Fall/Winter 2022 IMPACT

impact On Instructional Improvement

Transitioning to the Science Learning Standards

nysascd

Mission Statement

NYSASCD aims to assist educators in the development and delivery of quality instructional programs and supervisory practices to maximize success for all learners.

nysascd

Executive Board 2022-2023

President

Dr. Mary Loesing

STEM Chairperson, Connetquot CSD

President-Elect

Dr. Mark Secaur Superintendent, Smithtown CSD Immediate Past-President

Dr. Ted Fulton Asst. Superintendent, Bayport-Blue Point CSD Vice President for Communications and Affiliate Relations

Ms. Amanda Zullo Massena CSD

Treasurer

Dr. Deborah Hoeft

Director of Special Eduation and Student Services

Young Women’s College Prep

Secretary

Marcia Ranieri

Guilderland CSD

Ex-officio NYS Education Department

David Coffey

Associate in Instructional Services in the Office of Standards and Instruction

Executive Director

Mr. Eric Larison Solvay UFSD (retired) nysascd.director@gmail.com nysascd.org

Board Members

Martha Group

Vernon Verona Sherrill CSD

Mr. Brian Kesel

Assistant Superintendent, West Genesee CSD

Dr. Matthew Younghans Principal, Clarkstown CSD

Dr. Timothy Eagen Superintendent, Kings Park CSD

Marcia Ranieri

Guilderland CSD

Gregory Borman

NYC Department of Education

Lisa B. Brosnick

North Collins CSD/SUNY Buffalo

Cindy Connors Orchard Park CSD

Dominick A. Fantacone

SUNY (Master Teacher Program)

Dr. LaQuita Outlaw Bay Shore UFSD

Debbie Baker

Genesee Valley ASCD

Mary Loesing Science Consultant

Publication Statement

Impact on Instructional Improvement is the official journal of NYSASCD. Membership in NYSASCD includes a subscription to Impact and the newsletter, NYSASCD Developments. The views expressed or implied in the articles in this publication are not necessarily official positions of NYSASCD or the editor.

NYSASCD.org visit OUR WEBSITE!

As registered members of the New York State ASCD website, we want to encourage you to please visit!

Also if you aren’t already a member please consider joining New York ASCD or suggesting that a colleague join for only $55.00 annually.

As a member of NYASCD you will receive our on-line newsletter, NYSASCD DEVELOPMENTS, as well as our on-line journal, Impact and discounts for all of our professional development activities. Complete information about NYSASCD may be found on our website. This website gives you information about our organization, professional development activities, information about affiliates across the state, and links to other professional organizations and resources.

Dominick Fantacone, Ph.D., is the Associate Director for Research at SUNY Cortland, the Central New York Regional Director for the NYS Master Teacher Program, an adjunct lecturer of science methods, and a past president of the Science Teachers Association of NYS. Dr. Fantacone earned his Master of Arts in Teaching in Adolescence Education Biology from SUNY Cortland and doctorate in Science Education from Syracuse University.

Now is an exciting time to be a science educator in New York State. Since December of 2016, science teachers have been working hard to transition to the NYS P-12 Science Learning Standards (NYSSLS). All students in New York State are expected to have access to high-quality science opportunities that prepare them for the future. NYSSLS provide a roadmap by which educators can plan their instruction to help ensure student success. Yet, the implementation of NYSSLS across the state has varied greatly from district to district, and across grade levels. Recently, I worked with an enthusiastic group of elementary teachers who had not yet engaged with NYSSLS.

Considering the implementation timeline released by the NYS Education Department indicates that NYSSLS-aligned assessments for Grade 5 and 8 students will begin in 2024, it is past the time for science teachers to shift their pedagogical approaches to those that incorporate 3-dimensional instruction (i.e., science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts) and integrate engineering principles.

There is no prescribed curriculum that will be ushered in to guide districts and teachers on how instruction should take place with NYSSLS. While there are curricular options for purchase that are meant to be aligned to these standards, those buying a solution and hoping it will be enough to meet the rigorous expectations of NYSSLS will find this is likely not sufficient. Science teachers need access to effective professional learning opportunities that model the way science instruction is intended to be carried out with NYSSLS and are provided

with ongoing support through the implementation of novel lessons and activities. Similarly, administrators may consider spending some time in such trainings to better understand just how different reformed science instruction looks in action when compared to teaching under the previous 1996 MST standards. Students in an NYSSLS-aligned setting will be active, engaged in hands-on learning, and working to answer their own scientific questions, while the teacher plays a supportive facilitator role.

When structured well, there will be opportunities for all students to shine in science classes. Recognizing and highlighting the strengths each child brings will help cultivate the feeling that they can be successful young scientists. The articles in this issue of the Impact Journal address current science reform efforts and discuss the importance of having students lead the journey of learning. When students are formulating their own questions and seeking the skills and knowledge necessary to answer these questions, authentic learning is happening.

nysascd

& PASS

The ASCD PASS program offers ASCD affiliates an opportunity to earn additional revenue. Through PASS, NYASCD can earn income from new and returning business generated for ASCD programs, products, and services. Affiliates are assigned a unique source code (ours is NYAFF), and each person that uses the affiliate codes when making an eligible purchase will be contributing to our affiliate’s financial health, further enabling us to accomplish important work.

Introduction

LaQuita Outlaw, Ed.D., has worked in school leadership for over a decade. Dr. Outlaw serves as a peer editor for Corwin Press and assists several local organizations with organizing professional development opportunities for educators across Long Island.

We all have more to do than time permits. When looking at classroom instruction and the impact the Pandemic had on students, it is even more important to focus on the essential learning that must take place for students. Renowned educator, Douglas B. Reeves, shares three criteria when deciding the content classroom teachers should focus on in his article “Power Standards: The Answer to the Reality of Too Many Standards and Too Little Time.” In addition to honing in on the standards, Gregory Borman, Okhee Lee, and Theresa Ocol, help us to focus on developing student understanding in an equitable environment in their article, “Student Agency and Equity in Contemporary Science Education With All Students.”

