|Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief|
Taking Stock of Science Standards Implementation: Planning for Progress
Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief
It has been just over ten years since the release of the Framework on K–12 Science Education (NRC, 2012)1 and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2013).2 As states continue their implementation efforts of state standards, there is a need for a reflection on these efforts looking at curriculum, instruction, assessment, professional learning, and policy. To identify the conditions and develop a road map for moving implementation efforts forward, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) held a series of events to take stock of science standards implementation with the goal of supporting a more equitable and coherent system of science education. The first set of events was a virtual summit held in October and December of 2021, which considered implementation across all states and territories and was designed to identify successes and challenges for the different levers in the education system related to implementation as well as areas where additional resources or work was needed (NASEM, 2022).3 Following the virtual summit several coffee talks (60–90-minute webinars) took place January through April 2022; topics included a deeper dive into the landscape of implementation and the impact of COVID,4 a focus on implementation in rural settings,5 a deeper look at informal contexts,6 further exploration of 3-dimensional instructional shifts,7 and concluded with an emphasis on teacher preparation pathways.8 This culminating event in the series, a hybrid summit on April 26 and 27, 2022, was designed to reflect on these previous discussions in order to imagine what science education could look like in ten years, and how these visions might be achieved. Much of the summit was conducted in
1 National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.
2 NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
3 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Taking Stock of Science Standards Implementation: Proceedings of a Virtual Summit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26549.
4 See https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/01-18-2022/taking-stock-of-science-standards-implementation-a-summit-implementation-by-the-numbers-coffee-talk.
5 See https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/02-16-2022/taking-stock-of-science-standards-implementation-a-summit-rural-science-standards-implementation-coffee-talk.
6 See https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/03-02-2022/taking-stock-of-science-standards-implementation-a-summit-3d-in-informal-science-education.
7 See https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/03-16-2022/taking-stock-of-science-standards-implementation-a-summit-supporting-3d-instructional-shifts-coffee-talk.
8 See https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/04-06-2022/taking-stock-of-science-standards-implementation-a-summit-teacher-preparation-pathways-coffee-talk.
breakout groups in which participants self-selected into one of five areas (see “Pitch Development” section) to consider the current state of implementation, to identify actors and actions that could move implementation efforts forward, and to develop a “pitch” to persuade stakeholders to act. Although there were in-person and virtual groups discussing the same topics, the discussions were done so in isolation of each other. Moreover, the discussions happened over the two days so that the groups were able to address the task broadly at first and were able to narrow down to the pitch after additional input and discussion. The second day concluded with some final reflections from the planning committee members and attendees.
Throughout the two days, excluding the construction of the breakout groups, the event was intentional in bringing all voices to the table—especially those from the virtual attendees. The virtual group represented a broad range of perspectives and these different lenses were incorporated into the various sessions by amplifying comments from the chat (which is available on the project page) and ensuring that as many questions from the online community were addressed.
REFLECTIONS FROM PRACTICE
The meeting kicked off with a perspective from a teacher in the field. Now in her 17th year of teaching, Colorado Teacher of the Year Autumn Rivera (Glenwood Springs Middle School, Colorado) said that “things have changed a lot.” Early in her teaching career, science education was focused on “memorizing facts and following steps.” Now, she said, her curriculum is based around what the students are interested in. Students are learning the skills they need to evaluate claims, to work together in groups, and to argue respectfully. Most importantly, Rivera wants students to understand that science is “happening everywhere.” Rivera takes students on adventures out of the classroom to build a common background and to tie classroom learning to the real world; this year she took all her students—including those in wheelchairs—down the Colorado River so they could “feel the splash” of the river on their faces.
Science education can empower students, said Rivera, and can enable them to act and advocate for change. For example, she shared a story about a group of students who became passionate about a local lake that was for sale. The students raised $1000 to donate to a land trust to purchase the lake, and it was recently declared the 43rd state park of Colorado. In a rural school, it can be difficult to connect with scientists in the field; however, one “gem” of COVID-19 has been the number of opportunities to connect virtually. In addition to learning from the broader community, Rivera’s students also communicate their knowledge to the community by writing and recording public service announcements for a local radio program; she noted that students are very motivated to ensure that their messages are accurate and comprehensive.
