Science, Technology and Engineering Curricula Review
Kindergarten to Grade Twelve
Natick Public Schools
Summary Report
Natick Public Schools
Science, Technology, and Engineering Curricula Review Team
Dr. Karen Leacu LeDuc, Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessment, Natick Public Schools
Mr. Paul Power, 5-8 Science Curriculum Leader – Kennedy Middle School
Ms. Jill Pirrera, 5-8 Science Curriculum Leader – Wilson Middle School
Ms. Kathi Browne, 9-12 Science Department Head – Natick High School
Summary prepared by Karen Leacu LeDuc, PhD
Science, Technology and Engineering, K-12, Curricula Review Report
Winter 2009
Introduction
At the start of the 2008-2009 school year, the Natick Public Schools was charged with
conducting a science, technology and engineering curricula review of Kindergarten
through grade twelve. The Science, Technology and Engineering Curricula Review Team
undertook this task as a vehicle to highlight student learning and as a reflective process to
review the science, technology and engineering learning environment for our students.
This report contains an historical outline of the implementation of Natick Public Schools
K-12 standards-based science, technology and engineering curricula, describes the
evaluation process, indicates findings, and makes recommendations for the future.
Historical background
During the 2003-2004 school year, the Natick Public Schools began the task of reviewing
the science, technology and engineering curricula. Under the direction of Ms. Kathi
Browne, Natick High School Science Department Head, the district used a “backwards
planning” approach to implement the standards as outlined in the Massachusetts
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MA DESE) Science, Technology
and Engineering (STE) framework. Ms. Browne and her team of teachers at Natick High
School assessed the learning needs of high school students and determined appropriate
content for each of the grade levels at Natick High School and then looked “backwards”
to determine science, technology and engineering needs at the middle school and the
elementary school. Concurrently, the Natick Public Schools included a curriculum leader
position for STE at both middle schools, an important aspect of continued curriculum
leadership, grades 5-12. This position oversees the curriculum, instruction and
assessment of STE but does not supervise/evaluate teachers at this level. The district used
a reflective approach to determining the content and programs offered to K-12 students to
engage in deep analytical thinking within a context of stated STE concepts and skills – to
support the STE literate student.
Beginning in the fall of 2004, a gradual implementation of the Physic First curriculum
for freshman began, with full implementation Physics First completed in the fall of 2004.
Subsequently, a pathway for science was determined – Chemistry for sophomores,
Biology for juniors and an STE elective for seniors. At this same time, the middle school
was undergoing some change: Grade 8 Science was devoted to Earth Science, Grade 7 Physical, Grade 6 - Life and Grade 5 - a synopsis of earth, physical and life science. From
2005-2008, under the guidance of Ms. Kathi Browne, teams of teachers at the
Kindergarten through Grade 4 level were brought together to review the standards by
grade level and to determine what grade level content would be taught at each elementary
grade level.
Curricula Review Process
During the fall of 2008, a Kindergarten to grade twelve STE curricula review was
conducted. The review was multi-faceted and informed by the National Study of School
Evaluation guidelines: Indicators of Schools of Quality Program Evaluation Series. The
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
1
district reviewed the K-12 curricula by examining the current Natick Public Schools
standards-based curriculum guides with respect to student achievement, in conjunction
with instructional systems and organizational systems that are currently in place to
support student learning. To do this work, the district convened a STE curricula team
comprised of: the two grades five through eight middle school STE curriculum leaders,
the nine through twelve STE department head, and the Assistant Superintendent, whose
charge was to develop the evaluation process, protocols, and subsequent action steps.
Evaluation Process
The Indicators of Schools of Quality (see below) were used to frame the evaluation
process, which consisted of surveys and a curriculum review. To best gain the
perspective of all constituencies, a survey was developed and conducted for all teachers,
parents, administrators, and fourth, eighth and eleventh grade students. Note survey
respondents: teacher survey, n=119; parent survey, n=168 (58 elementary, 80 middle, and
30 high school); administrator survey, n= 10; and student survey, n= 355 (69 grade 4
students, 229 grade 8 students, and 55 grade 11 students) Additionally, grade level
teachers and special educators, with curriculum leaders and department heads, comprised
the curricula review team, n=30. Their charge was to review curriculum, instruction, and
assessment documents. Additionally, the STE team analyzed results of the Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) and common assessments as data points for
indicators of the quality of the student work. These multiple evaluation tools, which were
used to triangulate the data points, were developed to gain information on the following:
Evaluation components - Overview, Analysis, Action Steps
(Based on National Study of School Evaluation guidelines, Indicators of Schools of Quality: Program Evaluation Series)
Indicators of Schools of Quality (National Study of School Evaluation, 2000)
 Instructional systems, specifically curriculum, instruction, and assessment
o To what extent is an organized, articulated, up-to-date curriculum in
place?
o To what extent are research-based, best instructional practices being
implemented?
o To what extent are assessments that reflect student learning goals in place,
being implemented, and used to inform instruction?
