Iowa's Next Generation Science Standards Public Survey Results

Next Generation Science Standards Survey
1. Which stakeholder group(s) do you represent? (Select all that apply.)

Response Percent Classroom teacher or instructional coach Administrator or district curriculum specialist Higher education Non-formal education Student Parent Community member Business or industry Philanthropic or non-profit organization Other, please specify Response Count
62.0%
461
9.5%
71
7.0% 2.4% 3.9% 28.1% 20.6% 3.0%
52 18 29 209 153 22
3.5%
26
4.3%
32
answered question skipped question
744 6
1 of 69
2. Please indicate the process you used to review the Next Generation Science standards to form the basis for your survey responses.
Response Percent 1. Reviewed the entire document. 2. Reviewed the K-12 progression of standards through a particular core idea or topic. 3. Reviewed the full set of standards for all disciplines at a particular grade or grade span. 4. Reviewed a discipline (LS, ESS, PS). 5. Did not review the standards. 30.5% 222 24.3% 177 Response Count
32.0%
233
17.7%
129
9.5% answered question skipped question
69 727 23
3. The Next Generation Science Standards are well-organized and easy to read.
Response Percent Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 18.6% 46.4% 17.1% 12.8% 5.1% answered question skipped question Response Count 124 309 114 85 34 666 84
2 of 69
4. The amount of content present in the Next Generation Science Standards will prepare students to be ready for college, careers, and other postsecondary options.
5. The Next Generation Science Standards promote rigorous levels of learning to help prepare students to be ready for college, careers, and other postsecondary options.
3 of 69
6. What are the strengths of the Next Generation Science Standards?

Response Count 465 answered question skipped question 465 285
7. What are the weaknesses of the Next Generation Science Standards?