Rivera shared her hopes of what science education will look like in ten years. She hopes that teachers will be trusted as professionals, and that their voices will be heard in the conversation. She hopes that student teachers will receive adequate financial support so that they can focus on supporting learning in the classroom. She hopes that the curriculum will bridge the gap between the classroom and the field, and that every student will see themselves reflected in the curriculum. She hopes that students are continually engaged with the community and with scientists working in the field. Finally, Rivera said she hopes that students feel passionate about science, empowered to make change, and ready to go into the world to make a difference.
GREATEST HITS: THEMES ELEVATED THROUGHOUT THE SERIES
To inform the rest of the summit, this session featured a panel of planning committee members that reflected upon the previous events throughout the series to identify a few of the major themes from the previous workshop discussions and listening sessions. Jessica Henderson-Rockette (Instruction Partners) identified the importance of coherence as a major theme. She noted that many speakers at previous events mentioned their frustration at navigating misaligned systems that are not set up for success. For example, preservice teachers may enter the classroom without having been introduced to the science standards they are expected to use, or teachers want to teach within the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) or the Framework but do not have access to high quality instructional materials or assess-
ments that are aligned with the standards. When teachers confront these barriers, said Henderson-Rockette, they can “lose the spark” of excitement and motivation that brought them into the classroom. Another theme that Henderson-Rockette identified was the importance of learning lessons from the past and bringing these lessons together to create tools and systems to improve implementation. To move forward, she said, a playbook that does not just introduce teachers to the standards but is centered around the systems that must be navigated is needed.
Garcia built upon Henderson-Rockette’s observations, saying that buy-in at all levels is needed to transition from lessons learned to full implementation. This includes funding and building the infrastructure for implementation, she said; for example, providing sustained professional learning opportunities and supporting preservice teacher training as well as providing funding to science education at all grade levels. Leaders have made decisions to not support and fund these activities, and “we want to disrupt that” so that all students have access to quality science education. An important part of the infrastructure is human capital and there is a critical need to push investments in this area, she said. Garnering buy-in and building infrastructure will require individuals in the science education community to come together, and to hold each other accountable for acting. In particular, she said, there is a need for an anchoring organization to play the role of bringing people together, advocating for change, and supporting the work being done.
Victor Sampson (University of Texas at Austin) reiterated the need for high-quality instructional materials and assessments, noting that this issue came up “time and time again.” These materials have great promise as a lever for change, he said, but there is a lack of new materials and adapting existing materials is labor-intensive. Another issue, said Sampson, is a lack of time for teachers to participate in transformational professional learning experiences. “How can we ask teachers to devote the massive amounts of time it takes to learn how to teach in new ways when they’re being asked to give up their planning periods and work nights and weekends already?” he asked. Finally, said Sampson, there is a need to think more critically about whose voices are being heard in the conversations on implementation. He relayed his fear that the discussions are becoming an “echo chamber” of voices with similar viewpoints and urged stakeholders to broaden participation to create science education that is culturally affirming and inclusive.
SETTING THE STAGE
In this session, a panel of speakers was asked to imagine what science education might look like in the year 2032, and to identify some of the barriers and opportunities for achieving this vision. Tia C. Madkins (University of Texas at Austin) began by expressing her hope that learners would have meaningful, rigorous, and justice-oriented science learning experiences in which they use their science knowledge to be change agents and to empower their communities in the ways they see fit. It would be common practice to use an asset-based lens that leverages the strengths and resources of all learners, teachers, and communities. Science education would be aimed not only at ensuring equity, but also at pursuing justice, said Madkins, and learners would be able to see themselves in the curriculum and in the world of science. To achieve this vision, she said, it will be critical to make changes to preservice education programs and professional learning opportunities. Future and current teachers need opportunities to interrogate their own personal identities and to explore how their identities shape their teaching practice. There are existing tools that can be used to foster beliefs, attitudes, and actions toward the goal of teaching phenomenon-based science with equity and justice in mind; for example, tools on culturally responsive teaching, intersectional competence, and racialized beliefs. This is “difficult but necessary” work, but the product of these efforts is a learning environment where children’s full humanity is honored, Madkins said.
