Forums

Welcome to the Kindergarten - grade 2 forum to discuss the draft of the Next Generation Science Standards. The developmental spread in elementary school is wide enough that this forum can be split into two sections. (The NGSS are divided in this way, K-grade 2 and grades 3-5.)

A Framework For Science Education (July 2012) spoke about the importance of “children’s early intuitions about the world” (pgs 24-25). The NGSS are the next step, based on the Framework which identified the science all K-12 students should know, identified from current research on science and science learning. The May 2012 NGSS Public Draft Front Matter states, “Following the vision of the Framework, the NGSS are intended to increase coherence in K-12 science education.”

What are your thoughts on the Life Science draft standards for K-2?
Do they reflect what you think young children are capable of doing and learning?
How will they support your state standards?
Do they clarify what your curriculum choices will be?
Share your thoughts.

Here are a few of my thoughts after my first reading of the K-2 section of the draft NGSS, and without the benefit of talking it over with the rest of you. I offer them here, and on [url=http://nstacommunities.org/blog/category/earlyyears/]The Early Years blog[/url], as a starting point and hope that you will correct any mistakes. (I label the Performance Expectations, Science and Engineering Practices, Disciplinary Core Ideas, and Crosscutting Concepts in each comment to make it easier to find what I’m commenting on.) [b]On the layout of the draft:[/b] I find the format unifying. The connections to the Common Core Mathematics and English Language State Standards will make it easier to integrate the curriculum and see where teaching math and ELA concepts support the practice of science and engineering, and vice versa. It is helpful to have the Science and Engineering Practices listed with each draft standard (performance expectation). I can see how the practices are the foundation for what I teach. The Disciplinary Core Ideas and Crosscutting Concepts are also listed and I like not having to switch back and forth in a document to see how the different dimensions relate to each other and to my current curriculum. [b]Wishing preK was included:[/b] The Science and Engineering Practices that are the foundation for many of the K-2 performance expectations contain the wording: “…in grades K-2 builds on prior experiences and progresses to…” The Framework acknowledged that “…the capacity of young children—from all backgrounds and socioeconomic levels— to reason in sophisticated ways is much greater than has long been assumed.” It seems to me that standards for preK could be included in this document. [b]Adding wording for “Experiencing the Natural World” as it relates to the Kindergarten standard, K.SPM Structure and Properties of Matter:[/b] Although there is no performance expectation for Experiencing the Natural World, some of the standards, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts require a foundation of experience in nature. The standard K.SPM Structure and Properties of Matter section “d.” states: “Distinguish between opinions and evidence in determining whether objects in a given set occur naturally or are manufactured.” The Disciplinary Core Idea PS1.A: Structure and Properties of Matter states in part: “Matter can be described and classified by its observable properties (e.g., visual, aural, textural), and by its uses, and by whether it occurs naturally or is manufactured.” The Influence of Engineering, Technology and Science on Society and the Natural World states: “Every human-made product is designed by applying some knowledge of the natural world and is built by using natural materials…” Children must have experience with the natural world to be able to distinguish what is natural and what is manufactured by people, and they must have knowledge of the natural world to be able to apply it when designing a product. I would like to see this experience explicitly listed somewhere in the NGSS. [b]Is this wording awkward? Performance Expectation 1.SF Structure and Function-c[/b] In performance expectation 1.SF Structure and Function-c, the wording “external inputs” seems awkward. I wonder why only “external” body parts are part of this Disciplinary Core Idea LS1.A and “smell” and “taste” are not listed in along with “see” and “hear.” See the other Elementary NGSS forums for comments on the Earth and Space Science, and Physical Science standards. Peggy

I read your blog in the NSTA Learning Community Forums. You are right on. Please fill out the survey so more of us can give input to their work. Providing alternate wording seems to be key. Understanding the age appropriateness is critical. Thank you for your insight. Marlee Tierce

Thank you Marlee. I'm still working my way towards a fuller understanding and hope to discuss more with colleagues before I submit a survey. But I will fill it out before the June 2nd deadline. One aspect of the NGSS that I am struggling with is the paring down of the Performance Expectations--only 3 subjects in Kindergarten with a total of 14 performance expectations. Will this lead to PreK-grade 2 teachers discarding useful branches of exploration such as examining bones? Substructures of any kind are not addressed until grade 3 but younger children use magnifiers and notice parts of a whole: veins in leaves, legs on insects, pupils in eyes, and bones of vertebrates (and a favorite topic in early childhood, bones in the fossil record). I am in favor of learning in depth about a few topics, using inquiry and practices, but I fear that teachers will discourage active inquiry about topics that are not in the NGSS. Lilian Katz refers to "uncovering" children's understanding rather than covering all the topics, and I agree. But I don't want to discourage teachers from allowing their kindergarteners to pursue other concepts and topics, such as, rolling objects down ramps or observing the life cycle of a local insect. I was waiting to share these thoughts until after some more people contributed their thoughts. I didn't want to open with a big negative concern. Thanks for tossing the ball back! Peggy

