Mr. Foster started by outlining the unique time frame the state’s newly drafted standards and by and large the value it presented to districts looking forward to science, technology and engineering standards revisions. With “no public survey planned until the 2015-2016 academic year” districts “may choose what to do” when it came to deciding in what way and how quickly to move forward. When asked if changes were likely, Foster responded by stating that it is firmly believed that the standards are “structurally sound.” While Foster expects “some tweaking after feedback, no major shifts are anticipated with some exception in regards to the high school expectations and college/career readiness.”
When confronted on the cool feedback from some districts regarding the middle school spiral curriculum, Foster emphasized that the standards crafters wished to keep “as much consistent with the NGSS as possible.” Foster acknowledged that, “the state never makes you do anything… except take MCAS (to which there were slight chuckles), and the assessment is expected to remain an end of band assessment with no mandate or money for any form of grade by grade testing.” Foster insisted districts could “do what they want but the state had to do something” and that the spiral format has been designed “with overarching themes such as structure and function, systems, and cause and effect at each grade level.” Foster noted that while districts appeared to be roughly split 50/50 in regards to spiraling or sandwiched curriculum, but “the vast majority of kids in Massachusetts are taught in integrated systems” with sandwiched districts being smaller in overall population. Therefore the adoption of a spiral curriculum was ultimately selected to stay as true to NGSS as possible and to “nudge” the state toward standards that would help ease the challenges faced by transitional students.
When testing was brought up towards the end of the Q&A, Foster applauded the audience for waiting so long to introduce the question before answering it, then went on to emphasize that the practices built into the standards would be exactly that, integrated into the assessment and “always in the context of the content.” When asked what that looked like, Foster admitted that conversation was one that still needed to be fully had, and that he and others responsible for assessment development were watching the PARCC closely, expecting that “what happens with PARCC will reveal a lot” and that while no transition plan has been outlined for any switch between the MCAS and PARCC, any such switch would “likely be modeled on ELA and math transitions.”
Lastly, Foster asked that we as science leaders help him carry the message to our fellow educators that the new standards and embedded practices does not imply that science classrooms become those of full inquiry. Foster recognized that it is implied that the standards be attainable in one academic year, given that skills leading up to that year have been practiced. Foster also recognized that there were some instances, particularly in math where a science teacher may have to “teach some math where it is introduced” but also emphasized that overall "there is strong overlap," particularly with ELA common core and its inclusion of informational texts.
Jake reminded and encouraged everyone to use the tools provided by the DESE when developing curriculum, district determined measures or other initiatives, identifying the concept map as a particularly valuable tool for better visualizing learning progressions and connections between content and scientific concepts. A link to these resources has been provided here.
