Science Grades 3-5 Essential Standards

The new standard seem to be relevant to the real world and stretch across the curriculm. The would allow for in depth study in many areas.

It is almost impossible to cover everything we are expected to now. This almost doubles the amount we have been covering.

Jane is refering to the K-2 curriculum I believe.

Jessica,
Can you suggest what goals/objectives need to be moved where with a rationale? I totally agree with you, but we neet to suggest how to fix it.

I agree there was a lot added-nothing seemed to be removed. However, it does a better job of bridging a few gaps. Kids forget the material after not dealing with it but every other year (or longer)

Regarding Fifth Grade: At DPI it states, "Narrowing and deepening is the goal"... in fifth grade proposed curriculum, I feel as though it is just slightly touching a concept and then bouncing to another. The way in which the curriculum is written now for fifth grade has four goals, which allows in-depth study for a nine weeks. I feel like the new proposed curriculum is jumping around way too much... too many concepts, no in-depth.

I agree with Jessica. We don't need more to cover, we have plenty to deal with while trying to give our students an opportunity to gain some depth of the topics we cover. I also agree that the new curriculum does offer some connections that weren't previously there & teachers had to create for their students.

Prioritize and Focus:
Grade 5
Lacks scope and sequence.
23.1 Evolution: not appropriate at elementary level and too controversial for these young students
21.1 Reproduction: not age appropriate and too controversial at this age
21 too many systems for too many Essential Standards to go in depth; this will provide surface learning at best using memory skills only.
22.1 Fair amount to go into depth, but should include Human Impact issues

Discussed by 5th grade teachers from Mt. View

While I feel that it is a good idea to touch on topics more often, I think this structure will
confuse students. By only touching on a part of a topic and moving on, I think students will miss
the big picture. Some of the topics do not seem age appropriate either. It is hard enough to teach
depth in Science. I can't imagine teaching random topics in depth with no connection to other ideas.

Having taught a 2nd/3rd Grade combination class this year, I am so glad these changes were not already made. I have taught 5th grade and I understand the need to make sure students are ready for the 5th Grade Science test, but I am not sure this proposed curriculum is the answer. I guess I really need more info to truly understand the Proposed Standards. I would truly worry about whether or not we would as teachers be able to complete inquiry based Science lessons that also have depth and meaning - we also have S.S., Writing, Reading, Math, Spelling, Grammar, Character Ed. and so on to teach. So often, we want to complain instead of fixing a problem, how can I help? Are there committees in the county discussing this very topic? Probably each grade level at a school should get together and discuss in detail these changes.

A suggestion regarding K-2 curriculum is moving the interdependence portion into 1st grade instead of K. It will be more balanced for the age group.
Also we could look at taking the curriculum and dividing (specific goals to be determined). For example, K = 2 goals, 1= 2 goals, 2 = 3 goals, 3 = 3 goals, 4 = 4 goals, 5 = 4 goals, 6 = 6 goals.

Thanks so much for taking time to respond to this blog!

Julie, this is a very difficult time for teachers, therefore I did not set up meeting that really needed to occur. I have met with one grade level at one school and would be happy to meet with any group for discussion. Anyone may contact me for this purpose. I would love to meet with you to discuss these proposed changes. With a clear conscience, I just could not set these up myself, knowing how busy these times are for you.

I too find that the content is scattered amongst 8 topics which only graze the surface of each. Genetics is definitely not appropriate for 10 year-olds. It looks like 5th grade weather is out the window which baffles me-it's one of the most important things we learn now. I do believe that human body systems are important and relevant to good health. Are the creators of these proposed standards using national science standards as a guide? The new standards for math are much better in my opinion.

In examining the way 3rd and 5th grade Forces and Motion standards are written, there is not enough difference in the standards at each grade level to provide an opportunity for the rigor the state is desiring. The standard states to "understand force and motion" for both grade levels and the clarifying objectives have the children learming the same information. the only difference is fifth grade is adding the use of graph to use changes in position of an object. Since we are able to use the science kit to assist with the learning of this topic the childen experience the learning and become the scientist. I thought the national standards stated this was the type learning that should be taking place. We have approx. 45 days to teach this concept currently and will have approx. 20 days will the proposed changes, so how will decreasing the number of days we teach the concepts make it more rigorous, enduring, prioritized and focused.