I hear you! I did the individual survey and met Friday with our state review team to give input to the state survey. There were issues in K-5 and we suggested some moves of standards to more appropriate grade levels. I sometimes wonder the expertise of pedagogy and science knowledge at various grade bands. My understanding is that the standards are required for all students, but it does not limit us to other avenues. So we don't want to overload each grade level with requirements. Good teaching recognizes there is more to do than the minimum. That is where the training will come in. That is the huge part of this that no one is mentioning right now. Science teachers helping other teachers understand what good science looks like in primary and 3-5. We must continue to mentor and discuss good science teaching. Thanks for your work! Marlee

Thank you Marlee. Will the next draft of the NGSS include some additional front matter describing the performance expectations as minimum standards? Right now the http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Standards%20f...se%20I.pdf " target="_blank">NGSS May 2012 draft front matter reads (pg 2): "All Standards, All Students The draft NGSS represent a higher threshold for all students. The intent is for all students to have the opportunity to access these standards. The NGSS are meant to prepare students for scientific literacy and prepare them for higher levels of understanding of science and engineering. The standards are not currently arranged into courses.” Hopefully the next draft will be as explicit about the performance standards as the current draft is about the Disciplinary Core Ideas, on pages 3-4. [i]Specifically, a core idea for K-12 science instruction should: 1. Have broad importance across multiple sciences or engineering disciplines or be a key organizing principle of a single discipline. 2. Provide a key tool for understanding or investigating more complex ideas and solving problems. 3. Relate to the interests and life experiences of students or be connected to societal or personal concerns that require scientific or technological knowledge. 4. Be teachable and learnable over multiple grades at increasing levels of depth and sophistication. That is, the idea can be made accessible to younger students but is broad enough to sustain continued investigation over years.[/i] I know that I am not seeing the whole picture--still working towards that, with your help, thanks! I hope to hear from others as well to broaden our discussion. Peggy

Remember also that they are written in grade band--K-2 and 3-5. States can move standards into grade levels if they adopt. I don't know why the survey put them into suggested grade levels unless the committee thought it would be easier to read. It has really helped me to have a copy of the Frameworks that just came out. That explains a lot more detail, and it is one of the main documents that the NGSS used. Everyone will need lots more discussion and study to get a full understanding of what is coming. I am so glad they are putting out public drafts and getting input from us. Make sure you get that survey done this week, deadline June 1. The more thinking on this, the better.

Good to remember that states can move standards into grade levels if they adopt the NGSS. I agree that the Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas was very helpful to refer to.

What kind of professional development is in the pipeline or proposed for putting the NGSS into practice? I'm probably getting ahead of the process here but as you said Marlee, professional development is key to implementing standards successfully.
Looking forward to more discussion,
Peggy

There are many pieces that must fit into place as this process continues. Right now the focus is getting the standards in the best shape possible for all students. The first draft has caused some excellent discussion about science and science education. It is good to have so many people giving input into the product. I do know that professional development is in the future plans. Many decisions will hinge on more than just education. Politics will play a role. I like being a part of the review process. This journey is a real adventure.

Peggy and Marlee, The framework for K-12 Science Education is written in grade bands but the NGSS science standards are written in grade levels. I do bleieve this will believe the format for later drafts and eventually the real thing, the Next Generation Science Standards. Writing them in grade levels will make it much easier for teachers to implement in the classroom. They will know exactly which of the standards is important for them to understand, prepapre high quality instruction and implement in the classroom. I do agree with both of you that there are pieces missing, but I think the intent was to prevent teachers from introducing content that is not developmentally appropriate or not supported by research. We need to remember that the K12 framework is researched based....there are learning progressions. Ok, now that I have said that there are things included and omitted that I am questioning. I sometimes wonder how many K-2 teachers are among the writers.??? Kathy

Thanks fo the clarification, Kathy! All of this begins to run together. I certainly agree with your comments.

Marlee, I am with you. I am a learner in all this also. I am just hoping I will be able to help elementary teachers implement these new standards. I do think they have are moving in the right direction. Kathy

Hey there, Kathy! Great to hear from you. Yes. I'm impressed with the work but see the journey ahead. It's going to take mentors and leaders to help everyone see the good in this move forward. A lot of effort will be needed in training. I would enjoy being involved in this. Marlee

I am posting this on all of the K-2 NGSS blog topic lines … just in case some people are reacting to specific disciplinary core ideas. I also found Don's material http://realearthsystemscience.blogspot.com/2012/05/influence...ience.html very helpful in thinking about a response to the NGSS. He made two statements in particular that are very relevant to providing helpful feedback on the document. 1. Direct your energies in providing feedback to the areas of the standards most relevant to your work and your experience. That both narrows your focus so that you can complete your task before the June 1 close of comments, and increases the likelihood that your comments are on target. 2. Also, if you think this document represents a vision you share for science education, include that in your comments. Be sure to say what you like about NGSS! Consider that individuals and groups of all sorts will be providing feedback on this work, and that your comments matter. You, as an early childhood educator, are in a very powerful position. Imagine who will be providing the majority of responses on the document ... they will come from higher education and high school teachers. Each of you have a voice that will be more significant because there will be fewer of you providing input. Speak up! Help Achieve provide a document that is useful and supportive of what you and your colleagues do with children.

I just finished the NGSS feedback survey, and there is still time before midnight, if you haven't already, to use the survey to comment on the NGSS. You don't have to comment on everything. If there is one performance standard that you would like to have worded differently, or if you have suggestions to change the layout, you can comment on just a part of the entire document. I only commented on the K-2 performance expectations. Peggy