Science K-7 Content Expectations

Web/Public Review

May 14 – June 29, 2007

Office of School Improvement

2

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 Public/Web/Legislative Review

May 14 – June 29, 2007 National Review – July – August 2007 Final Document Presentation to State Board

November 2007, pending approval December 2007

3

Science Development Work Group

Academic Work GroupLiz Niehaus, Co-Chair, Niehaus and Assoc.Larry Casler, Co-Chair, Genesee M/S Center Barb Armbruster, Forest Hills Hope Beringer, Romeo Herm Boatin, Dearborn Charles Bucienski, Olivet David Bydlowski, Wayne MSC Eileen Byrnes, Grissom Warren Mary Carlson, Grand Ledge Jan Coratti, Plymouth Connie Crittenden, Williamston Geri Elliston, Charlotte Margaret Griffin, Detroit Carol Gutteridge, Fenton Jason Henry, New Branches PSA Nancy Karre, Battle Creek MSC Liz Larwa, Brighton Jane Levy, Ann Arbor Deborah Peek-Brown, Detroit MSC Michele Svoboda, Comstock Park

Internal Review 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

4

Content Expectations Goal

These expectations were developed to

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

5

Content Expectations Goal

The Expectations provide a foundation for

curriculum and assessment development

that represents rigorous and relevant

learning for ALL students.

6

Criteria for Our Work

• RIGOR: What is the level of intellectual demand in the standards?– challenging enough to equip students to

succeed at the next grade level– essential core content of a discipline; its key

concepts and how they relate to each other

7

Criteria for Our Work

• CLARITY: Are the standards clearly written and presented in a logical, easy-to use format?– more than just plain and jargon-free prose– widely understood and accepted by teachers,

parents, school boards and others who have a stake in the quality of schooling including university faculties that will prepare teachers to convey the standards and later receive those teachers’ students

8

Criteria for Our Work

• SPECIFICITY: Are the standards specific enough to convey the level of performance expected of students?– enough detail to help teachers design their

courses – address the given teachers’ time for

instruction

9

Criteria for Our Work

• FOCUS: Have tough choices been made about what content is the most important for students to learn?– priorities of facts, concepts and skills that

should be emphasized at each grade level

10

Criteria for Our Work

• PROGRESSION: Do knowledge and skills build clearly and sensibly on previous learning and increase in intellectual demand from year to year?– move from simple to complex, from concrete

to abstract– prevent needless repetition from grade to

grade

11

Criteria for Our Work

• COHERENCE: Do the standards convey a unified vision of the discipline, and do they establish connections among the major areas of study?– reflect a coherent structure of the discipline

and/or reveal significant relationships among the strands and how the study of one complements the study of another.

– States should eventually be able to “back-map” from the high school Academic Standards to a progression of benchmarks that middle and elementary school students would need to reach in order to be “on track” for college and work.

12

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 Review

MDE

MDE

13

What was the Process?

• NAEP to Content Statements• Organize Content Statements (Life, Earth, or Physical and K-4 or 5-7)• Content Statements to Content

Expectations• Content Statements to Grade Level• Draft GLCE for review

14

Organizing Structure

Discipline 1Science Processes

Discipline 2Physical Science

Discipline 3Life Science

Discipline 4Earth Science

Standards

Inquiry and Reflection (IR)

Motion of Objects (MO)

Energy (EN)

Properties of Matter (PM)

Changes in Matter (CM)

Organization of Living Things (OL)

Heredity (HE)

Evolution (EV)

Ecosystems (EC)

Earth Systems (ES)

Solid Earth (SE)

Fluid Earth (FE)

Earth in Space and Time (ST)

15

Next Steps

Public/Web Review May 10 – June 29, 2006

National Review July – August 2007

Request to Superintendent Flanagan for State Board Submission November 13, 2007 pending final approval December 11, 2007

Statewide Dissemination January 2008

16

Hierarchy Coding

L.OL.04.21 Discipline Standard Grade Level Content Expectation

Note: A slightly different coding will be used in the final document.

17

Surveys

There are two survey formats in the following slides.