 Organizational systems, specifically leadership, professional development and
culture of continuous improvement
o To what extent is there leadership in place that ensures skillful
management of the program, operations, and resources that promote an
effective learning environment?
o To what extent is there a focus on improving teacher skills and capacity to
implement the articulated curriculum?
 Quality of the work of the students
o To what extent do students meet or exceed benchmark expectations of
curriculum essentials in the subject under investigation?
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
2
Multiple sources of data were used to respond to the indicators, as noted below.
Teacher Profile
Distribution of the years of experience among our K-12 school faculty who responded to
our survey:
Years Experience
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
>20
n=119/133
Gr.K-4: n=83
Teaching
36.4%
23.7%
14.4%
5.1%
20.3%
Gr.5-8 : n=26
Teaching in Natick
49.6%
22.2%
12.0%
2.6%
13.7%
Gr.9-11: n=15
Special Educators: n= 9
Analysis
At least half of our staff is new to teaching and one quarter of the staff has taught in
Natick for a minimum of sixteen years. These data points prompted the question: What
are the constructs needed to effectively prepare all teachers to teach STE? Additionally,
approximately 70% of the teacher respondents are Kindergarten through grade four
teachers – what format and type of professional development is needed to support the
elementary generalists who, unlike their grades five through twelve peers, do not have a
degree/certification in science? What format and type of professional development is
needed for our grades Kindergarten through twelve teachers to support their instructional
and assessment knowledge?
Summary – Teacher Profile
Professional development offerings need to be crafted for all teachers, and new-to-thedistrict teachers, to review the STE curricula and resources and to assure teachers have
the content understanding for teaching a standards-based program. All teachers in Natick
need a refresher of the nuances of the STE curricula to provide consistency across grade
level and schools. Additionally, a review of common instructional and assessment
strategies would also be helpful.
Action Steps
 Develop and conduct content professional development opportunities for K-4
generalist teachers and 5-12 content area teachers
 Continue to support the district mentoring and induction program for all new
teachers
INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS
CURRICULUM
 To what extent is an organized, articulated, up-to-date curriculum in place?
o Indicators
 curricula aligned with frameworks
 vertical and horizontal alignment
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
3
 curricula documents accessible, used and current
 curricula materials current and representative of articulated
curriculum
Overview
Since 2003 the district has used a “backwards design” process to delineate curriculum
standards for STE. This process looked at the STE standards as outlined by the MA
DESE, determined Natick Public Schools curriculum benchmarks, starting with grades
nine through twelve, and concluding in 2007, with completed standards for grade eight
backwards to Kindergarten. As these benchmarks were written, curriculum resources,
instructional strategies, and common assessments were developed. The building and
department leadership used staff and department meeting time, coupled with professional
development days to familiarize teachers with these documents and to take time to reflect
on them.
The consistency to which these documents are implemented by classroom teachers
supports the students’ successful acquisition of these skills and concepts. In concert with
understanding the validity of the curricula documents, for the purposes of this study, the
evaluation team sought to understand teachers’ implementation and familiarity with the
documents at their grade level and how teachers supported the articulated curriculum in
their classroom.
Analysis
Teacher surveys and open response comments indicated that:
 86% of teachers considered themselves to be strong STE teachers
 78.6% expose and encourage the use of emerging technologies for STE
 75% agree/strongly agree that the STE curriculum is clearly articulated and
executable
 85.3% feel confident using the district STE curriculum
 68.8% have sufficient materials to teach STE
Some open response comments from teachers who responded indicated:
 Need time to fit in science in the elementary curriculum
 My challenge is finding time to teach science and integrate technology into the
daily or weekly schedule.
 I worry that teachers have yet to “buy in” to the expanded science and engineering
curriculum largely because we have so little time devoted to science in our
schedules
 I feel I have to teach myself science in order to teach the children. . . it still
requires effort on the part of generalists like myself to become well informed
about the science topics
 Did not feel that we have enough resources to address technology
 Technology is too new and not yet used
 It is hard to incorporate technology
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
4
 There is so much we can do with technology . . . district has a young staff, we
don’t need to be convinced to use technology. . . it just needs to be made
accessible, reliable and easy to use (elementary)
 The district recently dedicated time and money to training us for the engineering
and technology strand, I appreciate that. . . . letting us work each summer on
organizing and enhancing the science curriculum so that all teachers in
[elementary grade] have the resources for all the science units
 Lack of time built in the school day is a real problem when it comes to teaching
science
 Engineering unit that the second grade used last year was fun and engaging for
children and they learned a great deal
 I filled out this survey thinking about science and engineering. I really haven’t
been using technology in my teaching since we lost our computer lab classroom
that had a teacher to support teaching and learning
 Technology at the elementary level has not been a focus of science instruction. . .
My students are currently engaged in an investigative research project which
highlights the use of technology and supports the inquiry based research method,
but I can only work with 3-4 students at a time.
 The science curriculum has grown by leaps and bounds . . .thanks to Kathy.
 I think Kathi Browne has done a tremendous job collaborating with teachers to
align our science and engineering units (elementary.)
