Overview and updates September 2013 Instructor notes: The overview talks about the development timeline and schedule for the NGSS 10 - 15 minutes

NGSS Development Process July 2011 A Framework for Science Education is released May 2012 First Draft of NGSS released April 2013 Final NGSS document released. States consider adoption July 2013 Presentation to the State Board of Education 2014 CDE Develops Implementation Plan 2011 2012 2013 2014 •California State Review Team (SRT) of 80 science experts reviewed and commented on five (private and public) drafts of the NGSS (met Nov 2011, Feb 2012, October 2012) •Second and final public review January 2013 •Thousands of comments submitted to Achieve (The draft received comments from over 10,000 individuals during each of the two public review periods) •Final copy of NGSS released April 2013 Science Expert Panel (SEP) 27 Science Experts who are representative of the SRT –K-12 Teachers, COE Science Leaders, IHE Faculty, Business, Industry, and Informal Science Centers –Noted Scientist Advisors •Dr. Bruce Alberts •Dr. Helen Quinn •Dr. Art Sussman Review National NGSS to make preliminary recommendations for field comment •Review feedback from public forums and SRT surveys •Recommend new California Science Standards based on the NGSS to the Superintendent of Public Instruction •The SEP met for three times during April, May, and June California was among the lead states that developed the standards, in a voluntary process conducted in an open and collaborative way over the last 18 months. California teachers, scientists, college professors, business and industry leaders, and educational experts all took part in an 80-member California NGSS review team that thoroughly examined the standards five times. Next, a Strategic Leadership Team will be appointed by Torlakson to develop a plan to implement the NGSS. This includes a timeline for implementation, adopting a science framework, developing student assessments, and strategies for school districts. Once the team completes its work, their strategic action plan will be presented to the State Board of Education for approval at a future meeting. Sept 2011 California selected as Lead State Jan 2013 Second Draft of NGSS released April – May 2013 CA Public Comment Meetings held throughout the state Sept 4, 2013 CA SBE adopts NGSS

States Adopting NGSS (as of September 2013) States Adopting NGSS (as of July 2013) RI, KA, KY, MD, VT Washington – SBE recommended, waiting for Superintendent to Approve CA – Superintendent recommend, waiting for SBE to approve – adopted September 4 On September 19, by a vote of 6-0, the Delaware’s state board of education adopted the Next Generation Science Standards–making Delaware the 7th state to adopt the new standards. On September 4, California became the6th state to adopt the NGSS after a unanimous vote by the State Board of Education! Learn more about how the decision demonstrates a fundamental quality of the NGSS: The new standards are state driven. States Adopting NGSS (as of September 2013) RI, KS, KY, MD, VT, CA, DE Map from www.nsta.org

Crosscutting Concepts Science and Engineering Practices Disciplinary Core Ideas Crosscutting Concepts Science and Engineering Practices Goal of NGSS NGSS will clearly articulate the science standards that are defined as the educational content and practices students will need to learn from kindergarten through high school. States have previously used the National Science Education Standards from the National Research Council (NRC) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to guide the development of their current state science standards. While these two documents have proven to be both durable and of high quality, they are around 15 years old. In addition, major advances have since taken place in the world of science and in our understanding of how students learn science effectively.  California’s current Science Content Standards were adopted in 1998 SB300 requires State Superintendent of Public Instruction to present recommended science content standards to the California State Board of Education by March 20, 2013. Develop standards that will be rich in content and practice, arranged in a coherent manner across disciplines and grades to provide all students an internationally benchmarked science education. 

Moving from Current CA standards to NGSS-CA* Less emphasis on: More emphasis on: Discrete Facts Conceptual understanding with a focus on depth over breadth Isolated investigation and experimentation process skills Integration of science and engineering practices with content Student acquisition of information Student understanding and use of scientific knowledge within and across science disciplines, and science and engineering practices Numerous Standards Limited number of disciplinary Core Ideas and Cross Cutting Concepts that unify the study of science and engineering Uneven articulation throughout grade levels Learning progressions that develop K-12 The standards have not been designed to be “teacher-proof”. In fact the teacher plays a critical role in translating the standards into actionable teaching and learning processes that are best geared for their students. The Intentional Design Limitations continue with the following: The Standards do… define what all students are expected to know and be able to do; they do not define how teachers should teach focus on what is most essential; they do not describe all that can or should be taught establish a baseline for advanced learners; they do not define the nature of advanced work *Presentation to the State Board of Education, July 10, 2013 5

Moving from Current CA standards to NGSS-CA* Less emphasis on: More emphasis on: No Engineering Engineering standards and practices that all students should encounter Assessing science knowledge Assessing scientific understanding and reasoning specified by the performance expectations Limited correlation with other subjects Correlation with CCSS ELA and Mathematics Limited integration of science disciplines in middle school Integration of science disciplines in middle school The standards have not been designed to be “teacher-proof”. In fact the teacher plays a critical role in translating the standards into actionable teaching and learning processes that are best geared for their students. The Intentional Design Limitations continue with the following: The Standards do… define what all students are expected to know and be able to do; they do not define how teachers should teach focus on what is most essential; they do not describe all that can or should be taught establish a baseline for advanced learners; they do not define the nature of advanced work *Presentation to the State Board of Education, July 10, 2013 6

