Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$49.95



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 360


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 359
APPENDIX D range of disciplinary core ideas (e.g., structure and properties of matter, earth materials and systems) will demand increased cog- “ALL STANDARDS, ALL STUDENTS”: nitive expectations of all students. Making such connections has MAKING THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE typically been expected only of “advanced,” “gifted,” or “honors” STANDARDS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL students. The NGSS are intended to provide a foundation for all students, including those who can and should surpass the NGSS STUDENTS performance expectations. At the same time, the NGSS make it clear that these increased expectations apply to those students who have traditionally struggled to demonstrate mastery even in the previous generation of less cognitively demanding standards. The goal of the chapter and the case studies is to demonstrate The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are being devel- that NGSS are extended to all students. oped at a historic time when major changes in education are occurring at the national level. On one hand, student demo- Throughout this chapter and the case studies, the terms “domi- graphics across the nation are changing rapidly, as teachers have nant” and “non-dominant” groups are used with reference to seen the steady increase of student diversity in the classrooms. student diversity (Gutiérrez and Rogoff, 2003). The dominant Yet, achievement gaps in science and other key academic indi- group(s) does not refer to numerical majority, but rather to social cators among demographic subgroups have persisted. On the prestige and institutionalized privilege. This is particularly the case other hand, national initiatives are emerging for a new wave of now as student diversity is increasing in the nation’s classrooms. standards through the NGSS as well as the Common Core State Even where the dominant group(s) is the numerical minority, the Standards (CCSS) for English language arts and literacy and for privileging of its academic backgrounds persists. In contrast, non- mathematics. As these new standards are cognitively demanding, dominant groups have traditionally been underserved by the edu- teachers must make instructional shifts to enable all students to cation system. Thus, the term “non-dominant” highlights a call to be college and career ready. action that the education system meets the learning needs of the nation’s increasingly diverse student population. The NGSS are building on the National Research Council’s con- sensus reports in recent years, including Taking Science to School The chapter highlights the practicality and utility of implementa- (2007) and its companion report for practitioners, Ready, Set, tion strategies that are grounded in theoretical or conceptual SCIENCE! (2008), Learning Science in Informal Environments frameworks. It consists of three parts. First, it discusses both learn- (2009), and most notably A Framework for K–12 Science ing opportunities and challenges that the NGSS present to student Education (2012). These reports consistently highlight that when groups that have traditionally been underserved in science class- provided with equitable learning opportunities, students from rooms. Second, it describes effective strategies for implementa- diverse backgrounds are capable of engaging in scientific prac- tion of the NGSS in classrooms, schools, homes, and communities. tices and constructing meaning in both science classrooms and Finally, it provides the context of student diversity by addressing informal settings. changing demographics, persistent science achievement gaps, and education policies affecting non-dominant student groups. This Appendix, accompanied by seven case studies of diverse stu- dent groups, addresses what classroom teachers can do to ensure The seven case studies (available at: www.nextgenscience.org) that the NGSS are accessible to all students; hence the title: All illustrate science teaching and learning of non-dominant student Standards, All Students. Successful application of science and engi- groups as they engage in the NGSS. Several caveats are offered to neering practices (e.g., constructing explanations, engaging in understand the purpose of the case studies. First, the case studies argument from evidence) and understanding of how crosscutting are not intended to prescribe science instruction, but to illustrate concepts (e.g., patterns, structure and function) play out across a an example or prototype for implementation of effective classroom 25

OCR for page 359
strategies with diverse student groups. Given the vast range of Educational Progress), and Common Core of Data. The contex- student diversity across varied educational settings, teachers and tual information also comes from government reports addressing schools will implement the NGSS to meet the learning needs of specific student groups such as students in alternative education specific student groups in local contexts. Second, each case study programs or gifted and talented students. highlights one identified group (e.g., economically disadvantaged The case studies were written by members of the NGSS Diversity students, English language learners [ELLs]). In reality, however, and Equity Team with expertise on specific student groups. In students could belong to multiple categories of diversity (e.g., ELLs working on their case studies, many members piloted the NGSS in who are racial and ethnic minorities from economically disadvan- their own science instruction. The case studies represent science taged backgrounds). Third, as there is wide variability among stu- disciplines across grade levels: dents within each group, “essentializing” on the basis of a group • economically disadvantaged students—ninth grade chemistry label must be avoided. For example, ELLs form a heterogeneous • students from major racial and ethnic groups—eighth grade group with differences in ethnic backgrounds, proficiency level in life sciences home language and English, socioeconomic status, immigration • students with disabilities—sixth grade space sciences history, quality of prior schooling, parents’ education level, etc. • students with limited English proficiency—second grade earth In identifying student diversity, the case studies address the four sciences accountability groups defined in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) • girls—third grade engineering Act of 2001 and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary • students in alternative education programs—tenth and elev- Education Act (ESEA), Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v): enth grade chemistry • economically disadvantaged students, • gifted and talented students—fourth grade life sciences • students from major racial and ethnic groups, Collectively, this chapter and the seven case studies make con- • students with disabilities, and tributions in several ways. First, they focus on issues of student • students with limited English proficiency. diversity and equity in relation to the NGSS specifically as the Further, student diversity is extended by adding three groups: NGSS present both learning opportunities and challenges to all • girls, students, particularly non-dominant student groups. Second, • students in alternative education programs, and they are intended for education policies as they highlight emerg- • gifted and talented students. ing national initiatives through the NGSS as well as the CCSS for Each of the seven case studies consists of three parts that paral- English language arts and mathematics. Third, they are intended lel the chapter. Each case study starts with a vignette of science for classroom practice as the case studies were written by mem- instruction to illustrate learning opportunities as well as use of bers of the NGSS Diversity and Equity Team who are themselves effective classroom strategies connections to the NGSS and the teachers working with diverse student groups. Fourth, they CCSS for English language arts and mathematics. The vignette highlight key findings in research literature on student diversity emphasizes what teachers can do to successfully engage students and equity for seven demographic groups of students in science in learning the NGSS. Then each case study provides a brief sum- education. This is noteworthy because research for each student mary of the research literature on effective classroom strate- group tends to exist independently from the others. Finally, for gies for the student group highlighted. Each case study ends each student group, the case studies provide context in terms of with the context for the student group—demographics, science demographics, science achievement, and education policy. achievement, and education policy. The contextual information relies heavily on government reports addressing student diver- sity broadly, including the ESEA, U.S. Census, National Center for Education Statistics (including the National Assessment of 26 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 359
