Can the Next Generation Science Standards "permeate" the education system?

Michelle Salgado

“Standards provide a vision for teaching and learning, but the vision cannot be realized unless the standards permeate the education system and guide curriculum, instruction, teacher preparation, and professional development (p. 241).”

The Next Generation Science Standards do not provide the practices & pedagogy behind this vision and this may be problematic for initial implementation purposes. Districts and Educational Service Districts need to seriously consider the implications for teaching and learning within the science discipline if teachers and students are not supported through the process of enacting the standards. Traditional  “spray and pray” professional development classes will not support teachers as they navigate a shift in their practice.  Districts and professional development providers need to rethink how to create professional development models that will support sustainability over time as well as depth changes in pedagogy and a shift in reform ownership from external (reformers) to internal (teachers) owners (Coburn, 2003).

Teacher autonomy will be an interesting tension that may emerge within schools and districts as a result of implementing NGSS because of the increased need for student sense-making discourse to demonstrate a proficiency of the performance expectations. In my experience, sense-making discourse relies heavily on responsive teaching which in turn relies on the teacher’s ability to plan instruction and questioning techniques specific to the elicited student ideas that emerge lesson after lesson.

Teachers will need the autonomy to move away from scripted lesson plans and science “investigations” that do not allow students to pose their own questions and instead the sequencing of curriculum should be focused on student partial understandings and progressive growth of the complexity of evidence backed explanations. The “educational system” including district coaches and science personnel as well as administration needs to understand that for many educators this is a new kind of teaching and learning and it should be a PROCESS THAT TAKES TIME!  Districts and ESDs will need to carefully choose the professional development models that will support teachers throughout the school year, not just occurring in September and June.

State and district policies will need to be mindful of the involved variables of responsive science teaching and look for ways to view and support this shift in practice as both a financial and economic investment into the future.  I argue that curriculum development work and assessments should occur on a local scale in partnership with teachers and districts. If curriculum is responsive and assessments are created with the local student population in mind then this may reduce bias related to language, gender, status, and ethnic diversities.

If curriculum developers, professional development instructors, and/or university partnerships work alongside teachers and district science personnel to create local and responsive curriculum then the transfer of ownership within schools will grow and increase the quality of implementation of the NGSS framework dimensions (Disciplinary Core Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices, and Crosscutting Concepts) and this knowledge will move to be self-generating throughout the system and renewed at the beginning of each school year.

If teachers are not given the opportunity to create curriculum or assessments and districts care about NGSS implementation, then teachers should be given sufficient planning time during the course of their work day and paid for out of work planning time in order to revise the curriculum to meet the diverse needs of their students.

 This planning time should not, in my view, occur in isolation. Given the complexity of the new standards and intricacies of the framework dimensions, teachers will need to work both on grade level planning teams and meet in cross-grade level planning periods with support from coaches and job embedded professional development personnel. In working with collaborative teams, new educational norms will begin to take hold, as all parties involved will engage in continued opportunities to learn within these supportive learning communities. Thinking even further, supportive administrators will need to consider their role as instructional leaders and create building-wide policies that support teacher and student learning. This includes the creation of the daily schedule, providing quality opportunities for teacher collaboration and professional development, and transforming staff meetings into places for learning not announcements.

It is my belief that students begin their first days of kindergarten knowing how to ask scientific questions, draw pictures (models) of events and phenomena they encounter, and know how to engage in dialogue about their ideas. Our job is to continue to support those skills and pre-existing knowledge and experiences by providing their teachers with the necessary partnerships and materials in the form of skill building, job embedded professional development that is ongoing and responsive, appropriate curriculum, and the autonomy to make sound instructional decisions. Implementation of these standards will be a collective effort by all parties involved with everyone holding a share of the responsibility.

Should teachers be involved in partnerships to create science curriculum that supports their implementation of NGSS? Why or why not?

 How do you create a curriculum that balances the learning of both the science and engineering practices? Can you have a unit with a focus on both science and engineering? Or would it be better to focus on these pieces separately?

How do you support teachers in their learning of specific discourse moves that supports students’ changes in thinking over time?