 We desperately need a science coordinator [elementary]
The STE Curricula Review team reviewed the curricula documents which consisted of
pacing guides, curricula grids that outlined standards, curricula resources and
assessments. This curricula review was more comprehensive review of STE than what
the teacher survey reported.
Curriculum teams indicated:
 92.3% indicated that the curriculum was aligned to MA DESE grade level
standards
 76.9% felt that the curriculum was designed to develop students’ understandings
and skills
 69.2% indicated that the curriculum was clearly articulated and enabled students
an understanding of the standards
 69.2% indicated that the curriculum was organized into large units of student with
a focus on depth of conceptual development and specific end products
Curriculum teams open responses:
 1 and 2 level physics classes are aligned in assessment and coverage,
differentiated by skill level only. All physics levels are closely matched to
curriculum frameworks. . prepare the students for the MCAS despite less class
time (no labs) than all other sciences.
 Curriculum is clear and organized…. Leads kindergarteners to observe, collect,
and record information... various instructional strategies are used
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
5
 Curriculum is broad and rich, developmentally appropriate and aligned to MA
Curriculum frameworks (gr. 3, 4)
 Teacher friendly lessons. . . organized in a binder . . . directly aligned to MA
state frameworks, (gr. 1)
 Teachers actively seek out support from outside programs to enrich the
curriculum (for example, BC Educational Seismology Project, Project ASTRO,
Earth Science by Design, LIFT 2 program, Museum of Science) gr. 8
 The curriculum lends itself to real world examples, cross-curricula applications,
and learning through inquiry (gr. 8)
 Time allotted to science/sense of priority varies from school to school
(elementary)
 Need to prioritize the lessons in the science binders as either anchor
lessons/experiences or additional activities
 Need a well communicated timeline for administrators and teachers to ensure
common experiences for children in science (elementary)
 There is no syllabus or timeline for how long to spend on units to teach each one
(elementary)
Administrator surveys indicated that 85% felt that there was a process to evaluate the
effectiveness of tools, text, materials, and technology used to deliver the program(s), 60%
agreed that there was an open resource planning process that considers the resource
allocation needs of STE improvement efforts, while only 30% agreed/strongly agreed that
school budgets provide adequate resources for STE instructional materials, professional
development, and equipment with 50% agreeing that students and teachers have access to
reliable technologies for data analysis, research, and communication.
Administrator Open responses noted that:
 Resources for science have been supplemented by numerous grants. Without
these the science department would not have the tools needed to run a number of
laboratory experiences necessary in a good science program.
 The structure of the school day is limited in the opportunities it allows for
elementary student to encounter an inquiry based science program consistently.
 While there is adequate process, time, etc. for review and consideration of needs
relative to allocation of resources, the resources available are not adequate to
address the science/tech needs - - especially for design and engineering, authentic
lab equipment, technology like Vernier probes, etc.
Analysis of parent surveys indicated:
 78.9% understand the STE content their child knows and is able to do
 65% are familiar with the STE program(s)
 72% assist their child in learning STE at home
 57% agree/strongly agree that the STE curriculum meets their child’s needs
Student survey responses indicated:
 85.8% think their science work is appropriate for them
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
6
 79.1% understand and use the scientific method in solving problems
 77.7% liked learning STE
 75.9% think learning STE is important to them
When asked what their favorite part of STE was, one third of the respondents indicated
earth, physical or life science, with 20% indicating engineering.
Parent respondents understand the content but expressed a need to know more about the
programs and sequence of science topics.
When asked how we can better communicate with you about STE program(s) parent
open responses indicated:
 Have a monthly newsletter summarizing what is going on in the classroom
 Website explaining curriculum – including how it fits into the middle/high school
sequence. Also include educational links used to guide lessons and determine
school standards and learning objectives
 Teacher website or email that is informative about the curriculum, about this unit
newsletter, weekly summarizes of main lessons, . . email what is currently being
taught so that . . I am able to enhance the learning experience for my child by
sharing and discussing
 Useful to have some “advanced ideas” made available to kids and parents who
wanted to invest the time at home challenging their kids and themselves to go
farther.
 It would be helpful if curriculum, topics, and schedule was available online
 Have a STE display in the building that parents can observe
 Don’t think enough science is taught in school. Science often alternates with
social studies or history. It should be emphasized more
In considering communication with families, teacher surveys indicated:
 86.2% are comfortable communicating district STE benchmarks with parents with
85% are comfortable communicating with parents about STE program(s)
 35.4% usually provide parents with strategies to support the STE learning of their
child
 53.9% felt that the current communication with parents accurately reflects what
students know and are able to do
Summary – Curriculum
 To what extent is an organized, articulated, up-to-date curriculum in place?
All constituents articulated that there is a STE curriculum that is aligned to the MA
DESE standards in place. Parents and teachers clearly articulated a need to improve
communication to students and families regarding STE curriculum, specifically what
students should know and be able to do and how they know it. Teachers noted that they
use emerging technology, but specifically noted the need to infuse computers in the
classroom. Administrators saw a need for more funding for science resources.