Keeping students at the center of learning continues to be a fundamental classroom requirement. Bob Greenleaf, Elaine M. Millen, and LaVonna Roth remind us of that in their second installment of “The DNA of Learning: Kids Leading the Learning Journey.” The focus of reaching every learner must include a conversation about reaching students who also need language support. In their article entitled “Integrating Science and Language with Multilingual Learners Through Consensus Among Policy, Research, and Instructional Approaches,” Gregory Borman, Okhee Lee, and Theresa Ocol look at how we can provide the necessary support for students. We have important work ahead of us if we are going to advance student learning outcomes. The work won’t be easy, but we have resources that we can use to begin the conversation and the heavy lifting.

Thank you to our authors in this issue of the Impact Journal and to Dominick Fantacone for their contributions and leadership.

Power Standards: The Answer to the Reality of Too Many Standards and Too Little Time

Douglas B. Reeves

Douglas B. Reeves, Ph.D., is an award-winning administrator and teacher, as well as the author of more than 40 books and more than 100 articles on leadership and education. He has twice been named to the Harvard University Distinguished Authors Series and was named the Brock International Laureate for his contributions to education. Dr. Doug Reeves currently provides a variety of research-based coaching and educational services to organizations around the world through The Center for Successful Leadership. Previously, he founded the Leadership and Learning Center, which works to improve the quality of educational systems for students around the world. Doug articles and videos are available as free downloads at CreativeLeadership.net. He Tweets @DouglasReeves. He lives in Boston.

Introduction

Even before the global pandemic, teachers around the globe faced a conflict between the time available for instruction and the avalanche of academic standards and curricula. Now, with post-COVID learning loss pervasive (World Bank, 2021), it is more important than ever to recognize that schools do not have the time to address every standard. The question is, with the time available during the school day, which standards are most important? In this article, we consider the need for Power Standards, the method for creating them, and how educational leaders can help teachers and students focus on what matters most.

Why Power Standards?

The fundamentally flawed assumption in every set of academic standards is that students need only one year of instruction to achieve proficiency. That assumption was inappropriate before the pandemic, as state and national data suggested that significant numbers of students were not reading on grade level before the pandemic (Green & Goldstein, 2019) and it is wildly inaccurate in the postpandemic world in which teachers are struggling not only with learning loss, but in regression in behavior and

classroom norms. In my travels around the United States, I hear every week of teachers struggling with kindergarten and first grade students who have regressed in toilet training, third grade teachers who report that students

irregular polygons.” “You do have to teacher argumentative essays and you do not have to teach prepositional phrases.” But this will never happen. No interest group goes to the state capital to advocate for what

do not know letters and numbers, and middle school students who are reading at a primary level. Failure to recognize the reality of this learning loss is as bad as failure to recognize the threat of the pandemic in the spring of 2020. When students need more than a year of learning to catch up, then there are only two options: A 36-hour school day or a focus on fewer standards and curriculum demands.

States and other educational systems have been notably ineffective in establishing Power Standards, declaring that they have “priority standards” and “essential standards” that often are little more than an accumulation of existing standards. These are the same demands on teachers and students with a different label. Intellectual integrity requires that if there really is a list of priority standards, then the governing authorities will state with clarity what teachers do not have to do. “You do have to teach number operations and you do not have to teach

teachers do not have to teach. Every year, there are additional demands for curriculum – financial literacy, more comprehensive world history, quantitative reasoning, or a more comprehensive history of slavery in the United States – all without adding a single second to the time teachers are allowed to provide this instruction. More than twenty states have added the requirement to teach cursive writing to students, a demand that will presumably displace the time students need to recognize the letters they are supposed to write in elegant script. The establishment of standards are an inherently political process and therefore state governments are predisposed only to add burdens to the curriculum without subtracting anything.

The Criteria for Power Standards

There are three criteria for Power Standards: leverage, endurance, and essentiality. By leverage, I mean that

The establishment of standards are an inherently political process and therefore state governments are predisposed only to add burdens to the curriculum without subtracting anything.

proficiency in one standard leads to proficiency in several other standards. For example, proficiency in nonfiction writing is strongly associated with success in mathematics, social studies, science, and reading comprehension (Reeves, 2020). In some of the most successful schools I have observed, including high-poverty schools, the elevation of nonfiction writing as a priority is strongly associated with success in every other area of academic achievement. Rather than the conventional approach that “October is informational writing month,” these schools support nonfiction writing in every class and every subject, from kindergarten through 12th grade. Another example of leverage is the ability of students to create and understand tables, charts, and graphs, a skill that is essential not only in math class, but also in science and social studies.

The second criterion for Power Standards is endurance. Some standards are transitory, applying only to a single grade. But others endure—that is, they recur year after year. An example is the requirement for students, typically starting in 3rd or 4th grade, to support a claim with evidence. This formula of “claim, evidence, and reasoning” recurs in middle and high school, and when a standard persists across grade levels, that suggests that it is a Power Standard.

The third criterion is essentiality. That is, if I am teaching 8th grade, I need to ask my

colleagues in 9th grade, “What do I need to do this year in order to send students to you next year with confidence and success?” This inter-grade dialog is at the heart of Power Standards. It leads to the resolution of the Standards Paradox—that is, there are too many standards and yet too few standards. The 9th grade teacher, for example, may say, “You don’t have to cover every 8th grade standard, but you do have to address these six essentials,” and then the same 9th grade teacher may also say, “Even though this is not in the state standards, here are some other Power Standards to consider: Keep an assignment notebook, know how to ask for help before it’s a crisis, and know how to break down a project into smaller tasks so that it’s not overwhelming.”

Practical Impact of Power Standards

When it comes to professional learning initiatives, teachers and school leaders demand above all practical application. When Power Standards are implemented, there are direct applications that will save time for teachers and improve student achievement. First, the time devoted to assessments can be substantially reduced. Teachers are very frustrated with the amount of time devoted to comprehensive assessments that, while labeled as “formative,” would be more accurately labeled as “uninformative.” A formative assessment only deserves that appellation

if it informs teaching and learning. That never happens with a 30-item assessment that takes away an hour of class time and the results are delivered weeks later. A truly formative assessment can include only four

A truly formative assessment can include only four or five items, with immediate feedback from the teacher, immediate application of that feedback, and immediate evidence of learning from the student.

or five items, with immediate feedback from the teacher, immediate application of that feedback, and immediate evidence of learning from the student.

