Honestly, the intent of this blog from the beginning has been to put out the path that I am taking not as thee path, but as a set of ideas to get this process moving. I want to be questioned and challenged about my ideas. Indeed, challenge is the path to improvement. In the spirit of that idea, I have been asked the question in my title several times. So here is my response.
I use the topic based arrangement of the NGSS as is. Each page of performance expectations is the basis for a unit. My assumption has been that there was some reason the PE's to be bundled this way; although after questioning the writers for confirmation of this the best I got was "these are the ones that seemed to fit together coherently." In a couple of units, we have to get very creative.
The grade 3 page on Forces and Motion for example. It combines classic Newtonian concepts with electromagnetic forces. We can make it work, but it feels very odd. The Safe Racer program is being upgraded. It will not only challenge students to keep an egg safe in their cars, but also require them to explain how the magnetic release system we will be adding works. Along with measuring how far the car goes, we can measure how fast the cars are going by accurately measuring the time it takes the car to reach the end of the ramp.
In another example, the unit is split into two parts under a coherent storyline. The Kindergarten Weather & Climate performance expectations have two distinct themes; protecting yourself from the sun and predicting the weather. Our storyline for this unit asks students to build a structure to protect everyone from the sun while on the playground. Part 2 asks the students to evaluate weather data in order to determine if they should tell the principal to take down the structure so it is not damaged by severe weather. We actually have students evaluate the radar image. It is easier than you think. Break it down into two parts. What colors symbolize severe weather and what direction is it moving?
So why not cherry pick the NGSS like so many publishers are doing. For one, the NGSS is built on learning progressions. This focus on progressions makes science cumulative. When I talk to principals and other officials, I tell them to think about science like math now. Imagine what would happen if schools stopped teaching math from K-5. There is no way middle schools would ever compensate for that lost foundational knowledge. That is science in an NGSS world.
My second concern in a buffet approach to the NGSS is orphaning a performance expectation. I did not want to get to the end of curriculum writing and realize we missed one. The one exception to this was in grade 5. I shifted the PE on people improving the environment (5-ESS3-1) from the Earth Systems page to the Movement of Energy and Matter page. That was the topic of my last blog entry.
Lastly, I have ignored the engineering PE's as a separate entity. It felt too much like the days when we "wove in" the old skills and processes. Each unit, so far, has students working collaboratively to build a physical object. That may be a model (beach erosion prevention), prototype (biomimicry solution), or fully functioning object (hand pollinator for example). In this way, students are learning to act as engineers within context.
As always, context and relevance are of extreme importance to me. We are a practical species. We tend to care about things when they are important to us. I attended a pre-conference session by Megan Bang. One of the great points she brought up is that we have to stop expecting our students to ask questions and respond based on our cultural norms. What does that mean in this context? Curriculum developers may find the phenomena of science exciting but until students see themselves connected to it, they will continue to ignore it. As you read through your curriculum ask yourself these two questions from the perspective of your students.
Why am I learning this?
What will it help me to do?
