3
The Landscape of Implementation
In the previous session, said Garcia, panelists discussed some of the challenges of implementation (see Chapter 2). During that session, Summit participants were asked to contribute to a “word cloud” to visualize what they saw as the biggest challenges for implementation (Figure 3-1). Garcia said that some of the main challenges identified were time, professional learning, high-quality materials, time for teacher learning, teaching time, and time for professional development.
In this session of the Summit, panelists further explored the issue of implementation and shared their insights from research and practice. The session was moderated by Garcia, who led the discussion by posing questions to the panelists. There were four panelists:
- Stefanie Marshall: assistant professor at University of Minnesota; focuses on the intersection of policy, organizational leadership, and science education
- Bill Penuel: professor of learning sciences and human development at University of Colorado, Boulder; focuses on how long-term research-practice partnerships can create more equitable and coherent systems at the state and district level
- Jenny Sarna: director of NextGenScience at WestEd; former science teacher
- Jim Spillane: professor of learning and organizational change at Northwestern University; focuses on understanding efforts to support elementary science teaching that is aligned with the NGSS
SOURCE: Workshop participants.
COMMUNITY
“What is bringing people together around science education is a recognition that by not doing science we’re harming people,” said Marshall. When students are not offered quality science education, she said, individuals and communities are harmed—lives are literally on the line. Marshall said that a child’s zip code or race should not impact their access to quality science education, and she shared a story of a girl from Flint, Michigan. While serving on a career panel, Marshall was asked a question by a Black high schooler named Faith: “How did you know you could do science?” This question, said Marshall, indicates that someone had framed Faith’s reality in such a way that she didn’t know that she was a “doer of science.” Marshall answered, “I didn’t know I couldn’t.” She noted that her own perspective was a privilege and that “we have a responsibility to counter the status quo” for students like Faith. Changing the status quo will require considering how power and information guides decision making, and actively disrupting the current system.
Penuel underscored these points and added that “we find ourselves in a different moment now” than 10 years ago. Penuel pointed to the COVID-19 pandemic, state legislation that bans conversations about racial equity in schools, and science being eliminated from curricula due to concerns about learning loss during the pandemic. Science education is an urgent and lifesaving matter, said Penuel, but there are forces that are working against this idea. To teach science is to “enable people to live and survive in this moment,” he said. In so doing, we have to focus on the distribution of opportunity and ensure that all students have access to quality science education. Many decisions about science education are made at the local level (e.g., time allocation, graduation requirements), said Penuel, and these are leverage points for intervention. Penuel urged Summit participants to stay focused on implementing the overall vision of the Framework and the NGSS rather than narrowly focusing on specific components.
UNIQUENESS OF SCIENCE
One of the main differences, said Spillane, is that it is challenging to get “science taught in the first place.” This is very different than language arts or math, and it is “not an accident” but is a function of a quarter-century of state and federal policies and incentives for language arts and math. Spillane shared details from his research on what rationales state science coordinators use to convince schools to teach science. Some use rationales that are instrumental, for example, that teaching science will help kids with language arts and math. Others argue that science education is necessary to ensure access for all children to STEM jobs. Still others put forth a “democratic goal” of creating an informed citizenry who can engage in pressing challenges that we face as a nation and a world, such as climate change.
Another key difference, said Sarna, is the critical role of partnerships. Science education requires resources—both physical materials and human resources—that districts struggle to provide. External partners can play a role in bringing these resources into communities and supporting educators and leaders on their implementation journey, she said. When partners connect with communities, bring educators together, and focus on real needs, “that collaboration is so much greater” than what could happen in one district alone. Sarna shared examples of external partners from across the country, from the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago to UC Boul-
der in Colorado, and said that these partners can provide tools, resources, and professional learning opportunities. She noted that while these partnerships are usually local, the resources and information can be shared with educators and leaders across the country.
A Summit participant asked for panelists to comment on how access to these types of partnerships can be improved for schools such as those that are geographically isolated or difficult-to-staff schools that serve historically marginalized students. Penuel gave an example of improving access for rural schools; he said that Colorado is developing supports for an online professional learning course for teachers in rural areas that focuses on five-dimensional science assessment. Marshall added that when school leaders and principals have a strong vision for science education, they reach out to the community and make necessary connections. She cautioned, however, that schools be deliberate about the organizations they partner with, particularly when money is used to direct science education in a specific direction—the direction may not be desirable, equitable, or sustainable.
EQUITY IN RESOURCES
In response to this question, Penuel shared details about his work on the Advancing Coherent and Equitable Systems of Science Education (ACESSE) project.1 ACESSE focuses on building coherent systems horizontally and vertically, around an equitable vision for science education. Penuel explained that the vision includes the three dimensions from the NGSS, along with deep attention to the interests, identities, and experiences of students, particularly those from non-dominant groups and communities. Horizontal coherence means that professional learning assessments, curricula, leadership, and instructional guidance are all aligned with this vision, and vertical coherence means that people at every level of the system share a common vision.
