Setting the Stage:Science

K-7 Content Expectations

Scholar Workgroup MeetingJanuary 25, 2007

Lansing Holiday Inn

Office of School Improvement

2

Competenciesfor High School Completion

Academic ContentEntrepreneurship

Dispositions

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

3

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

4

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

5

Who Has Been Involved? Academic Work Groups

Chaired by Higher Education Other representative members

Local and Intermediate School Districts Professional Organizations Career & Technical Education

Review Committees Web Review – Legislative Review National Review

Achieve, Inc. – ELA and Mathematics Council of State Science Supervisors North American Council for Online Learning

6

What Has Been Developed?

High School Content Expectations (HSCE) The “universe” of recommended content during

a 4 year high school experience Course/Credit Content Expectations (CCE)

Specific course/credit content requirements derived from the “universe” of the HSCE

7

High School Science Requirements Required: 3 Credits Credit content is developed for:

Earth Science, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics Biology required of everyone Choice of Physics or Chemistry 3rd credit to be selected from district or

online options, and/or dual enrollment Legislation encourages 4th credit Sequence not mandated

8

Michigan Merit Curriculum

Global Market

National Stage

Competition $

Election Year

ACT/MME

NCLB

Grad

uatio

n Re

quire

men

ts

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

La

w HSCE

9

Definition of Curriculum

Curriculum has been defined as…

The knowledge and skills that a community believes is important for people to know and be able to do.

(Paolo Freire)

The “Community”

Social

Political

Economic

Inte

rnat

iona

l/Nat

iona

l/Sta

te

Stan

dard

s

Local Context

The Committees

The Curriculum

Cultural

11

Who Will Be Involved?K-7 Grade Level Content Expectations

Group of Scholars Co-Chairs

Larry Casler, Genesee Math Science Center Liz Niehaus, Niehaus and Associates, Inc.

Other representative members Local and Intermediate School Districts

Small Group Review Community members Professional organizations

Web Review National Review Plan for presentation to SBE November 2007

12

Draft DocumentsState Board of

Education Review5 - 6 months prior to requesting approval

Web Review of Draft30 – 90 days to review, process

comments

Draft Documents

National ReviewEdited Draft to Achieve

or other

Final DocumentsDissemination

3 Regional10 Localized

Curriculum Protocol Flowchart

Draft DocumentsWork Group

Edit draft based on National Review

Draft DocumentsMDE Internal Review Group

MDE Management, PR

Draft DocumentsSmall Review

GroupMDE &

representative practitioners

Document DevelopmentWork Group of

ScholarsChair and 5 – 8

appointed membersOSI Convened

Draft DocumentsWork Group Reconvened

Edit based on Reviews

Final Documents

Superintendent

Final Documents

State Board Approval

Legislative Review

MDE

MDE

13

Who are the key players?

Office of School Improvement lead on Curriculum development

Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability lead on Assessment

K-7 Project Coordinators Larry Casler and Liz Niehaus

Work Group is the “Academic Review” OSI Staff as assigned

14

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

15

Your Mission As a team, develop a draft of K-7 grade

level content expectations that will consider the variables impacting our work

Virtual, face-to-face, topical groups Forward thinking…curricular format

options, companion documents, instructional support

Work group chairs are responsible for the product

16

Your Mission Draw upon work that has been done Align with national documents,

standards Align K-12

17

Constraints: Timeline Draft ready for review by May Final document to Superintendent Flanagan for

recommendation to SBE in November 2007 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)

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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.

24

Conclusion We need to push for useful and connected

knowledge of carefully selected content Belief of people doing research and

development in science learning: We are trying to cover too much content too shallowly

Need to reach a balance with content

25

MDE Contact Information

Larry CaslerGenesee ISD Mathematics Science CenterLcasler@geneseeisd.org

Liz NiehausNiehaus and AssociatesNIEHAUS_P@msn.com

Kevin Richard, Science ConsultantOffice of School ImprovementMichigan Department of EducationRichardke@michigan.gov

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