My name is Bill Fraccaro and I would like to respond
to Marty Gartzman's discussion of the Science Performance Descriptors.
I have been actively involved in the science standard movement in Illinois
for the past seven years. First, I commend Marty for opening
a discussion on the ISBE Science Performance Descriptors. Second,
I appreciate the acknowledgment that ..."The draft science Performance
Descriptors were developed by an outstanding team of teachers, ISBE personnel,
and science educators." I have worked with all of these people over
the past seven years and have been overwhelmed by the quality of their
expertise. I would like to correct a few misconceptions listed in
Marty's "One Point of View." The bold notations in quotes
were lifted from Mr. Gartzman.
There are ten developmental stages in the Science
Performance Descriptors and these stages DO NOT represent
individual grade levels. They provide information regarding physiological
and intellectual development of students as they progress through their
K-12 education. As a teacher I am aware that not all of my
students are at exactly the same place in their development. The
Descriptors give teachers an idea of approximately where their students
should be, where they came from, and where they will be going as they progress
throughout their science education. A fifth grade teacher could focus
on stage E but should also look at stages D and F. Students will
be found at each of these stages in the same 5th grade classroom.
The discussion regarding "B. Too much repetition of content and not
enough growth across grades" is an improper interpretation of the Descriptors.
For a more detailed explanation, I would direct you to the introductory
pages of the Performance Descriptors ( go to ISBE home page, click on Illinois
Learning Standards Performance Descriptors http://www.isbe.state.il.us/).
It is also important to point out that the Performance
Descriptors are classroom resources for voluntary use at the local level
and are not meant to replace the Illinois Learning Standards. "The
topics addressed in the Performance Descriptors will undoubtedly be used
to develop future items for the ISAT." This
assumption is an incorrect one to make. I have written test items
and have been actively involved in the establishment of cutoff scores for
the science ISAT and both processes centered on the learning standards
and not the Descriptors. Again these are tools which teachers and
curriculum writers can use to help students meet the state standards and
subsequently improve performance on the ISAT.
A. Too much breadth and
not enough breadth. This statement contradicts itself however
it is important to understand the hierarchy of the Science Learning
Standards. There are three Goals -11 (inquiry and technological design),
12 (content areas of the life, physical, and earth/space), & 13 (science,
technology, and society) at the top of the pyramid. Directly underneath
you will find greater depth as these three goals are broken into ten learning
standards (two in 11, six in 12, and two in 13). Next come the Benchmarks
followed by the Performance Descriptors. Each descending layer
provides greater specificity to assist educators in their quest to improve
the quality of science education in all classrooms.
"A series of assessment
tasks, based on the Performance Descriptors, are supposedly being pilot
tested this year." 80 classroom assessments have been written
and are currently being field tested throughout Illinois. Following
validation in June, Illinois educators will have classroom assessments
including specific examples of student work which meet and exceed state
standards. These assessments are not mandates but tools to help teachers
improve science education. This layer of the pyramid will add even
greater depth to the resources available to Illinois educators. Illinois
is way ahead of other states in this regard.
"C. The decision to categorize
descriptors as into two groups: knowledge and application." The
utilization of KNOW and APPLY beginning with the Learning Standards
and continuing through the benchmarks, descriptors, and assessments has
been a tremendous strength for the Science Learning Standards. Students
are expected to know inquiry, technological design, the content areas,
safety/science and technology issues AND how to apply them in school and
life situations. It is important that students know science concepts
but even more important that they can apply them in meaningful ways.
Knowing lab safety issues is not good enough. Students must be able
to apply that knowledge in their investigations. However, the opposite
is also true. Students can not apply what they don't know.
Before they can practice safety issues, they must know them.
Inquiry is a strong foundation
in the Illinois Science Learning Standards. The three science goals
must not be looked at as separate items but as a packaged approach to solid
instruction. The content areas of Goal 12 should be addressed through
the utilization of inquiry and technological design (11) while weaving
in safety/science, technology, and society (13). Inquiry is
thoroughly entrenched in the descriptors.
Again, I wish to thank Marty
for his willingness to discuss the Performance Descriptors. They
are in a draft stage and input from anyone is welcomed. I would be
willing to discuss anything involved with the ILS process at any time.
I am also available to school districts and institutions in Northern Illinois
to help in any way to facilitate the improvement of science instruction
or the utilization and alignment of the Science Learning Standards, Descriptors,
Classroom Assessments, and available resources to science curricula.
Take care and please, enjoy life,
Bill Fraccaro
Dr. William F. Fraccaro
ISBE - Educator in Residence/ Teacher Community
Unit School District 200
Standards Division - Science
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
630-739-0357
cell phone 630-251-1214
