The focus of the work is on principals and assistant principals. This school year we are working closely with 4 principals, each in a different school, as we develop the resources. Next school year (2016-2017), we will be working with 25 principals from 25 different schools. The principals are from elementary, middle and k-8 schools.

We are developing the resources so others can use them off the website, with the hope that they will be scaleable to a much larger audience. Recently, the resources were shared with the Council of State Science Supervisors, but we also want to reach more non-science focused audiences.

The focus of the project is on the 8 science practices in NGSS for k-8. We are testing out the resources across the different science disciplines.

Recruitment hasn’t been easy. Because of accountability pressures, many k-8 principals are very focused on mathematics and literacy, so it is a challenge for many of them to prioritize science. However, we have found several who are hungry for support with science. They value it and want to work on it, but don’t always know how.

Yes! We have found that many principals lack (and want) easy, adaptable tools that they can figure out quickly and integrate into what they are already doing.

Debi – We have been working closely with the 4 principals this year meeting regularly all together as a design group and “shadowing” their supervision of science. The focus on principals is definitely new to me and has been really interesting. None of the principals’ backgrounds is in science, which is typical of principals. So probably not surprisingly initially their feedback focused more on general pedagogy and student engagement. We have seen a shift to more of a focus on the science practices. Initially, the investigating practice (e.g. conducting investigations) seemed easier for them than some of the sensemaking practices (e.g. models, explanations). As we scale to more principals next year, we are going to try to use that as a leverage point to first get them to focus on investigating and then more into explanation, models, argument, etc.

The 4 principals we are working with closely this year meet with us regularly to provide us feedback on the development of the tools. I have never developed an “app” before and that has definitely required multiple rounds of revision, but we really like the current version.

Initially, the support the principals were providing their teachers was through the observation and feedback sessions using the Science Practices Continuum and accompanying instructional strategies from the website. Now that the principals are becoming more comfortable with the science practices, they are making plans for more formal professional development for their teachers using the tools. They requested that we develop sample PD agendas that highlight ways to use the resources on the website. So that is what we are working on now to add to the website.

That is a good idea to develop sample agendas. Also, have you done any modeling—doing an actual PD with principals that they could then reflect on and facilitate with their teachers?

Yes! We modeled PD with the principals last week when we meet to get their feedback on the format that they think would work best with their teachers. It was a really interesting conversation afterwards.

What were some of the interesting points that came up?

In the first year of the project, we started by interviewing 26 principals to develop an understanding of their perspectives on science and what they “noticed” when observing science. 23 of the 26 did NOT have a background in either science or math. Rather the majority of the principals had backgrounds in ELA, social studies or general elementary education. In describing “good” science instruction the majority of them talked about hands on science, but that had a range of meanings. Some of those meanings aligned with the investigating elements of the science practices, while others were more arts or crafts projects. When observing video of science instruction, the majority included a focus on general pedagogy and student engagement with few comments about the science content or science practices. When they did bring up the science practices, again it tended to be around investigating.

Moving forwards, we are trying to support the principals in “noticing” the science practices and specifically supporting their understanding of some of the Sensemaking (e.g. explanation, models) and Critiquing (e.g. argument) practices.

Great question about the different school cultures! The principals are definitely in 4 schools with very different cultures. Two of the principals are even in the same urban district, but their schools are very different – one at the risk of being a turn around school. The level of trust varies in the school in terms of whether the feedback is seen as more “supportive” or “evaluative”.

We do meet as a group in person exactly so the principals’ can share their reflections with each other as well as provide us with feedback and future direction. When we met last week, one of the things they asked for were sample agendas and resources to help them run PD with their teachers around the ILSP resources. We had an interesting discussion on where they would start in the PD and they had different perspectives in part because of their different school cultures. One principal talked about how she would starting with the Investigating Practices, because she was seeing some of that and she needed to first show the teachers that she valued and saw some strengths in their current instruction. Another principal talked about how he would start with the Sensemaking practices, because this was an area of need and the school is trying to identify areas for change for next school year.

For each of the 8 science practices, we have focused on 1 or 2 key levers that can help support students in that practice. We talk a lot to the 4 principals we are working with closely this year about the importance of school context and the backgrounds of their students. But you make a great point in that I am not sure how clearly that has been conveyed in the actual tools.

The connections to literacy are definitely seen as a benefit. And for some principals I think it does help them with confidence. They actually tend to feel the most comfortable with the Practice 1 Questioning, though I think they overmap what I see as counting as that practice beyond experimental questions to any questions related to science.