Science education has implications far beyond the classroom, said Stefanie Marshall (University of Minnesota). Climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic are just two examples of how the education of the next generation can directly impact the world. Marshall shared her vision in which critically conscious science leaders recognize the impact that decision making has on learners and their responsibility to society. Science learning that leverages the local communities could support all students in receiving quality science learning opportunities, both in
schools and in communities. Building this type of infrastructure that bridges in and out of school communities, said Marshall, would require forging strong relationships, ensuring adequate resources, adopting supportive policies, and considering the needs of all stakeholders.
Elizabeth Mulkerrin (Omaha Zoo and Aquarium, NSTA President Elect) envisioned a system in which all students—from pre–K to college-level—are provided with “equitable, relevant science experiences outside and in the classroom.” Outside the box thinking is needed to achieve this vision, she said. Informal science education has great potential to push science education forward, and the voices of informal educators need to be included in discussions about science standards implementation from day one. Mulkerrin gave several examples of those who could be involved, including community organizations, youth organizations, businesses, school districts, universities, and government officials. In Mulkerrin’s vision, these stakeholders would collaborate and coordinate with classroom teachers to give students the skills and experiences they need. Ideally, students would have opportunities to apply their classroom learning in the community, and there would be coherence between in-school and out-of-school science education. The ultimate vision, she said, is for “students to see that they’re surrounded by science.”
Tiffany Neill (Oklahoma State Department of Education) asked teachers and science leaders in Oklahoma about their vision. A few of those ideas included:
- Students learn from each other more than from their teachers.
- The practice of teaching has shifted from the passing on of things already known, to knowing through curiosity and scientific thinking.
- It is common practice that students learn science through connections to their cultures and communities.
- The teaching workforce is more reflective of students in the classroom.
- Instead of just knowing things, students know where to find things and how to decide if the information they have found is good.
There are several changes that will be necessary to achieve these visions, said Neill: more flexibility and opportunities to teach science outside of the classroom; implementation of policies that ensure opportunities for all students; more funding and support for students in education and practicing teachers; and better use of data. Most importantly, she said, we need to “keep with the vision of the Framework for longer than 10 or 15 years.” If it is not abandoned, the Framework has great potential to benefit learners and communities.
Brian Reiser (Northwestern University) presented visions for both students and teachers. Students would see their science work as addressing questions and problems they care about, whereas teachers would see their role as supporting students’ sensemaking about questions and problems in their world. To get there, he said, it will be critical to view implementation of the standards as a process in which teachers are dedicated to ongoing cycles of co-design, enactment, evaluation, and redesign. Adopting the standards is not the end of the process, but the beginning, said Reiser, and districts and schools will need to support different phases of the work over a prolonged period. Reiser emphasized that science standards are not the end goal in and of themselves, but the tools that can be used to achieve the vision of the Framework. As standards are implemented, they may need to be tweaked, or materials may need to be refined, or performance expectations may need to be adjusted; implementation will provide evidence to guide changes in practice. Progress has been made and there is “lots to celebrate,” but this is a long-term project, he said.
The development of pitches took place over a two-day period. Participants broke into groups and discussed the state of implementation in five areas: leadership systems, teacher workforce, district and state policy, partnerships and alliances, and curriculum and instruction. For each area there was a virtual group and an in-person group creating a “pitch.” Participants were given the following prompts to guide discussion:
- Considering the state of implementation for the next 2 years, what are the top goals that need to be addressed?
- For each goal, who are the actors and what are the actions that could help to meet these goals and move implementation forward?
The groups first met to identify some of the goals that could be addressed. These goals were shared out at the end of the first day. Based on the full-group discussion of the goals identified, on the morning of Day 2, each breakout group met again and selected one idea or set of ideas and created a “pitch” aimed at decision makers and/or funders. Following small group discussion time, members of each group then shared the group’s “pitch” with all attendees.
Before attendees began the breakout group work to discuss the prompts, Maya Garcia (Colorado Department of Education), chair of the planning committee, urged summit participants to keep several considerations in mind when thinking about the next steps for standards implementation:
- Whose interests are being served and how do we ensure equitable, inclusive, and just outcomes?
- What is meant by success? What does success look like for a school, a community, and the larger science education community?
- What is most urgent? What needs to be implemented now with an eye toward long term outcomes? Is there anything we should stop doing?