NGSS: LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES AND DEMANDS The integration of subject areas strengthens science learning for FOR NON-DOMINANT STUDENT GROUPS all students, particularly students who have traditionally been underserved. In the current climate of accountability policies which The NGSS offer a clear vision of rigorous science standards by are dominated by reading and mathematics, science tends to be blending science and engineering practices with disciplinary core de-emphasized. This is due to the perceived urgency of develop- ideas and crosscutting concepts across K–12. In addition, the NGSS ing basic literacy and numeracy for students in low-performing make connections to the CCSS for English language arts and lit- schools, including, but not limited to, ELLs and students with eracy and for mathematics. For the student groups that have tra- limited literacy development. Thus, allocation and utilization of ditionally been underserved in science education, the NGSS offer instructional time across subject areas will benefit these students. both learning opportunities and challenges. Instead of making Furthermore, the convergence of core ideas, practices, and cross- a long list of opportunities and challenges, major considerations cutting concepts across subject areas offers multiple entry points to are discussed below. Then, learning opportunities and challenges build and deepen understanding for these students. are illustrated in the seven case studies for economically disadvan- Initiatives are emerging to identify language demands and oppor- taged students, racial or ethnic minority students, students with tunities as ELLs engage in the NGSS as well as the CCSS for English disabilities, English language learners, girls, students in alternative language arts and literacy and for mathematics. For example, the education programs, and gifted and talented students. Understanding Language Initiative (ell.stanford.edu) is aimed at heightening educator awareness of the critical role that language NGSS Connections to CCSS for English Language Arts and plays in the CCSS and the NGSS. Its long-term goal is to help edu- Mathematics cators understand that the new standards cannot be achieved without providing specific attention to the language demands The NGSS make connections across school curricula. For example, inherent to each subject area. This initiative seeks to improve aca- students understand the crosscutting concept of patterns not demic outcomes for ELLs by drawing attention to critical aspects only across science disciplines but also across other subject areas of instructional practices and by advocating for necessary policy of language arts, mathematics, social studies, etc. Likewise, the supports at the state and local levels. crosscutting concept of cause and effect can be used to explain phenomena in the earth sciences as well as to examine character Inclusion of Engineering or plot development in literature. Thus, students develop mastery of crosscutting concepts through repeated and contrastive experi- The inclusion of engineering along with science in the NGSS has ences across school curricula. major implications for non-dominant student groups. First, from The requirements and norms for classroom discourse are shared an epistemological perspective, the NGSS reinterpret a traditional across all the science disciplines and indeed across all the subject view of epistemology and the history of science. For example, areas. The convergence of disciplinary practices across the CCSS Science for All Americans stated: for English language arts and literacy, the CCSS for mathemat- The recommendations in this chapter focus on the develop- ics, and the NGSS is highlighted in Figure D-1. For example, stu- ment of science, mathematics, and technology in Western dents are expected to engage in argumentation from evidence; culture, but not on how that development drew from construct explanations; obtain, synthesize, evaluate, and com- earlier Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, and Arabic cultures. The municate information; and build a knowledge base through sciences accounted for in this book are largely part of a tra- content-rich texts across the three subject areas. Such convergence dition of thought that happened to develop in Europe dur- is particularly beneficial for students from non-dominant groups ing the last 500 years—a tradition to which most people who are pressed for instructional time to develop literacy and from all cultures contribute today. (AAAS, 1989, p. 136) numeracy at the cost of other subjects, including science. “All Standards, All Students”: Making the Next Generation Science Standards Accessible to All Students 27

OCR for page 359
Math Science S2. Develop and use models M4. Model with mathematics M1. Make sense of S1. Ask questions and S5. Use mathematics and problems and persevere define problems computational thinking in solving them S3. Plan and carry out M6. Attend to precision investigations M7. Look for and make S4. Analyze and interpret use of structure data M8. Look for and E2. Build a strong base of knowledge express regularity through content-rich texts in repeated reasoning E5. Read, write, and speak grounded in evidence M2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively M3 and F4. Construct viable arguments and critique reasoning of others S7. Engage in argument from evidence S6. Construct explanations and design solutions S8. Obtain, evaluate, and communicate information E3. Obtain, synthesize, and report findings clearly and effectively in response to task and purpose M5. Use appropriate tools strategically E6. Use technology and digital media strategically and capably E1. Demonstrate independence in reading complex texts and writing and speaking about them E7. Come to understand other perspectives and cultures through reading, listening, and collaborations ELA FIGURE D-1 Relationships and convergences found in the CCSS for Mathematics (practices), CCSS for English Language Arts and Literacy (student portraits), and the Framework (science and engineering practices). NOTE: The letter and number set preceding each phrase denotes the discipline and number designated by the content standards. The Framework was used to guide the development of the NGSS. SOURCE: We acknowledge Tina Cheuk for developing Figure D-1 as part of the Understanding Language initiative at Stanford University (ell.stanford.edu). 28 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 359