ACESSE has developed three kinds of tools to help achieve these goals, said Penuel. The first is a set of professional learning resources that were co-designed with state and local leaders, educators, and researchers. These tools focus on leverage points for assessment and can be used to lead professional learning with other educators around the vision. The second is a
___________________
set of tools to support leaders in thinking about and seeing their systems. For example, one tool maps network actors (e.g., policies, people) to identify facilitators, barriers, and potential allies. The third kind of tool, said Penuel, is designed to collect data to take stock of implementation progress.
ROLE OF LEADERS
Garcia said that as the planning committee reviewed reports about implementation of the NGSS and the Framework, it became clear that intentional engagement and involvement of leadership was critical for implementation. She asked panelists to comment on how they see leadership in connection with implementation efforts.
Spillane replied that this theme has existed in the implementation literature for decades, and it is not surprising that it comes up with elementary science education. A lack of leadership is one of the key challenges that state science supervisors identify; in particular, the school principal often acts as a gatekeeper to whether science gets taught. Spillane stressed, however, that leadership should not be equated solely with the school principal. There are leaders within the school, such as teacher leaders and specialist teachers, as well as leaders in the system, such as at the district office. Spillane argued for a “distributed perspective” on leadership, both looking horizontally and vertically across the system. He added that individuals beyond the formal system—such as community members—could also be engaged in and lead this work. In contrast to language arts and math, said Spillane, the leadership for science education is a vast network that operates at multiple levels and is “a social movement” mobilized to promote reform of elementary school science.
Marshall agreed that science education leadership be distributed but added that principals sometimes are left out of the conversation. Often, she said, only teachers and district-level staff are trained, and principals are unable to engage in important conversations because they are not familiar with the standards and the lingo of science education. In addition, many principals have limited experience in science, either in their education or professional development experiences. In language arts and math instruction, principals are forced to make decisions due to pressure from national, state, and local policies. These pressures are largely non-existent in science education, she said, so some principals may simply not engage in this area. Principals may also not be familiar with the resources available to them, such as science consultants at the district level.
CRITICAL NEEDS
“We need to reframe how people are thinking about science,” said Marshall. She said that science is underprioritized, underfunded, and underresourced, and that we largely rationalize and accept that science is lower on the hierarchy than language arts or math. We need to advocate for science to be raised up; otherwise, it will always “be on the back burner.” Spillane agreed and noted that the hierarchy in elementary education is a function both of history and of elaborate federal and state funded infrastructures that support language arts and math. Due to these infrastructures and the ongoing testing in language arts and math, there are more data with which to make decisions than there are for science. Spillane emphasized that he was not arguing for more testing but that it is important to consider how the infrastructures vary dramatically among these subject areas. Penuel followed up on this, saying that science education scholars need to do the work of “infrastructuring”—that is, redesigning the infrastructure to align with the vision of science education. For example, ACESSE works to develop rubrics for student learning assessment, to coordinate with observation protocols that are used to evaluate teachers, and to build assessments that align with the vision. The work of infrastructuring includes redesigning systems, building new structures, and, in some cases, abolishing existing systems.
ADOPTION, ADAPTATION, AND THE NEED FOR A COMMON VISION
Jessica Henderson-Rockette (Instruction Partners) noted that while some states have adopted the NGSS wholesale, others have adapted the standards; she asked panelists to comment on any differences between adoption and adaption states. Sarna first responded that there is little evidence available on this issue; she observed that there would be “a lot more data” if the subject area was language arts or math. Despite the lack of
evidence, it is clear that even states that have adapted their own standards based on the Framework and the NGSS are able to utilize many of the same tools and resources, such as open-source curricula or learning modules. Whether a state has adapted or adopted, the standards are “grounded in this common vision.” The small differences in content, she said, are less consequential due to this common vision.
A Summit participant asked panelists to comment on how this common vision can be established both horizontally and vertically within a school system. Spillane said that it is “impossible” to build the infrastructure necessary to support elementary science education unless there is a shared understanding among the key partners. He noted that if “everybody has different ideas about what should be taught,” it makes it very challenging to move forward. Spillane said that he has “a lot of hope” that building a shared vision is possible, due to the fact that local systems are being connected to each other and to the states through work that is happening nationally. Penuel added some data from his research on what factors make a difference in establishing a shared vision. One factor is a sense of collective efficiency—that is, that the group of people feels that they can make a difference. Progress is also easier, he said, when there are regular routines that bring together people from schools, districts, state agencies, teacher associations, communities, and other organizations. “If you have a group of people who stay the course, you can make progress,” he concluded.
This page intentionally left blank.