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
7
Action steps
 Build STE content knowledge of K-4 teachers
 Provide format to follow the pacing guide as outlined in the curriculum guide
 Develop consistent usage of curricula resources, inclusive of the STE programs
and additional resources
 Review the amount of time spent on STE at the elementary level
 Educate families regarding STE programs and standards– all parents, especially
parents new to Kindergarten and grade 1 and new grade 5
 Increase parent communication – inclusive of school newsletters, teacher and
district website, email blast
 Update website for relevant information to assist teachers, parents and students in
gaining an understanding of the programs and STE content
 Increase support for teacher development and familiarity with the curricula
documents and resources - coach, courses, model lessons, lesson sharing, peer
observation
 Improve the use of technology integrated into the curriculum
INSTRUCTION
 To what extent are research-based, best instructional practices being
implemented?
o Indicators
 Instruction aligned with curriculum
 Instruction employs data-driven decision making
 Instruction engages student learning
 Instructional support available for all students
 Varied instructional strategies employed
 Instruction promotes self-directed learning
Overview
The K-12 curricula resources provide guidance for meeting the needs of all learners;
outlines instructional supports for STE, concepts and skills; and provides opportunities
for students gain access to the STE standards. The successful implementation of these
resources is key to the use of these best instructional practices. As was articulated in the
curriculum summary, the implementation of these resources needed review. Of note is an
articulated district goal to differentiate lessons for all learners.
Analysis
Teacher surveys indicated that 95.5 % generally enjoy teaching STE. With regard to
instructional practices:
 96.5% use varied instructional practices in their classroom
 85.6 % provide flexible grouping for students as part of STE instruction
 84.4% have a clear understanding of individual student’s conceptual
understanding of STE
 80.7% are confident differentiating STE instruction for students needing
additional support, while 66.7% are confident differentiating STE instruction for
students who need more challenging work
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
8
 77.8% indicated that the design of the curriculum “somewhat” reflected an
understanding of the range of ways that diverse students learn
 69.7% indicated that they provide students with consistent review and practice to
develop skills in STE
 46.6% use technology to support STE instruction
 33.4% felt that sufficient time is allocated for STE instruction
 31.8% felt that there are sufficient support systems available for students who
have difficulty learning STE
Teacher open response comments indicated:
 The half days where we meet with Kennedy are very useful, and I feel we do not
get enough time . . . we work very well together.
 Not all grade levels meet with their curriculum leader at the 2 curriculum
meetings
 At the elementary level, it feels as though more emphasis is placed on literacy and
math than science and social studies
 The inquiry process needs to be developed and cultured at a young level in order
for students to maintain and advance their curiosity and fascination of science at
an older level. This cultivation required hands on learning experiences and time,
which are rarely devoted due to the priorities of Literacy and Math
 I am confident that the reason shy students with special needs are successful in
Science is because of the hands-on opportunities provided by teachers.
Additionally, teachers are incredibly talented at differentiating their instruction to
meet the needs of the learners in front of them, including those excelling in
Science.
The Curricula Review Team noted:
 100% agreed that varied instructional strategies are used in planning curriculum
 92.3% felt that the curriculum promotes rich science discourse through learning
activities that integrate more than one strategy
 91.7% agreed that the curriculum calls for problem formation, problem solving
and scientific reasoning
 84.6% agreed that the curriculum stimulates students to make connections and
develop a coherent framework for scientific ideas
 84.6% felt that the STE curriculum design reflects an understanding of the range
of ways that diverse students learn
 100% indicated yes or somewhat to the prompt that the curriculum reflects
sensitivity to, and draws on, students’ diverse background, experiences, and
dispositions
 69.2% indicated “somewhat” that the curriculum is organized into large units of
study with a focus on rich connections, depth of conceptual development, and
specific end products (data studies, investigations, design challenges)
 53.9% indicated that differentiation is documented in the curriculum guides to
meet the needs of diverse learners
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
9
 53.8% responded “somewhat” and 38.5% “no” that the curriculum promotes
technology integration across the curriculum to support, reinforce and extend the
learning of scientific concepts.
Open responses indicated:
 No time for re-teaching, inquiry based and constructivist experiences (elementary)
 We need more diverse methods and inquiry-based (elementary)
 Time allotted to science varies across the district (grade 4)
 We know our students well (capabilities, weaknesses, IEPs) grade 6
 We use a variety of teaching methods to reach many types of learners and
diversify these strategies depending on the topic being taught and the students in
front of us, curriculum is differentiated (middle school)
 Inequity in the availability of technology between schools (middle school), but do
use technology where applicable
 There is flexibility and room for teachers to enrich the curriculum and draw from
a larger pool of resources, which enhances student learning and enjoyment of the
curriculum (grade 8)
Only fifty percent of the administrators surveyed agreed that the time allocated STE
instruction matches the needs for the content, instructional methods, and student
population. One open response indicated that the [s]tructure of the school day is limited
in the opportunities it allows for elementary students to encounter an inquiry-based
science program consistently.. . I would like to find a way to make science more of a
presence in the K-4 classrooms
Parent surveys indicated that 60.6 % believe their child is being sufficiently challenged in
STE. Over 79 percent of the student respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel
confident trying different strategies to help them understand with 85.8% indicating that
their science work is appropriate for them. 80.1% feel confident asking questions in class.