At that time, although the goal of Science for All Americans of how scientists study the natural world” (p. 23). In the NGSS, was visionary, the definition of science in terms of Western sci- “inquiry-based science” is refined and deepened by the explicit ence while ignoring historical contributions from other cultures definition of the set of eight science and engineering practices, presented a limited or distorted view of science. The NGSS, by which have major implications for non-dominant student groups emphasizing engineering, recognize the contributions of other (for details, see Lee et al., 2013, Quinn et al., 2012). cultures historically. This (re)defines the epistemology of science Engagement in any of the science and engineering practices or what counts as science, which, in turn, defines or determines involves both scientific sense-making and language use (see school science curriculum. Figure D-1). Students engage in these practices for the scientific Second, from a pedagogical perspective, engineering has the sense-making process, as they transition from their naïve concep- potential to be inclusive of students who have traditionally been tions of the world to more scientifically based conceptions. marginalized in the science classroom and do not see science Engagement in these practices is also language intensive and as being relevant to their lives or future. By solving problems requires students to participate in classroom science discourse. through engineering in local contexts (e.g., gardening, improving Students must read, write, and visually represent as they develop air quality, cleaning water pollution in the community), students models and construct explanations. They speak and listen as they gain knowledge of science content, view science as relevant to present their ideas or engage in reasoned argumentation with their lives and future, and engage in science in socially relevant others to refine their ideas and reach shared conclusions. and transformative ways (Rodriguez and Berryman, 2002). These science and engineering practices offer rich opportunities Finally, from a global perspective, engineering offers oppor- and demands for language learning while they support science tunities for “innovation” and “creativity” at the K–12 level. learning for all students, especially English language learners, stu- Engineering is a field that is critical to innovation, and exposure dents with language processing difficulties, students with limited to engineering activities (e.g., robotics and invention competi- literacy development, and students who are speakers of social tions) can spark interest in the study of science, technology, engi- or regional varieties of English that are generally referred to as neering, and mathematics or future careers (NSF, 2010). Although “non-standard English.” When supported appropriately, these exposure to engineering at the pre-collegiate level is currently students are capable of learning science through their emerging rare (NAE and NRC, 2009), the NGSS make exposure to engineer- language and by comprehending and carrying out sophisticated ing at the pre-collegiate level no longer a rarity, but a necessity. language functions (e.g., arguing from evidence, constructing This opportunity is particularly important for students who tradi- explanations, developing models) using less-than-perfect English. tionally have not recognized science as relevant to their lives or By engaging in such practices, moreover, they simultaneously future and for students who come from multiple languages and build on their understanding of science and their language profi- cultures in this global community. ciency (i.e., capacity to do more with language). Focus on Practices Crosscutting Concepts The ways we describe student engagement in science have Crosscutting concepts are overarching scientific themes that evolved over time. Terms such as “hands-on” and “minds-on” emerge across all scientific disciplines. These themes provide the have traditionally been used to describe when students engage in context for new disciplinary core ideas and enable students to science. Then, National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996, “develop a cumulative, coherent, and useable understanding of 2000) highlighted “scientific inquiry” as the core of science teach- science and engineering” (NRC, 2012, p. 83). Thus, crosscutting ing and learning through which students “develop knowledge concepts bridge the engineering, physical, life, and earth/space and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding sciences and offer increased rigor across science disciplines over “All Standards, All Students”: Making the Next Generation Science Standards Accessible to All Students 29

OCR for page 359
K–12. Although Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989) identi- or linguistic knowledge) with disciplinary knowledge, and (3) offer fied “common themes” and National Science Education Standards sufficient school resources to support student learning. (NRC, 1996) identified “unifying concepts and processes,” the First, to value and respect the experiences that all students bring NGSS bring crosscutting concepts to the forefront as one of three from their backgrounds, it is important to make diversity vis- dimensions of science learning. ible. In the process of making diversity visible, there are both Crosscutting concepts offers frameworks to conceptualize disci- connections and disconnections between home/community and plinary core ideas. In this way, students think of science learning classroom/school. Effective teachers understand how disconnec- not as memorization of isolated or disconnected facts, but as inte- tions may vary among different student groups, as well as how to grated and interrelated concepts. This is a fundamental under- capitalize on connections. These teachers bridge diverse students’ standing of science that is often implied as background knowl- background knowledge and experiences to scientific knowledge edge for students in “gifted,” “honors,” or “advanced” programs. and practices. Through the NGSS, explicit teaching of crosscutting concepts Second, to articulate students’ background knowledge with dis- enables less privileged students, most from non-dominant groups, ciplinary knowledge of science, it is important to capitalize on to make connections among big ideas that cut across science dis- “funds of knowledge” (González et al., 2005). Funds of knowledge ciplines. This could result in leveling the playing field for students are culturally based understandings and abilities that develop over who otherwise might not have exposure to such opportunities. time in family and neighborhood contexts, and the social and intel- lectual resources contained in families and communities can serve IMPLEMENTATION OF EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES as resources for academic learning. Effective teachers ask questions that elicit students’ funds of knowledge related to science topics. To make the NGSS accessible to all students, implementation of They also use cultural artifacts and community resources in ways effective strategies capitalizes on learning opportunities while that are academically meaningful and culturally relevant. being aware of the demands that the NGSS present to non- Finally, school resources constitute essential elements of a school’s dominant student groups, as described in the previous section. organizational context for teaching and learning. School resources Unfortunately, existing research literature does not address stu- to support student learning involve material resources, human dents’ performance expectations as envisioned in the NGSS based resources (or capital), and social resources (or capital). School on the mastery of science and engineering practices, crosscutting resources are likely to have a greater impact on the learning concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. Furthermore, the existing opportunities of non-dominant students who have traditionally research literature addresses non-dominant student groups sepa- been underserved in science education. In schools and classrooms rately. For example, research on race or ethnicity, research on where non-dominant students reside, resources are often scarce, English language learners, research on students with disabilities, forcing allocations of the limited resources for some areas (e.g., and research on gender comprise distinct research traditions (for reading and mathematics) and not others (e.g., science and other effective strategies for non-dominant groups in science classrooms, non-tested subject areas). see Special Issue in Theory Into Practice, 2013; for a discussion of classroom strategies and policy issues, see Lee and Buxton, 2010). Below, each of these themes is described as it relates to class- room strategies, home and community connections, and school There seem to be common themes that unite these distinct research resources—all of which can enable non-dominant student groups areas. In describing “equitable learning opportunities” for non- to engage in the NGSS. dominant student groups, Lee and Buxton (2010) highlight the following themes: (1) value and respect the experiences that all students bring from their backgrounds (e.g., homes or communi- ties), (2) articulate students’ background knowledge (e.g., cultural 30 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 359