1998 CA Standards vs. NGSS 1998 CA Kindergarten Life Science & Earth Science NGSS Kindergarten Earth & Space Science Students know how to observe and describe similarities and differences in the appearance and behavior of plants and animals Students know characteristics of mountains, rivers, oceans, valleys, deserts, and local landforms. Use a model to represent the relationship between the needs of different plants or animals (including humans) and the places they live. (K-ESS3-1.) The standards have not been designed to be “teacher-proof”. In fact the teacher plays a critical role in translating the standards into actionable teaching and learning processes that are best geared for their students. The Intentional Design Limitations continue with the following: The Standards do… define what all students are expected to know and be able to do; they do not define how teachers should teach focus on what is most essential; they do not describe all that can or should be taught establish a baseline for advanced learners; they do not define the nature of advanced work 7

1998 CA Standards vs. NGSS 1998 CA 7th Grade Life Science NGSS Middle School Students know the function of the Umbilicus and placenta during pregnancy Students know how bones and muscles work together to provide a structural framework for movement. Use argument supported by evidence for how the body is a system of interacting subsystems composed of groups of cells. (MS-LS1-3.) The standards have not been designed to be “teacher-proof”. In fact the teacher plays a critical role in translating the standards into actionable teaching and learning processes that are best geared for their students. The Intentional Design Limitations continue with the following: The Standards do… define what all students are expected to know and be able to do; they do not define how teachers should teach focus on what is most essential; they do not describe all that can or should be taught establish a baseline for advanced learners; they do not define the nature of advanced work 8

1998 CA Standards vs. NGSS 1998 CA High School Chemistry NGSS High School Physical Science Students know how reaction rates depend on such factors as concentration, temperature, and pressure. Apply scientific principles and evidence to provide an explanation about the effects of changing the temperature or concentration of the reacting particles on the rate at which a reaction occurs.(HS-PS1-5.) The standards have not been designed to be “teacher-proof”. In fact the teacher plays a critical role in translating the standards into actionable teaching and learning processes that are best geared for their students. The Intentional Design Limitations continue with the following: The Standards do… define what all students are expected to know and be able to do; they do not define how teachers should teach focus on what is most essential; they do not describe all that can or should be taught establish a baseline for advanced learners; they do not define the nature of advanced work 9

Performance Expectations for NGSS Developed to support 4 Disciplinary Core Ideas Arranged in K-5 grade specific 6-8 grade span* 9-12 grade span Key distinctions from prior standards: Performance Expectations Foundations based on the Three Dimensions Coherence within NGSS and with CCSS *California modified grade 6-8 to grade specific performance expectations based on integrated topics defined by NGSS Practices Content Crosscutting

Middle Grade Learning Progression* Criteria for Design PEs must : •Be arranged to provide a transition from elementary to high school •Align with CCSS ELA and Math •Build within and across grade levels •Be balanced in complexity and quantity at each grade •Integrate engineering appropriately ACTION 1: Member Williams moved that the SBE adopt the California Next Generation Science Standards, K-12, as proposed by the CDE, and the NGSS Appendices A-M as guidance documents for the local implementation of NGSS and the future development of the California Science Framework. This motion does not include action on the adoption of the middle grades learning progressions. This will be acted upon at the November 2013 SBE meeting. *Presented to the CA State Board of Education in July 2013; will be acted on in November 11

Architecture of a Standard Performance Expectations Foundation Boxes California proposed 7th grade standard Connection Boxes

Performance Expectation What students should know and be able to do after instruction Communicates a “big idea” Includes clarification statements and assessment boundary statements Clarification statements provide a short description of a nuance of the standard Assessment boundary provides the depth of understanding all students are expected to demonstrate

Foundation Boxes NGSS are based on Three Major dimensions: Scientific and engineering practices Crosscutting concepts Core ideas in four disciplinary content areas Science & Engineering Practices for the performance expectation and connections to Nature of Science Disciplinary Core Ideas for all students to understand Crosscutting Concepts and connections to Nature of Science provides a big picture for emphasis

