Next Generation Science Standards: Hart District Teacher Symposium

While the students started their 4-day weekend, the teachers of the Hart District were at a buy-back day.  The theme of the Hart District Teacher Symposium was Common Core and, for science teachers, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).

Dean Gilbert, Science Director for the Orange County Department of Education, ran the first session.  He spent a fair amount of time talking about the history of NGSS and its implementation.  I have heard some of what he talked about; we've been introduced to a lot of the NGSS theory in my credential classes.

The New

 Here a few of the things I learned:

1. NGSS is a system of delivering science for all students.  NGSS does not address those students headed for a STEM careers (doctors, scientists, nursing, etc.)  Students pursuing those careers will still take honors and AP classes.
2. Implementing NGSS will cost the state 3 times what it's costing to implement Common Core.
3. There is a debate about how junior high teachers will implement NGSS.  Gilbert is leaning on teachers to adopt an integrated approach where teachers will deliver physical, earth, and life sciences in an integrated class.  Due to some backlash from teachers, the option to continue teaching the differentiated fields is on the table.  The decision will be voted on by current science teachers.
4. What we have been calling "standards" (.pdf) will be replaced by "performance expectations."
5. A body of experts are being gathered as I type to create the framework on which the curriculum will be based.  Should nothing go wrong, it will take at least 12 months to establish the science framework.  Add another 17 months for materials preparation, and we're looking at the earliest possible date for NGSS implementation is fall 2017.  

The Exciting

From Gilbert's talk, here are the things I'm really looking forward to:

1. Anything not deemed important for all students to know about science will be removed from the curriculum.  No memorizing the details of the Kreb's Cycle anymore.  The voting public doesn't need to know this information to make informed decisions about science or environmental policy. The Kreb's Cycle will still be studied in honors and AP biology courses, so it won't totally be eliminated.  But, again, this course of study will be for those students pursuing STEM careers.
2. By eliminating superfluous material in our courses, we can spend more time on inquiry, problem solving, and scientific literacy.  This is exciting.  Normal folks don't care much about the "mighty mitochondria," but most people have stuff they're curious about.  Helping students figure out how to do research, solve real-world problems, and communicate effectively is why I'm in the game. All this involves time, and it appears that by eliminating overly technical stuff, we've got some time back.
3. The NGSS seems pretty student-oriented.  The needs of the 21st Century student came up a lot, and I think that NGSS should meet them nicely.
4. Data and reflection are major drivers of NGSS.  One of the major problems with the current standards is that you've got to cover them all in a limited time frame; covering the standards trumps mastery of the standards.  And, anything you do to meet the standards is just fine.  This has led to a culture of "set it and forget it": teachers prepare lessons once and then they're on cruise-control until retirement. NGSS finally allows teachers the time to act on information gathered by good assessments.  When students display that they misunderstand a concept, the lesson for the next day can address it. Sadly, this type of teaching is rare, and I expect that this will be a point of contention for the old guard.
5. Backwards planning is a major part of NGSS.  This is huge in the credential program, but is not done a lot in classrooms I have observed.  We do stuff because it's always been done that way.  

The Concerns

Here's what makes me hesitant about NGSS:

1. Computer-based Testing - Gilbert was really excited about computer based testing.  Apparently Smarter Balanced didn't get the contract, and NGSS is looking at other options.  He mentioned that the California Department of Education would like to have lab simulations where students could virtually pour liquids into beakers.  I'm all about computer-based testing, but students who have not used computers regularly will be at a major disadvantage.  Students need to practice and be familiar with the technology to get the best results. Current computer labs are slow.  iPads and netbooks are expensive.  One major part of NGSS is equity, and I hope that lack of resources doesn't hinder scores on the computerized exams.
2. Professional Development - There is concern about how to get teachers out of the old way of thinking and into the new.  Gilbert mentioned training programs and certifications, but these cost money and I don't see the public being that eager to foot the bill.
3. Credentialing - There is a major emphasis on integration across fields of science.  Physical, earth, and life science are all interrelated, and the NGSS standards wants them integrated.  How they're integrated is a point of contention.  This will eventually change the credentials required of teachers.  No one has answers to these questions yet.
4. NGSS and College Requirements - The subject of how high school science courses meet the requirements of colleges is squishy.  In my conversations with those who have dealings with curriculum development, the answers are not yet there.

But, when it's all said and done, I learned quite a bit today.  I have a better grasp of the near future and the goals of NGSS, and I'm optimistic about implementation.  There are unknowns and I'm okay with that.

Here, we're making Oobleck, a non-Newtonian fluid, to simulate an inquiry-based, NGSS-compliant task.

Mr. Davis' Lab Notes: A Few Ideas

After tens of hours leading a high school biology lab, here are a few things I've learned:

1. A lab worksheet should have clear instructions.  Just because it's clear to me doesn't mean that it'll be clear to a student.  If you have a student service, ask them to do the lab.  Adjust the instructions as needed.  When a lab is over, go through the lab worksheet and change things for next time.
2. A teacher should only need a minute or two to set the lab in context of the course content and issue safety warnings before turning the students loose.  If it takes you more than a few minutes to do this, then either your expectations or the lab design must be changed.
3. A good lab takes time.  Students need time to read the instructions and even to visualize the process. Students need a few attempts at tying things out before they're actually getting good data.  In my experience, severe time constraints inhibit the value of a lab; when teachers eliminate problem-solving, labs turn into a paint-by-number assignment.
4. Students must be taught to read instructions.
5. Use the lab to walk around and ask good questions.  Even with 40+ students in a classroom, I have managed to get to each group several times over a period and be available for questions or to point students in the right direction.
6. There's an art to asking analysis questions.  I am certain that the quality of the question determines the quality of the answer.  I'm no good at this yet, but this will be one of those things I will try and continually improve.  A good question points students to the right answer without giving it to them; they'll need to make the jump themselves.

It seems to me that a lab should be organized chaos and the teacher's role is to ask guiding questions.

I would love to get to the point where I can teach content, present students with an overarching question, give the students resources to answer the questions, and then set them loose.  To that end, I improve my labs.