The sections below summarize the two report outs. What is presented first is a summary of the report out of the groups identified goals, followed by the pitch. Follow on discussion is not captured in this summary.
The report out on the leadership systems began with the virtual group. There is a real tension, said Jamie Rumage (Oregon Department of Education, group reporter), between the urgency of making change for educators to effectively implement science standards and the need for long-term planning. Professional learning happens in incremental steps, and educators begin their learning journey at different points—there is a need to balance the technical approach to implementation with the realities of system capacity and human needs. Rumage listed several goals that the virtual group identified, including building capacity for leaders at all levels, using backward planning to make incremental steps with accountability measures, considering areas in which systems change is necessary, and promoting critical consciousness9 daily. To meet these goals, it will be critical to have sustainable funding, representative leadership, and a robust common vision among stakeholders, she said.
The in-person group then shared their “pitch.” Decisions about science education including policy and curriculum, said Jenny Sarna (NextGenScience, group reporter), are made by leaders at the school, district, and state levels. One of the challenges identified by the in-person group was that many of these leaders do not have a science education background, and/or they do not have the tools or resources to make decisions that serve students and teachers. However, she said, these leaders are often part of leadership networks that can be bridged to the science education community; this bridge can serve to elevate and share the vision for science. To make these connections, actors such as principal networks, curriculum networks, assessment organizations, and education associations need opportunities to come together to build relationships, listen, and identify shared needs. Some administrators may not prioritize science, she said, but they may be convinced by the growing body of research showing that science levels the playing field for students
9 Critical consciousness in the context of science and engineering learning “calls attention to how learning involves an awareness of understanding how inequality happens in society, including its structural roots, and the agency to engage in action toward social transformation” (Xu et al., 2022). For more information, see: https://www.nsta.org/connected-science-learning/connected-science-learning-january-february-2022/critical-consciousness.
by promoting language, discussion, and critical thinking. Another approach for moving implementation forward, said Sarna, is to develop Framework-based coaching tools for leaders at all levels to support data-driven strategic planning. Although, there are tools and processes that have been used over the last ten years, now is the chance to build upon the successes and lessons learned.
The groups on the teacher workforce reported out next, beginning with the virtual group. A major challenge for the workforce, said Lizette Burke (University of Houston–Downtown, group reporter), is high turnover; this issue existed before the pandemic but has been exacerbated. New teachers often have not been exposed to the NGSS, and the learning curve from awareness to the beginning of implementation is a “big deal.” To address this challenge, she said, we need a system that seeks to recruit, retain, and support teachers, and is committed to long-term investment in the workforce. For example, teachers need empowerment, mentoring, and other supports throughout the process of implementation. Relevant actors in this area include district and regional service providers, who can use a teacher continuum/progression model to plan and monitor progress across the workforce and can use instructional materials as a basis for improvement efforts. State and national players, said Burke, can identify, create, and share resources and materials to support improvements that are affordable for local use and accessible to all (e.g., open source). It is critical, she said, that all teachers—even novice teachers—be able to immediately use and find value in the materials. For example, materials could utilize scaffolding to facilitate early success.
The in-person group also focused on the issue of high turnover, said Susan Gomez Zwiep (BSCS Science Learning, group reporter). Some of the reasons for attrition include compensation, the cost of education and continuing professional learning, and issues of licensure. To address this challenge, the group focused on the idea of developing communities of teachers to support both existing and incoming teachers. Zwiep noted that many teachers feel “alone and unsupported.” These communities of teachers would be grounded in the Framework, leverage student voices and assets, and provide opportunities for engagement around social justice and equity. Expanding the communities of science education, she said, would involve finding new partners in the work, for example, nonprofits, informal educators, researchers, policy makers, and practitioners. Finally, said Zwiep, there is a need to leverage the lessons of good teaching by shifting
away from talking about individual teachers and toward examining the context in which learning occurs; there is a need to identify and disseminate the strategies, decisions, resources, and tools that are being used in spaces that could be described as promoting “effective” learning.