Response Count 449 answered question skipped question 449 301
4 of 69
5 of 69
Page 2, Q1. Which stakeholder group(s) do you represent? (Select all that apply.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Farmer, retired from Case, MBA, BS Physics, Waterloo, IA. homeschooler SchoolBoard Member pre-service teacher grandparent School Board Member adult individual Christian- representing morals and values Student majoring in Elementary Education at four year university Scientists Retired classroom teacher pre-service teacher local school board former science teacher Assessment designer AEA Consultant retired teacher and substitute teacher Grand parent Research scientist AEA Consultant Grandparent School board member Pre-Service Teacher Future Parent Independent consultant AEA math consultant Informal Education - Naturalist
Oct 11, 2013 7:20 PM Oct 11, 2013 6:40 PM Oct 11, 2013 12:06 PM Oct 10, 2013 11:58 PM Oct 10, 2013 11:39 PM Oct 10, 2013 4:45 PM Oct 10, 2013 12:06 PM Oct 9, 2013 9:34 PM Oct 8, 2013 9:36 PM Oct 8, 2013 3:47 PM Oct 8, 2013 9:47 AM Oct 6, 2013 10:29 PM Oct 4, 2013 12:14 PM Oct 3, 2013 8:28 PM Oct 3, 2013 7:09 AM Oct 2, 2013 11:39 AM Sep 28, 2013 6:14 PM Sep 28, 2013 11:21 AM Sep 24, 2013 4:28 PM Sep 23, 2013 3:37 PM Sep 22, 2013 10:27 PM Sep 20, 2013 2:19 PM Sep 20, 2013 11:03 AM Sep 20, 2013 8:55 AM Sep 19, 2013 10:05 PM Sep 19, 2013 1:18 PM Sep 19, 2013 9:37 AM
6 of 69
Page 2, Q1. Which stakeholder group(s) do you represent? (Select all that apply.)
28 29 30 31 32
AEA consultant AEA consultant consultant Special education teacher Citizen, Scientist
Sep 19, 2013 9:10 AM Sep 19, 2013 9:10 AM Sep 19, 2013 7:49 AM Sep 18, 2013 8:36 PM Sep 17, 2013 11:05 AM
7 of 69
8 of 69
Page 5, Q6. What are the strengths of the Next Generation Science Standards?
The intent of bringing students on to one page and ensuring all have the same opportunity to learn is to be applauded. However, the material and false premises on which it is built weakens NGSS tremendously. Great we are discussing They a very rigorous no strengths 1. NGSS are superior to some other state standards as stated in the Fordham Institute Final Review found at http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/finalevaluation-of-NGSS.html. I quote, "Evaluated against our criteria (spelled out in Appendix A), NGSS earned a higher score than the standards currently in place in twenty-six states (and they are clearly superior to the standards of at least sixteen of those states). If schools in those states aligned their curricula and instruction to the NGSS, their students would likely be better off when it comes to science education." math and science standards fit together well-laid out information what is needed at each level is clearly explained appendices with examples and curriculum are good a plus that it includes engineering tie-in Lining standards up through the grades- scope and sequence -Preparing students for college. No opinion. Stronger emphasis on a better education for the children. Trying to turn our children into robots with no mind or imagination of their own! I can hardly understand all the garbage you have written into some of the questions. The incorporation of STEM (math and engineering). Seem to focus on hands on, laboratory based learning. Covers a wide variety of science topics and shows the interrelationships between disciplines. Integrated nature of science. Focus on inquiry and process. You tell k-5 exactly what to teach in science. STEM emphasis and clarity to what should be taught when The topic layout for middle school is very helpful. It is easy to see what must be assessed. Many of these standards are similar to the Core.
Oct 11, 2013 9:18 PM
2 3 4 5
Oct 11, 2013 6:41 PM Oct 11, 2013 6:21 PM Oct 11, 2013 3:27 PM Oct 11, 2013 3:26 PM
6 7
Oct 11, 2013 2:52 PM Oct 11, 2013 2:19 PM
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Oct 11, 2013 1:39 PM Oct 11, 2013 1:09 PM Oct 11, 2013 12:58 PM Oct 11, 2013 12:39 PM Oct 11, 2013 12:37 PM Oct 11, 2013 12:26 PM Oct 11, 2013 11:56 AM Oct 11, 2013 11:44 AM
9 of 69
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
very detailed An effort is being made, however misguided. It provides guidelines for all students everywhere in Iowa. The progressive nature of the teaching. It gives a detailed framework. Nicely organized attempts to lay out assessment standards They could bring unity to what and how we teach. I think the 'Boundaries' help. rigor Not clear None that outweigh weaknesses. There are NO Strengths to this common core program at all. It was brought together by a Marxist attitude. what was wrong with the last generation science standards? I believe the NGSS directly violates the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution so doesn't have any meaningful "strengths". They are extremely specific and do not leave any science discipline on different grades. Continuity in transferring between schools grade level standards instead of grade spans The NGSS is a comprehensive package. Clear, concise and complete Easy to read and has math and reading contents areas included with science goals They are comprehensive and well organized. consistency through the grade levels Standardization which makes testing easier. The connections to other disciplines, especially STEM and language arts. The scope and sequence. Strong standards focusing on the most important concepts. details
Oct 11, 2013 11:43 AM Oct 11, 2013 11:41 AM Oct 11, 2013 11:38 AM Oct 11, 2013 11:13 AM Oct 11, 2013 11:01 AM Oct 11, 2013 10:34 AM Oct 11, 2013 9:46 AM Oct 11, 2013 9:35 AM Oct 11, 2013 8:59 AM Oct 11, 2013 7:26 AM Oct 11, 2013 7:18 AM Oct 11, 2013 6:00 AM Oct 11, 2013 12:18 AM Oct 11, 2013 12:06 AM Oct 10, 2013 11:17 PM Oct 10, 2013 9:54 PM Oct 10, 2013 8:53 PM Oct 10, 2013 8:48 PM Oct 10, 2013 7:17 PM Oct 10, 2013 6:37 PM Oct 10, 2013 6:09 PM Oct 10, 2013 4:49 PM Oct 10, 2013 3:28 PM
43
Oct 10, 2013 3:23 PM
10 of 69
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
It gives some good extra explanations and cross-curricular topic. Organized well They seem to attempt to tackle the complex issue of how to prepare our students for a future that will be very different that our present Easy to understand and allows for implementation. alignment of all grade levels The connections between science and reading, math, technology. The standards give teachers and Districts a focus. Grammatically correct The NGSS strengths include 1) having a variety of specific scientific actions (e.g. applying concepts, designing solutions, analyzing data), 2) having specific tasks and concepts for each student be taught, thus allowing future teachers to have a better understanding of what the students have been taught, 3) having engineering criteria included, and 4) open-ended enough for the students to make some choices in their education. The formatting that provides links and connections is extremely valuable. This is a very complex and networked document which is good. However, the length prevents a complete reading, so having the ability to link to essential pieces of information is very good. Addresses 3 main areas of science They are more rigorous and are very specific. They represent the skills needed to succeed in the world today. They are an accurate representation of the skills I use daily to do my work. We have a major shortage of workers who can do the kind of work represented in these standards. They represent a huge improvement from the science experiences my kids have had in school. None They preserve the Nature of Science and incorporate engineering and other process skills into the main content. Teachers begin teaching science in early elementary school Provides clarification statements The grade bands were easier for school districts to implement and match to current curriculum. Our school only needed to add one area in the m.s. band. The standards address application of science.
Oct 10, 2013 3:22 PM Oct 10, 2013 3:20 PM Oct 10, 2013 3:18 PM Oct 10, 2013 3:17 PM Oct 10, 2013 3:17 PM Oct 10, 2013 3:00 PM Oct 10, 2013 1:54 PM Oct 10, 2013 12:47 PM Oct 10, 2013 11:31 AM
53
Oct 10, 2013 11:23 AM
54 55 56
Oct 10, 2013 11:03 AM Oct 10, 2013 8:53 AM Oct 10, 2013 6:49 AM
57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Oct 10, 2013 6:46 AM Oct 9, 2013 9:37 PM Oct 9, 2013 9:33 PM Oct 9, 2013 9:20 PM Oct 9, 2013 8:27 PM Oct 9, 2013 8:01 PM Oct 9, 2013 7:55 PM
11 of 69
64 65
It is finally a set of standards that combine science content with science skills. The connections to standards in other curricular areas The clearly written connections and discipline content Age appropriate Teachers not extremely comfortable with science as a content area can work with these without "guessing" what is meant by each standard. The assessment piece even gives parameters on what to expect at that grade level. The inclusion of an engineering component. The NGSS focus on the higher levels of thinking in Blooms Taxonomy. It's not a matter of memorizing, it's a matter of applying and creating. This is a good basis for education. It will further encourage creative thinking and problem solving and help generate scientists and other careers that are needed. organized They reflect what is really needed in STEM fields. They are so much better than what we've had before. I like the cross cutting concepts, and I like that there are boundaries. Technology use, better equipped with data availability, accessible Much of this will only be taught to a limited number of students. All students may not reach proficiency in all areas. Gives teachers a more specific idea about how content should be covered in the classroom. They require real science learning in elementary school The way they are written as observable student tasks. They do explain the over arching concepts needed for students to perform the expectation, while being concise in explaining how. Focus on the universal practices of science and engineering. Content is articulated and well developed. The standards are rigorous and reflect integration of the separate disciplines in the broad field that we call science. Infusion of STEM. Concept development across grade spans, beginning with lower grades; burden is not all on MS and HS Performance-based standards. NGSS uses concepts from Blooms Taxonomy, an evidence based system that ranks different types of learning by level of skill and understanding required to answer specific questions. NGSS encourages higher levels of learning than
Oct 9, 2013 7:07 PM Oct 9, 2013 6:48 PM
66 67
Oct 9, 2013 4:12 PM Oct 9, 2013 2:59 PM
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
Oct 9, 2013 2:39 PM Oct 9, 2013 2:28 PM Oct 9, 2013 2:25 PM Oct 9, 2013 2:25 PM Oct 9, 2013 2:09 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:56 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:50 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:41 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:38 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:24 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:18 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:12 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:10 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:08 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:05 PM Oct 9, 2013 12:53 PM
12 of 69
many other standards, which primarily rely on memorization and quick recall over analysis and examination. Standards rated higher by the Fordham Foundation focus on surface knowledge over understanding, a major weakness of their analysis. In depth study of fewer areas of science instead of skimming more areas gives students the skills to approach any topic, learning vocabulary as needed, as opposed to knowing vocabulary but having limited ability to review it. Concepts within the standards are built upon from year to year. Interconnected nature of science is stressed through cross-cutting concepts. Uniting fields of study to demonstrate how science supports itself stresses how science works. For example, chemistry and physics define and support biology. Standards reinforce Common Core reading and math areas. Standards promote in depth examination of topics of study that are socially relevant. This will encourage the development of basic scientific literacy and an understanding that science is relevant to their daily lives. Standards include climate science and evolution in a manner that; build a foundation for college bound students, encourages scientific literacy and critical thinking skills, includes non-college bound students in learning about topics that have historically been restricted to undergraduate study. Standards promote student centered learning, which improves learning for many minority students, with no negative effects on majority. Standards were designed by experts in science and education with review performed by scientists, educators and citizens in every state performed after every revision. Lack of specific standards for upper level electives allows flexibility for students to tailor their education to their needs and for schools to take advantage of local and regional resources. 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Seems to do a good job of relating scientific concepts to the real world vs. making them entirely abstract concepts. They are rigorous. None very poorly done... missing key items in the science area...think tank mentality Identifying other standards in math, literacy, etc. The cross-cutting concepts and connection to engineering They are based upon and reflect the science of our time. They are not altered or compromised by the politics of our time. Thorough topics, inquiry based, standardization of learning across the state, better prepares students to compete in Science and technology fields. Research based, data driven. facilitates rigorous examination of science Standards and Requirements are divided by individual grade levels instead of grade spans. Content challenges students to use higher level thinking. Subjects are rigorous and relevant for 21st century learning. Shows how reading and math Core standards can be implemented into the science subject. progressions, clear language, real world applications Oct 9, 2013 12:24 PM Oct 9, 2013 10:56 AM Oct 9, 2013 10:55 AM Oct 9, 2013 8:19 AM Oct 9, 2013 8:14 AM Oct 9, 2013 1:03 AM Oct 8, 2013 11:07 PM
91 92
Oct 8, 2013 10:56 PM Oct 8, 2013 9:45 PM
93
Oct 8, 2013 9:23 PM
13 of 69
94 95 96 97
good focus on core ideas. Well organized. Do not shy away from potentially difficult topics, such as evolution the depth of knowledge they promote. It asks students to understand and create, not memorize. They are grade leveled, rather than the current grade level spans. There are ideas for how to connect each standard to other curricular areas, including technology. Good Curricula Easy to understand None mixing of concepts. When I was taught 20-30 years ago, everything operated in its own silo. The philosophy that these disciplines are interactive needs to be understood by youth, which will give them a head start in college. Promoting greater STEM education for future career-minded Iowans. Also encouraging children to foster a better acceptance of science for their own personal enrichment. Strongly based in fundamental fact-based science, with encouragement for the student to explore further. teaching about evolution and climate change The Next Generation Science Standards make effective use of Bloom's taxonomy of learning, and the progression of learning follows a logical pattern. Inclusion of climate science. Fostering critical thinking skills,cross-disciplinary learning, hands-on learning, teamwork, world class standards developed by a broad and deep array of subject experts. I like the appendices that outline the order in which to teach topics. The life science standards are mostly well written and clear about what to teach. The standards are less vague than the Iowa Core. The cross-cutting principles are great and valuable to use when planning for instruction. Specific standards with with assessment boundaries. Can be used from district to district. Closer alignment with state assessments than ICC. Uniformity and very specific Seems to outline in depth the level at which students should understand in Science to be able to function in are tech-savvy world. Structure helps unify district content
98 99 100 101
102
Oct 8, 2013 4:40 PM
103 104 105 106
107
Oct 8, 2013 3:06 PM
108 109 110 111 112
Oct 8, 2013 2:46 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:38 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:37 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:30 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:30 PM
14 of 69
113 114 115 116 117 118 119
The clarification statements and assessment boundaries help to clarify the performance expectations. 1. Very specific 2. Assessment boundaries 3. Arrangement and flow is better than Iowa Core Emphasis on an evidence based approach. Inquiry based, high level, student-centered, fits with SWH! Specific framework of skills Different from the Core. Not the same. Inclusion of 'controversial' topics such as the primacy of evolution to the study and understanding of biology and the reality of anthropogenic climate change show a desire to ready Iowa's students for further education. Despite the desire of groups and individuals with political agendas to attempt to cast doubt on these topics, the scientific consensus is beyond overwhelming, with more than 99% of biologists understanding the reality of biological evolution and 97% of climate scientists accepting the major involvement of human activities to global climate change. I would plead with you not to cave to demands of a science-denying fringe at the expense of the education of the children of the state of Iowa. Based in accepted scientific understanding and comprehensively covers subjects important to most disciplines in college It is organized well. Inclusion of literacy and math standards. Addition of engineering practices. They are rigorous and are thorough in their explanations. From what I reviewed, they seem similar to the Iowa Core Curriculum but more specific on what they want the students to do. It's flow and expectation that information is mastered before the next grade. Very thorough. rigor Strong reinforcement of the scientific process of using emperical evidence to draw conclusions about the subject matter being taught. Application of math computational thinking along with scientific principals to demonstrate scientific principals in the classroom. Easier to navigate than the Iowa Core. The arrangement, the clearly defined topics comprehensive, rigorous, clear. Address as many important topics as possible.
Oct 8, 2013 2:29 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:26 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:20 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:06 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:05 PM Oct 8, 2013 1:17 PM Oct 8, 2013 1:05 PM
120 121 122 123
124 125 126 127 128
Oct 8, 2013 11:55 AM Oct 8, 2013 11:13 AM Oct 8, 2013 11:10 AM Oct 8, 2013 11:00 AM Oct 8, 2013 10:18 AM
129 130 131
15 of 69
132 133 134 135 136 137 138
Helps promote higher level thinking. Very clear on what to teach and what to exclude, performance based Clear progressions, assessment boundaries, and clear SUGGESTIONS for possible learning activities The physical science standards cover the core areas. comprehensive The emphasis on science practices is important and a vital step forward. The standards emphasis on a small number of concepts is an improvement over many previous standards with a laundry list of content. The practices require time to practice, and the shorter content list will make this possible. 1. The performance standards are a great strength (clunky wording but provides a clear doable target to work toward) The layout of Core ideas, Crosscutting concepts is good. The break down of the practices, core ideas, and concepts is useful. The standards and benchmarks are more focused. The breakdown of the Practices, Core Ideas, and Crosscutting Concepts are helpful. More concise and focused with fewer key concepts and benchmarks compared to the Iowa Core Standards in Science. Incorporated Inquiry and engineering/STEM skills the performance expectations are clearly defined. Emphasis on a style of thinking that needs to be incorporated on a regular basis in order to be successful--rather than allowing a single unit on "inquiry" or the like. Making teachers change the things they have been doing to be more modern and rigorous. specific and clear - not limited to any single state - more inclusive nationally for students -Their depth and breadth -Higher expectations for college readiness -Decisive standards for each grade level -Teaching standards interwoven into the curricular standards comprehensive and build from year to year Inquiry skills, teamwork, and scientific writing are emphasized and included, I think they're very important skills for the 21st century. connectedness with other areas---e.g., ELA More details than the Iowa Common Core.
Oct 8, 2013 9:04 AM Oct 8, 2013 9:03 AM Oct 8, 2013 8:55 AM Oct 7, 2013 8:56 PM Oct 7, 2013 7:33 PM Oct 7, 2013 7:05 PM Oct 7, 2013 6:52 PM
139 140 141 142
143 144 145
Oct 7, 2013 2:17 PM Oct 7, 2013 2:16 PM Oct 7, 2013 2:08 PM
146 147
Oct 7, 2013 12:26 PM Oct 7, 2013 11:25 AM
148 149 150 151
Oct 7, 2013 10:15 AM Oct 7, 2013 9:57 AM Oct 7, 2013 8:52 AM Oct 7, 2013 8:33 AM
16 of 69
152
I am very happy to see evolution taught as a foundational explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Some may be threatened by this, but school is a place for facts, not fairytales. none Good explanations for standards. Finally, we can smooth out the wild variation in quality of science education in Iowa (and across the USA). You can get a Big Mac or a Tonsilectomy in Anchorage or Atlanta and standards guarantee you it'll be consistently high quality. Not so for science teaching at the moment. They cover science topics without pseudo science. It is spiraled. I can understand them and follow. A common place to work from on developing curriculum. The standards are well laid out, demonstrate an increase in complexity over time and encourage active learning. Plenty of specifics and goals for students and teachers. the clearly written out performance expectations Adds rigor and prepares students to be science literate. Big Ideas The performance expectations. They integrate scientific inquiry and process skills with content. They include some STEM materials. There is research to back the standards including (but not limited to): learning progressions, NRC documents, misconception (alternative conception) research, multiple revisions. An increase (from basically zero) in science education in grades K-3. More rigorous content in the middle school grades. The document pared down the topics from the unwieldy number of objectives in Project 2061 (which was comprehensive, but not realistic as to how much time would be dedicated to science education K-12). It emphasizes issues of scientific epistemology (what is your claim, what is the evidence, what is your logical reasoning). The cross cutting concepts of conservation of energy, science as a process etc. allow for integration with our topics. There are suggestions that would help ELA teachers to increase comprehension and rigor of non-fiction texts (which is one of the big problems with CCSS, ELA teachers have generally not been given enough training in teaching reading non-fiction texts; science teachers have generally not been given enough training in reading for content either). Many of the tasks listed in NGSS would leand themselves to more authentic portfolio or lab based assessments. NGSS standards mirror what would make one ready for workforce or community college. It would be unrealistic to include college prep topics like stoichiometry in chemistry, DNA electrophoresis in biology, advanced dynamics calculations in Physics, etc for all students and not just the 40-60% who are headed for a 4 year college education,
Oct 6, 2013 10:15 PM
153 154 155
Oct 6, 2013 7:47 PM Oct 6, 2013 6:00 PM Oct 6, 2013 10:38 AM
156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165
Oct 6, 2013 7:05 AM Oct 4, 2013 5:06 PM Oct 4, 2013 3:21 PM Oct 4, 2013 1:40 PM Oct 4, 2013 12:18 PM Oct 4, 2013 11:11 AM Oct 4, 2013 8:27 AM Oct 4, 2013 7:53 AM Oct 3, 2013 9:33 PM Oct 3, 2013 8:54 PM
17 of 69
so not including those shows a realistic approach to what ALL STUDENTS need. 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 Science for all kids every year of school that shows appropriate progression. Integrated inquiry. Clear, specific without limiting teaching expression Grade level appropriate and well organized. Stem focused. Cohesive spiraling and scaffolding of conceptual understanding/skills. Scientific process embedded throughout. attempting to define a path to better scientific literacy Organized around performance They represent changes from the older "national science standards" that represent an evolution in thinking about what students need to learn. The content is much more complete than the standards currently in place for Iowa schools. In regards to the science standards, they challenge students to learn things that they will carry with them outside of school, that will help them in their everyday life and in their future science classes. organization of ideas The standards use of action verbs is great but overly specific. I think the teacher should have a bit more freedom in the students demonstration of knowledge. Integrating Engineering Practices Adding Clarification Statements&Assessment Boundary **Requiring Science in each elementary Grade not band I think the strengths of the NGSS are that it shows what the assessment is that were teaching to and that they are specific. I think that it is nice to see what will be taught at each grade level and that would be easier for a student to move between districts. The standards are very specific and lays out exactly what the students should be able to do for that standard. Clarification Statements and focus on particle interactions consistency in organization specific topics and clarification statements connections to ELA, Math, etc. Common language for all science teachers in the state. Common expectations for all science teachers in the state. All students in the state will be common. Involve multiple components and that emphasize skills and application over content memorization. Oct 3, 2013 8:29 PM Oct 3, 2013 8:08 PM Oct 3, 2013 8:02 PM Oct 3, 2013 7:53 PM Oct 3, 2013 5:27 PM Oct 3, 2013 3:59 PM Oct 3, 2013 3:53 PM Oct 3, 2013 3:46 PM Oct 3, 2013 3:42 PM Oct 3, 2013 3:41 PM
176 177 178 179
180 181 182 183 184
18 of 69
185 186 187 188