Effective Classroom Strategies in their classrooms: (1) differentiated instruction and (2) Universal Design for Learning. Key features of effective classroom strategies from the research Students with limited English proficiency. The research literature literature on each of the non-dominant groups are summarized indicates five areas where teachers can support both science and below. In recognition of the fact that each area of research litera- language learning for English language learners: (1) literacy strat- ture has been developing as an independent body of knowledge, egies for all students, (2) language support strategies with ELLs, the description of strategies is provided for each group. Yet, it is (3) discourse strategies with ELLs, (4) home language support, and noted that while some strategies are unique to a particular group (5) home culture connections. (e.g., home language use with ELLs, accommodations or modifica- tions for students with disabilities), other strategies apply to all Girls. The research literature points to three main areas where students broadly (e.g., multiple modes of representation). More schools can positively impact girls’ achievement, confidence, and detailed descriptions are provided in each of the seven case stud- affinity with science and engineering: (1) instructional strate- ies, including the four accountability groups defined in ESEA and gies to increase girls’ science achievement and their intentions to three additional groups. While effective science instruction of the continue studies in science, (2) curricula to improve girls’ achieve- NGSS will be based on the existing research literature, the NGSS ment and confidence in science by promoting images of successful will also stimulate new directions for research to actualize the females in science, and (3) classrooms’ and schools’ organizational standards’ vision for all students. structure in ways that benefit girls in science (e.g., after-school clubs, summer camps, and mentoring programs). Economically disadvantaged students. Strategies to support economically disadvantaged students include (1) connecting sci- Students in alternative education programs. The research literature ence education to students’ sense of “place” as physical, histori- focuses on school-wide approaches to promote increased atten- cal, and sociocultural dimensions; (2) applying students’ funds of dance and high school graduation. Specific factors, taken collective- knowledge and cultural practices; (3) using project-based science ly, correspond with alienation from school prior to dropping out. learning as a form of connected science; and (4) providing school Public alternative schools employ strategies to counteract these fac- resources and funding for science instruction. tors and increase student engagement: (1) structured after-school opportunities, (2) family outreach, (3) life skills training, (4) safe Students from major racial and ethnic groups. Effective strategies learning environment, and (5) individualized academic support. for students from major racial and ethnic groups fall into the fol- lowing categories: (1) culturally relevant pedagogy, (2) community Gifted and talented students. Gifted and talented students may involvement and social activism, (3) multiple representation and have such characteristics as intense interests, rapid learning, moti- multimodal experiences, and (4) school support systems, including vation and commitment, curiosity, and questioning skills. Teachers role models and mentors of similar racial or ethnic backgrounds. can employ effective differentiation strategies to promote the science learning of gifted and talented students in four domains: Students with disabilities. Students with disabilities have their (1) fast pacing, (2) level of challenge (including differentiation Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), specific to each indi- of content), (3) opportunities for self-direction, and (4) strategic vidual that mandate the accommodations and modifications that grouping. teachers must provide to support student learning in the regular education classroom. By definition, accommodations allow stu- Home and Community Connections to School Science dents to overcome or work around their disabilities with the same performance expectations of their peers, whereas modifications While it has long been recognized that building home-school con- generally change the curriculum or performance expectations for nections is important for the academic success of non-dominant a specific student. Two approaches for providing accommodations student groups, in practice this is rarely done in an effective man- and modifications are widely used by general education teachers ner. There are tensions as parents and families want their children “All Standards, All Students”: Making the Next Generation Science Standards Accessible to All Students 31

OCR for page 359
to maintain the cultural and linguistic practices of their heritage To promote parents’ involvement in school science, schools can while also wanting their children to participate fully in the domi- play a part to address parents’ needs from the school and remove nant school culture. A challenge facing schools is the perceived roadblocks to participation. Schools may need to individually disconnect between school science practices and home and com- invite underserved families on science-related field trips, making munity practices of non-dominant student groups. Traditionally, certain that particular concerns are met (e.g., child care, trans- research on home-school connections looked at how the fam- lation, transportation) so that the parents are able to attend. ily and home environments of non-dominant student groups Teachers can create homework assignments that invite joint par- measured up to the expectations and practices of the dominant ticipation of the child and parent to complete a task together group. The results were interpreted in terms of deficits in stu- (e.g., observe the phases of the moon, record water use in the dents’ family and home environments, as compared to their domi- house). A non-evaluative survey related to science content can nant counterparts. In contrast, more recent research has identified generate classroom discussions that bridge home and school. resources and strengths in the family and home environments Homework assignments can encourage dialogue, increase interest of non-dominant student groups (Calabrese Barton et al., 2004). among both parents and students, and solicit home language sup- Students bring to the science classroom funds of knowledge from port for science learning. their homes and communities that can serve as resources for aca- Parents from non-dominant backgrounds feel comfortable with the demic learning and teachers should understand and find ways school when they perceive the school as reflecting their values, and to activate this prior knowledge (González et al., 2005). Science such parents, in turn, are most likely to partner with the school. For learning builds on tasks and activities that occur in the social con- example, a science camp focused on African American achievement texts of day-to-day living, whether or not the school chooses to had high parental participation because its goals highlighted issues recognize this. related to African American identity and culture (Simpson and Through the NGSS, students can engage in science and engineering Parsons, 2008). Teachers can also increase parent involvement by practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas by con- relating after-school and summer school themes around values that necting school science to their out-of-school experiences in home are important to the families and communities. and community contexts. Several approaches build connections Student engagement with school science in community contexts. between home/community and school science: (1) increase parent Strategies that involve the community underscore the importance involvement in their children’s science classroom by encouraging of connecting the school science curriculum to the students’ lives parents’ roles as partners in science learning, (2) engage students in and the community in which they live. It is through these connec- defining problems and designing solutions of community projects in tions that students who have traditionally been alienated from their neighborhoods (typically engineering), and (3) focus on science science recognize science as relevant to their lives