Virtually unanimous belief of people doing research and development in science learning: We are trying to cover too much content too shallowly • Virtually unanimous reaction of subject matter specialists: • Overall, this looks like a lot to cover without slipping into procedural display • The coverage of my area is inadequate

25. Possible Criteria: Included Content Essential content 1. Included in NAEP framework 2. Necessary for students to play roles of responsible citizens: learner, consumer, voter, worker, volunteer, advocate Advanced content 1. Important for specific kinds of work 2. Important preparation for college science courses

26. Possible Criteria: Specifications for Understanding NAEP categories of practice (page 83) 1. Identifying Science Principles 2. Using Science Principles 3. Using Scientific Inquiry 4. Using Technological Design NRC Science Learning Study strands of scientific proficiency 1. Understanding and using scientific explanations of the natural world 2. Generating, and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations 3. Understanding how personal and scientific knowledge are constructed 4. Productive participation in the science classroom

27. Specifications for Understanding (cont) • Students should demonstrate proficiency across ALL categories of practice for EACH content statement • NAEP: Learning Performances are developed as specific practices for particular content statements (see NAEP framework, pages 83-86)

28. Possible Criteria: Setting Boundaries • Possible types of boundaries • Technical vocabulary • Examples, observations, data (e.g., which organisms, compounds, landforms) • Instruments and units of measure • Representations (e.g., which kinds of formulas, symbols, level of mathematical proficiency, diagrams, etc.) • Possibly leave for later?

29. Possible Future Meeting Dates • Setting specifications? • Sharing first drafts: Week of February 13 • Sharing and discussing revisions: Week of March 6 • Discussing final revisions: Week of March 27

30. Tasks for Working Groups • Get to know one another • Review available resources • Try writing some expectations (very small topic) • Develop timeline and division of responsibilities • Prepare to share with whole group • Your draft expectations • Main problems and issues that you are concerned about

31. Issues for Final Discussion • Can we agree on specifications: • Conceptual content: How do we decide what’s included? • Practice dimension: How do we define useful and connected understanding? • Language of content expectations: Conceptual or performance? • How to produce expectations in performance language? • Are we ready for content groups to start writing? What additional agreements do we need?

32. MDE Contact Information Susan Codere Kelly, Project Coordinator Office of School Improvement Michigan Department of Education SCodere@aol.com Betty Underwood, Assistant Director Office of School Improvement Michigan Department of Education UnderwoodB@michigan.gov Dr. Yvonne Caamal Canul, Director Office of School Improvement Michigan Department of Education Canuly@michigan.gov