Summary – Instruction
 To what extent are research-based, best instructional practices being
implemented?
By definition the STE curricula programs used in the Natick Public Schools are researchbased and incorporate best instructional practices, as was noted in the teacher and
curriculum team responses. As was indicated in the curriculum review above, the degree
to which the programs and instructional practices outlined in the curricula guides are
implemented district-wide is not clear. Leadership will need to take a proactive role in
assuring the consistency of the use of these curricula documents and resources, but it
needs to be noted that there is no formal leadership for STE at the elementary level. More
professional development and colleague collaboration to share ideas and best practices is
warranted, as are opportunities for teachers to analyze the data of student learning.
Opportunities to provide learning experiences for all students within a differentiated
environment were also an articulated need, specifically challenging all learners. Teachers
are differentiating lessons, but the curriculum guides do not necessarily reflect these
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
10
differentiation strategies. Technology use was also an articulated need from parents and
teachers
Action steps
 Provide teachers with data-driven decision making opportunities
o to gain access to the data points,
o to use analysis tools to determine areas of strength and weakness,
o to analyze teacher-created assessments to inform instruction
 Increased opportunities to allow all students to be appropriately challenged
 Increased time for teachers to meet with curriculum leaders to talk about STE
teaching and learning
 Increased opportunities to use varied instructional strategies to meet the needs of
all students
 Increased teacher training to use existing technologies in STE coupling
instructional practices with current best practices
ASSESSMENT
 To what extent are assessments that reflect student learning goals in place, being
implemented, and used to inform instruction?
Overview
During the 2003-2008 school years, district goals have outlined the process to develop
common assessments. While this process has been slow, every content area has at least
two teacher-created common assessments, which teachers use to inform instruction. The
district curriculum, instruction, and assessment goals will continue to include these
important assessments as a vehicle to assess student learning of stated standards. During
the 2008-2009 school year, each grade level, five through twelve, will implement a
system to collect this data by class/grade/school/district in order to review trends across
the schools and to assure consistency in implementation of the state curriculum
objectives. Additionally, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
(MCSAS) is administered in science for grades five, eight and high school assessments
for physics, chemistry, and biology. These assessments informed our look at the Quality
of the work of the students (the next indicator of school quality.)
Analysis
Teacher survey respondents indicated that:
 93.6% use data from assessments to inform instruction
 91.3% take student’s prior understanding into account when planning curriculum
and instruction
 90.9% provide students with a variety of opportunities to show their
understanding of STE
 80.2% feel that they develop students’ conceptual understanding of STE
 73.4% engage in looking at student work with their colleagues
 79.6% consistently use rubrics to evaluate student work
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
11
The Curricula Review Team reported:
 92.3% indicated “yes” or “somewhat” that assessment is conducted on a
continuous basis and feedback is used as a source of information to improve
teaching and learning
 83.3% agree that assessments promote equity by expecting that all students,
including those with special needs or talents, reach high level of accomplishment.
Each student is given opportunities to reach those levels and the necessary support
to do so
 75% indicated that decisions concerning students’ learning are made as a result of
analysis of a variety of sources, inclusive of MCAS, mid- and end-of-year
assessments and common assessments.
 76.9% responded yes to the prompt that assessments are conducted as an open
process by informing students about what they need to know, how they will be
expected to demonstrate that knowledge, and what the consequences of the
assessment will be – as articulated in the “no secrets” classroom.
 69.3% responded yes to the prompt that assessment is conducted on a continuous
basis and feedback is used as a source of information to improve teaching and
learning
 69.3% responded “yes” or somewhat” to the ideas that teachers describe and
comment on samples of student work using the Looking at Student Work
protocol
 61.6% indicated that models and exemplars of formative and summative
assessments assist students in planning for learning
 58.4% indicated that the data provides a comprehensive and accurate reflection of
the overall student performance
 53.8% indicated yes that appropriate opportunities are provided for students’
revision of their work
 46.2% felt there was a systematic process for collecting and managing student
performance data
 46.2% felt that all pertinent areas of student achievement data had been collected
Open responses indicated:
 Need to align all assessments directly to the framework
 Lack of quantity of common assessments and time to construct more – gr. 7
 Pre and post unit assessments are available for most units – gr. 4
 Assessments vary from school to school. . . there are different expectations for
science learning between the buildings (elementary)
 There is currently no criteria. . . no rubric for end projects or assessments
(elementary)
 Time constraints limit the current analysis of student work to common multiple
choice questions. Currently, common questions are used at each level of biology
(0, 1, 2). In addition, on the mid-term and final exams, 20 questions are common
on ALL exams, regardless of level
 Using common assessments and data analysis allows improvement in both
curriculum and assessment instruments
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
12
Teacher survey prompt responses are noted below:
 35.4% usually provide parents with strategies to support the STE learning of their
child
 53.9% felt that the current communication with parents accurately reflects what
students know and are able to do
When asked “I use data from assessments to inform instruction”, 73% responded
“usually.”