A second result from Power Standards is greater respect for teacher feedback and immediate application of that feedback. In the traditional submission of homework and unit tests, teachers lose hours of time at home, especially at night and on weekends, to grade papers. Yet I have yet to see a student pick up that graded paper and exclaim, “Thanks so much for the detailed feedback!” Rather, the students look at the grade and discard the paper. With Power Standards and miniassessments, feedback is provided in real time and students can respect and apply the feedback immediately.

The third impact of Power Standards is that teachers have the opportunity to provide both support and enforcement in real time.

For example, if the Power Standard is to produce an essay in science, social studies, or English Language Arts that demonstrates proficiency in making a claim supported by evidence, then a proficient student might be required to state a claim, produce three arguments, each supported by evidence with appropriate citations, and a logical conclusion. As soon as a student has produced the work, the teacher can then challenge the student to get to the next level by extending this work with a claim and counter-claim, evidence and contrasting evidence, and then a conclusion that evaluates the credibility of the evidence and states a conclusion based on that analysis. All of this can happen in class, not after days in which students wait for feedback.

Conclusion

The implementation of Power Standards is not without risk. Critics will allege that teachers who focus on the most important standards are omitting vital curriculum that the critics believe are important. While I deeply respect these critics, it is the responsibility of teachers and educational leaders to focus on what matters most. We

cannot wait on state authorities to decide what standards to omit, as that is a political impossibility. In fact, every teacher in the world makes choices every day about what to teach. The only decision, therefore, is whether these curriculum choices are made by design or default. Using the Power Standards framework will help teachers to make these decisions in a collaborative and deliberate manner.

Reeves, D. (2020). Achieving Equity and Excellence: Immediate Results From the Lessons of High-poverty, High-success Schools. Solution Tree Press.

Reeves, D. (2021). Fearless Schools. Creative Leadership Press167.

REFERENCES

Green, E. L., & Goldstein, D. (2019, October 30). Reading Scores on National Exam Decline in Half the States. https://www. nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/readingscores-national-exam.html

World Bank. (2021, December 6). Learning Losses from COVID-19 Could Cost this Generation of Students Close to $17 Trillion in Lifetime Earnings. https:// www.worldbank.org/en/news/ press-release/2021/12/06/learninglosses-from-covid-19-could-costthis-generation-of-students-close-to-17trillion-in-lifetime-earnings

New York State P-12 Science Learning Standards: Student Agency and Equity in Contemporary Science Education With All Students

Gregory Borman, Theresa Ocol, Okhee Lee

Gregory Borman is the Director of Science for the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE). He helped develop the New York State Strategic Plan for Science and is a member of the New York State Science Content Advisory Panel. His NYC DOE team is supporting the implementation of the New York State P-12 Science Learning Standards through professional learning, curriculum evaluation, and collaboration with higher education and informal science education institutions.

The previous generation of content standards was developed and implemented prior to the era of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In the early 2010s, the current generation of content standards was released and, subsequently, adopted or adapted by states across the nation. Based on the current standards, the New York State P-12 Science Standards (NYS P-12 SLS) were adopted in December 2016. Implementation began in July 2017 but was delayed for 2 years due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The NYS P-12 SLS continue to be rolled out over the grade levels and bands (see the Revised April 2021 Science Implementation Timeline Map). State science assessments at Grades 5 and 8 and high school Regents Exams will be administrated gradually starting from the 2023-2024 school year.

In this article, we describe how contemporary approaches in science education, as represented in the NYS P-12 SLS, “flip” traditional approaches regarding two central questions: “What counts as science and science learning?” and “Who are science learners?” In response to these two questions, we describe how contemporary approaches center on student agency and student equity.

Contemporary Approaches in Science Education

The previous generation of science standards was based on the National Science Education Standards (National Research

Theresa Ocol, Ed.D. is the Senior Director of Content Areas with the Division of Multilingual Learners at the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE). She focuses on designing, planning, and delivering professional learning opportunities and resources for science and English as a New Language educators from grades K-12. Theresa has worked in the NYC DOE for the last 17 years. Theresa embraces the notion that all ELLs/MLs bring assets to their science learning.

Council, 1996). The New York State Learning Standards for Mathematics, Science and Technology were released in 1996, the same year that the National Science Education Standards were published. Since the mid-1990s, the national and state science standards hadn’t been updated to reflect new advances in science and engineering disciplines and new research on children’s abilities in learning science.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) presented contemporary views on what counts as science and how children learn science, which provided the foundation for the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013b). Since the publication of the Framework and the release of the NGSS in the early 2010s, 20 states and the District of Columbia adopted the NGSS, and 27 states developed their own standards based on the Framework. The NYS P-12 SLS were based largely on the Framework and the NGSS. Contemporary approaches in science standards, including the NYS P-12 SLS, “flip” traditional approaches by centering on student agency and student equity, as shown in the following figure:

Figure I - Approaches in Science Education

Student Agency: What Counts as Science and Science Learning?

Traditionally, scientists and science educators defined the knowledge to be taught in school science. Science learning involved the accumulation of discrete elements of science knowledge (i.e., what knowledge is; knowledge-as-given). This canonical science knowledge was often presented through science textbooks, meaning that literacy skills (reading and writing) were a precursor or prerequisite to learning science. Canonical science knowledge was confirmed by school science lab investigations.

An instructional unit was organized around a science topic in a science discipline. Then, the body of science knowledge on this topic was broken down into a list of science concepts. A unit addressed a science topic, and lessons addressed related science concepts on the topic. A lesson or a lesson plan was designed for one class period of 45-60 minutes. A unit made sense from the perspective of a science discipline in that it addressed related science concepts, but not from the perspective of students who did not see the purpose in learning those science concepts. For example, a fifth-grade science unit on properties of matter and changes in matter addressed a list of science concepts, and lessons were developed around the concepts. In a lesson, to learn the concept of chemical change, students conducted the classic experiment of mixing baking soda with vinegar. They explained that, through a chemical reaction, a new substance is created in the form of a gas that inflates a balloon. Most students wondered how these science concepts would have any relevance to their lives or future careers.