and future, learning in informal environments. deepen their understanding of science concepts, develop agency Parent involvement in school science. Concerted efforts should be in science, and consider careers in science. made to support and encourage parent involvement in promoting Science learning in community contexts may take different positive engagement and achievement of non-dominant student approaches. First, both disciplinary and informal education experts groups in science classrooms. Siblings and peers can serve as role underscore the connection between science and the neighborhood models on academic achievement. Parents without academic back- that the students reside in. Effective approaches can include engag- ground in science can still be partners in their children’s science ing in outdoor exploration (e.g., bird surveys, weather journal) and education by setting high expectations for academic success and analyzing local natural resources (e.g., landforms in the neighbor- higher education. Teachers can form partnerships with parents, hood, soil composition). facilitating dialogue to solicit their help with homework and their attendance at science-related events in the school. Second, the community context for science education capitalizes on the community resources and funds of knowledge to make science 32 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 359
more culturally, linguistically, and socially relevant for diverse stu- non-dominant groups see museums as worthwhile destinations dent groups (González et al., 2005). For example, a teacher could for their families. tap into the community as a resource by recruiting a community Second, environments should be developed in ways that expressly member(s) to assist an upper elementary class, as students inves- draw upon participants’ cultural practices, including everyday lan- tigate the pollution along a river near the school. By bringing the guage, linguistic practices, and cultural experiences. In designed neighborhood and community into the science classroom, students environments, such as museums, bilingual or multilingual labels learn that science is not only applicable to events in the classroom, provide access to the specific content and facilitate conversations but it also extends to what they experience in their homes and and sense-making among participants. Developing peer networks what they observe in their communities. may be particularly important to foster sustained participation of Finally, “place-based” science education is consistent with cultur- non-dominant groups. Designed spaces that serve families should ally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Through social consider visits by extended families. Members of diverse cultural activism, students develop critical consciousness of social inequi- groups can play a critical role in the development and implemen- ties, especially as such inequities exist in their communities. When tation of programs, serving as designers, advisers, front-line edu- youth find science education to be empowering and transforma- cators, and evaluators of such efforts. tive, they are likely to embrace and further investigate what they are learning, instead of being resistant to learning science. Thus, School Resources for Science Instruction school science should be reconceptualized to give a more central role to students’ lived experiences and identities. School resources to support student learning generally fall into three categories (Gamoran et al., 2003; Penuel et al., 2009). First, Science learning in informal environments. Informal environments material resources include time available for teaching, profes- for science learning (e.g., museums, nature centers, zoos, etc.) have sional development, and collaboration among teachers. Material the potential to broaden participation in science and engineering resources also include curricular materials, equipment, supplies, for youth from non-dominant communities. Informal environments and expenditures for school personnel and other purposes related may also include non-institutional opportunities that are not tra- to teaching and learning. Second, human capital includes indi- ditionally recognized by school systems (e.g., community gardens, vidual knowledge, skills, and expertise that might become a part woodlots, campgrounds). However, informal institutions face chal- of the stock of resources available in an organization. In schools, lenges in reaching and serving non-dominant groups, as reflected human capital involves teachers’ knowledge, including content in low attendance patterns. Although research on how to struc- knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content ture science learning opportunities to better serve non-dominant knowledge, as well as principal leadership. Finally, social capital groups in informal environments is sparse, it highlights two prom- concerns the relationships among individuals in a group or orga- ising insights and practices (NRC, 2009). nization, including such norms as trust, collaboration, common First, informal environments for science learning should be devel- values, shared responsibility, a sense of obligation, and collective oped and implemented with the interests and concerns of particu- decision making. lar cultural groups and communities in mind. Project goals should School resources are likely to have a greater impact on the learn- be mutually determined by educators and the communities and ing opportunities of non-dominant student groups. This is because cultural groups being served. It is also important to develop strat- the dominant student group is more likely to have the benefits of egies that help learners identify with science in personally mean- other supports for their learning, such as better-equipped schools, ingful ways. Having community-based contacts that are familiar more material resources at home, and highly educated parents. In and safe can be critical in engaging families in science explora- contrast, the academic success of non-dominant students depends tions and conversations and even, at a more basic level, in helping more heavily on the quality of their school environment; yet, it is “All Standards, All Students”: Making the Next Generation Science Standards Accessible to All Students 33

OCR for page 359
these students who are less likely to have access to high-quality students who are highly mobile or transient. On one hand, the learning environments. Thus, inequitable resources are a central nationwide purview of the NGSS may help these students by concern. The NGSS present both opportunities and challenges to providing them with consistent standards among states, districts, reconceptualize the allocation and utilization of school resources. and schools. On the other hand, this assumption may impede the Material resources. Science receives less instructional time (a ability of new immigrant students to catch up as they are unable form of material resources) than language arts and mathematics, to draw from a base of years of shared experiences. Likewise, stu- which are both considered to be basic skills. Particularly, science dents who miss school because of homelessness or other reasons instruction in low-performing schools is often limited and tightly for mobility may struggle to fill gaps in understanding. regulated due to the urgency of developing basic literacy and Social capital. The conditions of urban or low-performing schools numeracy. In addition, under the demands of accountability poli- are not conducive to building social resources in the form of trust, cies, schools devote extended time and attention to the heavily collaboration, and high expectations collectively. Urban settings tested subjects of language arts and mathematics, leaving limited present challenges, including overcrowding, management issues, time for science. and emotional concerns related to conditions of poverty in stu- The NGSS capitalize on the synergy with the CCSS for English lan- dents’ homes. guage arts and literacy and for mathematics. The standards across The NGSS reinforce the need for collaboration among teachers of the three subject areas share common shifts to focus on core different specializations and subject areas beyond the traditional concepts and practices that build coherently across K–12. Science forms of collaboration. Science teachers need to work with spe- and engineering practices