It is aligned across the grade levels well. They set a high bar for academic success. The infusion of Engineering/Tech in addition to Life, Earth/Space, and Physical sciences enhance opportunities for success in science for our students. They are going to be out there and in everyone's face as to what it is we expect our kids to know and there can be no excuses or arguments about where we need to head with science. A clear conversation for what topics should be covered in each grade without being too specific. I like this better than the grade spans in the Iowa Core. I like how the Next Generations Standards are very specific as to what we should teach. Yet, we are able to teach in our own way and put our own twist on each standard to make them our own. higher level thinking Organization is strong Will prepare students to become scientifically literate citizens. Will create problem solvers and deep thinkers. Initial intent of scientific learning of the Next Generation Science Standards is good. The STEM focus Identifying and the emphasizing that math, science, and technology education are a critical part of education as a whole and integral to modern life. The engineering strand is a strength of the NGSS. I like the focus of the standards on what needs to be taught throughout the child's schooling. -Specific performance measures -Assessment boundaries -Organization & description of standards is easy to follow Performance measures for students to reach, Assessment boundaries for each grade span, provide for cohesion from school to school in terms of topics to be covered, etc. Well thought out descriptions of standards. Performance standards are a strength. Assessment boundaries are excellent to guide a teacher's implementation of the standards. The standards give performance measures for students to reach, making science not just about knowledge but about practice. Provide assessment boundaries so we know the depth in which we should address standards. Very concrete.
Oct 3, 2013 12:02 PM Oct 3, 2013 11:52 AM Oct 3, 2013 11:33 AM Oct 3, 2013 11:33 AM
189 190
Oct 3, 2013 11:28 AM Oct 3, 2013 11:14 AM
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
Oct 3, 2013 10:59 AM Oct 3, 2013 10:51 AM Oct 3, 2013 10:33 AM Oct 3, 2013 10:29 AM Oct 3, 2013 10:04 AM Oct 3, 2013 8:59 AM Oct 3, 2013 8:44 AM Oct 3, 2013 8:42 AM Oct 3, 2013 7:55 AM Oct 3, 2013 7:55 AM
201
Oct 3, 2013 7:55 AM
202
Oct 3, 2013 7:54 AM
19 of 69
203 204
Teachers and students will know exactly what they are expected to learn. These standards teach more than content. They teach ways to access it, which is a fundamental need for students. The current standards could teach ways to access and ways of thinking, but these standards lay it out. If the studetns must be able to perform something by the end of learning - those skills will most certainly need to be used. Detailed, doesn't tell a teacher how to teach, just what to teach. More engineering and critical thinking based instead of content based. They are based on what a student should be able to do after the learning, and there are explicit examples provided. the interconnections and the K-12 strands, ambitious Teachers will have to teach science in classrooms. connection between sciences and other disciplines. Inclusive and interconnected across the sciences, and can be connected to other curriculum areas (reading, social studies, etc.) They are detailed yet leave room for interpretation as to how you will teach the material. I like the generalization of concepts vs. a lot of content. consistency New concepts are introduced More detail, connections among the cross-cutting concepts is much clearer, connections to literacy and mathematics standards is explicit. They are encompassing of varied disciplines, and they are challenging for upper level students, but good for lower- achieving students. cross cutting concepts science and engineering practices The students are asked to apply more of the knowledge they learn through outcomes designed to mimic real science. Integration of core ideas across different bands They are based more on student performance rather than on the content. The content is less than other standards but at a deeper level. Based on current research I believe they will support greater implementation of science inquiry and engineering Literacy and mathematics connections I don't have an opinion at this point. Guidance it provides for teachers, incorporation of engineering practices.
Oct 3, 2013 7:39 AM Oct 3, 2013 6:57 AM
205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223
Oct 2, 2013 9:52 PM Oct 2, 2013 9:06 PM Oct 2, 2013 8:49 PM Oct 2, 2013 4:13 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:57 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:29 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:24 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:14 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:14 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:13 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:13 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:05 PM Oct 2, 2013 2:51 PM Oct 2, 2013 2:49 PM Oct 2, 2013 2:44 PM Oct 2, 2013 12:13 PM Oct 2, 2013 11:41 AM Oct 2, 2013 9:40 AM Oct 2, 2013 9:17 AM
20 of 69
224 225 226 227
Some of the standards, I feel, are not age appropriate. I understand that we want rigor but some of the concepts are above the students understanding. I like how it is broken down it seems easy to understand, and I like the examples given. stresses important areas There is a progression from grade level to grade level, allowing students to delve deeper into the content--not just cover the information. The topics are those which all citizens should be knowledgeable about. They should standardize content and some instructional practice. The standards attempt to combine engineering practices and large concepts of science into the document. It is great to have these connected because this provides the larger ideas that we need to connect information to. Well structured It allows the whole state to have the same standards and allows schools to compare the effectiveness of their curriculum. They are more relevant to today's learners. They are necessary for success in a 21st century world. I feel like the emphasis in Earth Science are good. I think major changes will need to be made in course offerings. The links to engineering across all science is good. They attempt to scaffold across a student's entire K-12 education experience. The strengths of the NGSS include the building or prior knowledge from level to level, the depth of knowledge, the ways students are to be able to demonstrate that knowledge (plan and conduct an investigation....) and the science and engineering practices. Practice of Science are emphasized! Weaving the Practices with Core Ideas and Crosscutting Themes; Promoting inquiry, problem solving, modeling, constructivism, etc Give specific topics to focus on as well as incorporate inquiry directly into the performance expectations. Each grade level is addressed instead of grade bands. Each standard and sub-standard is cross referenced to cross curricular topics, ELA common core standards and math common core standards. STEM is also addressed through the engineering components. The document literally brings everything together. no opinion Broken down by grade levels, as opposed to a range. Consistency. They are focused. A teacher can read the standards and know exactly what
Oct 2, 2013 7:41 AM Oct 2, 2013 7:41 AM Oct 2, 2013 7:39 AM Oct 1, 2013 10:34 PM
228 229
Oct 1, 2013 9:24 PM Oct 1, 2013 4:15 PM
230 231 232 233
Oct 1, 2013 2:34 PM Oct 1, 2013 2:17 PM Oct 1, 2013 2:02 PM Oct 1, 2013 11:41 AM
234 235
Oct 1, 2013 11:23 AM Oct 1, 2013 11:00 AM
236 237 238
239 240 241
21 of 69
concepts to teach 242 I like that the standards overlap and show the connections with other disciplines. I like the inquiry investigations and higher order thinking skills that are demonstrated within the standards. I see the classrooms that are using the structure and content from the NGSS standards showing an increase in math and reading along with their ability to problem solve. Few if any. I appreciate the way they are organized. The three dimensions of science and engineering practices, core ideas and crosscutting concepts in all performance expectations at all grade levels, the learning progressions, the application of content knowledge, NGSS and the ELA and Math standards alignment especially at the elementary level. Focus on student learning through investigation. interdisciplinary and cross linking between engineering & content area there were strengths? None Common learning targets for students across state borders. Granted they may be better than Iowa's current science standards, but not by much. Let's look at state's that have superior standards compared to Iowa (examples: California, D.C., Indiana, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Virginia) 1. Interconnects (links) different subject areas. 2. Provides a continuum of knowledge for students that builds on itself as students move up into higher grade levels. Alignment with Core. 21st Century related. concise, easy to understand for the most part The strength is the conversation. Beginning to decide what is important and what is not for the general public to know. I see that many people have put their passion into this, that is fantastic. I hope it is not done. Raise the rigor and critical thinking ? Well organized, easy to read format. Detailed outline of expectations. Clearly stated Oct 1, 2013 10:02 AM
243 244 245
Oct 1, 2013 9:39 AM Oct 1, 2013 7:50 AM Sep 30, 2013 10:36 PM
246 247 248 249 250 251
Sep 30, 2013 9:54 PM Sep 30, 2013 8:17 PM Sep 30, 2013 6:14 PM Sep 30, 2013 4:07 PM Sep 30, 2013 3:56 PM Sep 30, 2013 3:12 PM
252
Sep 30, 2013 2:20 PM
253 254 255
Sep 30, 2013 12:57 PM Sep 30, 2013 12:16 PM Sep 30, 2013 10:53 AM
256 257 258 259 260
Sep 30, 2013 10:47 AM Sep 30, 2013 10:16 AM Sep 30, 2013 9:45 AM Sep 30, 2013 8:04 AM Sep 30, 2013 7:27 AM
22 of 69
261 262 263 264 265
The expectations for assessment are well spelled out. The cross over for math and English are easily accessible and understandable. Detailed and specifically arranged. Gives specific guidelines as to what the students must be able to do. Many higher-order problem solving skills involved for the students. I am glad to see that an emphasis is placed on teaching the scientific fact of anthropogenic climate change. I think this is the single most pressing issue of our time and our children need to be prepared to deal with it. I am also glad to see the religious neutrality on the teaching of the origin of our species. Religious theories have no place in the science classroom. It is an attempt to promote a set of standards which could be used in a school curriculum. The fact that they are standards of instruction - well aligned vertically They are straight forward and clear to what needs to be taught in middle school. Sets definite benchmarks/goals that students must be able to meet. There is clarity in process Focus on process All the core standards are met thoroughly I believe the topics for 4th grade are a great strength and I also think a strength is how they are cross referenced to the CC ELA standards. The fact that they have combined engineering right along with the standards. I also appreciate the explanations and the cross curricular information. NGSS are already written in I-can statements which is useful for RTI. They include disciplinary core ideas. STEM component Cross cutting concepts Very hands on inquiry technology integration project based That it is for the lawmakers, not the people that are implementing the tasks. It gives students/teachers a road map of where their heading. They are well organized and easy to follow. They provide a solid pattern to follow for teachers to organize what they are teaching. Easily read, know which standards for grades the inclusion of engineering I like that it seems to take care of some of the 'holes' that students have with the current system. I feel like students were better prepared before we changed to
Sep 29, 2013 6:24 PM Sep 29, 2013 4:53 PM Sep 29, 2013 4:20 PM Sep 28, 2013 9:23 PM Sep 28, 2013 8:27 PM
266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282
Sep 28, 2013 5:07 PM Sep 28, 2013 2:02 PM Sep 28, 2013 12:41 PM Sep 28, 2013 11:43 AM Sep 28, 2013 10:27 AM Sep 28, 2013 8:35 AM Sep 28, 2013 8:07 AM Sep 27, 2013 6:56 PM Sep 27, 2013 4:52 PM Sep 27, 2013 4:44 PM Sep 27, 2013 4:42 PM Sep 27, 2013 4:38 PM Sep 27, 2013 4:27 PM Sep 27, 2013 2:59 PM Sep 27, 2013 2:48 PM Sep 27, 2013 2:26 PM Sep 27, 2013 2:19 PM
23 of 69
the Iowa Core. I'm hoping that the Next Generation gets back to what students really need without losing key concepts. 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 Detail Gives very specific details for standards. I like the way many of the standards are more skill based, but I think we can't move to the skills until the content is in place. Quality scope and sequence. NGSS include engineering standards and concepts as well as science. Rigorous standards in all areas of science along with engineering standards which are critical now. Very clear and easy to understand. Content of information Common standards across state/country goal to improve study of science Range of science areas of study The elementary standards are easy to read and understand. The clarification statements are helpful. I like the assessment boundary statements as well. NGSS has also done a good job of outlining what courses would look like at the secondary level through the use of Appendix K. Give good description of standards and expectations. Good content. The Next Generation Science Standards provide clarity regarding the depth to which a particular content should be taught, as well as provides a well-rounded (comprehensive) approach to curriculum develop. More organized/detailed than the Iowa Core. application of skills Integration of Core Ideas, Cross-cutting Concepts, and specific subject matter Very well organized and very precise wording. Many times Standards are worded vaguely, allow many teachers to continue teaching activities that do not align with standards. Lists what should be studied at certain age levels. Everyone would be teaching the same standards at that grade level in all schools Sep 27, 2013 2:13 PM Sep 27, 2013 2:07 PM Sep 27, 2013 2:04 PM Sep 27, 2013 1:47 PM Sep 27, 2013 1:29 PM Sep 27, 2013 1:26 PM Sep 27, 2013 1:01 PM Sep 27, 2013 12:42 PM Sep 27, 2013 12:36 PM Sep 27, 2013 12:33 PM Sep 27, 2013 12:23 PM Sep 27, 2013 12:13 PM
295 296 297
Sep 27, 2013 11:47 AM Sep 27, 2013 11:46 AM Sep 27, 2013 11:40 AM
298 299 300 301
Sep 27, 2013 11:32 AM Sep 27, 2013 11:21 AM Sep 27, 2013 11:09 AM Sep 27, 2013 10:53 AM
302 303
Sep 27, 2013 10:46 AM Sep 27, 2013 10:43 AM
24 of 69
304 305 306 307 308
Unification of standards through all states that accept Would be beneficial to have a common set of state standards Clear standards for each grade level. There is a lot there and there are a lot of connections made with math and literacy. The organization of concepts creates a coherent and thoughtful progression of learning. Students will be able to build on prior knowledge that they will hopefully attain in earlier grades. The cross-cutting concepts create connectedness within and across grade levels. They are much more tightly aligned with the ELA and Math standards in the Iowa Core than the current standards. Inquiry and STEM practices are woven in across the grade bands. Easy to understand Rigorous Fact based Easy to build on if students wish to go further Very comprehensive Organized Content is well defined, and make sense over the grade levels. Multiple ways to assess student learning. They are more specific than the Iowa Core. I like how it pin point what we should be teaching. collaboration real world connections time for students to carry on conversation ? They seem to be more consistent as they go. more detailed than what we previously had. The strength is that attempts are being made to raise the expectations and rigor of science curriculum. They promote critical thinking at all levels by encouraging students to assess evidence. They emphasize how scientific knowledge is obtained and they teach the most up-to-date rigorously supported science, untainted by politics or scientific denialism scientific process/inquiry based learning It provides detailed objectives for each grade to cover. Not as vague as we have had in the past. I also know what grade they should receive background knowledge and when they will use this information again.
Sep 27, 2013 10:33 AM Sep 27, 2013 10:31 AM Sep 26, 2013 9:12 PM Sep 26, 2013 8:30 PM Sep 26, 2013 7:04 PM
309
Sep 26, 2013 3:48 PM
310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322
Sep 26, 2013 1:41 PM Sep 26, 2013 1:35 PM Sep 26, 2013 11:26 AM Sep 26, 2013 9:53 AM Sep 25, 2013 4:21 PM Sep 25, 2013 3:22 PM Sep 25, 2013 2:50 PM Sep 25, 2013 2:31 PM Sep 25, 2013 1:06 PM Sep 25, 2013 12:47 PM Sep 25, 2013 11:51 AM Sep 24, 2013 8:39 PM Sep 24, 2013 4:30 PM
323 324
Sep 24, 2013 3:44 PM Sep 24, 2013 3:13 PM
25 of 69
325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334
It is specific as to what topics should be covered at each level Higher order thinking skills, inquiry approach very rigorous and based on meaningful science activities & processes. success level/criteria is explained to some degree. There are no strengths. -they are easy to follow and promote higher level thinking and project based learning -they provide assessment examples and restrictions connections across grade levels and disciplines, clarity The organization and the clarity are their main strengths. They are very specific and offer suggestions on how to approach the standards. The clarification statements are VERY helpful as well as the tables with disciplinary core ideas. Clarity - easier for teachers to truly understand what the standards expect of students. Even going so far to have an 'assessment boundary' so teachers know where instruction should stop for that grade level. Integrated - the inquiry process is integrated throughout the standards and not a 'stand alone' section of the standards. Each standard includes the practices of scientists/engineers - not just the concept. It challenges students to problem solve and think, STEM activities are well thought out. They are well organized and hit many of the main topics. fairly easy to read and follow Students have hands on & realistic applications, plus it is student researched practices which helps build continual inquiry & problem solving skills. Not to mention that with the advancement in technology, students can have access to research that has been done other places & collaborate with students in other schools or even possibly countries. Standards are clearly stated - both Common Core and "students who demonstrate understanding can..." Pink section and lt blue/grn section give main focus points - so teachers know what is focus of lessons NGSS develops a more full science curriculum for students at an early age. Students are exposed to earth, life, and physical topics throughout science and not just at higher grades. Performance expectations rather than content guides The intertwining of the Science and Engineering Practices, the Disciplinary Core Ideas, and the Cross-Cutting Concepts in the Performance Expectations make the NGSS very powerful.
Sep 24, 2013 3:10 PM Sep 24, 2013 2:44 PM Sep 24, 2013 12:54 PM Sep 24, 2013 12:35 PM Sep 24, 2013 12:03 PM Sep 24, 2013 10:36 AM Sep 24, 2013 10:24 AM Sep 24, 2013 10:06 AM Sep 24, 2013 9:38 AM Sep 24, 2013 9:01 AM
335 336 337 338
Sep 24, 2013 8:51 AM Sep 24, 2013 8:05 AM Sep 23, 2013 10:21 PM Sep 23, 2013 5:31 PM
339
Sep 23, 2013 5:10 PM
340
Sep 23, 2013 4:28 PM
341 342
Sep 23, 2013 4:08 PM Sep 23, 2013 3:40 PM
26 of 69
343 344 345 346 347
The standards go into minute detail. They at least give a framework for educators around the state to work from. It gives some consistence to coursework everywhere in Iowa. Higher levels of thinking The practices are great The connections to conceptual understanding will be invaluable in helping students apply the content knowledge within the broader real world setting. The content covers fewer things more deeply which allows teachers to spend time ensuring student understanding of both content and concepts related to content. The STEM banded standards will be supportive of teachers to help plan units/lessons that support the scientific habits of mind from the earliest grades on. National standard - easy for students to switch schools. Builds from year to year, so students aren't constantly redoing skills they already know. Covers major scientific disciplines. National standard so it would be universal Built year to year so we do not repeat from grade levels Covers major scientific disciplines. Connecting Engineering to standards Strength #1.The integration of science & engineering practices and crosscutting concepts into each performance expectation. Strength # 2. Comprehensive appendices which may lead to implementation guidance and support from NGSS nationally. Strength # 3. Use of current research on how students learn, available since 1996 National Science Education Standards were released. Strength #4. Will still allow for individual district and teacher decisions on HOW the instruction will be delivered. Strength #5. NGSS performance expectations are written such that they will greatly assist educational systems as they move toward competency-based instruction. There aren't any. Clearly stated, rigorous and relevant give teachers a guide of the progression of topics and grade level that the standards should be presented. Well laid out and easy to understand. Inclusion of pedagogy including discussion and experimenting will help teachers plan instruction They represent the best ideas about what students should know. They are not littered with superstitious beliefs. I like that it gets students to think like scientists and engineers and understand what goes into scientific discovery. It's critical for students to know that science is a constant process of questioning, research, postulation and testing. Few things are settled, although many explanations have stood the test of time and examination.
Sep 23, 2013 2:48 PM Sep 23, 2013 2:32 PM Sep 23, 2013 2:25 PM Sep 23, 2013 2:16 PM Sep 23, 2013 1:50 PM
348
Sep 23, 2013 1:00 PM
349 350 351
Sep 23, 2013 1:00 PM Sep 23, 2013 11:50 AM Sep 23, 2013 11:39 AM
352 353 354 355 356 357
Sep 22, 2013 10:28 PM Sep 22, 2013 6:55 PM Sep 22, 2013 5:46 PM Sep 22, 2013 1:03 PM Sep 22, 2013 10:21 AM Sep 22, 2013 10:03 AM
27 of 69
358
Requires students to use multiple skills in order to complete tasks. Strong emphasis on problem solving and synthesizing. Connects standards to other core areas. Promotes a spiraling and scaffolding of science concepts. inclusion of engineering practices. The way they are broken up into what students that demonstrate proficiency can do. More hands on projects for students. Inquiry based The strength is the cross citing concepts and incorporating technology (STEM) into the science programs. They are research based and inclusive of scientists working in the field as well as classroom educators. Adding engineering and modeling practices along with higher order thinking skills. Combines content with practice Encouragement of learning strategies Motivational opportunities They are rigorous. They are broken down by grade level. Well organized, gives examples, establishes a pace to guide the classroom teacher. The progression from K-12 is well-defined and easy to follow. They are focused on big concepts, tie in cross-cutting concepts, and utilize science skills to teach the concepts. Sample activities and assessment boundaries make instruction easier to prepare for. I also like the grade specific content as opposed to the current grade level span. Consistency with schools across the state, encourages students to become connected with science through other content areas, prepares students for an ever-changing world The emphasis on inquiry skills as well as the integrated approachSeem comprehensive, thoughtful, articulate. very orderly and systematic approach rigorous performance based learning that will promote conversation about student learning Very organized and easy to determine what is to be taught. More rigor, STEM based, provides performance expectation, interdisciplinary connections
Sep 22, 2013 9:53 AM
359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
Sep 21, 2013 10:08 PM Sep 21, 2013 10:05 PM Sep 21, 2013 6:04 PM Sep 21, 2013 3:38 PM Sep 21, 2013 3:24 PM Sep 20, 2013 11:39 PM Sep 20, 2013 7:58 PM Sep 20, 2013 7:36 PM Sep 20, 2013 4:30 PM Sep 20, 2013 3:49 PM Sep 20, 2013 3:14 PM Sep 20, 2013 2:59 PM
371
Sep 20, 2013 2:40 PM
372 373 374 375 376 377
Sep 20, 2013 2:35 PM Sep 20, 2013 2:22 PM Sep 20, 2013 12:54 PM Sep 20, 2013 12:54 PM Sep 20, 2013 11:04 AM Sep 20, 2013 10:47 AM
28 of 69
378
These standards offer a richer experience in science for students, are more challenging, and rigorous. They will better prepare students for entry into science fields as well as better prepare students for advanced level coursework in high school and college. the focus on the performance expectations is a strength of the standards. This will help teachers focus on the skills that students will need in addition to content. Also, having the standards grade specific at K-5 is very beneficial for alignment. -More depth -What scientists and engineers really do -Connections between science and Common Core math and Common Core ELA -clear connections between the Performance expectations and the Practices, DCIs, and Crosscutting concepts -Based on research -Specific PEs and DCIs for grades K-5 -Supports will be provided to states implementing NGSS. We are not alone! -Takes the Iowa Core Science to the next level. -This is what's best for kids in Iowa! Very easy yo assess The strong focus on rigorous academics in which students look at things through the scientific method. it makes for a standard to follow provides a breakdown of materials to get to the max I do not see any strengths. Good rigor and relevance Rigorous standards Once you get acclimated to the standards document, it is easy to read Engineering practices intertwined in the standards Performance expectations are great for teachers to see as an end-point They match Common Core. Rigor organization. K to 5 grade level Consistency and wording. They are inquiry-based and support interdisciplinary work. They elevate science learning for ALL students. experiential learning focus I like that they tie in math/writing/engineering. I also like they are split up by topic and I have an idea what is supposed to be taught at the different age levels and what what the limits are. We will know what 2nd graders across the state and nation are learning in science. Student learning is the important thing and the NGSS will help Iowa have a more robust science program
Sep 20, 2013 10:44 AM
379
Sep 20, 2013 10:42 AM
380
Sep 20, 2013 10:20 AM
381 382 383 384 385 386
Sep 20, 2013 9:37 AM Sep 20, 2013 9:21 AM Sep 20, 2013 9:17 AM Sep 20, 2013 9:07 AM Sep 20, 2013 8:15 AM Sep 20, 2013 7:11 AM
387 388 389 390 391 392
393 394
Sep 19, 2013 5:46 PM Sep 19, 2013 5:30 PM
29 of 69
395 396
