Setting the Stage Science K-7 Content Expectations Scholar

Setting the Stage: Science K-7 Content Expectations Scholar Workgroup Meeting January 25, 2007 Lansing Holiday Inn Office of School Improvement

High School Redesign Competencies for High School Completion Academic Content Entrepreneurship Dispositions Core Academic Environment for Delivery Policy needed for Reform Content Standards Instructional Design & Delivery Mathematics English Science Social Studies Infrastructure Policy-making State Board Legislature School Redesign Incentives Requirements Postsecondary CTE Integrated Information Gathering: Presentations Position Development: Group discussions, advisory input Position Dissemination: Roll out, publications 2

History of High School Requirements • Cherry Commission on Higher Education and Economic Growth • Yearlong study of resources, districts and best practices State Board of Education leads the movement Extraordinary partnership between Executive and Legislative branches • • 3

History of High School Requirements • Legislation signed by Governor Granholm on April 20, 2006 created a set of rigorous high school requirements • State graduation requirements become most comprehensive in nation • New requirements effective Class of 2011 except for Languages other than English: 2016 4

Who Has Been Involved? p Academic Work Groups n n Chaired by Higher Education Other representative members p p p Local and Intermediate School Districts Professional Organizations Career & Technical Education Review Committees Web Review – Legislative Review National Review n n n Achieve, Inc. – ELA and Mathematics Council of State Science Supervisors North American Council for Online Learning 5

What Has Been Developed? p High School Content Expectations (HSCE) n p The “universe” of recommended content during a 4 year high school experience Course/Credit Content Expectations (CCE) n Specific course/credit content requirements derived from the “universe” of the HSCE 6

High School Science Requirements Required: 3 Credits p Credit content is developed for: p n Earth Science, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics p Biology required of everyone p Choice of Physics or Chemistry p 3 rd credit to be selected from district or online options, and/or dual enrollment p Legislation encourages 4 th credit p Sequence not mandated 7

NCLB National Stage Competition $ ACT/MME Election Year 8 Implementation of Law Global Market Graduation Requirements Michigan Merit Curriculum HSCE

Definition of Curriculum has been defined as… p The knowledge and skills that a community believes is important for people to know and be able to do. (Paolo Freire) 9

International/National/State Standards The “Community” Cultural Economic Local Context Political Socia l The Committees The Curriculum

Who Will Be Involved? K-7 Grade Level Content Expectations p Group of Scholars n Co-Chairs p p n p p Other representative members p Local and Intermediate School Districts Small Group Review n p Larry Casler, Genesee Math Science Center Liz Niehaus, Niehaus and Associates, Inc. Community members Professional organizations Web Review National Review Plan for presentation to SBE November 2007 11

Curriculum Protocol Flowchart Document Development Work Group of Scholars Chair and 5 – 8 appointed members Draft Documents Small Review Group MDE Internal Review Group MDE & representative practitioners MDE Management, PR Draft Documents State Board of Education Review 5 - 6 months prior to requesting approval OSI Convened Draft Documents Web Review of Draft National Review Work Group Reconvened Edited Draft to Achieve or other 30 – 90 days to review, process comments Edit based on Reviews Legislative Review Final Documents Draft Documents Work Group MDE Superintendent Final Documents Dissemination Edit draft based on National Review Final Documents 12 State Board Approval 3 Regional 10 Localized

Who are the key players? Office of School Improvement lead on Curriculum development p Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability lead on Assessment p K-7 Project Coordinators p n Larry Casler and Liz Niehaus Work Group is the “Academic Review” p OSI Staff as assigned p 13

Your Role Collaborate as a member of a team p Understand your “commission” p Be sensitive to the political nature inherent in doing work for a statewide initiative p Accept the fact that this is an iterative process p Reach consensus, support group decisions p 14

Your Mission As a team, develop a draft of K-7 grade level content expectations that will consider the variables impacting our work p Virtual, face-to-face, topical groups p Forward thinking…curricular format options, companion documents, instructional support p Work group chairs are responsible for the product p 15

Your Mission p Draw upon work that has been done p Align with national documents, standards p Align K-12 16

Constraints: Timeline p p Draft ready for review by May Final document to Superintendent Flanagan for recommendation to SBE in November 2007 n n n 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) 17

Criteria for Our Work p RIGOR: What is the level of intellectual demand in the standards? n challenging enough to equip students to succeed at the next grade level n essential core content of a discipline; its key concepts and how they relate to each other 18

Criteria for Our Work p CLARITY: Are the standards clearly written and presented in a logical, easy-to use format? n more than just plain and jargon-free prose n 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 19

Criteria for Our Work p SPECIFICITY: Are the standards specific enough to convey the level of performance expected of students? n enough detail to help teachers design their courses n address the given teachers’ time for instruction 20

Criteria for Our Work p FOCUS: Have tough choices been made about what content is the most important for students to learn? n priorities of facts, concepts and skills that should be emphasized at each grade level 21

Criteria for Our Work p PROGRESSION: Do knowledge and skills build clearly and sensibly on previous learning and increase in intellectual demand from year to year? n move from simple to complex, from concrete to abstract n prevent needless repetition from grade to grade 22

Criteria for Our Work p COHERENCE: Do the standards convey a unified vision of the discipline, and do they establish connections among the major areas of study? n n 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. 23

Conclusion We need to push for useful and connected knowledge of carefully selected content p Belief of people doing research and development in science learning: We are trying to cover too much content too shallowly p Need to reach a balance with content p 24

MDE Contact Information Larry Casler Genesee ISD Mathematics Science Center Lcasler@geneseeisd. org Liz Niehaus and Associates NIEHAUS_P@msn. com Kevin Richard, Science Consultant Office of School Improvement Michigan Department of Education Richardke@michigan. gov Betty Underwood, Assistant Director Office of School Improvement Michigan Department of Education Underwood. B@michigan. gov Dr. Yvonne Caamal Canul, Director Office of School Improvement Michigan Department of Education Canuly@michigan. gov 25