In “flipping” traditional approaches, contemporary science education places student agency at the center. Students engage

Okhee Lee, Ed.D. is a professor in the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University. Her research involves integrating science, language, and computational thinking, with a focus on multilingual learners. Her latest work focuses on justice-centered STEM education to address pressing societal challenges using the case of the COVID-19 pandemic.

in science and engineering to make sense of phenomena and problems as scientists and engineers do in their professional work (i.e., what knowledge does; knowledge-in-use). To make sense of phenomena and problems, students engage in three-dimensional learning by blending science and engineering practices (e.g., ask questions, develop models, argue from evidence, construct explanations); crosscutting concepts (e.g., patterns, systems, structure and function, stability and change); and disciplinary core ideas in physical science, life science, Earth and space science, and engineering. Over time, students develop their science understanding coherently.

An instructional unit is organized around a phenomenon or problem. With teacher guidance, students decide on a driving question of the unit to guide their sensemaking of the phenomenon or problem. Lessons are developed around specific questions about aspects of the phenomenon or problem. A lesson is designed to answer a question about an aspect of the phenomenon or problem or to provide opportunities to investigate the phenomenon or problem in different contexts. A lesson typically involves a couple of class periods. For example, a

fifth-grade science unit is framed around the phenomenon of large amounts of garbage that students produce every day in school, at home, and in the community (Lee et al., 2019). To make sense of the phenomenon, students decide on the driving question of the unit, “What happens to our garbage?” To answer specific questions about aspects of garbage, students engage in three-dimensional learning (specifically, disciplinary core ideas about properties of matter and changes in matter). In a lesson, students answer a question about the smell of garbage by conducting the classic experiment of mixing baking soda with vinegar. They explain that, through a chemical reaction, garbage materials mix and create a new substance in the form of a gas. This investigation helps students explain the smell of garbage as a new substance in the form of a gas. Throughout the unit, students answer the driving question about garbage and explain the phenomenon using disciplinary core ideas.

In both traditional and contemporary approaches, students may engage with the same lesson-level phenomena (e.g., mixing baking soda with vinegar) and science concepts (e.g., a new substance is created through a

Students engage in science and engineering to make sense of phenomena and problems as scientists and engineers do in their professional work.

chemical reaction). However, the purposes are different. Quinn (2021), chair of the Framework, describes the difference as follows:

Sometimes the questions that students ask, and the intended science concepts, also require intermediate investigations around more limited phenomena to elucidate aspects of the framing [anchoring] phenomenon. These activities look a bit more like traditional school science, but, if introduced appropriately, they differ from it in that these activities now have a context: students know they are doing this work to answer a question they have about the larger framing phenomenon (p. 868).

Moreover, in contemporary approaches, an instructional unit and lessons can be fluid and porous across science and engineering disciplines. Phenomena and problems do not draw distinct boundaries, as they are not inherently discipline specific. Instead, a phenomenon or problem can be explained using core ideas across disciplines. For example, garbage can be explained in terms of structure and properties of garbage materials

(physical science); decomposition of some garbage materials (life science); a landfill harming soil, water, air, and organisms (Earth science); and the reduction of pollution from plastic bottles (engineering).

Student Equity: Who Are Science Learners?

Traditionally, students were viewed as receivers of science knowledge defined by scientists and science educators. School science was grounded in established bodies of knowledge in science disciplines. Traditional approaches resulted in only a small portion of students—“a select few”—coming to understand and appreciate how science knowledge is connected to form science disciplines—an understanding that is essential to move on to science careers. This small portion of students was, and continues to be, mostly white male students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds (McGee, 2016). However, science did not make sense to many students who did not come to see it as relevant to their lives or future careers.

In “flipping” traditional approaches, contemporary science education places student equity at the center. To promote sense-making with all students, phenomena

From the equity perspective, all students bring their cultural and linguistic resources to make sense of phenomena and problems.

and problems should be compelling to all students, especially those who may not see science and engineering as relevant to their lives or future careers (Lee, 2020). From the equity perspective, all students bring their cultural and linguistic resources to make sense of phenomena and problems. From a science perspective, students use science ideas as they investigate a driving question to explain a phenomenon. From an engineering perspective, students learn science in the context of solving an authentic problem.

For example, as students explain the driving question of the garbage unit (i.e., “What happens to our garbage?”), all students bring questions about aspects of the garbage based on their experiences in school, at home, and in the community. Students design investigations to answer questions, such as the following: How do we sort garbage into categories? Why do food materials disappear (i.e., decompose) but non-food materials do not disappear? What causes food materials to decompose? As students observe the large amounts of garbage they make, they become aware of the need to reduce the garbage produced. In addition, they design solutions to reduce pollution from plastic bottles that do not decompose and harm the environment. Eventually, students realize that landfills tend to affect minoritized communities and address systemic injustices in society.

Closing

Contemporary approaches in science education aim for “all standards, all students” (NGSS Lead States, 2013a). The ability to explain phenomena in science and design solutions to problems in engineering is essential for all students to navigate their lives and future careers. This ability is also important for students to be contributing members of their communities, as they use science to make informed, equitable decisions about societal challenges in their lives and communities. Students from diverse backgrounds have multiple points of entry to learning science, multiple ways of knowing, and multiple ways of communicating science ideas. Contemporary approaches respect the diversity of students’ experiences, recognize the merit of students’ science ideas, and promote the inclusion of all students in the science classroom.