Which assessment practices do you use?
Usually
Pre-assessment
53.2
Informal
80.0
(formative
assessment)
MCAS data
28.4
End- or mid-year 43.0
assessments
Lab reports
23.6
Tests
43.9
Projects
61.1
Teacher-created
70.0
assessments
(recorded in percent)
Sometimes
34.9
17.3
Rarely
9.2
0.9
Never
2.8
1.8
12.8
14.0
13.8
5.6
45.0
37.4
17.9
17.8
32.4
23.6
13.2
12.1
1.9
3.6
45.3
26.2
4.6
2.7
The results indicate that most teachers usually pre assess their students to determine prior
knowledge, use informal assessments – ticket to leave, summary – use projects and
teacher-created assessments coupled with end- or mid-year assessments to determine
student learning. Only 28.4% “usually” use MCAS data, in part, because 70% of the
respondents are K-4 teachers, with only grades 3 and 4 reviewing this information.
Additionally, lab reports are usually not used at the elementary level, thus the high
percentage of respondents indicating that choice.
Parent surveys indicated that 71.3% of the respondents have a good idea of their child’s
progress in STE but only 66.7% receive accurate reports of their child’s progress in STE.
Student survey respondents indicated that 87.3% agree that their STE work is appropriate
for them and 67.8% indicated that the amount of STE homework they received was just
right.
Summary – Assessment
 To what extent are assessments that reflect student learning goals in place, being
implemented, and used to inform instruction?
Many teachers and students indicated that the assessments gave them valid information
about the STE learning, but there needs to be a more consistent approach to
administration of the assessments and collection of the data to inform instruction.
Additionally, more assessments need to be created to assure that all standards are being
addressed.
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
13
Action steps
 Develop and analyze teacher-created common assessments, by standard, grade
level
 Develop a formal process for collecting data on assessments, to inform instruction
 Administer assessment(s) more consistently across the school/district
 Continue the use of the Looking at Student Work and Planning protocol to assure
consistency in administration and interpretation of the assessments
 Use the data from assessments to inform instruction and progress toward student
learning
 Use the results of the assessments to assist students and parents in understanding
student attainment of stated standards
QUALITY OF THE WORK OF THE STUDENTS
 To what extent do students meet or exceed benchmark expectations of curriculum
essentials in the subject are under investigation?
Overview
All aspects of the curricula review process - a clear and articulated curriculum,
instructional practices, formal and informal assessments, leadership, communication and
professional development are all integral structures to support student learning. In order
to accurately assess student progress towards stated standards, a data review of the
formative and summative assessments used by teachers is warranted. The criterionreferenced assessments, coupled with teacher-created common assessments afford the
district the opportunity to assess student learning.
Analysis
Longitudinal analysis of MCAS scores over the past four years indicates that students
moved towards proficiency – to a greater degree than the state. Additionally, cohort data
for students, by year of graduation, indicates that students in 2010 class who scored
Proficient or Advanced increased from 2006 to 2008 by 23%. Additionally, grades five
and eight students are assessed on life, earth, and physical science, and technology and
engineering, content that is learned over the grades three to five years and six through
eight years. Teachers have begun to share common learning experiences over these years
to review content taught over the previous year(s).
Cohort data
YOG 2009
Science
Grade/Date
A , P , NI,
W
District
State
Grade 8
Grade 8
(2005)
(2005)
8, 38, 39, 16 4, 29,
41, 26
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
14
.
Cohort Data, continued
YOG 2010
Science
Grade/Date
A , P , NI, W
District
State
Grade 10 (2008)
24, 39, 33, 4
Grade 10(2008)
14, 43, 31, 12
Grade 8 (2006)
3, 37, 45, 15
Grade 8 (2006)
4, 28, 43, 25
Grade 5 (2003)
31, 33, 29, 8
Grade 5 (2003)
19, 33, 34, 14
YOG 2011
Science
Grade/Date
A , P , NI, W
District
State
Grade 8 (2007)
6, 40, 41, 14
Grade 5 (2004)
30, 41, 24, 5
Grade 8 (2007)
3, 30, 44, 24
Grade 5 (2004)
20, 35, 33, 13
YOG 2012
Science
Grade/Date
A , P , NI, W
District
State
Grade 8 (2008)
6, 56, 32, 6
Grade 5 (2005)
28, 41, 26, 5
Grade 8 (2008)
3, 36, 39, 22
Grade 5 (2005)
16, 35, 38, 12
Overall analysis of MCAS
Science MCAS, grade 5, Proficient/Advanced % only
Grade 5
Science
Prof/Adv
District
Kennedy
Wilson
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
64%
66%
60%
70%
67%
73%
69%
61%
74%
67%
63%
74%
65`%
61%
70%
66%
67%
67%
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
15
Subject Area Subscores on Standard Test, total points attained, percent, all students
Gr. 5 MCAS
Earth
Life
Physical
Tech/Eng
2003
68%
70%
73%
81%
2004
69%
74%
78%
77%
2005
72%
77%
74%
78%
2006
69%
68%
74%
79%
2007
61%
74%
73%
74%
2008
73%
73%
80%
72%
Mult Choice
Open Response
78%
62%
78%
67%
81%
65%
80%
60%
79%
56%
81%
64%
A review of the content strands served to gain an understanding of student progress
towards stated standards/benchmarks. Over the six years of administration, students have
improved in their understanding of earth and physical science, and remained stable in the
areas of life and technology and engineering.