Scientific and Engineering Practices Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) Developing and using models Planning and carrying out investigations Analyzing and interpreting data Using mathematics and computational thinking Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) Engaging in argument from evidence Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information Scientists engage in investigative behaviors Key set of engineering practices Relevance of STEM in everyday life Combination of Skill and Knowledge Dimension 1: Practices describe behaviors that scientists engage in as they investigate and build models and theories about the natural world and the key set of engineering practices that engineers use as they design and build models and systems. emphasize that engaging in scientific investigation requires not only skill but also knowledge that is specific to each practice. better explain and extend what is meant by “inquiry” in science and the range of cognitive, social, and physical practices that it requires. Although engineering design is similar to scientific inquiry, there are significant differences. scientific inquiry involves the formulation of a question that can be answered through investigation engineering design involves the formulation of a problem that can be solved through design. Strengthening the engineering aspects of the Next Generation Science Standards will clarify for students the relevance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (the four STEM fields) to everyday life. 1. Scientific and Engineering Practices Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering) Developing and using models Planning and carrying out investigations Analyzing and interpreting data Using mathematics and computational thinking Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering) Engaging in argument from evidence Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Disciplinary Core Ideas Life Science Physical Science LS1: From Molecules to Organisms: Structures and Processes LS2: Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics LS3: Heredity: Inheritance and Variation of Traits LS4: Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity PS1: Matter and Its Interactions PS2: Motion and Stability: Forces and Interactions PS3: Energy PS4: Waves and Their Applications in Technologies for Information Transfer Earth & Space Science Engineering & Technology ESS1: Earth’s Place in the Universe ESS2: Earth’s Systems ESS3: Earth and Human Activity ETS1: Engineering Design ETS2: Links Among Engineering, Technology, Science, and Society Disciplinary ideas are grouped in four domains: the physical sciences; the life sciences; the earth and space sciences; and engineering, technology and applications of science. four domains – life sciences, physical sciences, earth and space sciences, and engineering and technology –  Provides an essential question to frame the main concept (e.g. How can one explain the structure, properties, and interactions of matter?) 3. Disciplinary Core Ideas Physical Sciences PS 1: Matter and its interactions PS 2: Motion and stability: Forces and interactions PS 3: Energy PS 4: Waves and their applications in technologies for information transfer Life Sciences LS 1: From molecules to organisms: Structures and processes LS 2: Ecosystems: Interactions, energy, and dynamics LS 3: Heredity: Inheritance and variation of traits LS 4: Biological evolution: Unity and diversity Earth and Space Sciences ESS 1: Earth’s place in the universe ESS 2: Earth’s systems ESS 3: Earth and human activity Engineering, Technology, and the Applications of Science ETS 1: Engineering design ETS 2: Links among engineering, technology, science, and society

Crosscutting Concepts Patterns, similarity, and diversity Cause and effect Scale, proportion, and quantity Systems and system models Energy and matter Structure and function Stability and change Fundamental to understanding Science and Engineering Connect different domains of science Apply across all domains 2. Crosscutting Concepts Patterns Cause and effect: Mechanism and explanation Scale, proportion, and quantity Systems and system models Energy and matter: Flows, cycles, and conservation Structure and function Stability and change Note Appendix G has full description of CC

CCC: Cause and effect relationships may be used to predict phenomena in natural or designed systems. MS-PS1-4. Develop a model that predicts and describes changes in particle motion, temperature, and state of a pure substance when thermal energy is added or removed. PRACTICE: Develop a model to predicts and/or describe phenomena DCI: Gases and liquids are made of molecules or inert atoms that are moving about relative to each other. In a liquid, the molecules are constantly in contact with others; in a gas, they are widely spaced except when they happen to collide. In a solid, atoms are closely spaced and may vibrate in position but do not change relative locations. The changes of state that occur with variations in temperature or pressure can be described and predicted using these models of matter. The term “heat” as used in everyday language refers both to thermal motion (the motion of atoms or molecules within a substance) and radiation (particularly infrared and light). In science, heat is used only for this second meaning: it refers to energy transferred when two objects or systems are at different temperatures. The relationship between the temperature and the total energy of a system depends on the types, states, and amounts of matter present. On-line color coding California proposed 7th grade standard Each stem identifies the DCI, the practice and the crosscutting concept.

Connection Boxes Connections to other Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI) at the grade level Articulation of DCIs across grade levels Connections to Common Core State Standards

Prepare for the NGSS Integrate CCSS ELA and Math with science curriculum Implement the Scientific and Engineering Practices into the curriculum Develop Engineering Lessons and Project Based Learning opportunities Explore the Crosscutting Concepts and incorporate them into your units Develop hands-on science units with essential questions that incorporate the NGSS Storylines Read biographies / autobiographies Science journals and magazines Peer research

Preparation and development Instruction CA Framework Assessments Teacher Preparation and development NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Of the National Academies July 2011 On June 26, 2013 two important bills were passed through the Senate and Assembly Education Committees. SB 300 (Hancock) which will allow for work on a new science curriculum framework based on the new science standards (anticipated adoption November 30, 2013, or sooner) to be completed by November 30, 2015. Without this bill work would not be able to even begin on the curriculum framework until July 1, 2015 – nearly two years after the adoption of new standards. The billed passed the education committee with ease. CSTA thanks Senator Hancock’s office for involving CSTA in the process and we look forward to seeing this bill through to the end. 2011-2013 2014 -

Resources Contra Costa County Office of Education www.cocoschools.org/steam Next Generation Science Standards www.nextgenscience.org/ CDE updates to the NGSS www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/ngssintrod.asp http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/ngssstandards.asp NSTA Common Core Resources www.nsta.org/about/standardsupdate Instructor notes: These are the current URLs for both the California Common Core State Standards and the original Common Core Standards. © 2011 California County Superintendents Educational Services Association 22