Michigan’s New Content Expectations for K-7

Science

Monday, January 28, 2008Kellogg Hotel and Conference Center

East Lansing, Michigan

Content Expectations

• Provide a foundation for curriculum

and assessment development that

represents rigorous and relevant

learning for ALL students.

Content Expectations

• Provide a description of what

students should know and be able to

do in Science by the end of seventh

grade to prepare them for a

successful high school experience.

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.”

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

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

Final Documents

Dissemination

3 Regional

10 Localized

Curriculum Protocol Flowchart

Draft Documents

Work Group

Edit draft based on National Review

Draft Documents

MDE Internal Review Group

MDE Management, PR

Draft Documents

Small Review Group

MDE & representative practitioners

Document Development

Work Group of Scholars

Chair and 5 – 8 appointed members

OSI Convened

Draft Documents

Work Group Reconvened

Edit based on

Reviews

Final Documents

Superintendent

Final Documents

State Board Approval

Legislative ReviewMDE

MDE

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

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”

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

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

• 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

Public/Web Review

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

Insert Kevin’s Picture

Science Academic Work Group

Larry Casler, Co-Chair, Genesee M/S Center

Hope Beringer, RomeoHerm Boatin, Dearborn Barb Armbruster, Forest Hills Charles Bucienski, OlivetDavid Bydlowski, Wayne RESAEileen Byrnes, WarrenMary Carlson, Grand LedgeJan Coratti, PlymouthConnie Crittenden, Williamston

Liz Niehaus, Co-Chair, Niehaus and Associates Inc.

Geri Elliston, CharlotteMargaret Griffin, DetroitCarol Gutteridge, FentonJason Henry, New Branches PSANancy Karre, Battle Creek MSCLiz Larwa, BrightonJane Levy, Ann ArborDeborah Peek-Brown, Detroit PublicMichele Svoboda, Comstock Park

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

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

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

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

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

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”

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

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

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)

Development of Expectations

GLCE Selected Performance Verbs Knowledge List Examine

Describe Observe

Identify

Comprehension Compare and Contrast

Predict Distinguish

Application Demonstrate Relate

Calculate Classify

Illustrate Conduct

Analysis Explain Determine

Synthesis Design

Evaluation Measure Critique

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

Structure of K-7 Science

Discipline

Standard

Content Statement

Content Expectation

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.

K-4 Organization, Example, p. 3

5-7 Organization, Example, p. 50

Structure of K-7 Science Expectation Count

Kdg 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 5th 6th 7th Total

Physical 7 5 5 15 14 46 9 6 14 29

Life 2 4 3 6 6 21 9 10 11 30

Earth 1 9 7 11 9 37 8 13 13 34

Total 10 18 15 32 29 104 26 29 38 93

Overview of K-7 Science

Number of GLCEs per Grade Level

0

5

10

15

20

25

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Grade Level

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

nte

nt

Ex

pe

cta

tio

ns Science Processes

Physical Science

Life Science

Earth Science

Overview of K-7 Science

Number of Science GLCEs per Grade Level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Grade Level

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

nte

nt

Ex

pe

cta

tio

ns

K-7 Science Coding

Discipline

Standard

Content Statement

Content Expectation

P.PM.04.23 Discipline Standard (Grade Level) Statement Expectation

Acknowledgements

• Internal and External Review Members

• Fellow Educators K-16

• National Review Participants

• State School Board Members

• MDE

• Academic Work Group

Break

• Break 10:00 – 10:20

• Table Investigation Begins at 10:20

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.