Steve Parrott and Matt Strinden will be hosting a session on "Taking the Lead with the Next Generation Science Standards." Steve is the state supervisor for Technology and Engineering Education at the Illinois State Department of Education. Matt is the President of the ITEEA-CSL and an Assistant State Superintendent at the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. Please join Steve and Matt from January 28 - February 10, 2013.
Let me first start this discussion with a short dead line for review (January 8) of the second draft.
ReplyDeleteThe second draft of the Next Generation Science Standards opened for feedback on January 8, 2013 and will remain open for feedback until January 29, 2013. We fully encourage all interested parties to review the draft as individuals or in groups and provide feedback to the Lead States and writers. In this draft, the standards are coded by Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI) from the NRC's Framework for K-12 Science Education, and are available in two different arrangements- by DCI and by topic.
http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
Most of us are most interested in the Engineering, Technology, and the Application of Science. Please review those standards and provide feed back to your state officials and the NGSS survey at http://interceptum.com/ngss/survey_topic.html?q=826428.
Correction - dead line is January 29th. The second draft came out on January 8th.
ReplyDeleteIn the K–12 context, “science” is generally taken to mean the traditional natural sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, and (more recently) earth, space, and environmental sciences. . . . We use the term “engineering” in a very broad sense to mean any engagement in a systematic practice of design to achieve solutions to particular human problems. Likewise, we broadly use the term “technology” to include all types of human-made systems and processes—not in the limited sense often used in schools that equates technology with modern computational and communications devices. Technologies result when engineers apply their understanding of the natural world and of human behavior to design ways to satisfy human needs and wants. (NRC 2012, p. 11-12)
ReplyDeleteOther helpful links can be found below. We look forward to discussing this topic with you. Please feel free to post and comment.
Appendix F Science and Engineering Practices - http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20F_Science%20%20Engineering%20Practice%20-%20FINAL.pdf
Matrix Science and Engineering Practices - http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Science%20and%20Engineering%20Practices%20Matrix%20for%20Jan%20Release.pdf
How to Give Feedback - http://interceptum.com/ngss/how.html
I would like to give a little back ground with my involvement with the NGSS. I currently work for the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)in the College and Career Readiness Division. My primary responsiblity is in the area of Technology and Engineering Education. I am one of the few who works with STEM at ISBE. I was asked to sit on Illinois' NGSS review team. My primary interest are the Engineering standards. I am one of the few non science voices. Having signed an agreement there are some things that I cannot discuss. I will do my best to help answer any questions that may come up.
ReplyDeleteTo really understand the standards you must first become knowledgable about the framework. The standards were written around the framework.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165
I've been on the idea garden and this was a recent post. Comments???
ReplyDeleteNGSS Thoughts...
1. Far too much confusion exists over how the NGSS will be implemented.
2) The Technology and Engineering Discipline (in NYS) does not support
the NGSS in its current form.
3) NGSS is a Standards document, hence new curriculum will have to be written
4) Where will the funding come from to write new curricula?
5) New Assessments will have to be written
6) Where will the funding come from to develop new assessments?
7) Widespread Professional Development will have to be initiated - also dependent upon substantial funding.
8) A large number of science teachers, now in the field, are not comfortable with the NGSS approaches
9) Pre-service science teacher programs will have to be completely revamped.
10) Science teacher certifications will have to be restructured.
11) Elementary Education programs will have to retool and find time in their already demanding schedules.
12) Wouldn't it be a better solution to expand technology and engineering programs?
13) The NGSS appears to be geared for the top performing levels of any school's student body
14) Won't AP and IB courses have to be changed or eliminated.
15) Won't the NGSS impact, even eliminate some articulation agreements across the country?
16) The NGSS's inclusion of technology and engineering should NEVER be
considered a reason to eliminate technology and engineering programs.
Chuck
Here is another reply from one of our CSL members on having Engineering Restored as a core discipline back to the original framework.
ReplyDeleteRestore Engineering as a Core Discipline in the NGSS!
Despite the historic inclusion of engineering design as a core discipline, key practice, and crosscutting concept in the National Research Council's, A Framework for K-12 Science Education, we are concerned that Engineering as a Core Disciplinary Idea has been omitted in the 2nd public draft of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). If you support engineering in K-12 education, I urge you to respond to the last call for comments by January 29.