I see only problems with these standards. Performance expectations for students require higher order thinking and conceptual understanding, less memorization of isolated facts. They will lead to more authentic assessment of student learning. Learning progressions are obvious and will increase amount and quality of science instruction in elementary grades, which will increase understanding at middle and high school. There is equal emphasis on practices, core ideas, and cross-cutting concepts. The clarification statements, assessment boundaries and core ideas give a clear vision for how the standards should be implemented. There is still a lot of freedom in how, but pressure is removed from having to go too deep or not going deep enough into a particular topic. The connection to different standards, both NGSS and Core helps reduce planning time and provides ideas for crosscurricular implementation. Finally, the option to break up the middle school standards into different courses/years allows for much flexibility within a building or district to allow for differences among facilities, funds and teacher content knowledge. We love the support they add for the teachers. NGSS provides a great foundation for science educators and interdisciplinary content areas while remaining true to the autonomy in which Iowa educators deserve. Clear performance expectations and alignment to CCSS Assessments are extremely prescriptive Knowledge builds as students progress. Less repetition of content material. I like the organization of the strands. They provide information/examples, but allow for some wiggle room. Detailed background information and clarification of difficult wording in the actual definitions Lays out science standards for each grade level and makes them age appropriate and easy to understand what is to be taught The inclusion of science and engineering practices to all areas is an improvement from singling out "inquiry" into its own standard. Easy to follow. Challenging for students. Full of rigor. I like the detail of the concepts Covering many disciplines of science in each year. Grade-banded learning goals, ease of understanding what knowledge and skills are expected of students at each grade band, integration of knowledge with skills and intentional connections to other knowledge. Fewer ideas investigated at a deeper level. List Grade levels of content which is easy to follow.... incorporates all levels of thinking, including technology. Gets students ready for careers.
Sep 19, 2013 2:51 PM Sep 19, 2013 2:44 PM
397
Sep 19, 2013 2:39 PM
398
Sep 19, 2013 2:20 PM
399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409
Sep 19, 2013 1:19 PM Sep 19, 2013 1:11 PM Sep 19, 2013 12:51 PM Sep 19, 2013 12:32 PM Sep 19, 2013 12:02 PM Sep 19, 2013 11:59 AM Sep 19, 2013 11:53 AM Sep 19, 2013 11:43 AM Sep 19, 2013 11:33 AM Sep 19, 2013 11:14 AM Sep 19, 2013 11:06 AM
410
Sep 19, 2013 11:00 AM
30 of 69
411 412
Clear cut objectives for learning. Their focus on performance standards - what students will be able to do at the end of a grade band is a strength. This gives more detailed direction for teachers than the current broad content standards in the Iowa Core. It give ideas of ways to involve engineering , math and technology for the teacher. Connections to ELA I feel the standards are pointing in the right direction. They aim at more analysis of information, being able to make a claim, use evidence and reasoning. They are getting away from rote memorization. They are forcing students to think. This is all great. However... it links everything together, ELA and Math common core. It gives a performance expectation, it progresses with developmental age groups, all practices and crosscutting concepts are the entire K-12. Easy to read, well organized Intigrating various curriculum areas into needed knowledge. Many - like the cross - curricular connections. Rigor, and outlining almost exactly what to do. covers all areas They address specific expectations. Data Driven and research based They are inquiry based and promote higher level thinking skills and problem solving skills. They expect students to be able to defend their positions based on their learning. The breadth of topics covered, and focus on natural, evidence-based processes. Connections to other disciplines Creation of performance expectations Elem. is grade level specific It includes more of a focus on skills-based learning. It incorporates 21st century skills and inquiry based expectations throughout. It is explicit in what is expected as a result of teaching specific processes in science. Tie to the common core, integrate engineering practices The scope and sequence from K and up. It ensures that important content is covered and NOT REPEATED in subsequent years. It is rigorous in that it encourages understanding and thinking by incorporating the practices with the Core IDeas. The integration of the practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas is excellent and much needed. There is a strong correlation between
Sep 19, 2013 10:44 AM Sep 19, 2013 10:41 AM
413 414 415
416
Sep 19, 2013 9:53 AM
417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424
Sep 19, 2013 9:41 AM Sep 19, 2013 9:39 AM Sep 19, 2013 9:39 AM Sep 19, 2013 9:34 AM Sep 19, 2013 9:28 AM Sep 19, 2013 9:28 AM Sep 19, 2013 9:27 AM Sep 19, 2013 9:26 AM
425 426 427
428 429
Sep 19, 2013 8:06 AM Sep 19, 2013 8:00 AM
31 of 69
NGSS and Iowa Core so there would be minimal effort in conversion. 430 431 432 433 I love the promotion of inquiry and the deeper level of thinking required. standards are grade level with expectations for grade span. Determines what to teach and how to teach. 1. All stake holders are given a road map of content and associated skills and content to mastered. 2. Specific assessments and teaching strategies can be developed to meet the needs of all students including gifted/talented and resource. 3. Assessment boundaries are drawn and labeled. 4. Iowa Assessments or other assessments can more accurately measure student growth. 5. Teacher focus can be more precise in instruction and learner outcomes. I really like the greater emphasis on content that students are developmentally ready for. We have spent years trying to teach 7th graders about Cnidarians and Platyhelminthes and they just don't get it - because they are not ready to get it. I also like the increased emphasis on DOING science and not just learning facts that they could easily look up. They are focused, deep and rigorous. They represent internationally benchmarked content. They are a huge step forward for Iowa. They allow for some flexibility with curriculum in how those standards may be taught. Almost too much put on the elementary level- over done It's more about scientific practices than it is content. Engineering has been a missing component in our science programs and this now has it. STEM The way inquiry is built into the content requires teachers and districts to attend to it. The way the standards are written as performance standards makes lighter work for districts working to enact and assess the standards. Very clear performance expectations. Combining practices, diciplinary core ideas, and cross cutting concepts. Learning progressions They attempt yo teach more depth and less breath. I like the fact that the standards are written as a minimum level of proficiency to get things done. I also like the opportunities it has to spiral curriculum and the standards for grades in the lower levels. Well-organized The patterns emphasized through all grade levels. Sep 19, 2013 7:53 AM Sep 19, 2013 7:50 AM Sep 19, 2013 7:49 AM Sep 19, 2013 7:46 AM
434
Sep 19, 2013 7:42 AM
435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444
Sep 18, 2013 11:28 PM Sep 18, 2013 10:00 PM Sep 18, 2013 9:34 PM Sep 18, 2013 8:53 PM
445 446
Sep 18, 2013 8:37 PM Sep 18, 2013 8:07 PM
32 of 69
447 448 449 450
Detailed. that someone at least tried to create standards, even though they are not good More students interacting with a greater variety of science disciplines The disciplinary core ideas make it more clear to the teacher what exactly needs to be taught to meet the standard. The clarification statements and assessment boundaries help guide us on how much detail we need to be teaching for each standard. Rigor, prepare students for the future and to be responsible, well-informed adults, engineering and scientific practices strengthen student learning and understanding, links to math and literacy. NGSS has taken multiple standards and benchmarks, compartmentalized them into concise concepts and topics. All concepts and topics are differentiated for all levels of students. Clarity. Expectations of student performance is very clear in most disciplines. Also, literacy and technology are embedded in NGSS. Puts Iowa on a level playing field with other states allowing our students an opportunity to be engaged in the best education possible. Maintaining the current standards will lead to another decrease in student achievement, just like when Iowa was one of the last states to adopt standards. Our children deserve the best and NGSS is it. they emphasize concepts and processes rather than "details" In addition to identifying the "need to know" content standards, the NGSS has cross-cutting concepts and science and engineering domains. In addition, the performance standards make clear that students need to DO science, not just read and write about it. The standards are in-depth with the alignment with Common Core math/literacy; the performance indicators - starting with the end in mind; indicating the practices students should demonstrate, or use; which concepts are targeted (core ideas); the type of higher level thinking (revised bloom's comes to mind) The core concepts are distributed throughout the education levels. As students progress, they will be exposed to more in depth presentation of concepts. its more conceptually focused and not topical Give clear direction on how students could be assessed through Performance Expectations It requires conceptual learning. It requires students to DO science. It requires students to construct models, collect evidence and analyze data. The NGSS breaks down the concepts at each grade level and allows for the learning progression to take place. This reduces the redundancy that typically happens within a school district. The NGSS also have greatly increased the
451
Sep 18, 2013 6:07 PM
452
Sep 18, 2013 5:44 PM
453 454
Sep 18, 2013 5:33 PM Sep 18, 2013 5:28 PM
455 456
Sep 18, 2013 5:20 PM Sep 18, 2013 5:13 PM
457
Sep 18, 2013 5:05 PM
458 459 460 461 462
Sep 18, 2013 3:56 PM Sep 18, 2013 3:48 PM Sep 18, 2013 3:27 PM Sep 18, 2013 9:11 AM Sep 17, 2013 8:26 PM
33 of 69
critical thinking, rigor of the content, and interconnectedness of core subject areas. 463 464 465 Purposeful learning progressions Written grade level K-12 Performance expectations with clarifications, assessment boundaries tied to 3 dimensions Easy to read focused on student learning progression focused on performance expectations Science is not simplified into an unrealistic series of 5 ordered steps; students learn science and engineering by doing it; high expectations for each grade; SPE provide clear assessment which will allow alignment between standard, instruction, and assessment. Focus on sense making and use of evidence; correlation with ELA and Math allow for coherent progression through all subjects; application of research; design to bring students along from novice toward expert will result in deeper learning. Sep 17, 2013 1:32 PM Sep 17, 2013 11:11 AM Sep 17, 2013 11:11 AM
34 of 69
35 of 69
Page 5, Q7. What are the weaknesses of the Next Generation Science Standards?
1 2
These standards are disastrous. They .must be started over to teach children true science which do not have an ideology to them. 1. I don't think it's constitutional. Our Founders wanted education and all educational decisions (such as standards and curriculum) to be the job of the states. (10th Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") 2. A big chunk of the content concerns Global Warming. Every day more information comes out disproving this theory. I always thought it was a hoax anyway. I do not want our kids being indoctrinated into believing they are at fault for anything to do with the climate or the weather. Plus, I think it's pretty egotistical for anyone to think that we can actuallychange the climate! 3. NGSS hits evolution more than any previous standards with no mention whatsoever of Intelligent Design. 4. There is less content covered in NGSS. "Among the most egregious omissions are most of chemistry; thermodynamics; electrical circuits; physiology; minerals and rocks; the layered Earth; the essentials of biological chemistry and biochemical genetics; and at least the descriptive elements of developmental biology." (This quote is from the article "Problems with Next Generation Science Standards" written by Shane Vander Hart on March 11, 2013. You can find it at www.truthinamericaneducation.com) 5. The Fordham Institute gave NGSS a grade of "C." Can't we do better than mediocre?! This think tank listed 5 states plus D.C. To which they awarded the grade of A or A- (California, D.C., Indiana, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Virginia) Why don't we used their science standards as a road map for our own?http://www.edexcellence.net/ Though there seem to be coordinated ideas and practices, the standards seem confusing and can be limiting. False conclusion expressing theories as fact with little to no testable, repeatable and observable tests to prove such theories. No exploration of thought or wonder. I think it was Einstein that said science should be about the exploration of wonder. What looks like many options can become restrictive if that is all that is allowed. Teachers should be allowed to address topics that may not be listed with local school districts having the ability to reward or hold accountable said teachers. Don't believe Common Core, NGSS, to be healthy as it limits the freedom of geographical beliefs to shine - so much for multiculturalism. Evolution, Environmentalism, and Global Warming as in no way scientifically proven theories and discredit the whole discipline to teach such. Fordham Institute gives NGSS only a C, with other states having higher standards - why are we shooting for mediocre? I tried to read it-ridiculously compiccated To rigorous that students will struggle and not be able to perform to standards and become frustrated and give up very confusing and many mistakes 1. NGSS standards are inferior to the science standards already used in some states. If the people of Iowa want to improve science education, we should be writing our own standards based on standards that have already proven to be effective. Why would we adopt a system that is only marginally better than the one we have, of which we do not have control over the content and potential revisions? Following is a quote from the Fordham Institute Final Review:
Oct 11, 2013 11:02 PM Oct 11, 2013 9:35 PM
Oct 11, 2013 9:18 PM
4 5 6 7
36 of 69
http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/final-evaluation-of-NGSS.html "Having said that, by our lights the NGSS are inferior to the science standards of an almost equal number of states, and qualitatively on par with the expectations of a number of others. Students in those states would do better to be taught to the expectations of one of the states that have already done this really well." 2. Also found in the Fordham Institute review are these flaws: Much essential content was omitted. The grade-to-grade progression that was a strength of the NRC Framework was not fully realized in the NGSS. The result was that some content that was never explicitly stated in earlier grades was nevertheless assumed in later grades. A number of key terms (e.g., model and design) were ill defined or inconsistently used and a number of actual errors were scattered throughout. Recommended practices dominated the NGSS, relegating essential knowledgewhich should be the ultimate goal of science educationto secondary status. The articulation of assessment boundaries in connection with many standards threatened to place an unwarranted ceiling on important learning. Yes, teachers can go above and beyond what the boundary suggests, but with time and resources scarce, how many will actually teach studentseven advanced studentscontent and skills that they know in advance wont be on the test? 3. NGSS standards were written by parts of the federal government. Joy Pullman of The Heartland Institute reports that 13 federal agencies, including NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and (the) U.S. Department of the Interior helped Achieve Inc. craft the new K-12 science content standards, which tell teachers which concepts to teach, and when. Next Generation is officially being peddled by Achieve Inc. as a state-led creation, but the federal governments fingerprints are all over the standards." http://eagnews.org/just-as-we-start-understanding-the-implications-of-commoncore-here-comes-the-controversial-debut-of-new-nationalized-sciencestandards/ It is completely against the law for the federal government to have ANY role in the development of the curriculum of any state or institution. The Department of Education Organizational Act (1979), The General Education Provisions Act and 3) The Elementary and Secondary Act (1965) and most recently amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. Each of these says the same thing, that The Federal Department of Education shall not be involved in developing, supervising or controlling instructional materials or curriculum. Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965 (ESEA) Nothing in the Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employees of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or schools curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State and local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under the Act. Department of Education (DOE) in 1979 No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any discretion, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. 4. Harry Keller wrote in an article (http://etcjournal.com/2013/01/22/nextgeneration-science-standards-fall-flat/) that there is huge gap in Chemistry education and Chemistry lab work. He states the following: "the first thing I looked for was chemistry. Theres so no such topic. The NGSS document is arranged under three heading: PS, LS, and ESS. These stand for physical science, life science, and earth and space science. Earth and space science is
37 of 69
certainly physical in nature but has its own separate section, while chemistry must lie hidden in physical science somewhere. The word chemistry does not appear. Instead, most of what Id term chemistry appears under two headings: Structure and Properties of Matter and Chemical Reactions. All right, a derivative word for chemistry does appear there but only in the topic-oriented version." 5. NGSS treats the theory of climate change caused by humans as fact, even though it has been proven by NASA to be untrue. In an article in Principia Scientific International it states, "NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that greenhouse gases actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun."......"The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the socalled greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS" http://principiascientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-provescarbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html 8 gives materialistic answers to religious questions, does not explain methodological naturalism, does not distinguish between experimental and historical science does not distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution biased on it's emphasis of manmade climate change standards re poorly written and hard to follow definitely a lot if material (not necessarily too much, just many ideas to look at and incorporate) more examples are always helpful Looks good- but now need to incorporate the standards in the classroom with the appropriate learning materials. No opinion. More people need to know about the program. It takes the education away from the state and local control which knows best how to educate our children. We do not want government following our children's information all the way through school keeping records and deciding what subjects they will study! This should not be a solcialist education! And we should not be praising communist like Che Chavez, we are a Christian country which is what makes our country so great. How many other deceitful articles do you have in the text books that our children have not had time to learn the truth about. This is horrible to try to turn our country into a socialist nation. Content has been left out of the high school curriculum (no plants?). There is a lot of Earth science. Missing some important chemistry aspects. Hard to read/follow. Really have no standards, but a series of learning goals. No plan of implementation (that we know of.) If teachers are going to cover these topics they need to be provided curricular materials and given some training to do so. Our current certifications do not comply with what needs to be taught and waiving certification (as rumor has it will have to happen) does not make us qualified to teach areas outside our discipline without some assistance. Oct 11, 2013 2:52 PM
9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16
38 of 69
A few topics seem too difficult for every high school kid (appropriate for honors courses but not gen ed. or low level classes). Also, a few topics seem to be really stressed over others at deep levels while others are more superficially covered. 17 Anything mandated by the federal government is not what our education system needs right now. Our ratings have been going down even with NCLB and this isn't any better. Integrated nature of science. Not compatible with past practice so teachers are not trained to think about content or teach this way. 6-8 should be broken down by grade, no one can tell me which standards I should be covering and who is covering the rest. The admin is not helping us at all, they told me to figure it out!!!! Too much emphasis on evolution, Earth history, and climate change. Many of these standards seem to be treated as fact and not theory. The scientific process looks at all possible explanations - not just a few. - Unclear about how fundamentals are covered - Appears to have too much demonstration, investigation, rather than learning what is already known - Hard to follow - Appears to be biased towards human impact and sustainability, not enough historical content - Should not promote a religion (materialism) - Needs to distinguish between historical science and experimental/theoretical science It is a waste of money to change to the Next Generation SS, The focus should be on basic science facts and not wasting time & $$ on 'changes' It would be helpful if some resources were included. I find the standards wordy, cluttered, and exhaustive. not an easy format to get through It is too heavy on practices (skills). Key terms are not adequately defined. Progression of topics is flawed. Oct 11, 2013 12:43 PM
18 19
Oct 11, 2013 12:39 PM Oct 11, 2013 12:37 PM
20
Oct 11, 2013 12:26 PM
21
Oct 11, 2013 12:13 PM
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Oct 11, 2013 11:58 AM Oct 11, 2013 11:56 AM Oct 11, 2013 11:44 AM Oct 11, 2013 11:43 AM Oct 11, 2013 11:41 AM Oct 11, 2013 11:38 AM Oct 11, 2013 11:13 AM
There are many key concepts that are missing in each of the standards. I noticed that the emphasis was biased toward materialistic science and not offering a differing opinion that includes religious belief or that challenges the experimental science that is being promoted today. Students should be taught to think for themselves and not be "brainwashed" about science that is questionable at best and out right wrong in certain subjects. Teachers should give the students the tools to think for themselves using proven science and leaving the door open for the unproven to remain unproven until there is a consensus. What the student learns will still be basis on how the teacher implements it. Great benchmarks mean nothing if the teacher does not strive to ensure the student reaches them. Iowans have allowed the federal government and its agent the State of Iowa the
29
Oct 11, 2013 11:01 AM
30
Oct 11, 2013 10:47 AM
39 of 69
opportunity to set standards and curriculum for Iowa schools paid for by taxes levied on privately held property. Past and present evidence related to 99% of all federal meddling in what should be controlled by local government leaves those paying the bills owing and in debt by literally trillions of fiat paper I O U s. Have you ever heard of the free and independent Union state of Iowa? It is totally foreign to the State of Iowa and the United States Government. It is mentioned in the Organic Laws of the United States and the foundation of all written law here in America. Published on page 1 Volume 1 of the United States as General and Permanent Law of the United States. 31 It does not balance historical context and places too much emphasis on practice skills. It does not tie in well with progression of related math skills. Places too much emphasis on man made intervention to the exclusion of natural progression. Definitions of many important are incomplete and confusing In many cases basic content is missing. Makes some assumptions I feel the standards are written in such a way that we teachers will interpret them differently or inaccurately. The standards are hard for me to understand what exactly NGSS wants taught. worded in a very complicated way - we are supposed to put these up for kids to read so they know what they are to learn? Standards not clear and are easy to modify by an individual. Do not have depth. They standards were designed with testing in mind and not with learning. They were developed by the government with political goals in mind rather than educational. They remove control & discretion from the classroom teacher and from the school Everything about it . The progressive attitude. Government control of everything. Why fix somthing that is NOT broken? Materialistic view of religion and portions of suggested curriculum are debatable - not based on comprehensive evidence-based research. It is too heavy on practices (skills). Progression of topics is flawed. Key terms are not adequately defined. Much fundamental content is missing. Assessment boundaries limit coverage of important content Standards are poorly written and hard to follow. Standards avoid mathematical relationships and calculations. I have many concerns with NGSS including but not limited to: 1) Unconstitutional- According to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, control over our children's education is not one of the powers of the federal government but is rather reserved to the "states or to the people." NGSS are national standards that take away control from the local level (school districts, teachers, parents, & states) and gives it to the federal government. 2) Copyrighted--As part of the Common Core Standards, the NGSS are owned and copyrighted by nongovernmental entities that are not accountable to parents & students. The standards must be accepted word for word & may not be changed. What about Oct 11, 2013 10:41 AM
32 33
Oct 11, 2013 10:34 AM Oct 11, 2013 9:46 AM
34 35 36
37 38 39
