High School Science Content Expectations:

Setting the Stage

Work Group MeetingJanuary 9, 2006

MEA Building

Office of School Improvement

Michigan Department of Education

High School Content Expectations – External VariablesWhy 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”

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

Competenciesfor High School Completion

Academic CoreElectives

Post-secondary Preparation

Core Academic Environment for Delivery

Policy needed for Reform

Content Standards

MathematicsEnglishScience

Social Studies

CTE Integrated

Instructional Design & Delivery

Infrastructure

School Redesign

Policy-makingState BoardLegislature

IncentivesRequirementsPostsecondary

Information Gathering: PresentationsPosition Development: Group discussions, advisory input

Position Dissemination: Roll out, publications

High School Redesign

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”

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

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

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

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

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

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…

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

Curricular Format Options

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

1. Traditional Course/Grade Specific – CTE Integrated

3. By the End of High School

Set of Content Expectations

Mathematics

ELA

Social Studies

Science

CTE Integrated

2. Throughout the High School Experience

Integrated Sequence of Content Expectations with CTE

Transparency, Specificity, Pacing

EXAMPLE

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

Final Documents

Dissemination

3 Regional

10 Localized

# 10

OSI Curriculum Protocol Flowchart

Draft Documents

Work Group

Edit draft based on National Review

#8

Final Documents

State Board of Education

Request for Approval

#9

Draft Documents

MDE Internal Review Group

MDE Management, PR

#2, 3

Draft Documents

Small Review Group

MDE & representative practitioners

# 1

Document Development

Work Group of Scholars

Chair and 5 – 8 appointed members

OSI Convened

Draft Documents

Work Group Reconvened

Edit based on Web Review

#7-A, 7-B

Developing Science Content Expectations: Key Issues1. Constraints on development process and

product1. Timeline2. Expectations and review process3. Capacity of system to teach for student learning

2. Possible criteria for science expectations that support useful and connected knowledge

1. Content to be included2. Specifications for form of expectations, criteria for

student understanding3. (Setting boundaries)

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

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)

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?

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

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.)

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. 1. What is traxoline?2. Where is traxoline montilled?3. How is traxoline quaselled?4. Why is it important to know about traxoline

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?

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?

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

Possible Criteria: Included ContentEssential content1. Included in NAEP framework2. Necessary for students to play roles of

responsible citizens: learner, consumer, voter, worker, volunteer, advocate

Advanced content1. Important for specific kinds of work2. Important preparation for college science

courses

Possible Criteria: Specifications for UnderstandingNAEP categories of practice (page 83)

1. Identifying Science Principles2. Using Science Principles3. Using Scientific Inquiry 4. Using Technological Design

NRC Science Learning Study strands of scientific proficiency1. Understanding and using scientific explanations of the natural

world2. Generating, and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations3. Understanding how personal and scientific knowledge are

constructed4. Productive participation in the science classroom

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)

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?

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

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

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?

MDE Contact Information

Susan Codere Kelly, Project CoordinatorOffice of School ImprovementMichigan Department of EducationSCodere@aol.com

Betty Underwood, Assistant DirectorOffice of School ImprovementMichigan Department of EducationUnderwoodB@michigan.gov

Dr. Yvonne Caamal Canul, DirectorOffice of School ImprovementMichigan Department of EducationCanuly@michigan.gov