The original core idea of Engineering Design is now completely missing from the standards. To be fair, engineering is still included as a practice, and several of the performance expectations reflect parts of the engineering process. However, engineering design is now fragmented and seems to be used only as a vehicle for students to show they understand science, rather than as a discipline asking students to learn how to define, solve, and optimize a solution to problems, as featured in the Framework.
The second core idea, that science and engineering are interdependent, and that science, technology and engineering influence society and the natural world, has also disappeared as a standard. Now viewed as a crosscutting idea, it too shows up here and there within the natural science disciplines, but not as a coherent idea that all students are expected to learn.
Advancing K-12 engineering education is essential to meeting the demands of a 21st century workforce and our national security needs. Let's not back down on this critical opportunity. If you believe all students should learn engineering design and know about the impact of this important discipline, please urge the writers to Restore Engineering as a Core Disciplinary Idea by January 29.
As Always, George you see the BIG picture. We are not talking about engineering with no mention of technology, technological literacy etc. I agree we need to look at engineering as not just a way to enhance science but as a discipline with specific standards if it is to be included in the science standards.
ReplyDeleteThis said, what has happened to Technology for ALL american and out standards for TechnologicalLiteracy. Not a mention in the science standards and I would contend many of our STL belong in the science standards as do the engineering standards.
Ad always, once again George, thanks for keeping an eye on the BIG PICTURE. At the end of the day we will have SEM rather than STEM if not vigilant.
Regarding: NGSS Thoughts...
ReplyDeleteMy reaction to the list of comments. Not meant as insult but the comments triggered some very exciting reactions and thoughts of man we will never improve the content of what is taught.
1. Far too much confusion exists over how the NGSS will be implemented.
(Standards are used to write curriculum, that simple)
2) The Technology and Engineering Discipline (in NYS) does not support the NGSS in its current form.
(With or without Engineering standards? why? Is it fear of change is it because woods programs might have to change to TE program?)
3) NGSS is a Standards document, hence new curriculum will have to be written
(Yes that is what improves education)
4) Where will the funding come from to write new curricula?
(Where it always come from, it won't be done overnight and they won't waste money on other projects.)
5) New Assessments will have to be written
(OK change is good and they should be rewritten once in a while, new standards, new curriculum equals new assessments)
6) Where will the funding come from to develop new assessments?
(Where it always comes from it won't be all done in one year)
7) Widespread Professional Development will have to be initiated - also dependent upon substantial funding.
(GOOD, it should be)
8) A large number of science teachers, now in the field, are not comfortable with the NGSS approaches
(Well if you teach the same thing for 35 years and do nothing new are you doing the students a disservice? Doctors have to learn new techniques and who says science teachers are the only ones that can teach science standards? Poor administrators do.)
9) Pre-service science teacher programs will have to be completely revamped.
(GOOD about time we start getting away from all theory and make the knowledge useful).
10) Science teacher certifications will have to be restructured.
(Who says Science teachers are the only ones that can teach the standards?)
11) Elementary Education programs will have to retool and find time in their already demanding schedules.
(Good toss out some outdated stuff)
12) Wouldn't it be a better solution to expand technology and engineering programs?
It would be great if the Science community stated that engineering standards were needed and they should be added as an equal partner to science and Math. (They just don't want to add it to their curricula) Whatever happened to STEM????
13) The NGSS appears to be geared for the top performing levels of any school's student body
(It is called Rigor and relevancy)
14) Won't AP and IB courses have to be changed or eliminated.
(Oh come on, if so than so be it)
15) Won't the NGSS impact, even eliminate some articulation agreements across the country?
(Why, prove this one, change will take time the question is is the change needed for America?)
16) The NGSS's inclusion of technology and engineering should NEVER be considered a reason to eliminate technology and engineering programs.
CORRECT standards do not dictate who or what certificate teaches them. The science folks know this is important and they should be pushing Technology Ed ( if it isn't IA with a new name)with engineering standards and they should be equal.
Note:
It is my thought that if the engineering standards were once in the science standards a large number of folks believe America's kids need exposure to curriculum that meets these standards. The testing branch of education cannot be the reason to prevent it from happening. There are plenty of science requirements in High school. There needs to be one for Technology Ed/Engineering ed.
Maybe one less for science to get this in the loop. IF all students would experience a good technology ed. program our country would continue to be the leaders of innovation.
Mark Wallace
Mark,
DeletePowerful insights, especially on leadership in innovation. Any further thoughts on how technology education can dominate in this area, in a manner that resonates with various eduation field stakeholders, and strengthens us as indispensable to their objectives?