Science MCAS, grade 8, Proficient/Advanced % only
Grade 8
Science
Prof/Adv
District
Kennedy
Wilson
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
36%
36%
36%
45%
48%
43%
46%
35%
53%
40%
41%
39%
46%
44%
48%
62%
66%
63%
The district has seen a steady increase in students who score in advanced/proficient, with
the largest gain of 16% between 2007 and 2008.
Subject Area Subscores on Standard Test, total points attained, percent, all students
Gr. 8 MCAS
Earth
Life
Physical
Tech/Eng
Mult Choice
Open Response
2003
62%
58%
57%
63%
71%
42%
2004
67%
60%
64%
71%
73%
53%
2005
68%
60%
60%
73%
72%
53%
2006
82%
62%
59%
71%
77%
54%
2007
70%
61%
56%
74%
72%
55%
2008
73%
71%
73%
67%
73%
68%
A review of the content strands served to gain an understanding of student progress
towards stated standards/benchmarks. Over the six years of administration, students have
improved in their understanding of life, physical sciences and remained stable in their
understanding of earth science and a experienced a slight decrease in technology and
engineering.
Science MCAS, Introductory Physics, grade 9, Proficient/Advanced % only
Grade 9
Science
Prof/Adv
District
2007
2008
62%
73%
First administration was in the 2007 school year, where the district received school-based
results. To note, all ninth graders at Natick High School took this assessment, with an
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
16
increase of 11% reaching proficient/advanced for the 2008 school year. Passage of this
assessment, which includes students who score “need improvement”, is a requirement for
the class of 2010.
Mid- and end-of-year benchmark assessments
Since 2005, teams of teachers from grades five through twelve have developed at least
two common assessments that are administered across the district. These assessments
have been piloted and refined over the years and data collected at the classroom and
grade level. During the 2008-2009 administration of the common assessments, trends in
student data will be reported at the district level for grades five through twelve. During
these intervening years, grade level teams have analyzed the assessments for question
validity and assessment of the stated standards and revised as needed.
Summary – Quality of the Work of the Students
During the 2009 school year, data collection will include grade level common
assessments, which will serve to identify areas for improvement based on student
learning of the NPS STE curriculum, and this data will be compared to the last
administration of the MCAS to determine strengths and areas for improvement.
Action steps - Quality of the Work of the Students
 Provide more opportunities for teacher use of longitudinal analysis of MCAS and
common assessments by content strand to inform instructional practices
 Use of LASW protocol for consistency in grading benchmark assessments
 Develop “study guide” materials to ensure that students have a review of the 4
content subgroups for STE in grades five and eight
ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS
LEADERSHIP
 To what extent is there leadership in place that ensures skillful management of the
program, operations, and resources that promote an effective learning
environment?
o Indicators
 monitors progress
 promotes continuous reflection on practice and student
achievement
 actively supports teaching and learning
 promotes and plans for continuous improvement in student
achievement
Overview
Leadership is key to the successful implementation of any standards-based curricula.
Building administrators are responsible for the supervision and evaluation of the science
learning in their schools. In 2003, a curriculum leader, 5-8, was hired for each middle
school to support the science program. This work included the development of the
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
17
curricula documents and assessments and facilitation of collaborative, collegial
conversations during department meetings. A high school science department head has
been in place for many years, with this person doing the same work as the curriculum
leaders, coupled with supervision and evaluation. There is no formal support for science
at the Kindergarten to grade four levels; however, the high school department head has
assumed oversight of the curriculum review for these grade levels.
Analysis
Teacher surveys indicated that 65.7% of teachers felt that leadership encourages and
supports STE content and teaching practices and 47.7% receive useful feedback on their
instructional practices from their supervisor. Administrator surveys indicated that
49% respondents felt that there is strong STE leadership at the site, 60% felt that there is
a supervisor who is responsible for coaching and/or evaluation of teachers, 80%
supported implementation of state and national trends in STE, with 70% agreeing that
teachers share leadership through a variety of activities (e.g., planning teams, peer
review.)80% felt that leadership provides time for teachers to implement STE teaching
Summary - Leadership
There is a disparity in curriculum leadership K-4, 5-8, and 9-12. There is no formal
content leadership structure for grades Kindergarten to four. In grades 5-8, there are
curriculum leaders who oversee content during monthly department meetings, and at the
nine through twelve level, there is a Science Department Head, who has an abbreviated
teaching load and does supervise and evaluate staff.
