1. Next Generation Science Standards and Assessments
Elizabeth Buttner, Science Education Consultant
Jeff Greig, Assessment Consultant
Connecticut State Department of Education
August 2012
1/17/2019

2. Reflections on Change
Change is the law of life and those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future. ~ John F. Kennedy
People are always telling me that change is good. But all that means is that something you didn't want to happen has happened. ~ Meg Ryan
1/17/2019

3. Today’s Topics STANDARDS ASSESSMENT NRC Framework– key “shifts”
Next Gen Science Standards May 2012 Draft
Format, Feedback and Forecast
Science matters
Enhanced system of assessments
STANDARDS
ASSESSMENT
1/17/2019

4. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas
“All students should have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science; possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions…are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives…” Framework, p.1
1/17/2019

5. Standards Development Process
Phase1: National Research Council develops a K-12 Framework. Published
Project description -
NRC Framework download:
Phase 2: Achieve Inc. coordinates standards writing; Completion early 2013
NOT called “Common Core”
Standards written first; then states choose to adopt
No federal money to entice adoption
1/17/2019

6. Key “Shifts” in the NRC Framework
INTEGRATION: Content, Practice and Crosscutting Concepts are always integrated
ENGINEERING: Engineering Design, Technology and Applications of Science are integrated within science lessons
PRACTICES: Shift from “inquiry” to “practices” :
More emphasis on higher order thinking (e.g., modeling, designing, making evidence-based claims, critiquing arguments);
Less emphasis on experimenting, naming variables, process skills
COHERENCE:
DEEPER UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF CONTENT:
1/17/2019

7. Development Overview www.nextgenscience.org
1/17/2019

8. Standards Development Process
26 Lead States provide guidance; critique early drafts
40 writers from different states (mostly educators)
Spring 2012 – 1st public draft review; feedback to writers.
Fall 2012 – 2nd public draft review; feedback to writers.
Feedback will be published
PROJECTED COMPLETION EARLY 2013
1/17/2019

9. Key “Shifts” in the NGSS
Performance expectations linking PRACTICES, CORE IDEAS, and CROSSCUTTING CONCEPTS
Performance expectations as the “assessable component” of the Standard
Connections within the grade; to earlier and later grades; to Common Core ELA and Math
Engineering performance expectations for every grade
New content introduced at different grades, especially in physical science
1/17/2019

10. Anatomy of a Standard Grade and Topic Performance Expectations
Framework Foundations
Directly from Framework
The Perf. Expectation it supports
Science Connections
Common Core Connections
1/17/2019

11. Feedback to Achieve-May 2012
Too much content
Lack of clarity
Learning progressions not evident
Some science inaccuracies
Beyond what every high school grad must know
1/17/2019

12. CSDE NGSS Review Committee
1/17/2019

13. Science Assessments
Now and the future …
1/17/2019

14. Science Transition Timeline
TENTATIVE PROJECTIONS: DEPENDENT ON STATE LEADERSHIP,
BUDGET, ESEA REAUTHORIZATION, NCLB WAIVER APPLICATION
STANDARDS:
2004 CT Science Framework, GLCs & GLEs in effect until at least 2013
2013: CT may adopt NGSS
CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION:
Too early to rewrite district curriculum now; wait until NGSS published
: Districts transition to NGSS
ASSESSMENTS:
CMT and CAPT Science assessments stable through at least March 2015
: Development of new NGSS assessments
2016: New science assessments? Funding source and developer to be determined
End-of-Course tests? Task Force studying issues; recommendations due Jan 2013
1/17/2019

15. CMT and CAPT Science
Grade 5
Grade 8
Grade 10
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Goal
Advanced
Score Range = 100 – 400 Raw scores also reported for content strands and two dimensions Refer to CMT and CAPT Science Results handout
1/17/2019

16. Guidelines for Interpreting CMT and CAPT Science Results
Scale scores are equated from year to year within a generation of the CMT and CAPT.
Raw scores for content strands and dimensions in science are not fully equated. 
Valid comparisons can be made regarding average scale scores and performance levels within a grade, content area and generation of the test.
Making comparisons across grades or content areas will result in invalid interpretations.
Making comparisons using raw scores may result in invalid interpretations.
1/17/2019

17. Sample Interpretations of CMT and CAPT Science Results
“On the CAPT Science, the overall trend shows an improvement in student performance from 2007 to 2012.” How would a similar statement about the CMT Grade 5 Science results ( ) be viewed? What trends are shown? “In Science, students in CT are performing better at Grade 5 than in grades 8 or 10.” “On the CMT Grade 5 Science test, students are performing better in the Content Knowledge dimension than in Scientific Inquiry, Literacy and Numeracy.” “On the CMT Grade 5 Science test, students are performing better in Life Science than in Physical or Earth Science” How might a school or district interpret how their students are performing on the content strands or dimensions?
1/17/2019

18. NCLB Waiver: New School Performance Index
Step 1: Calculate Subject-Specific SPI SPI (Subject) = (%Below Basic x 0.0) + (%Basic x 0.33) + (%Proficient x 0.67) + (%Goal or Advanced x 1.0) Step 2: Calculate Aggregate SPI Across Subjects SPI for high schools: SPI = (SPIMathematics + SPIReading + SPIWriting + SPIScience)/4 SPI for elementary or middle schools with grades in which science is tested: SPI = (SPIMathematics x 0.3)+ (SPIReading x 0.3) + (SPIWriting x 0.3) + (SPIScience x 0.1) SPI for elementary or middle schools with grades in which science is NOT tested: SPI = (SPIMathematics + SPIReading + SPIWriting)/3
1/17/2019

19. NCLB Waiver: New State Performance Index Targets
Science
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Target
CMT
75.9
76.8
77.6
78.5
79.4
80.2
81.1
82.0
88.0
CAPT
70.7
71.9
73.1
74.4
75.6
76.9
78.1
79.3
1/17/2019

20. Current CMT and CAPT Science
Designed as:
Summative, criterion-referenced assessments
Periodic checkpoints of student progress after multiple years of instruction
Provide “big picture” view of school, district, and state performance
NOT designed to inform timely curricular and instructional decisions, diagnose student learning difficulties or evaluate teacher quality.
1/17/2019

21. Future of Science Assessment Development
Future unclear…many possibilities:
CT could continue to develop its own state science assessments; make improvements.
CT could purchase or modify “ready-made” science assessments from testing contractors.
CT could join an existing or newly-formed science assessment consortium.
1/17/2019

22. Context for Future of Science Assessments in CT
No Child Left Behind Waiver:
Transition to Next Generation Science Standards
Inclusion of science assessment results in school and district accountability
Development of a more comprehensive assessment system (end-of-grade and end-of-standard benchmark science assessments)
PEAC Guidelines:
Inclusion of results from student assessments in teacher evaluation
1/17/2019

23. Discussion Questions
How will the transition to NGSS affect curriculum & instruction, teacher PD & evaluation and district & state assessments? What science assessment needs do districts have? What district assessment practices are currently in place to meet these needs? How do we develop and use a more comprehensive assessment system to serve multiple purposes?
1/17/2019

24. CSDE Contacts: Elizabeth Buttner, K-8 Science Standards
Phone:
Jeff Greig, CMT/CAPT Science Assessment
Phone:
1/17/2019