Ivan Fidler
Let me add some fuel to the discussion fire. "Taking the Lead with the Next Generation Science Standards" doesn't necessarly mean to "change" the proposed standard, but rather let's look at how we can implement the standards in the courses we teach.We all know we are doing what the Science standards are proposing be taught (albit in Science classes)so why don't we take the lead by getting our message out to the people who have the cloud (and not necessarly the knowledge)to cause change. We MUST get our elected official to be knowledgable about what we teach, and how we can work together with other teachers in a true STEM environment. While I'm not saying we shouldn't make comment on the proposed standards, I believe there are positive impacts we as a professional association can make in "implementing" the Technical and Engineering aspects found in the proposed standards. Your comments (positive or negative) will be appreciated.
ReplyDeleteAre there movements underway to have Technology Education as a required subject area in more states, that are effectively dealing with the following: engineering courses in various school districts are presently being taught as high school science courses, by science certified teachers. Students may be enrolling for a number of reasons, such as to meet high school graduation requirements for career classes and/or science classes, and for meeting the amount of science classes beneficial to successful college admissions.
DeleteIf there are personal insights, links,etc. about effective strategies that are moving forward towards either technology education as a requirement,or other comparable objectives for strengthening technology education, any updates will be great.
In Illinois we are not considering requiring Technology Education as a required course for graduation. There has been quite a bit of discussion of requiring a four year of math. Each state that implements the final version of NGSS will decide how the standards will be addressed and implemented. I suggest volunteering with your state's leads on the NGSS to provide input on how Technology and Engineering Educators can assist.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) – Like Yvonne, I had hoped that the NGSS would include Technology/Engineering Education as a Core Discipline and I would further agree that in not doing so, they have moved away from the original framework. Integrating Technology/Engineering Education practices into the NGSS is no different than the work that was done a decade ago by the AAAS organization, which commonly included standards/benchmarks about the designed world and the mathematical world. Unfortunately, I think the NGSS will be a document primarily used by Science Educators versus something that could have been used to pull together disciplines and to commonly develop curriculum across subject areas.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of Technology & Engineering Education Requirements – Maryland is a strong supporter of Technology and Engineering Education. As a state, we believe that the concept of “STEM” education is a requirement for all students. Since 1992, Maryland has required high school students to complete one credit in Technology Education for high school graduation. This requirement reflects the expectation that all students leave high school as STEM literate citizens and be able to dissect the designed world. To view the Code of Maryland Regulation (COMAR) for Technology Education please visit: http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=13A.04.01.*.
However, for those interested in developing similar goals, developing expectations for Technology & Engineering programs is more important than developing a state requirement. Consistency and high expectations are what defines a profession. And, in my opinion, the lack of program consistency is the greatest challenge we face. To that end, in Maryland:
• Technology Education is an instructional program required of all students, it is not a career preparation model. Technology Education programs primarily use the Engineering ByDesign curriculum and assessments as the basis of our instructional model. As a result, we have developed a cost-effective professional development model which pairs face-to-face training with online support. By using EbD, Maryland has established common expectations for all Technology Education programs and we are able to use demonstrated student knowledge to continually inform the model.
• Engineering Education is a Career and Technology Program of Study. Engineering programs primarily use the Project Lead The Way PTE pathway. Again, we employ a consistent model to define programs and establish expectations. Every PLTW program in Maryland is a pathway (4 course minimum) to the Engineering profession. We require every school to administer the PLTW assessments and complete the certification process. By using PLTW, Maryland has established common expectations for all Engineering programs and we are able to use demonstrated students knowledge to continually inform the model.
Without a common vision, it is very difficult to define a profession, and it is impossible to create expectations for high quality programs. Please let me know what you think.
The thoughts on common vision certainly indicate one of the biggest challenges. It looks like building a highly organized movement for effectively pursuing a state requirement in technology education, such as occurred in Maryland, shows what is possible.
DeleteAt the same time, technology education is a very diverse community that appears in various states to be part of an elective culture, vs. a core curriculum culture. As a result, I also perceive the following: as I look at various colleges' admissions priorities, I see an emphasis on the traditional core curriculum of english, social studies, foreign languages, mathematics, and science, with some engineering programs also indicating that taking computer science is encouraged. In addition, for students applying to architectural or industrial design programs, some schools indicate that art courses are encouraged. With our subject area, as well as other subject areas, being outside of those admissions priorities, I can see how the elective culture's diversity further gets reinforced.