40
Oct 11, 2013 12:18 AM
40 of 69
learners who don't learn the same as "everyone else"? If standards can't be changed or modified and must be followed word for word what happens to those learners or those with IEP's or learning challenges? 3)Huge Experiment--The NGSS were released in April, 2013. Like general Common Core Standards, the NGSS has never been field tested & its supposed "rigor" is unproven because it has never been piloted anywhere. It is a huge experiment betting on a hopeful outcome using our kids as guinea pigs. I fear some are ready to jump to these NGSS because they are newer, bigger and flashier--all in an attempt to be "first" & "cutting edge" before the effectiveness of the current Iowa Core science standards have even been evaluated. Let's slow this down and make sure NGSS is THE BEST Iowa has to offer our kids rather than some failed attempt at mediocrity. 4) Cost--According to Henry Burke in conjunction with the report from the Pioneer Institute, it will cost Iowa $184 million (net amount) to implement Common Core Standards. Assuming he is correct, where will Iowa find $184 million to implement these mediocre standards? Has anyone done a serious cost vs. benefit analysis to justify such a huge expenditure and what it is actually going to cost the state and its taxpayers? http://iowansforlocalcontrol.com/2013/09/iowas-common-core-implementationcosts/ 5) Important Content is Ommitted--In a report from the Fordham Institute, NGSS omits quite a lot of essential content. Among the most egregious ommissions are: most of chemistry; thermodynamics; electrical circuits; physiology; minerals and rocks; the layered Earth; the essentials of biological chemistry and biochemical genetics; and at least the descriptive elements of developmental biology. And, in spite of the focus on experiential learning no chemistry labs are required. http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/common-corewatch/2013/science-standards-2.html 6) After analysis, the Fordham Institute has given NGSS a "C" grade. I remember when Iowa was a state educational leader--ranking in the top #1 or #2 of all states in the country. We are nowhere near that today. While I won't argue that there are changes that need to be made in education, I don't think NGSS is anywhere NEAR the answer that will get us there. Certainly, we can do better and want more for our kids than just AVERAGE?? Other concerns of the Fordham Institute include: It is too heavy on practices (skills); Progression of topics is flawed; Key terms are not adequately defined; Much fundamental content is missing; Assessment boundaries limit coverage of important content; Standards are poorly written and hard to follow; Standards avoid mathematical relationships and calculations 41 42 43 They are hard to find right away on the website, so at first it seems like the appendices are in fact the standards. The goals are not poorly stated. Key words are not defined clearly. There are some scientific ideas that are not stated - microevolution vs macroevolution, etc. What will NGSS cost for Iowa taxpayers at the state and district level? Has this been addressed? Have you evaluated the Iowa Core science standards to determine their effectiveness before switching to the next new thing? What will happen when schools determine some standards do not reflect their values or what they want taught? How easy will it be to revise them? Wouldn't Iowa Core be easier to revise when needed? There is so much evidence to dispute global warming yet it is served up as fact to kids in school now. Let's stick with teaching science and stop pushing controversial issues to push an agenda. I have many specific concerns on the standards themselves. The Fordham Oct 11, 2013 12:06 AM Oct 10, 2013 11:17 PM Oct 10, 2013 10:42 PM
41 of 69
Institute summarizes them nicely: It is too heavy on practices (skills). Progression of topics is flawed. Key terms are not adequately defined. Much fundamental content is missing. Assessment boundaries limit coverage of important content Standards are poorly written and hard to follow. Standards avoid mathematical relationships and calculations. Here are some of Robert P. Lattimer's, President / Secretary of Citizens for Objective Public Education, concerns: NGSS asks religious questions and provides only materialistic answers. NGSS employs, but does not disclose or explain, methodological naturalism. NGSS does not distinguish between experimental and historical science. NGSS omits evidence inferring teleology or design in nature. NGSS provides only materialistic explanations in historical origins science NGSS is biased in its emphasis on manmade climate change, negative interactions of man with the environment, and sustainable development. NGSS does not distinguish between microevolution (well accepted) and macroevolution (controversial). NGSS is unconstitutional in that it promotes a materialistic religious worldview. 44 They promote corporate Globalist and collectivist views over national and Individual sovereignty. An example of that is the promotion of the man made "global warming" fraud/extortion racket. (It's only going to become more embarrassingly obvious). They require that school districts adopt them k-12. That will be a difficult task. The elementary grades often do not take science as seriously as reading and math. The teachers may not be prepared for this type of comprehensive approach to teaching science. It is not always written in terms that all teachers might be familiar with - an elementary teacher might find some difficulty with vocabulary used Teachers may need help in prioritizing the standards in a consistent way. no support materals available as yet that are targeted to the atandards It regards too many scientific theories as facts, and is far too politically influenced. What happened to "local control?" Some standards are difficult to understand - the vocabulary used isn't always familiar. Unpacking the standards with other educators help define exactly what the standard means. not supported yet Some of the wording is difficult to understand and takes some decoding to figure out the meaning. Could have been written a little more reader friendly They are big and complex and will take some reviewing before I feel confident that I fully understand the standards overall. language is not in language all can understand. Oct 10, 2013 10:34 PM
45
Oct 10, 2013 8:53 PM
46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55
42 of 69
56
I have been researching the NGSS and I have found that some of the fundamental content to be missing. I want to share a couple quotes I found interesting in regards to Chemistry and Physics:I believe this quote is by Harry Keller illustrates weakness in the NGSS What we see is repeated use of Develop a representation or Construct an explanation or Use models to support or Evaluate the merits . These are not bad by themselves but have pushed out the soul of science by completely taking over the new standards, at least in chemistry and, in my reading, all of the other topics as well. Where do students measure? Where do they see with their eyes the nature of the materials that theyre studying? The NGSS authors may well come back by saying that they have plenty of lab work. If you look carefully, youll see several instances of something like Design, evaluate, and refine a device that . But thats an engineering lab and is very different from a science lab. * Engineering is about building things. Science is about exploring the great unknowns of the universe. http://etcjournal.com/2013/01/22/next-generation-science-standardsfall-flat/ This is from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute Well worth doing. But how well did they do it? We asked Johns Hopkins math professor and veteran Fordham math reviewer Steve Wilson to answer that question as part of a thorough analysis of the alignment between NGSS and the Common Core math standards. For that review, Professor Wilson examined both the NGSS themselves and the new Appendix L. He determined that, while the new appendix is a valiant attempt to overcome serious flaws in NGSS proper, the alignment between the science standards and CCSSM still falls short in three significant ways: First, in several cases where NGSS expectations require math in order to fully understand the science content, that math goes well beyond what students would have learned in classrooms aligned to the Common Core. In other words, the math in the NGSS and the math in the CCSSM are not fully aligned; Second, Appendix L, while indisputably a welcome instructional and curricular tool, misses several opportunities to build important links between grade-appropriate math and required science content; and Finally, Appendix L too often makes superficial connections, in which grade-appropriate math is presented in ways that do little to enhance science learning. Given the critical overlap between science and math, as well as the NGSS authors intention to align their science expectations with the Common Core math standards, these shortcomings signal a need for caution on the part of states that are serious about implementing the CCSSM while also considering adopting the NGSS. http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-weekly/2013/august22/next-generation-science-standards-revisited.html The other concern I had in the Life Science Discipline was in the area Evolution it appears the NGSS only gives the materialistic worldview. NGSS does not distinguish between micro evolution and macro evolution. Lastly NGSS is very biased in it emphasis on man made climate change. I find it disappointing that Iowa is considering the NGSS when the Fordham Institute only gave them a "C" I would hope we could provide Iowa students better standards they deserve better. I also find it interesting there has not been a cost analysis in the implementation of the NGSS. Thank you for the chance to weigh in the discussion of the Next Generation Science Standards evaluation for all Iowa Students. Progression of topics is flawed. My primary concern about the NGSS is the lack of Nature of Science specific standards (e.g. what is science?, What makes an experiment a good experiment?, In what sense is scientific knowledge stable?)
Oct 10, 2013 2:10 PM
57 58
Oct 10, 2013 12:47 PM Oct 10, 2013 11:31 AM
43 of 69
59 60 61 62 63 64
The overall length. None that I can see They are almost too specific and the depth at which they go would be very difficult to reach in a given school year. I can't come up with one. Iowa students NEED these! There's a lot there. I worry that they won't be done well in schools because they might be overwhelming. all kids are treated equally. Group learning does not help our society. Standards but they are really taught anything. Most of the things they were taught, they learned in 3rd grade! This isn't so much the standards themselves, but the standardized tests that students are being assessed through don't present an accurate portrayal of the standards. Again, this isn't so much a weakness of the standards, but I don't anticipate my district providing any time to become more acquainted with the standards. I think that will have to come on my own time. I don't think there is the same support of the standards as there are for Common Core ELA and Math standards as a whole. Too much is expected to be covered by the teachers and the students Not simplified enough or to wordy. Takes to much time to work through the website. Was simple machines ever mentioned in the document? Our committee wondered about this as it has large real-life applications for students. There are no standards in health at the 3-5 grade band. Truly having difficulty seeing any weaknesses after working with all other disciplines of math and reading/language arts standards. Some key content areas are not included. The weakness is how it's worded. Some of the standards are very loaded and hard to interpret. The Life sciences should have more zoology and botany. Having a high school Biology course and not study those two subjects is a big weakness to the average high school student. There is too much required on evolution and genetics. (and I am not against evolution by any means) There may not be many schools ready to teach at this level. We haven't always had them, so we will have holes in what we've learned that might be hurtful as we go through new grades VERY wordy- I have to read through the standard several times to make sense of what it even IS. Also, I feel like there are gaps.
Oct 10, 2013 11:23 AM Oct 10, 2013 11:03 AM Oct 10, 2013 8:53 AM Oct 10, 2013 6:49 AM Oct 10, 2013 6:46 AM Oct 9, 2013 9:37 PM
65
Oct 9, 2013 9:33 PM
66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73
Oct 9, 2013 9:20 PM Oct 9, 2013 8:27 PM Oct 9, 2013 8:01 PM Oct 9, 2013 7:55 PM Oct 9, 2013 6:48 PM Oct 9, 2013 4:12 PM Oct 9, 2013 2:59 PM Oct 9, 2013 2:39 PM
74 75 76
44 of 69
77 78
They do not specify standards at 6th, 7th, 8th grade levels. Middle school is just "lumped" together. No other grade level is this vague. They become in some cases too rigid in their focus of specific details instead of focusing on broad concepts while at the same time ignoring other scientific concepts. Additionally the language used to create the standards is often wordy and difficult to interpret. Needs to be easier to understand and be able to apply what is needed for greater success May be difficult for some students to attain these standards Might be overwhelming if someone doesn't know how to read the document. They are very complex to read if you are not a teacher or scientist Not really a weakness, but they represent a huge shift that will require lots of work for districts. That effort will be worth it as far as I'm concerned, though. covers too much content. Huge volume of material is initially intimidating, but will eventually be appreciated as a standard strength. Every high school student needs to focus on basic understanding of science concepts and applications to their "real" world. These standards to too deep for the average student to master, unless all of their optional courses were in science. For example, a student does not need to conceptualize coulomb's law. Oraganize the standards to "required" and "recommended". As they stand, they set a high percentage of students up for failure and along with them, their teachers. I am a well educated, experienced high school science teacher but I would struggle to pass assessments on earth and life science as they are stated in the standards. This makes me believe they are too rigorous for "every" high school student. There is too much material in the standards to cover in the amount of class time dedicated to science in the standard school curriculum. To generic, broad, and watered down. Human body information is left mostly for HS; will need significant instruction/training for elementary teachers cross-cuttings/overall organization can be difficult to read at first Unless states are willing to invest in education instead of attempting to cut costs while demanding more, no set of standards will help. Educators not familiar with newer teaching methods or unfamiliar with topics that they have not covered in the past will require training, and for it to be effective, legislatures will need to increase funding for schools in order to cover costs of professional development. Proper assessment will take time to implement and will require improved funding.
Oct 9, 2013 2:22 PM Oct 9, 2013 2:21 PM
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
Oct 9, 2013 2:09 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:56 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:50 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:41 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:38 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:24 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:18 PM Oct 9, 2013 1:16 PM
87 88 89 90 91
45 of 69
92
Not necessarily a weakness of any standard in particular, but the actual scientific knowledge of some teachers, even those teaching science classes, is not always that great. This could limit the effectiveness of the curriculum if they don't get good supporting materials and time/incentives to digest them. There is too much content shoved into too little time to do that content any "justice". The big ideas need plenty of time for exploration and discussion, not just an overview. Also, the vocabulary is too rigorous for many students who struggle with reading comprehension (most students). The expectations then can be setting students up for failure. I strongly disagree that NGSS will get students ready for college and careers. These standards are not rigorous they are regimented. These standards ONLY teach towards an atheistic, evolutionary worldview with no mention of intelligent design. same as #6 Assessment boundaries identify what assessment shouldn't look like, where can we see what assessments should look like? Standards are not clearly shown; they seem to be more like assessments or objectives, which can be confusing when creating lessons. Does not allow flexibility for teacher to teach a diversity of topics to the students (for example, fourth grade seems focused on wave patterns; maybe there is more material available at the school district to teach other subjects, which can make it harder for schools to achieve the standard.) none identified Need more focus experiential learning and environmental topics. I would like to see more topicscovered Some people may not understand it because the reading level is high and complicated, even for science majors. At the lower elementary levels some of the content may be seen by teachers are not developmentally appropriate. None They are not giving enough information as related to the FACTS of evolution, Big Bang and the current conditions of the planet i.e. Global Warming None Very strict, doesn't seem to leave much open to schools and teacher's goals and expectations regarding what needs to be taught. None to think of. None that I can see.
Oct 9, 2013 12:24 PM
93
Oct 9, 2013 10:56 AM
94
Oct 9, 2013 10:55 AM
95 96 97
Oct 9, 2013 8:19 AM Oct 9, 2013 8:14 AM Oct 8, 2013 9:45 PM
98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Oct 8, 2013 9:23 PM Oct 8, 2013 8:51 PM Oct 8, 2013 7:59 PM Oct 8, 2013 7:22 PM Oct 8, 2013 7:05 PM Oct 8, 2013 6:44 PM Oct 8, 2013 6:21 PM Oct 8, 2013 5:52 PM Oct 8, 2013 5:22 PM Oct 8, 2013 4:40 PM Oct 8, 2013 4:10 PM
46 of 69
109 110 111
Initially, the NGSS seem to present such a large volume of information that it would feel like "drinking form a fire hose." very rough draft nothing is there for you to just look at start using They are not aligned with the Iowa Assessments at all. There are some concepts that are too difficult for the level they are for. These should be introduced started with elementary. Otherwise, it will be too difficult to get students with little background knowledge to get them prepared for assessments. The cost of supplies to cover some of the standards would be great. Not totally aligned with state assessment. Might be too rigorous and too many concepts, how will I ever get it all done? This does not give ways to help those students who may be at a level not ready for this type of rigor. Hard to read I question whether all of them are grade appropriate. They don't provide specific examples of the types of lessons that could be done like the Iowa Core does in the rigor and relevance framework. 1. Limited to what you can teach. 2. Assessments not aligned with ITEDS. Very comprehensive - a bit overwhelming in the scope - but doable! Pretty broad. Different from the core. Why not the same? It would be nice if the topic of evolution were interwoven throughout biology courses instead of as an isolated incident. The study of biology makes little sense without it. It will be challenged by anti-science individuals based on religious and political objections, even though it is accurate and useful Some standards are vague/ hard to understand what all needs to be covered. Could be even more detailed in the exact concepts educators will be asked to teach. I was completely overwhelmed when trying to navigate through the website due to the thoroughness of the standards. I think, for the most part I figured it out after searching for awhile. Even though you have tutorials I just don't want to look at them and watch them. The Iowa Core Curriculum does a better job of organizing the standards. What if a student, who was supposed to master information, has not mastered it but the next level teacher is expected to move forward with their information.
112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122
Oct 8, 2013 2:46 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:38 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:37 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:30 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:30 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:29 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:26 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:06 PM Oct 8, 2013 2:05 PM Oct 8, 2013 1:17 PM Oct 8, 2013 1:05 PM
123 124 125 126
127
Oct 8, 2013 11:55 AM
47 of 69
128 129 130
Where are the Health standards in the NGSS ? grade span and not grade level for 6-12 No real sequence of how concepts should be taught in a given course. It is yet another system to learn for those of us who are somewhat familiar with the Iowa Core. What is considered proficient? none MIght be too many in certain subject to be able to cover them all in the one class. Standards are going to reduce the number of science elective courses that will be taken because all of the science disciplines need to be covered within some core classes. This may limit a student who would otherwise be able to take more courses within their interests. Way to much to cover for the average student; upper level students will be fine; assumes everyone is college bound Will change course offerings...necessitates a shift to integrated courses and not specific content courses (also astrength I would like to see the 6-8 standards not "lumped" together, but listed by what is expected at each grade level....like the other grades. For freshmen in high school the extra application parts will create problems for students. It takes time to apply concepts and where is the time going to come from? none The NGSS seem appropriate as a minimum for high school graduation, but are not sufficient for college preparation. For example, the biology standards omit RNA, much of cell biology, and almost all of physiology. Not enough human anatomy and physiology. It is still a tool which will be modified according to the classes you have. Standards can at times be "wordy". Like any set of standards there is no guarantee that the students, even though exposed to the standard, will truly understand it. Somewhat broad it is more compact than other standards. The different ways to look at things can be confusing. THe vastness of information is also confusing.
131 132 133 134
Oct 8, 2013 9:16 AM Oct 8, 2013 9:05 AM Oct 8, 2013 9:04 AM Oct 8, 2013 9:03 AM
135 136 137 138
139 140
Oct 7, 2013 7:05 PM Oct 7, 2013 6:52 PM
141 142 143 144 145 146 147
Oct 7, 2013 5:33 PM Oct 7, 2013 2:28 PM Oct 7, 2013 2:24 PM Oct 7, 2013 2:18 PM Oct 7, 2013 2:17 PM Oct 7, 2013 2:16 PM Oct 7, 2013 2:08 PM
48 of 69
148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156
none apparent at this time -Very "wordy": difficult to find standards/expectations quickly -There are a few potentially controversial topics (global warming, evolution) little room for individual community standards and too easily lead to standardized tests which do no really measure learning There is a huge growth curve for students and teachers. It may take awhile to see the attainment of the new standards. none Overwhelming to people reading them for the first time. It does not look like the other Iowa Core Content for the Common Core. It may be good to add more chemistry content. false science Didn't see much for support on Nature of Science- Science fair -Scientific Method - Experiments Would like to see "grade level" not 6-8 rather than middle school 6-8 Organizationally I fear they might still be a little hard for teachers to decipher. Listen, it is past-time that Iowa leaders embrace these standards. Extremists have succeeded in bringing more light and heat to this than is necessary. Even this survey is ridiculous -- Would we ask Iowans to weigh in on new Surgical Standards for Orthopedists? New Pipefitting Standards for Plumbers? Obviously folks are looking for cover via a public survey but let's get on with it already. Jeff Weld A bit too heavy on biology at the expense of physical science. No easy accessible materials. no everyone has time to go look up what they need from the internet. lengthy Too much PC, teach science, the truth will win out There was no cohort data provided to demonstrate either positively or negatively that the standards are effectively moving academic progress of the countries designated as international benchmarks. How do I know this works? So much stuff that there is no room/time to follow student interests. To set on what has to be covered no room for local control. the amount of text, the confusion with the integration of all 3 areas (cross-cutting, core-idea, and practice) Should be adopted in grade bands so that districts have more wiggle room when adopting and hopefully won't need to change entire science curriculum.
Oct 7, 2013 12:26 PM Oct 7, 2013 11:25 AM Oct 7, 2013 10:15 AM Oct 7, 2013 9:57 AM Oct 7, 2013 8:52 AM Oct 7, 2013 8:33 AM Oct 6, 2013 10:15 PM Oct 6, 2013 7:47 PM Oct 6, 2013 6:00 PM
157
Oct 6, 2013 10:38 AM
158 159 160 161 162
Oct 6, 2013 7:05 AM Oct 4, 2013 5:06 PM Oct 4, 2013 3:21 PM Oct 4, 2013 1:40 PM Oct 4, 2013 12:18 PM
163 164 165
49 of 69
166 167
PE's are hard to understand 1. They do not have all the content delineated as clearly as the original NRC document (or the superior Project 2061 document) 2. Some of the STEM activities are contrived and would lead to teaching to the test. 3. Some of the content does not specifically state the math involved (however, this was done to allow for some state level decisions as to how much math they would require for issues such as kinematics, dynamics, etc. 4. Some of the topics are misaligned with CCSS for math (velocity and acceleration as rate functions would be the big ones; however, research by Dewey Dykstra of the AAPT would show that 6th graders are capable of learning the concept. So, perhaps the flaw is in CCSS and not NGSS. 5. They are not as tightly written as many states (Ohio, Massachusetts) or other national curricula (Project 2061, ACARA, NRC); however, that was more a function of the consensus building from multiple revisions. 6. There is mention of Learning Progressions (LP) as a suggestion for implementing the standards, but the research on LP has many gaps in content area and age breakdown. Still too much content to reasonably cover. Very specific performance expectations. Challenges at the high school level will be with requiring all content to be taught in 2 years or require a third year. Performance expectations will take more time to learn and assess. Changes are still possible causing some confusion of what is to come. Implementation has come at time that some teachers are already learning core implementations in all other areas (elementary teachers in self-contained rooms teach all subjects with all new core to learn) None. At times, seems a bit vague. Grade-level exemplars of projects, investigations, inquiry based learning activities. the best standard is an individual teacher designing for the capabilities of a particular class. Will require teachers to make significant changes and lots of community PR, but that is not a reason to dismiss them. As a person who used the old standards, I find these a lot more confusing to read as they contain a lot of details. I do not always feel confident that I understand what the assessment criteria mean. I do not always agree that the rigor needs to be quite that high for students who are headed for a two-year technical school or other non collegiate goal. Since Iowa has not adpted I wish they had some potential assessments teachers could use to see if students are reaching the standards. getting more examples of how they can be taught