Grade Span Survey – Looks at the overall flow and connection between grades. This survey will take much time. It is recommended to print the survey first, then go back into the online survey to input the data.Grade Level Survey – Looks at an individual grade. Much shorter survey.

There are links to print out the elementary (K-4) grade span survey, the middle school (5-7) grade span survey, individual grade level surveys, the entire K-7 GLCE document, or the grade specific expectation documents.

Note: Once you start the Zoomerang survey, you cannot leave. If you exit the survey, you will have to restart from the beginning.

18

Viewing

For the complete Science K-7 Grade Level Content Expectations document, please click on the image below.

For all surveys and individual Grade Level Science Content Expectations, please continue to future slides.

19

Viewing

We invite you to view the specific grade level expectations and surveys. Click on the Back button in your browser window to return back to Science HSCE PowerPoint.

Kindergarten Fifth GradeFirst Grade Sixth GradeSecond Grade Seventh GradeThird GradeFourth Grade

For K-4 and 5-7 Grade Span Surveys, please continue to future slides.

20

Viewing and Commenting

Elementary Grade Span (K-4):Note: This survey takes considerable time to complete. You can print the survey first, then transfer

your answers to the online survey. Once you leave Zoomerang, you must start over.

To view a paper copy of the Survey, click on this link: Paper Copy

To take the online Elementary Grade Span Content Expectations survey, click here:

Elementary

Survey

21

Viewing and Commenting

Middle School Grade Span(5-7):Note: This survey takes considerable time to

complete. You can print the survey first, then transfer your answers to the online survey…once you leave Zoomerang, you must start over.

To view a paper copy of the Survey, click on this link: Paper Copy

Middle School

Survey

To take the online Middle School Grade Span Content Expectations survey, click here:

22

Viewing and Commenting

Kindergarten:

To view a copy of the Kindergarten Expectations, click here:

To view a paper copy of the Survey, click on this link:

Paper Copy

To take the Content Expectations survey for Kindergarten, click here:

Kindergarten

Survey

23

Viewing and Commenting

First Grade:

To view a copy of the First Grade Expectations, click here:

To view a paper copy of the Survey, click on this link:

Paper Copy

To take the Content Expectations survey for

First Grade, click here:

First Grade

Survey

24

Viewing and Commenting

Second Grade:

To view a copy of the Second GradeExpectations, click here:

To view a paper copy of the Survey, click on this link:

Paper Copy

To take the Content Expectations survey for Second Grade, click here:

Second Grade

Survey

25

Viewing and Commenting

Third Grade:

To view a copy of the Third Grade Expectations, click here:

To view a paper copy of the Survey, click on this link:

Paper Copy

To take the Content Expectations survey for Third Grade, click here:

Second Grade

Survey

Third Grade

Survey

26

Viewing and Commenting

Fourth Grade:

To view a copy of the Fourth Grade Expectations, click here:

To view a paper copy of the Survey, click on this link:

Paper Copy

To take the Content Expectations survey for Fourth Grade, click here:

Fourth Grade

Survey

27

Viewing and Commenting

Fifth Grade:

To view a copy of the Fifth Grade Expectations, click here:

To view a paper copy of the Survey, click on this link:

Paper Copy

To take the Content Expectations survey for Fifth Grade, click here:

Fifth Grade

Survey

28

Viewing and Commenting

Sixth Grade:

To view a copy of the Sixth Grade Expectations, click here:

To view a paper copy of the Survey, click on this link:

Paper Copy

To take the Content Expectations survey for Sixth Grade, click here:

Sixth Grade

Survey

29

Viewing and Commenting

Seventh Grade:

To view a copy of the Seventh Grade Expectations, click here:

To view a paper copy of the Survey, click on this link:

Paper Copy

To take the Content Expectations survey for Seventh Grade, click here:

Seventh Grade

Survey

30

Contact InformationFor additional information, contact:

Kevin Richard, Science ConsultantOffice of School ImprovementRichardKe@michigan.gov

Betty Underwood, Assistant DirectorOffice of School ImprovementUnderwoodB@michigan.gov