in the NGSS (e.g., argumentation from cial education teachers and teachers of ELLs in order to foster a evidence) share commonalities with those of the CCSS for English deeper understanding of science. In addition, science, math, and language arts and for mathematics (see Figure D-1). Furthermore, English language arts teachers need to work together in order to the CCSS for literacy require strong content knowledge, informa- address both the opportunities and demands for meaningful con- tional texts, and text complexity across subject areas, including nections among these subject areas. Furthermore, collaboration science. In a similar manner, the NGSS make connections to the needs to involve the entire school personnel, including teachers, CCSS. Such synergy will help effective use of instructional time administrators, counselors, etc. Utilization and development of among English language arts, mathematics, and science. social capital among school personnel is key to effective imple- Human capital. While all students deserve access to highly qualified mentation of the NGSS with all students, particularly students teachers, schools serving non-dominant student groups require the from non-dominant groups. most effective teachers to enable students to overcome achieve- ment gaps (Marx and Harris, 2006). The NGSS require science teach- CONTEXT ers who possess knowledge of disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts. For non-dominant To engage all students in learning the NGSS, it is important to student groups, teachers should also be able to connect science to understand the context that influences science learning by diverse students’ home and community experiences as the students engage student groups. This section briefly describes student demograph- in the NGSS. Such expectations present both opportunities and ics, science achievement, and education policies affecting non- challenges to teacher preparation and professional development dominant student groups. More details are presented in each of for urban or low-performing schools where non-dominant student the seven case studies in terms of economically disadvantaged stu- groups tend to be concentrated. dents, racial or ethnic minority students, students with disabilities, The NGSS are built on continuity of learning progressions across English language learners, girls, students in alternative education grade levels. This presents both opportunities and challenges to programs, and gifted and talented students. 34 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 359
Student Demographics • Students in alternative education programs. Reporting the demographics of students in alternative education is difficult The student population in the United States is increasingly more due to wide inconsistencies in definitions across the nation. A diverse: significant proportion of students who attend public alterna- • Economically disadvantaged students. The American tive schools specifically targeting dropout prevention are eco- Community Survey report from the U.S. Census Bureau sum- nomically disadvantaged students, racial and ethnic minorities, marized the poverty data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Overall, and English language learners (NCES, 2012). 21.6% of children in the United States live in poverty, the high- • Gifted and talented students. Reporting the demographics of est poverty rate since the poverty survey began in 2001. The gifted and talented students is difficult due to wide inconsis- poverty rate was the highest for blacks at 38.2% and Hispanics tencies in definitions, assessments to identify these students, at 32.3%, compared to whites at 17.0% and Asians at 13.0%. and funding for programs across the nation. The National According to the Common Core of Data report, 48% of stu- Association for Gifted Children (NAGC, 2012) defines giftedness dents were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches in 2010– as “those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude or 2011. A greater number of students live in poverty in the cities competence in one or more domains” and estimates that this compared to suburban areas, towns, and rural areas. definition describes approximately three million or roughly • Students from major racial or ethnic minority groups. The 6% of all students in K–12. student population in the United States is increasingly more Several caveats are made with regard to student diversity. First, diverse racially and ethnically. According to the 2010 U.S. each demographic subgroup is not a homogenous or monolithic Census, 36% of the U.S. population is composed of racial group, and there is a great deal of variability among members minorities, including 16% Hispanics, 13% blacks, 5% Asians, of a group. For example, categories of disabilities include specific and 1% American Indian or Native Alaskans (U.S. Census learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, other Bureau, 2012). Among the school-age population under health impairments, intellectual disability, emotional disturbance, 19 years old in 2010, 45% were minorities. It is projected that developmental delay, autism, multiple disabilities, hearing impair- the year 2022 will be the turning point when minorities will ment, visual impairment, orthopedic impairment, deaf-blindness, become the majority in terms of percentage of the school-age and traumatic brain injury. These categories could be classified population. as cognitive, emotional, and physical disabilities. Such variability • Students with disabilities. The number of children and youth among members of a group cautions that essentializing should be ages 3–21 receiving special education services under the avoided. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) rose from 4.1 million to 6.7 million between 1980 and 2005, or from Second, there is a significant overlap among non-dominant stu- 10% to 14% of the student enrollment (National Center for dent groups. For example, most ELLs are racial or ethnic minori- Education Statistics [NCES], 2011). That number decreased to ties. In addition, 60% of economically disadvantaged students, 6.5 million or 13% of student enrollment by 2009. including large proportions of racial or ethnic minorities and ELLs, • Students with limited English proficiency. More than 1 in 5 live in cities (NCES, 2012). As a result, these students face multiple students (21%) speak a language other than English at home, challenges in achieving academic success. and Limited English Proficient (LEP) students (the federal term) Finally, specific student groups are either overrepresented or have more than doubled from 5% in 1993 to 11% in 2007. The underrepresented in education programs. For example, females 11% of LEP students does not count those who were classified are underrepresented in engineering and physics (NSF, 2012). as LEP when younger but who are now considered proficient in Racial or ethnic minority students, economically disadvantaged English or during a monitoring period. students, and ELLs are underrepresented in gifted and talented “All Standards, All Students”: Making the Next Generation Science Standards Accessible to All Students 35

OCR for page 359