REFERENCES

Lee, O. (2020). Making everyday phenomena phenomenal: Using phenomena to promote equity in science instruction: Science and Children, 58(1), 56-61. https://www.nsta.org/science-andchildren/science-and-childrenseptemberoctober-2020/makingeveryday-phenomena

Lee, O., Llosa, L., Grapin, S. E., Haas, A., & Goggins, M. (2019). Science and language integration with English learners: A conceptual framework guiding instructional materials development. Science Education, 103(2), 317-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21498

McGee, E. O. (2016). Devalued Black and Latino racial identities: A byproduct of STEM college culture? American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1626-1662. https://doi. org/10.3102%2F0002831216676572

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press. https://nap. nationalacademies.org/download/4962

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/ download/13165

NGSS Lead States. (2013a). Appendix D–“All standards, all students”: Making the Next Generation Science Standards accessible to all students. https://www.nextgenscience. org/sites/default/files/Appendix%20 D%20Diversity%20and%20Equity%20 6-14-13.pdf

NGSS Lead States. (2013b). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://nap. nationalacademies.org/download/18290

Quinn, H. (2021). Commentary: The role of curriculum resources in promoting effective and equitable science learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 847-851. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 046560X.2021.1897293

The DNA of Learning Part II: Kids Leading the Learning Journey

Robert K. Greenleaf, Elaine M. Millen, and LaVonna Roth

Robert K. Greenleaf, Ed.D., has 45 years of experience in education from superintendent to playground supervisor. He was a former professional development specialist at Brown University and an adjunct professor at Thomas College SNHU and USNII-GSC. As President of Greenleaf Learning Bob specializes in strategies for understanding behaviors, learning and cognition. He holds a doctorate in education from Vanderbilt University and is the author of eight instructional books. bob@greenleaflearning.com

Introduction

Each article in this five-part series will unpack a blueprint for re-starting our passion as educators. The collective series will represent a comprehensive outline of fundamental requirements for timeless learning as we emerge from the COVID ashes and rebuild our lives as educators.

FIRST-MIDDLE-END: Know Students Well

Know thy students well, very well, is the overarching umbrella that precedes all else to move learning forward. A simple concept, that requires sophisticated thinking. Knowing students goes deeper than who they are. It means understanding their wants and dreams; their interests and aspirations; their personal goals and what’s important to them as human beings. Teaching must be intentional for students. Knowing each student precedes knowing ways to teach things.

Three simple strategies to gather information about students include interest surveys, conferring with students, and the long-tested strategy of K-W-L. Asking students: “What do you already know about the content/concept? What do you want to know/ need to know?” and reflecting on “What have you learned?” means that it is not about content, pedagogy, materials, technology or any other resources.

The traditional curriculum, instruction and assessment diagram that encircles the student at the center is appealing, yet fundamentally flawed with respect to motivating learning. “How will I teach this” is not the same as “How will my students learn this?” More than knowing the curriculum and a toolbox of teaching strategies, it is knowing what

makes each and every student “tick.” Being observant rather than observing is key. This intentional behavior leads to a contextualizing of learning relevant to students. They generate meaning and interest, not the instruction nor the curriculum. Instruction follows an understanding of the student and his/ her interests. Thus, intentional teaching drives the purpose/ application of the lesson and the meaning it has (must have) for the students before you, whether it’s on-line or face-to-face. Where there is no meaning, there is no memory (Levitt, 2010).

Whose learning is it anyway?

At the Thursday PLC meeting eighth-grade teacher, Mary, asked to discuss Cortina with the team. It was common practice to use the meeting to support individual teacher’s challenges with a student. Coffee poured; Mary began her case study.

“Cortina is neither disruptive nor non-compliant. In fact, she could easily be missed in the classroom. She does just enough to get by, getting the grades she needs to pass. She does everything possible to avoid attention, preferring to work alone. Her posture pleads ‘don’t call on me, just tell me what to do, and I’ll do it.’ She sees no reason to be in school. She openly tells me how long and boring her day is. Cortina distances herself emotionally and has no friends at school.

Elaine M. Millen, M.Ed., C.A.G.S., has over 50 years of experience in education as a teacher, principal, director of special education, curriculum director and assistant superintendent of schools. She has taught at both the undergraduate and graduate levels in both public and private institutions. As an educational consultant and instructional coach, she has worked with hundreds of school leaders across the country and has written several articles on transforming professional learning opportunities for teachers, students and leaders. Elaine.millen90@gmail.com

Where there is no meaning, there is no memory (Levitt, 2010).

LaVonna Roth, M.A.T., M.S.Ed. is an engaging and interactive keynote speaker, consultant, educator, and mom. LaVonna bridges her passion for how the brain learns with identifying how every individual S.H.I.N.E.s with their mindset and socialemotional well-being. She supports schools in harnessing the S.H.I.N.E. framework, increasing psychological safety, & building the foundation based on the brain sciences. LaVonna has 3 degrees, is the author of 8 books, and has worked with organizations in the U.S./Canada and internationally.

Over the years she has acquired no substantive learning of what really matters.”

We see “Cortinas” every day, recalling what they did or didn’t do, but... do we really know them? Beyond the physical presence and disposition, look inside... do we know what makes her tick? How might we gain insight into what’s relevant to her, so learning could be motivating and applied?

An increasing number of kids are feeling they don’t belong, and that school has little purpose for their lives. The pandemic may have exacerbated things, but it’s not the reason. Under duress, we have circled the wagons trying to ensure continuity across hybrid learning venues. Abundant SEL programs were purchased in response and scheduled to teach kids

about handling their emotions. SEL programs, along with scripted academics, are insidiously impersonal. Why? What we know about the essentials of and for learning tell all. Addons inadequately explore who lives inside their respective skins. Everyone notices the acting out or withdrawals, but no one effectively identifies the origins of why. The sustainable carryover of add-on programs is nonexistent. Engaging learners requires more than add-ons. Energetic, inspiring teachers will entertain Cortina and maintain her attention. Long-term retention and understanding will be in short supply.

Letting Go and Moving On

The requisites within the DNA of Learning Blueprint identify the problems. Everything emanates from knowing each student well. This includes understanding their values,

Add-ons inadequately explore who lives inside their respective skins.

challenges, interests, strengths and how all of this is connected to their learning. Understanding a student’s personal aspirations has a profound impact on classroom culture, emotional health, engagement and learning outcomes. Committing initial and ongoing energy into connecting with students is far more productive than spending energy containing behaviors and implementing new programs (Millen, 2022). Add-on programs don’t fix anything. Let’s refocus.