Relevant to the Real World: For the past several years my school school has used science kits to provide hands-on learning to provide the depth of instruction and to develop the students inquiry skills. THis level of learning is what is recommended and desired according to National Standards. By using the science kits to guide instruction, the students become scientists and experience the learning. The students make inferences, make predictions, take part in experiments, deduct answers, draw conclusions, and discuss what they are learning with team members based on the information they observe and gather through the experiments THEY conduct. The current 5th grade curriculum "equips students for the future academic success" because it allows the children to understand the relationships between the subjects being taught providing a more thorough knowledge base of the subjects. Example: understanding the water cycle and how run-off, precipitation, etc. can change the shape of the land and how it is related to weather.

The Energy: Conservation and Transfer for grades 3-5 allow for surface learning at best given the shortened numbers of days we will have in order to teach all eight stanrds. Obj. 3.1.3 for 3rd grade and 10.1.3 for 4th grade are asking for the students to "recognize" the same information. Where is the enduring, rigor clear and concise instruction/learning taking place?

Earth Systems, Structures and Processes for grade 5 provides some age appropriate, real-world learning, but it the amount of information we are being asked to cover cannot be done effectively or efficiently in the numbers of days we will be given to teach it in. We have a kit we currently use to teach some of these objectives and we would not be able to provide the same opportunities with the suggested changes.

5th grade Ecosystems needs to include conservation and human impact. The ecosystems starndards do not seem to spiral very well and is shallow at best. 4th grade standards talk about animal adaptations and survival, but animals are not mentioned in the fifth grade. There seems to be very little application of skills for this standard.

4th grade Matter, Properties and Change: When reviewing the clarifying objectives, there is too much information to be taught in given amount of time with the new suggestions. This level of learning falls short in comparison with the criteria that was given to review the standards.

5th Grade Evolution and Genetics: 5th graders take things at face value and these topics could cause confusion and unwarranted concern on the child's and parents part. IReading the assessment prototype causes great concern as to the types of questions they will ask and the way they are worded. Some may take offense and say there is bias in the questions. This is a topic that needs to be taught to older children that are better able to make inferences and draw conclusions from the topic.

5th Grade Structures and Functions of Living Organisms: First, this is not spiraled from 4th grade. So, 3rd grade does the skeletal and muscular systems, 4th does not teach any of it and 5th picks back up with the five other systems and reviews the two as well as teach about cells in the approx. 20 days. How is this providing rigor and preparing our students to compete in the global society? This information is currently taught at the middle school level. What justification is there that 10 year old children are cognitively adept to understand these concepts when they are difficult for the 7th and 8th grade students to understand?

Below are some of the comments that I registered with the state on their survey site, I provided my name:

This is listed as poor because the clarifying objectives fail to meet the standard for a good objective, its ability to effectively communicate what students should know and be able to do on the assessment that will be required of them.

Once again, the area of prioritized and focused fails the test. The content has not been thoroughly thought out based on the grade level. Example: energy transformation in the 3-5 grade level is very tricky and can only be taught well given a thorough and understanding of energy. How many 3-5 grade teachers are well versed in energy and energy transformations. The clarifying objectives do not meet the standard of unpacking the content. On the contrary, they are less focused. They do not meet the standard of good objectives. They do not employ verbs that clearly indicate the of learning expected of the students. The level of learning is based on the EOG, which is a multiple choice test, and the standards and clarifying objectives do not meet with this assessment.

The purpose of an objective is to define what students should know and be able to do in terms of the assessment that will be used to determine whether they have or have not met learning goals. These clarifying objectives do not meet this criteria, and therefore negate the rigor of the goal.

Because the goals, and therefore the clarifying objectives are designed for assessment of science facts, instead of science standards of thought, they do not meet the level of rigor required in science to make them relevant to the real world. Ideas, practices, and criteria for scientific thought bring real world relevance, not facts. But, these habits of mind cannot be tested on a multiple choice test, and therefore will not be written into the standards, as per the guidance of Project 2061, the national standards, the benchmarks for science literacy, and the recommendation of all current practicing scientists.

I appreciate all the input from each and everyone of you! It is obvious that you have carefully read and pondered the drafts. I will do my best to summarize all your thoughts into one form. Please do not forget that you may submit as an individual as well. DPI says they are reading all submissions and individual submissions are read equally to LEA submissions! Keep up the good work and hang in there a few more days!