Action steps
 Assure that Kindergarten through grade twelve leaders are supervising teachers in
implementing the articulated curricula and using data to inform student
acquisition of learning standards
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
 To what extent is there a focus on improving teacher skills and capacity to
implement the articulated curriculum?
o Indicators
 Teachers have content and pedagogical knowledge to implement
the curriculum
 Teachers participate in professional development offerings
 Professional development insures teachers have content knowledge
and pedagogical skills
 Professional development provides conditions that support
productive change and continuous improvement
Overview – Professional Development
Teacher training for content knowledge and understanding of the curricula materials is a
very important aspect of the STE instruction in our schools. Since the fall of 2003,
several opportunities for teacher training in these areas have been offered – Fulcrum
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
18
Institute, BC collaboration, district professional development days, after school districtsponsored graduate courses, summer workshops.
Analysis – Professional Development
Percentage of responses to the following prompt(s):
Please provide us with some information about your professional development experiences and needs with respect to STE and
the teaching of STE. Rate the following support structures the system provides for teaching STE. (recorded in percent)
Very helpful
Somewhat helpful
Helpful
Not helpful
District early release
23.4
35.5
18.7
22.4
day
School early release
23.8
36.2
21.9
18.1
day
School-based grade
46.6
28.2
17.5
7.8
level meetings
25.3
13.7
12.6
Classroom
48.4
demonstrations
Courses and
23.0
35.0
21.0
21.0
workshops offered by
the district
7.3
22.9
20.8
49.0
Individual meetings
with the principal
Individual meetings
27.7
28.7
18.8
24.8
with curriculum
leader/department
chair
Grade level meetings
38.5
30.8
19.2
11.5
with curriculum
leaders to support
STE instruction and
assessment
Data indicates that there are support structures within the Natick Public Schools that
support teachers in their professional development, specifically district and school early
release days and grade level meeting. As was stated previously, there is no formal STE
curriculum, instruction and assessment support at the elementary level.
Considering all of the STE professional development you have participated in during the last 5 years, how much was each of
the following emphasized: Learning how to:
Not at all
Little
Some
To great extent
Teach units or
24.3
18.4
39.8
17.5
chapters
Use data from
18.4
34.0
35.9
11.7
assessments to inform
instruction
Understand the STE
1.9
16.2
43.8
38.1
content that I am
responsible for
teaching
Use
10.5
14.3
39.0
36.2
inquiry/investigation
oriented teaching
strategies to gain an
understanding of
student’s thinking
Use technology in
35.6
18.3
36.5
9.6
mathematics
instruction
Use engineering in
24.3
23.3
34.0
18.4
science instruction
Assess student
11.7
23.3
45.6
19.4
learning
Teach STE in a class
37.5
26.0
28.8
7.7
that includes students
with special needs
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
19
Professional development offerings in teaching units or chapters, understanding the STE
content, using inquiry/investigation oriented teaching strategies, and assessing student
learning have been emphasized over the last five years. More professional development is
needed for using technology and teaching STE in a class that includes students with
special needs.
What is the total amount of time you have spent on professional development in mathematics or the teaching of STE over the
past five years? (Answer this regardless of whether or not you were teaching in Natick during all those 5 years.)
None
3.6%
Less than 6 hours
21.8%
6 to 15 hours
20.0%
16-35 hours
21.8%
More than 35 hours
32.7%
One third of the teacher respondents indicated that over the past five years, they have
participated in more than 35 hours of professional development and 21.8% indicated 1635 hours of professional development.
The following information will assist in creating professional development offerings:
I am interested in taking a STE content course in:
 Life Science
61.2%
 Physical Science
62.9%
 Earth Science
56.3%
 Engineering
58.5%
 Technology
79.2%
 Inquiry-based teaching strategies
80.2%
 Using technology in the content area
88.9%
Summary – Professional Development
Clear, focused professional development with the curricula leader was articulated as the
most preferred mode for this work. Teachers indicated a need for more content-focused
courses coupled with instructional strategies to meet the needs of all learners.
Action Steps – Professional Development
 Continue to offer STE content courses (e.g., District after-school courses,
Annenberg courses, study groups, summer workshops)
 Use the district early release professional development time to support STE
 Develop new teacher orientation to the STE curricula and resources
Summary
While the review of the indicators of school quality provided an opportunity for the
Natick Public Schools to reflect on the teaching and learning of STE for our students, it
also provided a unique opportunity to highlight next steps to assure a consistent,
comprehensive approach to STE for the district, schools, and teachers. Those indicators –
an organized, articulated, and executed curriculum; research-based and implemented best
instructional practices; formative and summative assessments that reflect student learning
goals; organizational systems that support these aspects of student learning; and
professional development opportunities that work in concert to assure teacher
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
20
understanding and implementation of these stated indicators will serve to support
substantive student learning.
A team of teachers, curricula coordinators, and building administrators will develop
action plans associated with each of the action steps noted above. These action plans will
take into account a three-year span for implementation. Evaluations will be conducted
each year to assess successful implementation.
Natick Public Schools K-8 Mathematics Curricula Review – Fall 2006
21