District and State Policy
Shifting to district and state policy, the virtual group identified three major challenges and goals to address these challenges, said Kevin Anderson (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, group reporter). First, decisions are often made at the local level, and teachers may be isolated from one another; to mitigate this, there is a need to ensure that every teacher has access to networked engagement and collaboration across districts. New teachers and all voices need to be invited to the table, said Anderson, and there is a need to support early adopters. Second, state accountability systems largely do not drive good instruction; systems need to be revamped to emphasize a more holistic and equitable view of education, he said. Changing these systems could require action from state agencies, legislators, and advocates. Finally, said Anderson, science education is not prioritized or valued, particularly at the elementary level.10 There is a need to develop support for science as a core content area and as a tool for broadening learning in other subjects at all grade levels. Science is essential to being an active and responsible member of the community, he said, and it is essential to career and college readiness. Relevant instruction in science at all grade levels from pre–K through 12 provides students opportunities to better understand their world and be better stewards to their communities’ environments.
The in-person group, said Melissa Mortiz (Afterschool and Summer Learning Fellow, U.S. Department of Education, group reporter), discussed multiple challenges, including:
- Limited science instruction, particularly in elementary school.
- Local control makes coherent vision of science instruction difficult to implement.
- Lack of quality professional learning opportunities and high-quality instructional materials.
- Limited capacity and time at the district and state levels.
- Siloed funding streams.
Moritz shared three goals that the group identified as highest priority: (1) high-quality science instruction needs to happen from pre-K through 5th grade to support a well-
10 For additional information, see the National Academies (2022) report on Preschool through Elementary Science and Engineering: The Brilliance of Children and the Strengths of Educators available at: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26215/science-and-engineering-in-preschool-through-elementary-grades-the-brilliance.
rounded education; (2) there is a need to better understand effective and coherent state and district policies that support the implementation of the Framework, and to document the processes that state and district leaders use to ensure high-quality instruction for all students; and (3) all teachers need incentives and time to engage in sustained in-service teacher professional learning; this can be accomplished through state and district policies that promote continuing education units and/or micro-credentials that lead to increases in compensation. Moritz noted that policy can sometimes feel as if it is being “done to people” rather than “done with and together.”
Partnerships and Alliances
Kicking off the report out from the virtual group on partnerships and alliances, Amanda Buice (Georgia Youth Science & Technology Centers, Inc., group reporter) described opportunities and challenges centered around resources, professional learning, and leveraging resources. Based on their discussion of these challenges and opportunities, Buice noted the group developed four main goals. First, strive for both informal and formal partnerships that share common vision in science learning, and share models of this in action. It is important to bring in voices that have not typically been represented in these types of partnerships, she said. Second, develop resources provided by those who both know the science concepts and are familiar with what is practical for teachers. Third, find ways to improve or streamline processes to support teachers in communities to share and learn together. Finally, to make resources and curriculum more culturally relevant and adaptable, strengthen the STEM ecosystem to balance locally adapted materials with those used more broadly. To meet these goals, the group discussed several potential approaches:
- Develop tools for building partnerships and networks of networks.
- Continue local and national convenings to share lessons learned.
- Provide federally funded opportunities for all states to provide professional learning partnerships.
- Develop and increase awareness of informal resources to partner with K–12 science teachers (e.g., parks, agencies, museums, zoos).
The in-person group, said Karmen Rouland (Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium, group reporter), identified many of the same challenges as other groups, including lack of long-term funding, turnover in leadership, and a lack of buy-in for science education at multiple levels. The group set four goals for partnerships and alliances. First, create supports for partnership formation at the local, state, and national levels by funding organizations, building leadership capacity, and establishing metrics to achieve goals that collectively support standards implementation. Second, create classrooms and experiences that retain and support teachers and engage students. Third, encourage the establishment or growth of an anchor organization that would support a shared vision of science learning. Finally, said Rouland, there is a need to make professional learning opportunities available for all teachers and administrators.
Curriculum and Instruction
The final set of report outs focused on curriculum and instruction. One challenge that the virtual group identified that has been repeated again and again during the summit, said Christine Cunningham (Pennsylvania State University, group reporter), is a lack of time. Teachers need time to learn about the standards, to implement them in their classrooms, and to reflect upon their experiences. Students also need time, said Cunningham; they
need time in the school day to engage in different types of science, and time outside of school to interact with science through informal learning opportunities. Another challenge, she said, is inequitable access to opportunities and materials, and inequitable value placed on certain knowledge and certain ways of understanding. In addition to these challenges, the group also discussed the fact that there is an enormous opportunity right now to leverage the work and lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a lot of innovation, said Cunningham, and “we would be remiss if we didn’t look to see what we should be carrying forward from that disruptive moment in our educational history.” Given these challenges and opportunities, the virtual group focused on three goals:
- Develop materials that are adaptable toward local, culturally relevant practices that center students’ knowledge, experiences, and culture.