programs, whereas they are overrepresented in special education noted that these subgroups represent the accountability groups programs (Harry and Klingner, 2006). defined in ESEA. The framework for NAEP science involves science content in three Science Achievement areas (physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences) and four science practices (identifying science principles, using While the student population in the United States is becoming science principles, using scientific inquiry, and using technological more diverse, science achievement gaps persist by demographic design). Two developments are noteworthy in relation to the NGSS. subgroups. The results of international and national science First, the 2009 NAEP science assessment included interactive com- assessments indicate the need for a two-pronged approach to puter and hands-on tasks to measure how well students were able enhancing student science outcomes. Achievement gaps must to reason through complex problems and apply science to real-life be closed among demographic subgroups of students, while situations. This approach could pave a way for assessment of improved science outcomes should be promoted for all students. science and engineering practices in NGSS. Second, the first-ever In the report Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, NAEP Technology and Engineering Literacy Assessment (TELA) is the National Science Board states, “In America, it should be possi- currently under development. The initial assessment, planned for ble, even essential, to elevate the achievement of low-performing 2014, will be a probe—a smaller-scale, focused assessment on a at-risk groups while simultaneously lifting the ceiling of achieve- timely topic that explores a particular question or issue. This ment for our future innovators” (NSF, 2010, p. 16). approach could be used for assessment of engineering in the NGSS. U.S. students have not ranked favorably on international com- A clear understanding of science achievement gaps should take parisons of science achievement as measured by the Trends in into account certain methodological limitations in how these gaps International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the are measured and reported. Science achievement is typically mea- Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Although sured by standardized tests administered to national and inter- TIMSS science results for U.S. fourth and eighth graders showed national student samples. A strength of these measures is that positive trends since its first administration in 1995 through the they provide access to large data sets that allow for the use of latest administration in 2007, PISA results for 15-year-olds did not powerful statistical analyses. However, these measures also pres- corroborate trends indicated by TIMSS. When it comes to apply- ent limitations. ing science in meaningful ways (e.g., using scientific evidence, identifying scientific issues, and explaining phenomena scientifi- First, standardized tests provide only a general picture of how cally) as measured by PISA, U.S. students performed in the bottom demographic variables relate to science achievement. For exam- half of the international comparison and did not show significant ple, “Hispanic” is likely to be treated as a single category of race improvements since its first administration in 2000 through its lat- or ethnicity, masking potentially important differences in per- est administration in 2009. formance among Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Cuban Americans. Similarly, the group of students with disabilities (SDs) At the national level, the National Assessment of Educational is generic, referring to students who usually have IEPs and could Progress (NAEP) provides data for U.S. students’ science perfor- include both learning disabled (LD) or emotionally disturbed mance over time. Focusing only on more recent NAEP science (ED). Thus, achievement data are generally lumped together for assessments in 1996, 2000, 2005, 2009, and 2011, achievement very different disabilities. Such overgeneralization hinders more gaps persist among demographic subgroups of students across nuanced understanding of achievement gaps, thereby limiting grades 4, 8, and 12. Results are reported by family income level the potential effectiveness of educational interventions aimed at (based on eligibility for the National School Lunch Program), reducing these gaps. race or ethnicity, students with disabilities, English language learners, gender, and type of school (public or private). It is Second, standardized tests have the potential to reinforce stereo- types, both positive and negative, of certain demographic groups 36 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 359
(Rodriguez, 1998). For example, the “model minority” stereotype academic assistance through Supplemental Educational Services of Asian American students as strong performers in mathemat- (e.g., tutoring) and the right to transfer to another public school. ics and science may well be supported by generalized test data Schools, districts, and states cannot hide historically underper- for the racial category of Asian American. However, such a result forming demographic groups, because ESEA forces the states to masks great disparities within this group, such as Southeast Asian publicly monitor these groups and to be accountable for their refugees with limited literacy development in their homes or com- performance. On the undesirable side, however, all of the added munities. These students are less likely to have their needs met in attention to high-stakes testing does not necessarily result in equitable ways if teachers presume that they “naturally” learn improved teaching. In fact, the increased emphasis on testing science and mathematics with little trouble. In contrast, high- could detract from academically rigorous learning opportunities achieving Hispanic or African American students may be disadvan- that are often lacking with students from certain demographic taged by teachers or counselors who underestimate them and set subgroups. Similarly, calling more public attention to the failures low expectations of their academic success. of schools to adequately meet the needs of these students does Finally, standardized tests do not analyze or report interactions little to ensure that they will receive instruction that is more between demographic variables. For example, as racial/ethnic engaging, more intellectually challenging, or more culturally or minority students are disproportionately represented in free or socially relevant. reduced-price lunch programs, science achievement gaps between Although ESEA mandates reporting of AYP for reading and math- race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status are confounded. In a simi- ematics, the same is not true for science. With respect to science, lar manner, science achievement gaps between race/ethnicity and ESEA only requires that by the 2007–2008 school year each state gender are confounded. would have science assessments to be administered and reported for formative purposes at least once during grades 3–5, grades Educational Policies 6–9, and grades 10–12. However, it is up to each state to decide whether to include high-stakes science testing in state accountabil- Passage of the NCLB Act of 2001 (the reauthorized ESEA) ushered ity systems or AYP reporting. Although science accountability poli- in a new era of high-stakes testing and accountability policies. cies affect all students, the impact is far greater for student groups Districts and schools are accountable for making an adequate level that have traditionally been underserved in the education system. of achievement gain each year, referred to as annual yearly prog- Separate from federal and state policies that apply to all students, ress (AYP). The theory behind ESEA (NCLB) assumes that states, specific policies apply to specific student groups. According to the districts, and schools will allocate resources to best facilitate the ESEA: attainment of AYP. Decisions concerning resources and practices • Title I is the largest federally funded educational program are determined largely by test scores on state assessments. intended for “improving the academic achievement of the Although ESEA is most often associated with accountability sys- disadvantaged” in order to meet “the educational needs of tems, there is a second property of ESEA that has also been a low-achieving children in our Nation's highest-poverty schools, focus of attention. ESEA mandates that each state report AYP dis- limited English proficient children, migratory children, children aggregated for demographic subgroups of students. Mandating with disabilities, Indian children, neglected or delinquent chil- this disaggregated reporting of AYP results in potentially desir- dren, and young children in need of reading assistance.” able outcomes: (a) each of the groups is publicly monitored to • Title I, Part H, states that the Dropout Prevention Act aims “to examine achievement and progress; (b) resources are allocated provide for school dropout prevention and reentry and to raise differentially to these groups to enhance the likelihood that they academic achievement levels by providing grants that (1) chal- meet AYP; and (c) if AYP is not met for these groups in schools lenge all children to attain their highest academic potential; receiving Title I funding, students are provided with additional and (2) ensure that all students have substantial and ongoing “All Standards, All Students”: Making the Next Generation Science Standards Accessible to All Students 37