Oct 3, 2013 9:33 PM Oct 3, 2013 8:54 PM
168
Oct 3, 2013 8:29 PM
169
Oct 3, 2013 8:08 PM
170 171 172 173 174 175
Oct 3, 2013 8:02 PM Oct 3, 2013 7:53 PM Oct 3, 2013 5:27 PM Oct 3, 2013 3:59 PM Oct 3, 2013 3:53 PM Oct 3, 2013 3:46 PM
176 177 178
50 of 69
179
The wording is a bit complex for high school students to understand. The lack of study of the human body is appalling. There is way too much emphasis on evolution and the history of the earth. The kids today need to understand their own bodies and how chemicals effect their cells. Still lots of information to challenge kids in only one year without requiring 4 yrs of science. I think the weaknesses of the NGSS are that there is to much content to teach within the required courses in the high school. Some of the chemistry is more advanced than what is currently taught in hs chemistry. It is a lot to read and would be hard to implement without any training or resources to help fit standards in the classroom if they are already not being addressed. VERY specific topics that are not generally taught in current curriculum. the "coding"... it would be easier if the coding followed the pattern already established by ELA and Math Common Core standards. It will take a while for teachers to become familiar with how to use them. Change takes time. Educators will need training to successfully transition to the NGSS. Some standards could be a little more specific. Quite a bit of the information that this curriculum asks teachers to cover applies only to college-bound students. If the core is designed to make sure all students have a solid "base" of science when they graduate from High School, then this goes way over the line. There are some pretty specific content covered that not all students need. It is a new formatting of those things we know have been important, but begin to sound complicated to people when we give them names such as "Next Generation Science Standards". Educators just plain get nervous about doing these thing. I was always told not to point out a problem without a recommendation. I would simply call them the core standards like all the rest. We have some teachers that would like them to be more specific. Some teachers are saying they didn't get the "fun" topics. Also, it will require more planning and money spent on new curriculum supplies/materials. not specific enough too wordy I don't believe there are any. Topics and skills seem to jump from place to place. Standards and core disciplines are not written so that they are easy for a teacher, parent, and especially a student to understand and apply. Grade level progressions don't
Oct 3, 2013 3:13 PM
180 181
Oct 3, 2013 3:02 PM Oct 3, 2013 3:01 PM
182
Oct 3, 2013 3:00 PM
183 184 185 186 187 188
Oct 3, 2013 2:57 PM Oct 3, 2013 1:03 PM Oct 3, 2013 12:45 PM Oct 3, 2013 12:12 PM Oct 3, 2013 12:02 PM Oct 3, 2013 11:52 AM
189
Oct 3, 2013 11:33 AM
190 191 192 193 194 195
Oct 3, 2013 11:28 AM Oct 3, 2013 11:14 AM Oct 3, 2013 10:59 AM Oct 3, 2013 10:51 AM Oct 3, 2013 10:33 AM Oct 3, 2013 10:29 AM
51 of 69
seem to make common sense, but more of a jumbled collection of science learning. 196 These standards will require a real shift in teaching to meet the level of rigor these standards demand. Not that that is really a weakness, just a second order change. The fact that all of these proposals hinge on the acceptance, full support, and most of all the financial backing of local school principals, superintendents, and administrators. Without educating these individuals that this is a central part of modern education, and must be fully funded, this program is doomed to dismal results if not complete failure. Accessibility for all schools, teachers and students I see as a current weakness. Accessibility to the resources needed to revamp science curriculum, accessibility to the background knowledge needed for practicing teachers, and accessibility to the content from the point of view of a struggling reader as well as older learners without the foundation needed to be successful later in the learning progression. I would like to know what would be best taught at the upper levels for the grade levels for the best retention to have success post secondary. -Difficult to cover all the material in required science classes Trying to cover them all in required courses at the high school level without sacrificing elective courses Difficult to cover the entire span of the standards for a smaller district like ours, with only three science teachers. Trying to get all standards into required high school courses in a small high school with a small science faculty. Not necessarily any great weaknesses, but as with anything new being implemented, there are considerations of training, time, cost, materials, and sustainability. As always, it seems some districts are in areas where they can afford the training, support, and materials, while other districts struggle to meet the expectations. There is a lot of overlap, which despite my initial thoughts that it could make it easier- it sometimes makes it more difficult. I would be concerned that educators would feel the next teacher would take care of some of the teaching because of this feature- that in most cases is truly a benefit. The organization. Need a key for the pages. As a teacher, I feel that there are more ideas that need to be "pretaught" (that are not mentioned in the standards) in order to get to the main standards. Slightly confusing to read 1) Assessment nightmare! 2) Will require a total re-do of HS science if ALL students have to do ALL standards eliminating any sort of student choice or chance to pursue interests or passions. 3) Lack of opportunities for differentiation Oct 3, 2013 10:04 AM
197
Oct 3, 2013 8:59 AM
198
Oct 3, 2013 8:44 AM
199 200 201 202 203 204
Oct 3, 2013 8:42 AM Oct 3, 2013 7:55 AM Oct 3, 2013 7:55 AM Oct 3, 2013 7:55 AM Oct 3, 2013 7:54 AM Oct 3, 2013 7:39 AM
205
Oct 3, 2013 6:57 AM
206 207 208 209
52 of 69
4) My AP physics students struggle with some of the abstract Electromagnetic Theory concepts that ALL students are expected to master????? Not gonna happen. Some students are not abstract enough at 14 to handle what is expected. Some students, let's be honest, aren't bright enough. So do we just ignore the bottom quartile? Is Piaget totally out now? 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 Change is always hard. Will need to provide workshops for teachers on how to implement NGSS May have too much content packed in to allow for best learning The "alphabet soup" of standard classification can be confusing. The un-initiated will have a hard time understanding what MS.PS-SPM a refers to. language is difficult and concepts are very broad the amount of content is unrealistic for 2 or even 3 required courses if every student is to master these It seems quite challenging for all students to acquire. The human body is not addressed at a high school level The standards are very difficult to teach because they are disconnected within the grade level. I understand that they follow a progression through out the grade levels but seem very random within the grade. Several concepts are NOT likely to be accessible to all students--for example force fields, quantitative assessments of Newton's law of Universal gravitation and Coulomb's law. In addition, if implemented, there would be a time delay in when the upper levels could reasonably be expected to teach at the level in the NGSS because it depends on the lower levels teaching their standards at the given level. In addition, are there enough teachers in the lower levels (elementary and middle school) qualified to teach the science they would be required to teach? We have special education students who will never meet these standards. They are autistic students and students with severe ADHD. We have students with such diverse needs that our class usually has associates in them. The associates are good at getting the special needs students to achieve at some capacity, but not to the level that the state expects them. They are to fine tuned. Some areas go into great detail: climate change, while leaving out much of ecology. The standards are designed to create better workers, not more informed citizens. The curriculum is still to vast, without enough depth. The actual document is hard to decode, contains too much information, and still neglects the nature of science. NOS is more of an afterthought than a true standard to be tied in. There was only one teacher who was in the standards writing process which lowers their overall validity, not to mention zero students were used in the process. As a member of the task force I feel as though I have been sitting in a commercial for two days. Most people believe the decision has already been made and I am nervous that we are spending the professional development money on food and mileage instead of where it belongs. Reality - if this much Oct 2, 2013 3:57 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:29 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:24 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:18 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:14 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:14 PM Oct 2, 2013 3:13 PM
217
Oct 2, 2013 3:13 PM
218
Oct 2, 2013 3:05 PM
219
Oct 2, 2013 2:49 PM
220
Oct 2, 2013 2:44 PM
53 of 69
time and money had been spent on PD for the Iowa Core, teachers would already be integrating and making connections. 221 222 223 224 225 The 6-8 grade span does not address any human biology or health standards Still a great amount of content A very small amount of content may not be appropriate for all learners I don't have an opinion at this point. Learning curve for teachers to know how to use, lack of specific curriculum and materials to meet standards. We seem to be missing a lot of content as far as the Biology core goes. There isn't any body systems studied in 6-8 and that is where they tend to have the most questions. I think in many cases that there is too much content to cover in depth. not always age appropriate Teachers may find the rigorous content difficult to teach--however, ALL teachers must unpack the standards and be willing to write units to fit the needs of their students. Teachers must think beyond covered and find ways to integrate the teaching of the content with the teaching of the Iowa Common Core State Standards in English/Language Arts. They have added much earth science, which does not lend itself to inquiry as well as biology, chemistry and physics. Since content is increased, depth has to be sacrificed in some cases. The organization and busyness of the document make it difficult to read. This refers to the Cross-cutting ideas, DCIs, and Engineering Practices. I much prefer NSDL and their Science Literacy Maps. It does not allow for remedial or advanced options for students. It does not allow for testing out of a criteria so that a student could go on to something that is not on the standards. There are too many of them. Not sure how to implement Engineering into all of the standards. There are content gaps in physical science. Maybe there are assumptions that some things are going to have to be taught in order to teach topics in the NGSS. This is confusing. Elementary level science standards are especially problematic. Some science disciplines will only receive attention every 3-4 years. Most elementary teachers will not go beyond what is written in the standards. In previous science standards certain skills were easier to identify than in the NGSS. The skills are still there but they are inside the standards and it takes longer to align skills to standards. Oct 2, 2013 12:13 PM Oct 2, 2013 11:41 AM Oct 2, 2013 9:40 AM Oct 2, 2013 9:17 AM Oct 2, 2013 7:41 AM
226 227 228
Oct 2, 2013 7:41 AM Oct 2, 2013 7:39 AM Oct 1, 2013 10:34 PM
229
Oct 1, 2013 9:24 PM
230 231 232
233 234
Oct 1, 2013 2:02 PM Oct 1, 2013 11:41 AM
235
Oct 1, 2013 11:23 AM
236
Oct 1, 2013 11:00 AM
54 of 69
237
Addition of Earth science and engineering practices will FORCE a removal of core ideas that were impressively deep to ensure student learning. Chemistry core ideas are missing or poorly identified. will require a huge overhaul of the current status of the majority of science education currently occurring in classrooms and there will be a huge need for professional development no opinion Still vague in some areas. Change is challenging... Some content seems too advanced for the grade level it is introduced, while other content is too easy for the grade level. Example: Energy/waves is a fourth grade topic is rather advanced and would fit better (at least the concept of waves) at an upper grade. Fifth grade has only one concept for physical science: knowing that gravity is a downward force. This would be a relatively easy topic for 5th graders (something they already know). The standards do have grade levels changing what they are teaching. With that, I am concerned about the funding to provide classrooms with equipment and needed materials to support the standards. With districts and limited budgets, this is a barrier for adoption. 1. It is too heavy on practices (skills). 2. Progression of topics is flawed. 3. Key terms are not adequately defined. 4.Much fundamental content is missing. 5. Assessment boundaries limit coverage of important content. 6.Standards are poorly written and hard to follow. 7. Standards avoid mathematical relationships and calculations. 8. NGSS asks religious questions and provides only materialistic answers. 9. NGSS employs, but does not disclose or explain, methodological naturalism. 10. NGSS does not distinguish between experimental and historical science. 11. NGSS omits evidence inferring teleology or design in nature. 12. NGSS provides only materialistic explanations in historical origins science. 13. NGSS is biased in its emphasis on manmade climate change, negative interactions of man with the environment, and sustainable development. 14. NGSS does not distinguish between microevolution (well accepted) and macroevolution (controversial). 15. NGSS is unconstitutional in that it promotes a materialistic religious worldview. They aren't very easy to understand if you don't have a science background. Teacher unfamiliarity Complexity, size, gaps, mandates of specific teaching/assessment techniques As always, it was filled with the left-wing liberal agenda. Evolution presented as fact versus theory. How about intelligent design? Teaching our children about human impact climate change is just wrong since there is no direct evidence. This is nothing but pure indoctrination...... Common Core, and now this!! Politically motivated None at this time.
Oct 1, 2013 10:53 AM
238
Oct 1, 2013 10:53 AM
239 240 241
242
Oct 1, 2013 10:02 AM
243
Oct 1, 2013 9:39 AM
244 245 246 247
Oct 1, 2013 7:50 AM Sep 30, 2013 9:54 PM Sep 30, 2013 8:17 PM Sep 30, 2013 6:14 PM
248 249
Sep 30, 2013 4:07 PM Sep 30, 2013 3:56 PM
55 of 69
250
1. It's a top-down approach, I'm generally opposed to education policy, standards or reforms being brought about that way. 2. Man-made climate change? How about teaching actual science rather than activist junk science. 3. Why does this emphasize evolution even more? It is a theory and should be taught alongside other theories related to the origins question. Classroom instruction is generally imbalanced already we don't need to make it worse. 4. It omits most of chemistry; thermodynamics; electrical circuits; physiology; minerals and rocks; the layered Earth; the essentials of biological chemistry and biochemical genetics; and at least the descriptive elements of developmental biology. Yet it emphasizes man-made climate change and evolution. Do you want to indoctrinate kids or do you want to prepare them for STEM fields? 1. Too detailed. 2. There is not very much guidance in how to implement the standards or education for how teachers are suppose to start integrating the standards into their classrooms. I think a training class would be extremely helpful. Forcing teachers to teach subjects they are not certified in Very tedious in regards to verbiage and amount of reading. too general sometimes Too much material to adequately teach. Students are scrambling to learn and being turned off to science. They are not getting big ideas because there is too much clutter; especially in the Earth Science and Biology curriculums. I would also say that only 15 - 20 % of students go on to college; especially in biology we are not preparing students for what they need to understand to go through life, sickness, pregnancy etc. This is all most people will study of their body and their environment. This is what my siblings (who are college educated) rely on. We are teaching so much that has no relevance to them, more material than they can absorb and material that has no bearing on them. I would rather teach for deep understanding rather than skimming through so much. This is revisited in the other curriculum (physical Sciences). Difficult for ESL and special ed students to complete Leaves little room in the high school curriculum for elective science courses like anatomy & physiology, forensic science, zoology, etc. I would like to see it more grade specific. Not all areas of life science seem to be covered, while others are covered quite extensively. The level of training any one teacher of a given field will need is excessive. Implementation needs to be phase in over a period of years due to the fact that pre-requisite skills are assumed to be in placed for all grades upon implementation. The minimum standards set for students suggest a level of preparation in a range of science areas that very few science majors receive in college. Very topic specific, at this grade you will cover this topic and less emphasis on
Sep 30, 2013 3:12 PM
251
Sep 30, 2013 2:20 PM
252 253 254 255
Sep 30, 2013 1:47 PM Sep 30, 2013 12:57 PM Sep 30, 2013 12:16 PM Sep 30, 2013 10:53 AM
256 257 258 259 260
Sep 30, 2013 10:47 AM Sep 30, 2013 9:45 AM Sep 30, 2013 8:04 AM Sep 29, 2013 6:24 PM Sep 29, 2013 4:53 PM
261
Sep 29, 2013 4:20 PM
56 of 69
the skills 262 263 Possibly a goal that is too lofty to achieve due to the wide range of abilities in our public school classrooms. There are still some differences school to school and grade level to grade level as to what is taught--that is, 7th grade life science or earth science vs. 8th grade earth science or life science--and this does affect coverage for standardized tests, etc.--these standards, common core, MISIC, and whatever else is written up for the schools need to be used as possible guidelines for student preparation, because something that is so often forgotten when writing and implementing such a document is that a teacher must tailor their lessons to the students they get in their classroom. NA Not rigorous enough. None It will still depend on the teachers delivery knowing the diverse makeup of learners in the classroom I see none It still contains too much content to teach in the indicated grade spans. There is lot of emphasis on evolution. Organization - I would like it to be easier to see the scope and sequence in a document. sometimes seem like a content concept list rather than a standards list When will we decide to find a common plan so we can quit flying the plain without any wings on it yet? Puts all students in the same field. Has a lot of "stuff". If a school is organized with 5-8, it can be confusing which standards should be taught which year. Way too much. There are always going to be weaknesses of a program. However, NGSS seems to be a better program out there. Constantly changing programs, however, cause huge holes in student learning. I hope we stick to a program for more than a couple of years to really see the weaknesses/strengths. Overwhelming amount of detail. Sometimes too much. Can't be fully implemented until all students have been through all the standards. Making sure that teachers are teaching the same things in all classes. Sep 28, 2013 9:23 PM Sep 28, 2013 5:07 PM
264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277
Sep 28, 2013 2:02 PM Sep 28, 2013 11:43 AM Sep 28, 2013 10:27 AM Sep 28, 2013 8:35 AM Sep 28, 2013 8:07 AM Sep 27, 2013 4:52 PM Sep 27, 2013 4:44 PM Sep 27, 2013 4:42 PM Sep 27, 2013 4:38 PM Sep 27, 2013 4:27 PM Sep 27, 2013 2:59 PM Sep 27, 2013 2:48 PM Sep 27, 2013 2:26 PM Sep 27, 2013 2:19 PM
278 279
Sep 27, 2013 2:13 PM Sep 27, 2013 2:07 PM
57 of 69
280
The standards are too vague and difficult to implement. Models are often used as the standards, but there is no guidance as to what the model should look like. Also, we are to assume they have background knowledge from previous classes that students typically forget? Mitosis is one example. My students have learned it before, but they rarely remember it in enough detail to build upon it. They learned it 3 years earlier. If they do not understand the steps of it (not rote memorization, but understanding), how can they build a model to illustrate the role of cellular division (mitosis) and differentiation in producing and maintaining complex organisms? The standards themselves are quite wordy. For the average student, the NGSS is too much. It not written in a user friendly manner. By requiring each student such a rigid set of standards, it limits the advanced student from having the time to focus on a courses that they have a higher interest in. It erroneously makes the assumption that students that move from course to course have mastered and can recall previous content. It erroneously assumes that the level at which content is covered at the middle school level could be the same as what it would be covered at the high school level. In a year, there is a lot there (maybe too much) for a teacher (especially at the elementary level) to accomplish at a high level. Just the fact that they're new--adjusting to them is one more thing for teachers to do. Ability to sort through and use. Nicely organized for those that were involved in the organization but hard to use for others too aggressive for students given age of study of concepts and background of seachers A little more guidance would be helpful with regard to units of study and crosscurricular integration Still a little wordy in the secondary level. Requires more content then can be taught in the time frame. Not knowing exactly which part is the standard. You have to adjust to the way you look at standards. Because of the integration of the three dimensions, it can be overwhelming to know how to effectively implement at first. It really focuses the assessment of students, and doesn't give teachers much creative output. will need support to put into practice Often a particular skill (such as designing a controlled experiment or write a claim/evidence paper) are tied to a specific piece of content rather than allowing for the skill to be taught using content from elsewhere in the NGSS standards. If
Sep 27, 2013 2:04 PM
281 282
Sep 27, 2013 1:47 PM Sep 27, 2013 1:29 PM
283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291
Sep 27, 2013 1:26 PM Sep 27, 2013 1:01 PM Sep 27, 2013 12:42 PM Sep 27, 2013 12:33 PM Sep 27, 2013 12:23 PM Sep 27, 2013 12:13 PM Sep 27, 2013 11:47 AM Sep 27, 2013 11:46 AM Sep 27, 2013 11:40 AM
292 293 294
58 of 69
this could be eliminated, I would fully support the document's adoption, but as written, I can NOT! 295 Like most standards, they are based on outcomes, while the process of science is also important. We also need to make sure students can think scientifically. When standards are used, many teachers still focus on assessment data, and lack the vision to include the process skills and critical thinking. Does not take in effect learner differences in ability and rate of learning. Far too much content to cover at a mastery level. no study of the human body-no nutrition, skeletal, muscular, nervous, etc. There is a lot there! Maybe more than any one classroom teacher can get through! Standards are wordy and may be difficult to interpret at the elementary level We do not teach science anymore in our school district because we have to teach 90 minutes of Reading, 90 minutes of Math, 45 minutes of Writing, 15 minutes of Word Study, 30 minutes of language study, Electives, etc...Our district watches every minute, they have our literacy and math coaches schedule every minute of our day. There is a lot there. I do not feel it is realistic for students to address the quantity of content without focusing mainly on science in their studies and that is not realistic for "all" students. There is also a lack of spiraling in some areas (I assume due to the amount that is already there). Ex. taxonomy only covered in Middle School - should be returned to again at the HS level. I reviewed the biological sciences, but I did peak at some of the physical science material as well. I am a little concerned that some of the high school physics concepts are too advanced for the average high school student, even those headed to college. The standards are dense, which isn't a weakness, but will demand more of K-12 teachers in terms of unpacking and articulating the curriculum. Document a bit hard to read somewhat cumbersome to get through no comment There is a lot for teachers to figure out. I'm sure there will be professional development, but how to connect the cross cutting concepts for instance is a little confusing. They represent a lot more content that must be taught than the Core, which may make it difficult to explore some topics in depth. I just don't want us not to have "fun time" for the kids to learn about what they are interested in. I feel restricted on what I can teach for this area of the country. Sep 27, 2013 10:53 AM
296 297 298 299 300
Sep 27, 2013 10:46 AM Sep 27, 2013 10:43 AM Sep 27, 2013 10:33 AM Sep 27, 2013 10:31 AM Sep 26, 2013 9:12 PM
301
Sep 26, 2013 8:30 PM
302
Sep 26, 2013 7:04 PM
303 304 305 306
Sep 26, 2013 3:48 PM Sep 26, 2013 1:35 PM Sep 26, 2013 11:26 AM Sep 26, 2013 9:53 AM
307 308 309
Sep 25, 2013 4:21 PM Sep 25, 2013 3:22 PM Sep 25, 2013 2:50 PM
59 of 69
310 311 312 313 314