- Protect or add science time for all students in all grades.
- Develop professional learning that focuses on actualizing the vision of the Framework in ways that are relevant to local classroom contexts, including justice-oriented teaching.
Daniel Alcazar Roman (University of California, Berkeley, group reporter), representing the in-person group, said that one major challenge is that implementation is often seen as a moment, rather than framed as an ongoing process. To address this challenge, the in-person group set a goal that all districts will effectively engage in an iterative improvement process that supports an equitably phased implementation of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM), based on the Framework. A related challenge, he said, is that HQIM are appearing, but teachers need a system of supports for teaching with HQIM. The group set a goal for all teachers of science, especially K–5 teachers, to have support in using HQIM to improve teachers’ practice and students’ engagement in 3D learning, toward the vision of the Framework across the trajectory of implementation.
Reflections on the day began with comments from members of the planning committee and then moved to hearing from audience members. Tricia Shelton (National Science Teaching Association, planning committee member) identified the numerous roles that teachers inhabit, and how these roles can be used to push science
education forward. Teachers are expertise sharers, who can leverage stories and experiences to teach and inspire. They are learners, attending to their personal goals and diving deep into areas that interest them. Finally, they are community members who can support and be supported by the broader community. Ellen Ebert (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington, attendee) added that teachers also can and should inhabit the role of policy maker. There is a need to identify and change policies that “discriminate, isolate, and exclude,” and teachers—along with other stakeholders—can make changes if they are persistent. “Policy is not just for the policy makers, it is for everybody,” she said. Ravit Golan Duncan (Rutgers University, planning committee member) emphasized the need to seek justice in science education by decentering the dominant ways of knowledge and centering voices that have been traditionally marginalized. To do so, she said, structures, policies, and procedures must be scrutinized, analyzed, and changed across the system; “we cannot change what we cannot see.” Danny Edelson (BSCS, attendee) added that the broad changes to practice and policy discussed at the summit are “quite counter-cultural in American educational reform,” which tends to focus on “quick fixes offering unrealistic outcomes.” Real change takes time, consistency, and a long-term commitment of resources. Edelson encouraged participants to work not only on making changes in science education, but to be part of the conversation on how reform is done in American schools; “we can’t just hope that this time will be different.”
Garcia closed by encouraging summit participants to continue these conversations in their own communities, and to amplify the stories and the successes that were highlighted over the course of the summit. She expressed her hope that each participant could be an “ambassador to go forth and infiltrate lovingly” by bringing others into the community of science education and continue this critical work for our children.
DISCLAIMER This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was prepared by ERIN FORSTAG as a factual summary of what occurred at the meeting. The statements made are those of the rapporteur or individual meeting participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all meeting participants; the planning committee; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
REVIEWERS To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was reviewed by SUSAN GOMEZ ZWIEP, BSCS Science Learning. We also thank staff member LIDA BENINSON for reading and providing helpful comments on this manuscript. KIRSTEN SAMPSON SNYDER, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, served as the review coordinator.
WORKSHOP PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAYA M. GARCIA (Chair), Science Content Specialist, Colorado Department of Education; ANEESHA BADRINARAYAN, Learning Policy Institute; JAMES BLAKE, Director of Strategic Initiatives and Focus Programs, Lincoln Public Schools, Nebraska; RAVIT GOLAN DUNCAN, Rutgers University; JESSICA HENDERSONROCKETTE, Instruction Partners; VICTOR SAMPSON, University of Texas at Austin; SAM SHAW,EdReports.org; and TRICIA SHELTON, National Science Teaching Association.
SPONSORS This workshop was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-005658) and the President’s Committee. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
For additional information regarding the workshop, visit: https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/04-26-2022/taking-stock-of-science-implementation-standards-a-summit-days-4-and-5.
SUGGESTED CITATION National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Taking Stock of Science Standards Implementation: Planning for Progress: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26766.
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.