State board adopts middle school science standards

Students in the engineering academy at Dublin High School. (click to enlarge)

The State Board of Education is grappling with how to teach middle school science aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards. Credit: EdSource file photo

In a surprise move that disappointed California’s top educator but relieved some teachers, the State Board of Education on Wednesday backed away from a proposal that would have radically changed the way middle school students learn science.

The State Board had been expecting to vote on a recommendation to teach integrated science in middle school as part of a conversion to the new Next Generation Science Standards. The change would move away from the traditional discipline-based science education of teaching single subjects each year – biology in one year, for instance, followed by physics or chemistry in subsequent years – to an approach that includes some of each discipline in every grade. Advocates say the “integrated” approach creates a more holistic understanding of science concepts that allows students to better understand connections between, say, the parts of cells and the chemical reactions that allow them to reproduce.

When the proposal came up for a vote, however, the staff of the California Department of Education introduced an alternative plan that would let school districts either teach integrated science or continue to separate the disciplines. The proposal was developed in response to teacher feedback in opposition to the integrated framework.

“I would have preferred the integrated approach,” said State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson after the State Board voted unanimously to support the alternative. Over time, however, Torlakson said he believes the board’s vote will clear a pathway to eventually move schools to a fully integrated approach.

Torlakson, a former high school biology, marine biology and health teacher, said he always integrated other fields of science into his classes.

“It didn’t really make sense in isolation,” said Torlakson, who found that his students grasped biology better when they understood concepts of chemistry as well. 

The integrated approach was also recommended by a 27-member Science Expert Panel convened by the state Department of Education to recommend the best way to implement the Next Generation Science Standards in middle school.

The State Board approved those standards in September, but held off on a decision about the model for middle school in order to hear back from teachers and the expert panel.

Phil Lafontaine, the Department of Education’s point person in the national process of developing the science standards, said he realized about two weeks ago that there was so much pushback from some teachers and administrators about the integrated approach that there should be an alternative option available.

Although none of the opponents spoke at the meeting, Lafontaine – also a former high school science teacher who used an integrated approach in his classes – said an online survey created by the department found some teachers were very concerned about the lack of curriculum materials and the amount of professional development required to make the new method work. Others worried that an integrated system wouldn’t be best for their students.

Much like the new Local Control Funding Formula, which allows each district to decide where to focus its budget, Lafontaine said the alternative middle school science proposal lets districts assess their students’ needs and the capacity of schools in their “local context.”

Trish Williams, one of the two state board members involved in the middle school science standards, said she, too, sees the benefits of an integrated curriculum, but also understands that it’s a lot for teachers to deal with while they’re already implementing new Common Core State Standards and the overall Next Generation Science Standards.

It will be better for students to have teachers who are comfortable with the material they’re teaching, Williams said.

“They’ll still be delivering on Next Generation Science Standards,” she noted, but, “It’s better to come with great enthusiasm on the part of the teachers even if it’s not as strong a model.”

The new plan calls for reconvening the science expert panel to develop a strong model for discipline-focused science education aligned to the new science standards. Lafontaine said he wants to move on this as fast as possible to bring it back to the state board in the spring in order to give districts time to develop their science programs for the following school year.

He also suggested to the board members that the Department of Education seek out grant funding to establish pilot programs around the state to study the best way to implement each model.

There isn’t a plethora of research out there about the integrated approach to teaching middle school science, said board President Michael Kirst.

“I don’t think we have the feedback from teachers in the field about the potential problems. It’s conceptual at this point,” he said. “We should take another look at this over time.”

Filed under: Common Core, Deeper Learning, Policy & Finance, State Board, Testing and Accountability



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment Policy

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers.

  • To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective.
  • Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to.
  • EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and offensive comments.
  • EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.
  • Please limit comments to 250 words to prevent comment clutter; if you intend to say more please link out to a place that contains your full comment.
  • Comments with more than one link automatically enter moderation. Comments from new commenters are automatically moderated.
  • Repeated violation of this comment policy will lead to a warning. Continued violations will lead to a ban.

8 Responses to “State board adopts middle school science standards”

EdSource does not track who "likes or dislikes" a comment. We only track the number of likes and dislikes.

  1. Kadee on Nov 1, 2014 at 8:06 am11/1/2014 8:06 am

    • 000

    So you waited for feedback from teachers. The feedback was overwhelmingly against the integration. You reconvened and rewrote the standards to offer an alternate approach that was discipline specific because of that feedback. But now, that looks like it was just a waste of time, just to placate teachers as we are being told that the state will only offer one Test based on the integrated model. What choice then do districts really have between the integrated and discipline specific models? Seems to me it was all a ruse, and the integrated was going to be the end model regardless of teacher feedback. Our feedback only mattered in that it was recognized, but it wasn’t taken seriously.