To narrow of a focus in each field. No cells in biology is a problem. Some of what the students are to learn is very confusing even for the teachers to figure out. Too much about some subjects that do not seem like they are for the 21st century....fossils Too much content and detail. We are going back to a "mile wide and an inch deep" philosophy. very difficult to make sense of many of the parts. Apparently my school will have to move the EARTH SCIENCE standards from grade 8 to grades 9-12. Therefore, we will have less time to teach more rigorous items. I did not consider the Earth Science standards rigorous. I found that the standards format very difficult to navigate through. I really appreciated the the way the literacy and math standards can be revised into "I can statements" so even young children can see how their daily learning can be tied together with the Core Curr. I don't see a way of sharing the Science Standards in a student friendly way...or in a "teacher-friendly" way either. None noted Not as much repeat of the areas. So students only get information once in about 8 years. has gaps that make it difficult to accomplish the expected student understanding when the end result is set at a specific level. I find it difficult to get students to reach the level of comprehension expected when the are not expected to learn about the initial information Standard mastery requires high levels of understanding which means it takes more time to get through them. Time is the limiting factor with making all standards. Not supported by research. -I still wish that the science standards were as specific as the math standards Unknown assessment tools and therefore impossible to know how the standards will actually be implemented and taught The main weakness of the NGSS would be the complexity in the lower elementary grades. There is too much to read. They are hard to understand. There shouldn't be an explanation for every standard. The wording is confusing. Some topics need more explanation like the mechanical waves portion of 4th grade. As a former 4th grade teacher I have no clue how to teach that as I don't know if I fully understand mechanical waves. Because they are so in-depth and there is so much information for each standard, the overall document can be a bit cumbersome at first glance. It may
Sep 25, 2013 1:06 PM Sep 25, 2013 12:47 PM Sep 25, 2013 12:28 PM Sep 25, 2013 11:51 AM Sep 25, 2013 10:18 AM
315
Sep 24, 2013 8:39 PM
316 317 318
319
Sep 24, 2013 2:44 PM
320 321 322 323 324 325
Sep 24, 2013 12:35 PM Sep 24, 2013 12:03 PM Sep 24, 2013 10:36 AM Sep 24, 2013 10:24 AM Sep 24, 2013 10:06 AM Sep 24, 2013 9:38 AM
326
Sep 24, 2013 9:01 AM
60 of 69
be a bit off-putting for teachers, at first. It really takes time to study the layout before understanding them. 327 328 329 Smaller school districts will have a hard time purchasing supplies to provide hands on activities as budgets are very tight. They seem to be lacking some of the basics. Grade span 6-8 is lumped together. As a teacher, we NEED specifics as to what to teach! Otherwise, we end up teaching "what we want" which means some concepts will be taught year after year and others won't be taught at all. I teach in a small school with one teacher for 8th, one for 7th, and one for 6th. The 6th grade teacher believes in covering several topics very topically and then having 7th & 8th go over them deeper. Impossible. It needs to be broken down--perhaps 6th Earth, 7th Life, 8th Phyical. Too many things need to be taught in a grade level. Having things over grade spans to teach deeper at one grade, teaching big ideas instead of one concept at a time is needed ????? Connections and articulations - is it necessary to know at lower grade levels - all connections to common core and other subject and grade level connections kind of confusing - what do we need to know to teach the main standard Many of the NGSS are written far beyond what a student or parent will understand. There is also too much here for a student to complete. The performance expectations are written with DCI's, Scientific Principles and crosscutting concepts, but without well thought out professional development, they might end up a list of activities. There is too much content. The NGSS is not for ALL students. Some performance expectations are written for students taking advanced science courses. . . not for all students. To the average person, the standards are very difficult to navigate. Many of the topics are merely political hot button topics that reflect current interest and are not always topics appropriate for the curriculum they are to be included in. Appear to be written by experts that want to prove their intelligence. The practices will be ignored in favor of the content standards which are rather useless facts but are easily tested on a bubble test. Too much content. It needs to be implemented from the elementary grades to high school instead of HS down or it will fail. The format is somewhat intimidating when you first browse the document because of the amount of information on a page. The science standards themselves are still content driven, but the inclusion of concepts related to the content is a huge support to bridging student synthesis, analysis, and application Sep 24, 2013 8:51 AM Sep 24, 2013 8:05 AM Sep 23, 2013 10:21 PM
330
Sep 23, 2013 9:35 PM
331 332
Sep 23, 2013 5:31 PM Sep 23, 2013 5:10 PM
333 334
Sep 23, 2013 4:28 PM Sep 23, 2013 4:08 PM
335
Sep 23, 2013 3:40 PM
336 337
Sep 23, 2013 2:48 PM Sep 23, 2013 2:32 PM
338 339
Sep 23, 2013 2:25 PM Sep 23, 2013 2:16 PM
340
Sep 23, 2013 1:50 PM
61 of 69
in a real world context. 341 342 Too much content to be covered. Can see implementation ending up as "milewide, inch-deep" Sometimes areas are too rigorous. Due to the progression of skills, some time may need to be used to review skills from a previous grade, but that may mean less time to build towards the more rigorous skill of the new band. Areas of too much rigor Money to buy new curriculum They will require extensive Professional Development, but collaboration with other states and national NGSS experts will definitely help in this regard. IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! They do not allow students enough variety. No electrostatics, electricity/ circuitry or magnetism. Electromagnetic Radiation and waves are very important but don't prepare students to understand alternative energy and technology they use on a daily basis Their implementation might limit the learning of some of the best students as districts spend their resources trying to get all students to this level. It may not cover some subjects as deeply as in the past. It seems at times a mile wide and an inch deep. However, I think the tradeoff is worth it if students develop an understanding of and appreciation for science as a whole. They certainly have the option of diving more deeply into topics that interest them -- as many kids do now. The time it will take ALL students accomplish ALL of the performance expectations for the grade or band. This will be especially difficult to implement at the k-5 level where teachers are not typically well versed in science areas. Too many repetitive PE's that focus on similar ideas or tasks or are linked to multiple DCI's - example: "Develop a Model" I'm not sure if they are really appropriate for the level of child. We are expecting so many more things from our kids, and some are not developmentally appropriate. The wording of the standards are too complicated. Individuals could interpret them in many different ways. Need to give examples of what is needed to be taught in simple terms. Provide example lesson plans as well. Too restrictive. Totalitarian. Some topics over emphasized, as if they were written by an I.T. Other very important topics omitted. Weakness is that it is not as user friendly as I think it should be for teachers. The objectives/benchmarks are very wordy and sometimes too broad. I think they are so much more clear and relevant than other science standards Sep 23, 2013 1:23 PM Sep 23, 2013 1:00 PM
343 344 345 346 347 348
Sep 23, 2013 1:00 PM Sep 23, 2013 11:50 AM Sep 23, 2013 11:39 AM Sep 22, 2013 10:28 PM Sep 22, 2013 5:46 PM Sep 22, 2013 1:03 PM
349 350
Sep 22, 2013 10:21 AM Sep 22, 2013 10:03 AM
351
Sep 22, 2013 9:53 AM
352
Sep 21, 2013 10:08 PM
353
Sep 21, 2013 10:05 PM
354 355 356
62 of 69
presented by the Common Core. 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 Standards are worded poorly. Hard to read and understand what is expected. None Amount of content covered (time constraints) Materials required (funding) They are too numerous. There is still a lot to cover. Are we teaching the most important concepts well or all of the ideas at an inch deep. There are too many standards to cover all adequately within the time frame of school. None that I can see. I feel that some standards are not appropriate to grade levels assigned. Once again, most teachers are left to fend for themselves how students are to achieve mastery of these standards. It is very confusing to read as a teacher, and there is way too much to accomplish in one year. Also, it is too limiting to what needs to happen at each grade level. It is much better to have grade bands for local district control. It is a second order change for our teachers because it is looking at science education in a very different way than we have used before. Integration across curricula (e.g, with social studies, English, or even art, music or foreign language). Coloring on presentation (blue, orange, green) gives me a headache. content area is too wide, not deep enough. too rigorous to meet all the standards in an area; if research promotes depth vs. breadth, not all content can be covered. Nothing Human Body should be earlier and not later in curriculum controversy, The standards in grade bands at 6-8 are going to continue the issue we still have of students missing important skills and concepts because of mobility. We need to have clearly defined standards at K-8 at the least, and K-12 ideally. This way students will be guaranteed the high level instruction they all deserve regardless of the mobility of their family. -NOT a weakness of NGSS, but I'd like to see a clear implementation plan provided by the state. Decisive actions! Sep 21, 2013 8:23 AM Sep 20, 2013 11:39 PM Sep 20, 2013 7:58 PM Sep 20, 2013 7:36 PM Sep 20, 2013 4:30 PM Sep 20, 2013 3:49 PM Sep 20, 2013 3:14 PM Sep 20, 2013 2:59 PM Sep 20, 2013 2:40 PM
366
Sep 20, 2013 2:39 PM
367 368
Sep 20, 2013 2:35 PM Sep 20, 2013 2:22 PM
369 370 371 372 373 374
Sep 20, 2013 12:54 PM Sep 20, 2013 12:54 PM Sep 20, 2013 11:04 AM Sep 20, 2013 10:52 AM Sep 20, 2013 10:47 AM Sep 20, 2013 10:42 AM
375
Sep 20, 2013 10:20 AM
63 of 69
376 377
Does little to help improve the literacy of our society It will have a lot of holes in which students will have to reach to achieve the level of rigor presented to them. There will be at least two or three generations of students that will be forever trying to catch up. sometimes hard to follow. There are to many weaknesses and there is no room to write about it in this forum. Here are just a few. It invades the families privacy by data mining. It reminds me of what Hitler did when he was in power and that is pigeon-hole kids into what they supposedly have an aptitude for at a very early age. At what point will it begin to segregate children into groups for specific jobs? It doesn't allow an easy learning atmosphere as it creates confusion for the children in the new learning styles; let alone the parents when they try to help with their homework. Instead of taking the most direct route in teaching math, it has a ridiculous 100's graph that will no longer be conducive for kids doing math in their heads. Not to mention, it takes up too much room. This curriculum as a whole is detrimental to our children learning. There are so many other issues, but I do not have the time to continue. Know that I have repeatedly written all of my representatives that I am against these standards and they will no longer receive my vote unless they do something about it. What EXACTLY am I supposed to teach - what topics and concepts? NGSS really only tells me what is not included. It is very hard to design units from the standards. And it's very hard to know what students should already know so I know what to teach. They do not include the material typically required of a college-prep regimen in high school, and are heavily politicized. Some missteps on alignment to ccss ela and math but nothing that cannot be corrected. The secondary should have been grade level too. Cost of time, treasure and talent to implement in elem. schools at same time as iowa core ela and math. The Next Generation Science Standards significant amounts of content necessary for high school students to excel in the science. More time should be spent learning new content and providing more applications as opposed to assessing particular standards that are unnecessarily high. I have not seen any weaknesses to identify. They would be very beneficial for students. some central scientific concepts ignored some content inaccurate ceiling on content for advanced students essential math content sometimes excluded not enough content based shift away from biology, chemistry & physics to engineering inappropriate focus on promoting political controversial topics of climate change, man's impact on the environment and evolution They are difficult to interpret. Some GLEs don't always seem to flow with the others. For example in the 6-8 when they discuss body systems and then emphasize the brain and memory. I also am having a difficult time
Sep 20, 2013 9:37 AM Sep 20, 2013 9:21 AM
378 379
Sep 20, 2013 9:17 AM Sep 20, 2013 9:07 AM
380
Sep 20, 2013 8:15 AM
381 382
Sep 19, 2013 10:46 PM Sep 19, 2013 10:10 PM
383
Sep 19, 2013 8:24 PM
384 385
Sep 19, 2013 8:10 PM Sep 19, 2013 6:20 PM
386
Sep 19, 2013 5:56 PM
64 of 69
understanding what they really want me to cover concerning that topic. I have no other resources at this time from textbooks or online that help me read between the lines and what really should be taught. We also had the same question about teaching sound waves and electromagnetic radiation. I wish there was a side note that said no need to teach the spectrum or don't go into pitch, instead we are left wondering...leave it out, or put it in...what are they guiding us to do? 387 388 389 It is taking FOREVER to move forward. The standards are too specific and it has taken out the creativity of teaching. I hope Iowa sees the light and does NOT adopt these standards! They require a strong commitment by the DE, AEAs, and districts to implement the NGSS with integrity and provide ongoing, effective professional development that will help districts and educators understand the importance of the practices and cross-cutting concepts, as well as what will be expected of students. Emphasis must be made that this is an integrated, student centered approach rather than a set of content standards. Stakeholders need to know up front that it will take much time and effort to implement NGSS, and those in leadership positions must assure them that there will be the commitment and ongoing support for implementation. It is hard to determine what, if any, core ideas or concepts are missing or are misaligned within the documents. Since the standards use such exact verbs for student outcomes, it may be challenging for some districts to accumulate the materials and resources to make them possible in a timely manner. I feel that they are to rigorous and have to high of expectations. I don't understand how you expect children to learn about concepts they conceptually are unable to comprehend at their age level A need for a model unit would be helpful because teachers are missing the connection of the types of experiences for students necessary to meet a PE. Appears to be little room for differentiation of assessments How will current educators be convinced to teach with new methods such as problem solving and inquiry? All 3 sciences each year is concern to me. This is not my learning style to jump to 3 totally disconnected science areas. I believe students would also have a hard time making connections between life, physical, and earth science. Maybe too much on one page at one time??? I can understand it, but not sure if a student could make sense of the abundance of material. :) The information in the document is well-organized, however, it is not easy to read. There is so much information, coming from different angles, on one page that it is difficult to keep it all straight. With the extensive coverage and broad standards, I would say, as a former high school science teacher, that any topic or skill could fit the standards. I do not feel that the topic eliminates any of the ambiguity that exists in science education. Sep 19, 2013 5:30 PM Sep 19, 2013 2:51 PM Sep 19, 2013 2:44 PM
390
Sep 19, 2013 2:39 PM
391
Sep 19, 2013 1:24 PM
392 393 394 395
396 397
Sep 19, 2013 12:02 PM Sep 19, 2013 11:53 AM
65 of 69
398
They seem to push an agenda in certain areas and therefore leave out many topics that should be covered. They need to remember that theory should be emphasized and not taught as fact. Are these the most important topics our kids need to be successful adults? Sets unrealistic goals for all students. Does not provide a workable frame work for instruction. They may be complicated and difficult to access for the classroom teacher. Teachers will benefit from resources and training in how to use them effectively. In the life sciences some of the suggestions aren't easily done and teachers have time issues. Difficult to read, understand, and make sense of. There is too much information. Looking at the Physical Science Standards there are too many standards to expect every student to accomplish by the time they leave High School. AP Physics B recently underwent a redesign and is cutting the class in half in order to promote more deeper learning. In order for students to cover the same material that they cover now, they will need to take two years of physics. The standards that are currently in NGSS would apply to the current AP class that is going to be split into two separate courses. Expecting students to do motion, forces, energy, waves, thermal, electricity, magnetism is unreasonable unless they are taking more than one year. Chemistry and Biology are similar. In order to truly let students model data, draw conclusions, model new data, draw new conclusions, and learn through an inquiry process takes time. The expectations in NGSS that ALL students will be able to do this is unrealistic. Unless the goal is to have students take 8 credits of science during High School I do not know if this is possible. One of the program approaches suggested is an integrated science approach. This opens a huge licensing issue. Most teachers in science are not endorsed to teach biology, life science, chemistry, physics, and physical science. Having qualified professionals in the classroom is important. People not spending the time to read through them and get an understanding of how they work. This is a professional development choice on the science teacher. Too much information to fit into most classes Seems very academic and can be misinterpreted unless provided direction by knowledgable person. Amount of time needed in elementaries for science education must increase and be a priority, not falling behind reading and math. Science must be taught daily in order for NGSS to be reached. Do not like the grade bands 6-8 and 9-12, wish 6-8 were grade specific like K-5. Are the national assessments used to evaluate students and teachers aligned with the NGSS?
Sep 19, 2013 11:33 AM
399 400 401 402 403 404
405
Sep 19, 2013 9:53 AM
406 407 408
409
Sep 19, 2013 9:34 AM
66 of 69
410 411
To broad Very cumbersome to read making it hard to follow. Too rigorous for our IEP students. Expectations need to fit the developmental needs of kids instead of the "ideal". The expectations are beyond most average students abilities, growth and development have been totally ignored. Not necessarily a weakness, yet any uncharted future endeavor will assume a sense of weakness until proven strong with validated results 1. They tend to be so high-level that it would be difficult to differentiate for belowaverage, special education or ELL students. Many are stated "plan and implement. . ." or "construct an argument ..." or "construct an investigation and evaluate . . ." 2. Time to implement effectively. Schools are limited in the amount of time devoted to one discipline. To implement NGSS effectively and get the high-level learning expected, the system needs to be revamped to allow more time to the cores (science). I want to know if these standards were CREATED or did they EVOLVE??? It does not include topics specific to human behavior and anthropology. More could be included on methodology as well, ie sampling, statistics, and study design. Where are the connections for CCSS in ELA and Math? The clarification statements are present almost as a subtext, yet it is one of the major drivers to what teachers should teach. I think those should have been integrated better into the disciplinary core ideas instead of a subtext under the performance expectation. Focuses too much on earth science Not clear how to assess many of the standards. Can't be assessed using traditional multiple choice tests. If the entire document is not read and/or professional development from the AEA is not provided, the overall idea of the standards may be lost. A focus on the Performance Expectations as the goal would be a mistake as that is not the purpose of them. They are to provide an example of what assessment should look like. This is articulated in the document if you read it, but many teachers won't have that time so it is important to have good PD from the AEA or elsewhere to educate teachers on how to use the standards. Could be difficult for teachers to get all the content as science seems to be on the back burner of most classrooms at the elementary level. The biggest weakness in my opinion is the fact that in 6-8 grade it does not prescribe which topics will be taught in which grade. We have so many transient students. It sure would be nice for them if all of the schools in the state were teaching the same content in the same grade. I know this idea is not popular with teachers because they will have to plan new units, but we need to think about what is best for kids. Also, there is a very strong emphasis on natural selection
Sep 19, 2013 9:28 AM Sep 19, 2013 9:28 AM
412 413
Sep 19, 2013 9:27 AM Sep 19, 2013 9:26 AM
414 415
Sep 19, 2013 9:23 AM Sep 19, 2013 9:17 AM
416 417
Sep 19, 2013 8:38 AM Sep 19, 2013 8:22 AM
418 419 420
421 422
Sep 19, 2013 7:50 AM Sep 19, 2013 7:42 AM
67 of 69
and evolution at the middle school level. These are concepts that middle level students are not developmentally ready to grapple with. They are also concepts that are highly likely to get teachers in trouble with parents (regardless of what they say or how they say it) because people have so many different strongly held opinions about this topic. 423 424 425 426 What does it look like to achieve that standard? What is the level of understanding required by the student? To much too expect elementary students to accomplish. Should push up to college level they only teach to the mass not the individual Too much to cover in the classroom. Just like the Common Core, there is still too much content. It takes a lot of focus and effort to enact with depth because the sheer quantity lends to quick coverage. Not have a national assessment like smarter balance for science. There is lot of stuff to teach that requires very special toys. Where do the toys come from? Poor press has led them to be perceived to be a tool of the Gates Foundation, rather than a step forward. Overwhelming Some aspects are very dfferent from curriculum now. Detailed. Choosing to adopt the NGSS would mean new classes and new graduation requirements so many details does not allow for as much freedom as the current IC. The standard professes a level of understanding that is NOT illustrated in the assessment examples Many of the topics are developmentally inappropriate. Advanced students might not have the same opportunities to take upper level science classes since some high schools will need to add significant science content to the required classes. I feel as though a lot of key concepts from chemistry are missing from the physical science standards. We also had a hard time splitting the standards evenly for what is to be taught in chemistry, and what is to be taught in physics. Designing a physical science course for students that are lower level or not college bound that would meet all these standards was extremely difficult. We cover all of these in our AP and advanced physical science courses, but some of these concepts are really complex for the students with weaker science backgrounds. Color version can be intimidating, they aren't yet adopted in Iowa! Life science has less emphasis. Earth science would be hard to get that in depth. Sep 19, 2013 7:17 AM Sep 19, 2013 7:11 AM Sep 19, 2013 6:59 AM Sep 19, 2013 5:32 AM
427 428 429 430 431 432
433 434
Sep 18, 2013 7:42 PM Sep 18, 2013 6:47 PM
435
Sep 18, 2013 6:47 PM
436 437
Sep 18, 2013 6:07 PM Sep 18, 2013 5:33 PM
68 of 69
438 439 440 441
None- this is the best research we have at the time there is a lot there, many people will never read it all Some will say there are missing content standards, but I believe the important ones are there. It will probably cause angst among some teachers; it will require a shift in thinking and pedagogy. IS that bad when you consider in what direction it may need to change??? The will be rejected by individuals that believe in magic and the paranormal. Overwhelming to look at. Some of the wording is very technical and isn't reader friendly Some performance expectations are too restrictive - must schools and teachers assess all students for understanding by these performance expectations? I honestly do not see any weaknesses. The document itself is overwhelming to read. Though it is well written it still requires support to understand. Additionally, districts will require a large amount of professional learning time to understand how instructional practices need to change in order to promote the level of learning expected by the NGSS. Some performance expectations actually "hide" a great deal of content information that can only be discovered by collaborative unpacking/discussions. a lot of material Hard to understand without also reading the Framework; will require teachers to "give up" their "pet/favorite" activities to put new progressions into place at appropriate grades; will require preparing teachers to move from novice toward expert in their understanding of the science of there grade (this is a weakness until teachers get that extra pd/experience and then will be a tremendous asset to our students).
442 443 444 445 446
Sep 18, 2013 3:56 PM Sep 18, 2013 3:48 PM Sep 18, 2013 3:27 PM Sep 18, 2013 9:11 AM Sep 17, 2013 8:26 PM
447 448 449
Sep 17, 2013 1:32 PM Sep 17, 2013 11:11 AM Sep 17, 2013 11:11 AM
69 of 69