In addition, I perceive that for general college admissions, per students going to college for majors other than engineering,etc., some colleges appear to have a level of flexibility in their admissions priorities per traditionally titled high school science course requirements. For example, some colleges indicate that a student should take at least two high school science lab courses, or should take at least three science courses. At the same time, using general language,vs. specific title language, in relation to at least a portion of what students take as classes. This may possibly be a factor resulting in students enrolling in engineering courses, and other types of courses outside of the traditional biology, chemistry, environmental science, physics, etc. titles, that are available within high school science course offerings.
Faced with these and other issues, for those that are learning from the Maryland model's success per technology education requirement, or other alternative models as well: it would be great to hear from those in additional states' technology education communities that are pushing for their subject area as a requirement,or for other comparable objectives, such as indispensability per various data outcomes,importance to colleges' admissions as a recommended subject, etc. Information on how things are moving forward, strategies being pursued, and so forth, will be very valuable.
Ivan Fidler
I think science teachers associations are driving the buss and want more science requirments to help get more Science teachers to pay dues. Just a thought. i haven't been told why they were cut, has anyone? They wanted the Engineering standards and now they don't, why? SAME OLD, WE AREN'T FIXING EDUCATION.
ReplyDeleteWhat is best for students? STEM experiances are, and typical science class can't do it in the time they have with what needs to be tested. So STEM and Eng. Standards are gone. T and E need to be a requirment eaqual to math and science if we are truly going to improve education.
We must pursue all fronts and indicate on those fronts that Tech Ed is the best way to do STEM. It is, and we know it.
STEM is where the money is currently. I suspect in 3 years STEM will also be history.
State Tech. Ed Assocations need to push legislation for Tech Ed and Engineering Standards in their home states. Get a senetor on your side by inviting them to judge a worthy Tech ed.
competition. Then ask him/her to write a bill.
ITEEA needs to promote national legislation for TE/Engineering Standards and hire a lobiest. Cut other programs and hire a lobiest in DC. STEM is hot, use it to your benefit. If the Science community thought Engineering Standards were important last month, they still are. Grab them, but them under TE and go sell it.
Local districts can add to graduation requirments, we have a Tchnology Grad requirement. NJ has legistalted TE standards but not a grad requirment. We proved localy the value of Tech Ed. But listen...make sure it is Tech Ed with SM or forget it.
What would make your school look better than your competition
( Religious school or CTE school) That you have a requirment as needed as technological Literacy.
Hope this is what Ivan was aksing about.
Very refreshing perspective, especially on your local district's having a Technology graduation requirement. Thanks for the input.
ReplyDeleteHere are the NGSS Core Messages - Notice that not much is mentioned on engineering, more about technology.
ReplyDelete Expanding our country’s ability to compete in science and technology is critical to our ability to compete and lead in a global economy. We can only do this if American students get a solid science education that prepares them for college, careers, and opportunities in science-related fields.*
Life after high school or college is no longer about competing with people in the same town. Today, American students need to be able to compete with peers from Japan, China, and India. All our students need the knowledge and skills in science that equip them in a demanding global economy.
Students who are proficient in science will be prepared to enter and succeed in rapidly growing fields in the national economy, such as medicine and health care, engineering, and technology.
Students who choose careers in the sciences will have the opportunity to improve people’s lives and to contribute to the prosperity of our nation through advances in medicine, health care, genetics, bioengineering, technology, and many other fields.
To be ready for college and careers, students need to have studied a rigorous curriculum. This means mastering the basics like English and math, but also some of the knowledge and skills colleges and employers value most, like science and technology.
It doesn’t matter whether you live in Mississippi or Maine, science is the same everywhere. All public school students across the country should be learning the same science so they are equally prepared to enter college or the workforce.
It’s time we updated science standards. Our schools’ current science standards are around fifteen years old and during this time there have been major advances in the world of science and in our understanding of how students learn science effectively.*
Science is central to the lives of all Americans, so it only makes sense that students in our public schools get the education in science they need to prepare them to be informed citizens and knowledgeable about how science and technology impacts everyday life.*
There is broad public support for all states to have the same standards at each grade level in science so all students everywhere will have the same access to quality science education.
The standards will be internationally benchmarked against countries whose students typically perform well on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) or Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS).
Just a last update on my CCSSO meeting in Atlanta on the NGSS. That meeting was comprised of the Lead NGSS States and a few other states discussing next steps. Topics discussed were assessment, how to include Literacy and Special Education. Not much was discussed on the second draft. Hopefully by conference more will be known about a potential final draft.
ReplyDelete