Science vs. Math CCCS

Andrew J. Wells
Principles of Curriculum Development
Spring 2008
Dr. Goldstein
CCCS Individual Paper

The primary purpose of education in New Jersey, as outlined by the state Core Content Curriculum Standards (CCCS), is to improve student achievement by clearly summarizing what all students should know and be able to do at the end of their public school education. The primary principle of education in our state is that all students can achieve these standards, regardless of their career goals, native language, disabilities, or socioeconomic background. The standards provide classroom teachers and curriculum designers with sample teaching strategies, adaptations, and background information relevant to each of the content areas. Supposedly, the statewide assessments were aligned to the Core Curriculum Content Standards. The NJCCCS are not meant to serve as a statewide curriculum guide. They are just an outline of the expectations to be met if we are to ensure that all students receive a thorough and efficient education, as promised by our state constitution. Individual school districts must use the standards to develop curriculum to ensure that students achieve the expectations. The NJCCCS show a vision of the skills and understandings all of New Jersey’s children need to be successful in their careers and daily lives. These standards provide useful framework to help us identify teaching and learning priorities and guide our design of curriculum and assessments (Wiggins, 2005).
The CCCS group project really helped me to understand the nuts and bolts of each content area’s standards, which will be very useful to me when I am an administrator. However, I am most thankful that I now have a better understanding of the Science standards. I have dreaded, in the past, when my supervisor tells our department that we must include standards on our lesson plans. The reason being, just like I felt at the start of the project, the thick document was too overbearing. Having the nuts and bolts outline improves my understanding and ability to site standards in my lesson plans. Likewise, my understanding of backward design will guide me to plan activities based on the standards rather than find which standards my activities fall under.
As I stated in my group presentation, Math is the language of Science so there are some similarities in the two content areas and their standards. Both state the importance of technology in their fields and both stress the importance of problem-solving skills and analytical thinking. The standards for the two content areas also have some differences. The most obvious difference is the number of standards. Math has five, while Science has ten. While there are benchmarks for all five Math standards extended over grades 2 through 8 and grade 12, the first four Science standards have benchmarks for grades 4, 8, and 12 while the rest have benchmarks for grades 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12. When looking at the Math standards, it seems feasible to accomplish the goals for all grade levels. The standards for science have just too broad of a range to be able to cover all at any one grade level. Science is comprised of just too many branches. In Math, you could explore numerical operations, geometry, measurement, patterns, algebra, data analysis, probability, and processes at almost any grade level. In Science, it seems impossible in a single year to cover processes, history, math concepts, technology, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science, Astronomy, Space Science, and Environmental Science.
The CCCS presents a variety of challenges for teachers, many of which may be arguable, and there is also the added pressure of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The most prominent challenge is that we are constantly told to use multiple forms of assessment, yet the measure of progress in education basically relies upon standardized tests. The NJCCCS are divided into nine content areas, yet the High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) only tests two of those areas- Math and Language Arts. They have been attempting to add science to the HSPA for the past few years, but have recently abandoned the idea for a year-end exit exam. So, how can we assure that our students are receiving a thorough and efficient education when our schools are forced to justify their existence on a two-subject standardized test? What I really don’t understand are the writing components on the HSPA. My understanding is that the writing component is supposed to get away from a strictly multiple-guess (choice) test and assess higher-level thinking. Well, I just can’t see how those picture prompts assess any kind of intelligence. My final point on assessment refers back to the year-end Biology exit exam that is being implemented this year. The test covers the topics of Biology and Environmental Science. Both of those topics have their own one-year course. This exam has had Science Departments everywhere scrambling to change their curricula to fit the test. In Science, we require lots of time to develop inquiry-based lessons. Because of the more open-ended nature of these activities compared to traditional science lessons, implementing Standards-based inquiry activities concordant with NCLB poses a major challenge—how do we assure that academic standards are met during student-centered, inquiry-based investigations? (Hendrickson, 2006). As stated earlier, there are some other challenges for our schools in regards to CCCS and NCLB. The biggest problem in my eyes is effect that standardized testing will have on our curriculum development. The more pressure we receive to score well on standardized tests, the more CCCS become our curriculum guide instead of the framework to help us design our curriculum and assessments.



Reference:

Hendrickson, S. (2006). Backward Approach to Inquiry. Science Scope. Vol. 29, No. 4,
pp. 30-33

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd Ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.