Iowa's Next Generation Science Standards Public Survey Results

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Iowa's Next Generation Science Standards Public Survey Results

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Next Generation Science Standards Survey

1. Which stakeholder group(s) do you represent? (Select all that apply.)

7.0% 2.4% 3.9% 28.1% 20.6% 3.0%

answered question skipped question

9.5% answered question skipped question

6. What are the strengths of the Next Generation Science Standards?

7. What are the weaknesses of the Next Generation Science Standards?

Oct 11, 2013 9:18 PM

Oct 11, 2013 2:52 PM Oct 11, 2013 2:19 PM

Oct 10, 2013 3:23 PM

Oct 10, 2013 11:23 AM

Oct 9, 2013 7:07 PM Oct 9, 2013 6:48 PM

Oct 9, 2013 4:12 PM Oct 9, 2013 2:59 PM

Oct 8, 2013 10:56 PM Oct 8, 2013 9:45 PM

Oct 8, 2013 9:23 PM

Oct 8, 2013 4:40 PM

103 104 105 106

Oct 8, 2013 3:06 PM

108 109 110 111 112

113 114 115 116 117 118 119

120 121 122 123

124 125 126 127 128

129 130 131

Oct 8, 2013 9:32 AM Oct 8, 2013 9:16 AM Oct 8, 2013 9:05 AM

132 133 134 135 136 137 138

139 140 141 142

143 144 145

Oct 7, 2013 2:17 PM Oct 7, 2013 2:16 PM Oct 7, 2013 2:08 PM

Oct 7, 2013 12:26 PM Oct 7, 2013 11:25 AM

148 149 150 151

Oct 6, 2013 10:15 PM

153 154 155

Oct 6, 2013 7:47 PM Oct 6, 2013 6:00 PM Oct 6, 2013 10:38 AM

176 177 178 179

180 181 182 183 184

185 186 187 188

Oct 3, 2013 11:28 AM Oct 3, 2013 11:14 AM

Oct 3, 2013 7:55 AM

Oct 3, 2013 7:54 AM

Oct 3, 2013 7:39 AM Oct 3, 2013 6:57 AM

224 225 226 227

Oct 1, 2013 9:24 PM Oct 1, 2013 4:15 PM

230 231 232 233

Oct 1, 2013 11:23 AM Oct 1, 2013 11:00 AM

236 237 238

Oct 1, 2013 10:53 AM Oct 1, 2013 10:53 AM Oct 1, 2013 10:43 AM

239 240 241

Oct 1, 2013 10:30 AM Oct 1, 2013 10:29 AM Oct 1, 2013 10:08 AM

243 244 245

246 247 248 249 250 251

Sep 30, 2013 2:20 PM

253 254 255

256 257 258 259 260

261 262 263 264 265

295 296 297

298 299 300 301

Sep 27, 2013 10:46 AM Sep 27, 2013 10:43 AM

304 305 306 307 308

Sep 26, 2013 3:48 PM

Sep 24, 2013 3:44 PM Sep 24, 2013 3:13 PM

335 336 337 338

Sep 23, 2013 5:10 PM

Sep 23, 2013 4:28 PM