With curricular goals on the back-burner we build knowledge of self, others and nurture a sense of community. We promote and support interest, motivation, and personalized learning. This is embedded, not scheduled weekly. That is worth repeating. These things are embedded, not scheduled weekly. We stay tuned to Cortina beyond “let’s get acquainted” exercises and inventories. Unpacking what makes her tick is essential to a relationship that can be trusted to receive coaching and learning how to learn instead of regurgitating unremarkable content.

Home-schooling: Getting to know my granddaughter...well!

Caitlyn, while being home-schooled during the pandemic, was instructed to read at levels D or E in the program provided on the tablet that was sent home. These letter designations were due to her performance

at school prior to being sent home. Upon looking through the choices of stories at those levels, I quickly summed up that she had interest in precious few. Also of note was that she had started several stories and left them incomplete. When asked why, she said that she didn’t like the stories, didn’t know the answers to the set of questions that followed them-and besides, her friends were reading at different levels. Knowing my “student,” I asked her what she would like to read about. After she mentioned a few things, I looked at the next levels H and I in the on-line program and we found several possibilities. Prefacing our leap into more difficult levels of text, I said, “we are likely to run into some words that you will not be familiar with. We will write those words down, make a vocabulary game, and work to understand them.” Given subject interest, she readily agreed. As we proceeded, she embraced unknown words, writing them on our home-made vocabulary game sheet. We played several times each day. Before long Caitlyn’s fluency at levels H flourished and we added levels J, K and I topic options. The teacher was correct about Caitlyn’s reading level. What was not available was a conferring support that could advance her progress in reading through her passions. With interest as the driver, she became an independent reader that spring!

Teaching Through Student Passions

We’ve all heard the phrase, “It’s easy

to do, if you know how to do it!” From our students’ perspective, imagine being exposed to new content every day, and then being tested on it shortly after. What if there’s no personal value discerned? What if relevance to their life or future escapes them? As with Caitlyn, the role of the teacher can make the difference by:

• making connections with students by defining essential learnings

• recognizing personal passions/ aspirations/ hopes of students connected to their learning

• anchoring teaching and learning with relevance to students.

What this means to our present practice is a shift from a scripted teacher’s manual, to anchoring the big ideas of learning to relevant applications for the students.

It means shifting…

FROM starting the lesson focusing on what students will do to meet the objectives/ requirements, “Open your books, workbooks, papers and discuss/write/explore the impact of culture on... Read and answer the following questions, etc...

TO anchoring the purpose of the lesson in relevance and a personal context for students. This is where lessons begin. Start the lesson with questions about how kids see the impact

of culture on them. “Do you think what we wear, our fashion preference, is influenced by our culture? What else do you think is influenced by our culture? Writing ALL their thoughts on the white board, validates their thinking. This models acceptance of opinions—that all views are important. No judgment. Because you have spent time getting to know your students’ interests, you can readily use these as examples for application: “Mel, you are interested in fashion design?” (Saul-a truck driver; Joan-a writer). “Why would culture be important to your work?” Stimulating thinking across varied interests and comparing differences in many areas will help construct a deeper understanding of how the concept is useful and can be applied across all disciplines (Millen et. al.2010).

As I prompt students to direct their own learning, they will engage with greater relevance, interest, motivation, and context than if I took charge through a singular focus—the day’s objective. This will extend thinking for transference. Nothing replaces embedded personal interactions! The more acutely we understand their passions, the more accurately we can identify cues that hold meaning for them. We assist students in becoming detectives. We, along with them, begin to connect the dots, like a connectthe-dots puzzle, between the concepts we are asking them to understand through the lens of

their world. By helping our students identify a connection between their world, they learn about themselves, what gives them energy, what drains them, how the world relates across disciplines and in life. This is where we set students up for success. As stated before, it is also where we ignite the light in our students for happiness and fulfillment. Isn’t this what we desire for our students?

Moving to Tomorrow...

STEP 1: Continually learn more about students’ whats and whys

STEP 2: Keep a clipboard to remind yourself of students’ interests

STEP 3: Always remember, “How will I teach this” is not the same as “How will my students learn this?”

After all, Cortina—and her classmates— are counting on us to know them... well!

REFERENCES

Levitt, Patrick (2010). Lecture at Rhode Island Hospital. W.M. Keck Provost Professor of Neurogenetics at the Keck School of Medicine of USC.

Millen, Elaine (2022). Personalized Learning. Paper presented to SAU #9, Conway, NH.

Millen, Elaine; Greenleaf, Robert; Papanek, Doris: and Orvis, Sharyn (2010). Engaging Today’s Students. Greenleaf-Papanek Publications.

Integrating Science & Language With Multilingual Learners Through Consensus Among Policy, Research, & Instructional Approaches

Theresa Ocol, Gregory Borman, Okhee Lee

Theresa Ocol, Ed.D. is the Senior Director of Content Areas with the Division of Multilingual Learners at the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE). She focuses on designing, planning, and delivering professional learning opportunities and resources for science and English as a New Language educators from grades K-12. Theresa has worked in the NYC DOE for the last 17 years. Theresa embraces the notion that all ELLs/MLs bring assets to their science learning.

The purpose of this article is to describe how NYS P-12 SLS promote both science learning and language learning of all students, especially multilingual learners (MLs). First, contemporary perspectives on integrating science and language based on a consensus across policy, research, and instructional approaches are described. Then, an example is provided using the Science And Integrated Language (SAIL) curriculum and associated open education resources.

Contemporary Perspectives on Integrating Science and Language With Multilingual Learners

We describe contemporary perspectives on integrating science and language in policy, research, and instructional approaches with MLs.

Policy

Science education policy has been shaped by ongoing shifts in our understanding of what counts as science and how children learn science. NYS P-12 SLS are based on A Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013b). NYS P-12 SLS expect that K-12 students make sense of phenomena in science and design solutions to problems in engineering as scientists and

engineers do in their professional work. In addition, NYS P-12 SLS are expected of all students; thus, “all standards, all students” (NGSS Lead States, 2013a).

Alignment between content standards and English language proficiency standards is required in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The ESSA of 2015 mandates that “[each]

Gregory Borman is the Director of Science for the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE). He helped develop the New York State Strategic Plan for Science and is a member of the New York State Science Content Advisory Panel. His NYC DOE team is supporting the implementation of the New York State P-12 Science Learning Standards through professional learning, curriculum evaluation, and collaboration with higher education and informal science education institutions.

State has adopted English language proficiency standards that . . . are aligned with the challenging State academic standards” (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015, p. 24). Whereas traditional instruction often required a certain level of literacy in vocabulary and grammar as a precursor or prerequisite to content learning, the current federal legislation clarifies that “language proficiency is not a prerequisite for content instruction, but an outcome of effective content instruction” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2018, p. 10). Thus, MLs are expected to engage in science content at their grade level or grade band regardless of their English language proficiency and are expected to learn content and language in parallel, not in series.

Research

The science standards and English language proficiency standards, as policy initiatives, are grounded in contemporary

MLs are expected to engage in science content at their grade level or grade band regardless of their English language proficiency and are expected to learn content and language in parallel, not in series.

research. In science education, as students make sense of phenomena and problems, they use science knowledge (i.e., knowledge-in-use). In language education, MLs use language and various meaning-making resources for a purpose (i.e., language-in-use). Thus, MLs engage in rigorous science experiences and rich language use through the mutually supportive nature of science and language (Lee et al., 2013). As MLs are “doing” science, they use language for the purpose of making sense of phenomena and problems through interactions with peers and their teachers. This research supports the call for MLs to use the widest possible range of meaning-making resources to communicate their increasingly sophisticated science ideas over the course of instruction.

Instructional Approaches

Based on policy and research, a panel of experts across language and STEM subjects identified the following contemporary instructional approaches (NASEM, 2018):

• Identify compelling phenomena or problems.

• Engage students in disciplinary practices (e.g., ask questions, develop models, argue from evidence) in STEM subjects.

• Engage students in productive discourse and interactions with peers and the teacher.

• Encourage students to use multiple modalities, including both linguistic and visual modalities, and multiple registers toward specialized registers.

• Leverage multiple meaning-making resources, including physical objects, gestures, everyday language, home language, and translanguaging.

• Provide explicit focus on how language functions in the discipline (e.g., disciplinary literacy).

Okhee Lee, Ed.D. is a professor in the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University. Her research involves integrating science, language, and computational thinking, with a focus on multilingual learners. Her latest work focuses on justice-centered STEM education to address pressing societal challenges using the case of the COVID-19 pandemic.

These contemporary instructional approaches highlight three key features. First, the instructional approaches begin with science and STEM subjects and then use language needed to learn science and STEM subjects. Second, the emphasis on using language to learn science and STEM subjects in contemporary instructional approaches differs from the emphasis on vocabulary and grammar as a precursor or prerequisite to learn science and STEM subjects in traditional instructional approaches. Finally, as MLs engage in science and use language for science learning, they develop disciplinary literacy over time as an outcome of doing science.

Science And Integrated Learning (SAIL) Curriculum

A team of science and ML education researchers and educators at New York University (NYU) developed the yearlong fifth-grade SAIL curriculum. In collaboration with the New York State Education Department, the NYU team developed a series of webinars and briefs that describe how to integrate science and language in instruction and classroom assessment for all students with a focus on MLs. Furthermore, the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE), Adelphi University, and NYU collaboratively produced a professional development series offering 15 asynchronous CTLE hours on ELLs, content, and pedagogy.

Currently, the SAIL curriculum is undergoing a large-scale field trial with MLs through collaboration between the NYU team and the NYCDOE. The SAIL curriculum supports the NYCDOE’s focus on promoting disciplinary literacy in content areas, including science.

Aligned to the NYS P-12 SLS, the SAIL curriculum consists of four units: physical science (properties of matter), life science (ecosystems), Earth science (Earth systems) with engineering embedded, and space science (space systems). As an example, the Garbage Unit fully addresses properties of matter in physical science and introduces decomposers in life science. NYS P-12 SLS involve key instructional shifts, which promote science learning and language learning with all students, especially MLs, in mutually supportive ways.

Science Instructional Shifts

The first science instructional shift involves making sense of phenomena and designing solutions to a problem as scientists and engineers do in their professional work. Phenomena and problems should be compelling and motivating for all students to figure out, especially for students who did not see science as relevant to their everyday lives or future careers.

The SAIL curriculum uses local phenomena and problems that involve MLs’

everyday experience and language in their homes and communities. Local phenomena promote both equity and science. From

an equity perspective, through placebased learning, students apply science and engineering to their daily lives in local contexts of home and community. From a science perspective, through project-based learning, students integrate science disciplines as they investigate a driving question to explain a phenomenon and use engineering to design solutions to a problem. In the SAIL Garbage Unit, the phenomenon is that our school, home, and community make large amounts of garbage every day, which go to a landfill. The driving question is framed broadly, “What happens to our garbage?”

The second science instructional shift involves three-dimensional learning by blending science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. Science and engineering practices include developing models, arguing from evidence, and constructing explanations. Crosscutting concepts apply across science and engineering disciplines, for example, what is the pattern and what is causing the pattern and

what is a system and what are sub-systems? Disciplinary core ideas offer explanations for phenomena, which differ from a list of science concepts or discrete elements of science content in a traditional sense.

The third science instructional shift involves coherent science learning progressions by building science understanding over time. A science unit has a “storyline”:

• A science unit starts with a phenomenon and a driving question, which leads to student-generated questions and science ideas.

• To answer one of the questions, students engage in science and engineering practices and figure out the answer using disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting concepts.

• Students answer one question, which leads to the next question in the next lesson.

• Over the course of the science unit, students coherently develop their science understanding.

From an equity perspective, through place-based learning, students apply science and engineering to their daily lives in local contexts of home and community.

•

At the end of the unit, students answer the driving question and make sense of the phenomenon.

The SAIL Garbage Unit fully addresses four physical science performance expectations (i.e., standards) and introduces one life science performance expectation: properties of matter, particle nature of matter, chemical reactions, conservation of matter, and decomposers. The storyline of the unit is as follows:

1. Students sort garbage materials into categories and look for patterns of garbage materials in different categories. Students also sort garbage materials at home and look for patterns in different categories. In addition, students identify that the garbage system has subsystems of school garbage, home garbage, and neighborhood garbage, which all go to a local landfill.

2. Students make open and closed “landfill bottles” with banana and orange as food materials and aluminum foil and plastic spoon as non-food materials. Over time, students observe changes in the properties of garbage materials in the open and closed landfill bottle systems. They also measure weights of open and closed bottle systems.

3. After a few weeks, students measure the weight of the closed bottle system. Although the food materials have vanished, the weight stays the same.

4. Students open the closed bottle system and smell the garbage. Students explain that the smell is a gas made of particles that are too small to see and move freely to reach the nose.

5. Students find out that microbes are causing food materials to decompose. This life science core idea is partly addressed in the Garbage Unit and then fully addressed in the next unit on ecosystems.

Language Instructional Shifts

In the SAIL curriculum, as students “do” science and engineering, they use language (Lee et al., 2013; NASEM, 2018). The SAIL curriculum focuses on three language instructional shifts in learning science.

The first language instructional shift involves modalities, which refer to the multiple and diverse channels through which communication occurs. Traditionally, nonlinguistic modalities have been thought of as scaffolds for MLs until they develop English proficiency. Contemporary thinking suggests that nonlinguistic modalities are essential to engaging in science practices and especially beneficial to MLs. Drawings, symbols, tables,

and graphs are not just scaffolds toward language; they are the way that scientists communicate their ideas. At the same time, nonlinguistic modalities can be particularly beneficial to MLs, especially at the beginning levels of English proficiency.

The second language instructional shift involves registers, which indicate how students use language for a particular purpose in a particular context. Traditionally, specialized language has been thought of as a precursor or prerequisite to learning science, for example, in the tradition of pre-teaching specialized science terms like “particles.” Contemporary thinking suggests that specialized language, rather than being a precursor or prerequisite, is actually a product of learning science. And specialized language allows students to communicate their science ideas with greater precision, which develops into disciplinary literacy.

The third language instructional shift involves interactions, which refers to how language is used differently across different types of interactions. Traditionally, language use in the science classroom has been thought of as always looking or sounding like “the language of science.” Contemporary thinking

suggests that language use varies based on the communicative demands of interactions, for example, one student talking to a partner, a small group, or the class. Interactions with the class require greater explicitness to communicate beyond the “here” and “now,” for example, “sugar is mixed with water” rather than “it’s in there.”

Closing

The NYS P-12 SLS encourage MLs to leverage their cultural and linguistic resources in learning science, which is further promoted through the use of phenomena and problems situated in their homes and communities. Over time, as MLs’ science understanding develops coherently, their language use also develops. Teachers guide MLs to use multiple modalities to communicate their science ideas more strategically, use specialized language to communicate their ideas with greater precision, and use language according to the communicative demands of different types of interactions. As the NYS P-12 SLS take an asset-oriented view of MLs rather than focusing on their perceived deficits in English, these science standards promote science learning and language learning in mutually supportive ways.

...nonlinguistic modalities can be particularly beneficial to MLs, especially at the beginning levels of English proficiency.

REFERENCES

Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223-233. https://doi. org/10.3102%2F0013189X13480524

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). English learners in STEM subjects. Transforming classrooms, schools, and lives. The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies. org/catalog/25182/english-learners-instem-subjects-transforming-classroomsschools-and-lives

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13165/aframework-for-k-12-science-educationpractices-crosscutting-concepts

NGSS Lead States. (2013a). Appendix D “All standards, all students”: Making the Next Generation Science Standards accessible to all students. https://www.nextgenscience. org/sites/default/files/Appendix%20 D%20Diversity%20and%20Equity%20 6-14-13.pdf

NGSS Lead States. (2013b). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://nap. nationalacademies.org/download/18290

FACTS about NYSASCD

VISION STATEMENT

• Is a diverse organization with a strong, representative infrastructure and ties to other professional organizations • Anticipates and responds to needs and issues in a timely manner • Provides quality, personalized, accessible and affordable professional development services that support research-based programs and practices, particularly in high need areas • Recognizes a responsibility to identify and communicate the views of members • Promotes the renewal and recognition of educators • Supports the development of teachers and leaders, with an emphasis of those new to the profession

GOALS

• NYSASCD will provide research-based quality programs and resources that meet the needs of members • NYSASCD will ensure that NY’s diverse community of learners is reflected in our programs, resources, membership and governance. Diversity will be reflected in the following ways: board members, association members and committees are diverse in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, region of the state, professional position, and years within the position, with the intention of building the capacity of the organizations • NYSASCD will influence educational policies, practices and resources in order to increase success for all learners • NYSASCD will create and utilize structures/tools which enable us to be flexible in our actions and responsive to the changing climate and environment within education

PURPOSES

To improve educational programs and supervisory practices at all levels and in all curricular fields throughout New York State • To help schools achieve balanced programs so that equal and quality educational opportunities are assured for all students • To identify and disseminate successful practices in instruction, curriculum development and supervision •

To have a strong voice in the educational affairs of the state by working closely with the State Education Department and other educational groups across the state and nation.

MEMBER BENEFITS

• IMPACT-New York State ASCD’s professional journal provides in depth background on state and local issues facing New York State Educators

state and local events related to curriculum and instruction • Institutes-two or three day institutes that bring together national experts and state recognized presenters with practitioners to share ideas and promising educational practices • Regional Workshops-bring together recognized presenters with practitioners to share ideas and promising educational practices • Diverse Professional Network-enables members to share state-of-the-art resources, face challenges together and explore new ideas