OCR for page 359
opportunities to attain their highest academic potential to acquire effective strategies to include all students regardless through school-wide programs proven effective in school drop- of racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, and gender out prevention and reentry.” backgrounds. While effective classroom strategies that enable stu- • Title III addresses “language instruction for limited English pro- dents to engage in the NGSS will draw from the existing research ficient and immigrant students.” literature, the NGSS will also stimulate new research agenda. For • Title VII is designed for “Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska example, future research may identify ways to make connections Native education.” between school science and home/community for non-dominant • Title IX prevents gender-based discrimination within federally student groups as they engage in the NGSS. Future research may funded educational programs. Title IX states, “No person in explore how to utilize and allocate school resources to support the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from student learning in terms of material resources, human capital, participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to and social capital in relation to the NGSS. discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Effective implementation of the NGSS for all students, including federal financial assistance” (Public Law No. 92318, 86 Stat. 235). non-dominant student groups, will require shifts in the education • Title IX, Part A, SEC. 9101 (22), provides a federal definition support system. Key components of the support system include and federal research funding for gifted and talented students: teacher preparation and professional development, principal “The term gifted and talented, when used with respect to stu- support and leadership, public-private-community partnerships, dents, children, or youth, means students, children, or youth formal and informal classroom experiences that require consider- who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas able coordination among community stakeholders, technological such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or capabilities, network infrastructure, cyber-learning opportuni- in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities ties, access to digital resources, online learning communities, and not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop virtual laboratories. As the NGSS implementation takes root over those capabilities.” time, these components of the education system will also evolve • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law and change accordingly. ensuring services to children with disabilities. REFERENCES CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The NGSS offer a vision of science teaching and learning that pres- AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1989). ents both learning opportunities and demands for all students, Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. particularly student groups that have traditionally been under- Calabrese Barton, A., Drake, C., Perez, J. G., St. Louis, K., and George, represented in the science classroom. Furthermore, the NGSS are M. (2004). Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. connected to the CCSS for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher 33:3–12. Changes in the new standards occur as student demographics in Gamoran, A., Anderson, C. W., Quiroz, P. A., Secada, W. G., Williams, the nation become increasingly diverse while science achievement T., and Ashmann, S. (2003). Transforming teaching in math and gaps persist among demographic subgroups. science: How schools and districts can support change. New York: Teachers College Press. The academic rigor and expectations of the NGSS are less famil- González, N., Moll, L. C., and Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: iar to many science teachers than conventional or traditional Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. teaching practices and require shifts for science teaching, which Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. are consistent with shifts for teaching CCSS for English language arts and mathematics (see Figure D-1). Science teachers need 38 NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

OCR for page 359
Gutiérrez, K., and Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: NRC. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 32:19–25. NRC. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, cross- Harry, B., and Klingner, J. K. (2006). Why are so many minority stu- cutting themes, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National dents in special education?: Understanding race and disability in Academies Press. schools. New York: Teachers College Press. NSF (National Science Foundation). (2010). Preparing the next genera- Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant ped- tion of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s agogy. American Educational Research Journal 32:465–491. human capital. Washington, DC: NSF. Lee, O., and Buxton, C. A. (2010). Diversity and equity in science edu- NSF. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012: A broad base of cation: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College quantitative information on the U.S. and international science and Press. engineering enterprise. Washington, DC: NSF. Lee, O., Quinn, H., and Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for Penuel, W., Riel, M., Krause, A., and Frank, K. (2009). Analyzing teach- English language learners: Language demands and opportuni- ers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social ties in relation to Next Generation Science Standards. Educational network approach. Teachers College Record 111(1):124–163. Researcher 42:223–233. Quinn, H., Lee, O., and Valdés, G. (2012). Language demands and Marx, R. W., and Harris, C. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards for education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary English language learners: What teachers need to know. Stanford, School Journal 106:467–477. CA: Stanford University, Understanding Language Initiative at NAE and NRC (National Academy of Engineering and National Stanford University. Available at: ell.stanford.edu. Research Council). (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Rodriguez, A. (1998). Busting open the meritocracy myth: Rethinking Understanding the status and improving the prospects. L. Katehi, equity and student achievement in science education. Journal of G. Pearson, and M. Feder (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 4:195–216. Academies Press. Rodriguez, A. J., and Berryman, C. (2002). Using sociotransformative NAGC (National Association for Gifted Children). (2010). Redefining constructivism to teach for understanding in diverse classrooms: giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm. Available at: A beginning teacher’s journey. American Educational Research http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/About_NAGC/Redefining%20 Journal 39:1017–1045. Giftedness%20for%20a%20New%20Century.pdf. Simpson, J. S., and Parsons, E. (2008). African American perspectives NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). (2011). The condi- and informal science educational experiences. Science Education tion of education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). Washington, DC: U.S. 93:293–321. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Special issue on diversity and equity in science education. (2013). NCES. (2012). The condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). Theory into Practice 52(1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical abstract of the United States, Education Sciences. 2012. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available at: NRC (National Research Council). (1996). National science education http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/education.html. standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. (2008). Ready, set, SCIENCE!: Putting research to work in K–8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. “All Standards, All Students”: Making the Next Generation Science Standards Accessible to All Students 39