    The new integrated approach chops up the school year and does not provide for a logical flow or building of information from September to June in each of the grades. If there is a logical progression, I have not recognized it and am not sure how to build my curriculum logically as I have it now. Teachers who have been teaching for decades are being asked/told to completely redo their curriculums. It will be as if they are a brand new teacher again. Teachers are being given new NGSS, new CCSS, and now an entirely new set of subjects. The amount of work and burden that will be put on middle school teachers is overwhelming to say the least. Many teachers hold single subject science credentials and have become experts in their domains; the new standards will put many out of their area of expertise and comfort zone forcing them to take courses or study outside of their interest and expertise.

    I and almost all the teachers I have spoken to are disappointed and alarmed. We do not feel as though we were heard, or that we play a significant role in the decisions being made when we should have been the loudest voices in the decision to integrate, not Mr. Torlekson.


    • FloydThursby1941 on Nov 2, 2014 at 10:02 am11/2/2014 10:02 am

      • 000

      The problem is sometimes it seems no matter what, someone will be yelling and screaming, as with common core’s implementation. If the overwhelming criticisms were valid and could be expressed clearly and convince others, why was this not heard before the cost of implementation? I think the solution is to have all the critics and proponents and other stakeholders in a room and work it out. If you can convince people certain things should be obviously changed, then you can get those changes in before it’s re-implemented. But, if you get outvoted, you have to accept that. It’s enormously expensive to implement, hear feedback and drop something.

      Many on here are calling to scrap common core, but if you ask if they’d be part of coming up with a new system which achieves the same goals, they talk about States Rights, but it’s really just to undermine the whole program and go back to 50 jumbled programs and coming in behind other nations again and not caring.

      Think about that. It’s really not worth it to scrap a whole plan unless we will have a better plan and be more unified behind that plan to make it work. Losing several years is an absolute waste if you just have the same situation of everyone griping about the next plan and that plan is not clearly better.

      Most of those yelling to scrap common core are not offering to be a part of creating a better system. They just want to score points against Gates and Obama and make them start over, but my prediction is the majority of them, if Hilary comes up with a whole new plan, will be demanding that be scrapped and re-done for whatever reason they can possibly find. That kind of attitude is just plain wrong and counter-productive.

      So my question is, would you be a part of fixing this, stay till it’s done, and support it even if you are outvoted in some of your opinions, as long as you have a chance to present your point of view and be listened to?

  2. Gary Ravani on Mar 5, 2014 at 4:33 pm03/5/2014 4:33 pm

    • 000

    “We also have to decide what to do about elementary school science. Teachers at that level need training in almost every field of human knowledge (at the elementary level)”

    And that disrespectful statement is backed up by what scientific and empirical evidence exactly?

  3. Jerry Matchett on Mar 5, 2014 at 3:27 pm03/5/2014 3:27 pm

    • 000

    Perhaps we should start with asking major universities to offer degrees in integrated science. I remember attending a university where I wanted a degree in biology but their zoology and botany schools were not integrated. It is natural for a public school teacher who has a degree in a single science to formulate thoughts largely within that single science. I ended up taking botany, zoology, molecular biology, medical microbiology and a few other courses, but it was entirely up to me to integrate them.

    We also have to decide what to do about elementary school science. Teachers at that level need training in almost every field of human knowledge (at the elementary level)

  4. Trish Williams on Nov 8, 2013 at 4:03 pm11/8/2013 4:03 pm

    • 000

    Kathy got the story right but whomever wrote the headline didn’t. As an NGSS liaison for the State Board, I can definitely declare that the State Board did NOT back off Integrated Science Standards for the middle grades. We adopted the Science Expert Panel’s recommendation for Integrated as the SBE’s preferred model. Out of consideration for LEAs that feel they cannot move quickly to Integrated, we authorized an “alternate” discipline specific model to be developed and available. The CDE and the SBE are both committed to supporting implementation of the Integrated Model.

  5. Doug McRae on Nov 6, 2013 at 9:01 pm11/6/2013 9:01 pm

    • 000

    navigio: Smarter Balanced’s contract with the feds is for E/LA and Math tests only, not Science. Choice of a consortium (if available) and/or vendor for Science tests is several years down the road . . . .


    • Navigio on Nov 7, 2013 at 5:32 am11/7/2013 5:32 am

      • 000

      Whoops, forgot about that. Then with whomever we have our science test contracts.

  6. navigio on Nov 6, 2013 at 7:58 pm11/6/2013 7:58 pm

    • 000


    Anyway, I think the same option is already being given for high school math. Will sbac be able to provide tests aligned with both approaches (like in math)?

Template last modified: