This practice guide is organized around the premise that implementing the vision of the Framework for K-12 Science Education requires a system in which policies, people, and practices are all organized around a common vision of equitable science teaching and learning. A vision for teaching and learning is an idea for what classrooms could look like, in an ideal world. Vision encompasses ideas about what students should be doing and learning in the ideal classroom, as well as what they should be doing to support students’ learning (Hammerness, 1999, 2006). A vision for teaching and learning offers images to inspire and guide practice (Corno, 2004; Hammerness et al., 2005). Putting a vision that inspires and guides practice at the center of an effort to create a more equitable system of science teaching and learning means that no single component of a system is given more power or influence over another; instead, the vision for teaching and learning guides decisions about what standards, assessments, professional development, curriculum, and instructional resources should look like.

Centering vision in systemic change efforts represents a break from the recent past, where state tests have played the leading role. The basic logic of accountability-based reform has been that if you set high standards for all students, measure progress toward those high standards on end-of-year tests, and then hold teachers and schools accountable for meeting them, systems will improve. This logic has had broad appeal across the political spectrum, and it is popular among many education leaders.

The evidence for the efficacy of centering testing as a strategy for improvement is mixed, however. Tests have indeed focused teachers’ attention on standards but only on those standards that are tested; moreover, tests have narrowed the curriculum where pressure to improve is greatest (Au, 2007). The average effect of incentives on test performance is positive, but close to zero (National Research Council, 2011). And, while test-based accountability is intended to shine a light on inequities of outcomes by race and language of origin, implementation of test-based accountabilities has often exacerbated inequities, including in science education (Penfield & Lee, 2010). Finally, use of test score data to drive instruction has proven ineffective, and in many cases (Penuel & Shepard, 2016), actually perpetuated inequities in science education (Braaten, Bradford, Kirchgasler, & Barocas, 2017).

The problem with centering any single component in the educational system for systemic reform—whether tests, curriculum, or any other component—is that our systems are complex. They are comprised of many different interlocking components and processes that are difficult to see—yet alone coordinate. Often, we overlook important components of the system outside school that are integral to students’ learning; we know science learning unfolds in a diversity of social settings and structures (Banks et al., 2007; Bell, Tzou, Bricker, & Baines, 2012). Also, while policymakers and other education stakeholders become enamored of “silver bullets” that focus systemic reform on one component, most educators appreciate that changes to multiple components of systems are needed for real change. For example, new curricula need to developed and used along with sustained supports for professional collaboration and learning and partnerships with community members and families (for pre- and in-service educators); these efforts need to promote science investigations and learning across settings with various partners while new systems of assessments need to be used to support this work. Thus, a focus on a single component may not inspire enough individuals to enact the changes needed for systemic reform. An ambitious and comprehensive vision can. Leadership for systemic reform requires we keep coming back to something bigger than one component, but rather a collective vision for science teaching and learning that inspires questions about how policies, people, and practices need to work together to effect the change we hope to see for all students now and for years to come.

Core Commitments of Effective Science Leaders

This practice guide is organized around three big ideas for leadership in science education: focus on equity and justice; organize coalitions and networks; and strive for coherence.

Commitment 1: Focus on Equity and Justice

As we illustrate throughout this practice guide, the term equity means different things to different people in science education. Even within A Framework for K-12 Science Education, which we use as a starting point for defining equity, includes many different definitions. The position taken in the ACESSE work is that there can be many different productive equity goals and initiatives pursued by leaders, from broadening participation to promoting justice in communities. What matters most is that leaders work with teams to surface, discuss, and debate what equity means to them, and that their definitions of equity guide the development of concrete strategies for change, as well as how they monitor progress toward that change.

Within the ACESSE partnership, a definition of equity has been negotiated that informs the tools in this practice guide. The definition prioritizes students’ own learning experiences and priorities, inside and outside of formal schooling, and recognizes and appreciates the diversity of experiences students bring to bear based on their participation in diverse communities and the quality of the experiences for learning they have in science classrooms and other spaces. That stands in contrast to a view of equity that focuses on achievement gaps, or even opportunity gaps when there is little attention to whether student experiences in the science classroom engages them in learning they and their communities find to be meaningful. Equitable science teaching and learning should routinely center on student learning experiences that are connected to the priorities of local communities and interests, experiences, and identities of students. This view of  equity requires localization of teaching and learning opportunities that draw on culture-based pedagogies. At the same time, equity demands that all students have the opportunity to experience such instruction, and those that do and do not have such learning experiences cannot be predicted by where they go to school or who they are. Equity demands we attend carefully to the distribution of teaching and learning opportunities and resource-intensive experiences called for in the vision of the Framework. Hence, the ACESSE work and this practical guide for leaders seeks to provide resources and tools needed  to address historical and persistent sources of inequity that led to unequal distribution of opportunities in the first place and continue to cause them.

Justice focuses the work of education on understanding and responding to historical inequities from a critical perspective as to how specific injustices are centered in the enterprise of education or how inequities in broader society influence education or can be influenced through education. We approach justice dimensions of science education by identifying a defined view of it and by realizing that there are many justice initiatives that can and should be focused on in science education. Our definition is rooted in a commitment to restorative justice through privileging multiple ways of knowing, being, and valuing as a fundamental human condition—and by promoting human dignity and self-determination through education. Therefore, instruction should promote the rightful presence for all students across the multifaceted scales of justice (Tan & Calabrese Barton, 2017)—including scales related to race, socioeconomic class, gender, educational sovereignty, Indigenous rights, immigration history, land and water rights, sexual orientation, gender expression, abilities, and other dimensions of social difference related to justice. From a critical historical perspective, working towards equity and justice across many of the dimensions of the design will necessarily involve implementing approaches that de-settle inequitable systems, routines, and assumptions that are likely to be in place in many educational institutions (Bang et al., 2012). For example, it is important to consistently consider what purpose is being centered and why, what inequities need to be addressed, what phenomena and contexts are privileged, how is sense-making connected to related, local practices that are historically rooted. In coordination, it will then be possible to support expansive cultural learning pathways for youth working from an asset perspective (Bell, et al., 2012; NRC, 2012). In particular, these pathways should be designed to center the lifeworlds and rights of non-dominant communities through a focus on multiple ways of knowing, being, and valuing.

Equity and justice are central ideas in this practice guide and must be fundamental to the work of science education leaders. Leaders have both an opportunity and a responsibility to support systemic changes that afford all students meaningful classroom learning experiences.  While leaders cannot single-handedly change what goes on in all classrooms, they can provide opportunities for teachers to discover the need for and ways to adjust classroom experiences to be more equitable. They can promote critical consciousness among those in the education system. They can influence  the distribution of resources to be fairer or more just. Leaders can give voice to the needs and desires of students and classroom teachers and inspire a school, district, community and state to strive for continual improvement for the sake of students who would benefit most from such leadership. Guide 1 will provide guidance and tools to support leaders with casting and centering systemic change through a vision for equity.

Commitment 2: Organize Coalitions and Networks

Many science leaders have participated in strategic planning activities in which they have developed  goals, strategies, and benchmarks for change. Although this guide does include tools to help leaders develop goals, devise strategies for change, and measure progress in meeting goals, the emphasis of the guide is to support leaders in bringing people together and mobilizing them to influence and implement the vision of A Framework for K-12 Science Education. The guide presents science leadership, not as a process of setting out a plan and executing it, but as a process that is more akin to community organizing. The tasks of building a coalition, creating a sense of commitment to a shared vision, and continuously monitoring the success of specific initiatives or “campaigns” are attended to throughout the guide.

One reason the guide focuses on  “organizing” rather than  “strategic planning” is because equity-oriented reforms provoke resistance (Oakes & Rogers, 2006). It will not be possible to implement culture-based pedagogies across a school, district, or state, without people questioning why it is important to attend to issues of equity and asking what it has to do with “the science.” Leaders will need to address underlying norms and assumptions about what science is and who can do science. They will need to confront underlying beliefs of educators about students’ capabilities, as well as assumptions and about the fairness of the current system of science education. And, leaders will need to prepare for and tackle political headwinds whenever leaders propose a change to how opportunities are distributed in a system.

Political forces are always at play in educational change efforts. That means leaders need to attend to who has the power and authority to influence system components, both from inside systems and outside it. They need to know how to recruit allies to support them, and also how to mobilize “bystanders,” people who might support a vision for how to promote equity in education but do not know how they can contribute. They need to be able to take advantage of moments when there are cracks in the system, openings for new ways of doing things, or ways to leverage a different initiative to support equity work in science education. Timing in organizing is everything and guide 3 of this guide seeks to provide leaders with tools to assist with such efforts as well as examples of how other leaders have addressed challenges that surfaced when embarking on systemic reforms for equity in science education

Commitment 3: Strive for Coherence

The Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards (National Research Council, 2015) argues that “successful implementation of the NGSS requires that all of the components across state, district, and school are aligned to support the vision in the Framework and the NGSS” (p. 16). This alignment is what is referred to as coherence, and it is critical because implementing the vision will require more than simple changes to standards or curriculum. It will require a systemic effort to influence education leaders, teachers, families and community leaders, as well as the policies and practices that shape what science teaching looks like and how science learning opportunities are distributed within the system.

As leaders seek to address incoherence within systems for implementing the Next Generation Science Standards or standards informed by the Framework, three different forms of coherence must be considered: vertical, horizontal, and developmental (National Research Council, 2015).  Vertical coherence refers to the degree to which people at every level of a hierarchical system—from students and parents, to teachers and building leaders, to district and state leaders—share a common vision for how teaching and learning should improve. A high degree of vertical coherence would minimize students exposed to learning opportunities that are inconsistent with the vision of the Framework from year-to-year. Horizontal coherence refers to the alignment of messages about what and how to teach among different components of the system, such as professional development, curriculum, standards, and assessment. A system that assures horizontal coherence, would modify classroom evaluation tools that require teachers to give away big ideas in science by writing a standard on the board. Developmental coherence refers to the way in which what students learn at each grade level builds on what they learned in earlier grade levels.

Coherence is not achieved by leaders working with people at their level (e.g., state, district, school) to align policies and procedures, though such alignment work is necessary. Because policies and practices are crafted at every level and on different schedules, the work of crafting coherence is ongoing and challenging (Honig & Hatch, 2004). Moreover, teachers may not see policies as aligned, even when policy makers intended them to be aligned. It’s teachers’ own perceptions of coherence that matter for what they do in the classroom (Penuel, Fishman, Gallagher, Korbak, & Lopez-Prado, 2009). In addition, students’ experience of coherence must be considered—and is key to students’ cumulative learning. As we elaborate in guide 4, a student who experiences teaching that is consistent one year with the vision of the Framework but inconsistent the next cannot learn science in a way that is developmentally coherent, even if the standards are designed to build understanding over time across years.

Strategic Leadership Development

Stepping into any leadership role is challenging; bringing equity to the forefront in doing so is especially challenging as it typically involves disrupting dominant ways of thinking and acting and shifts the focus of improvement work to the interests of non-dominant communities. As a first step for leaders it seems important to examine our own experiences of how race, gender, sexual identity, perceived ability, immigration status, Indigenous sovereignty, and the language we use to communicate with others have shaped our own experiences. We also need to examine how our own identities as learners have shaped our experience in school—in ways that likely influence our worldviews and priorities. For all of us, school performance wasn’t just about how much knowledge we acquired; it was also about claiming particular identities (e.g., as “good at science”).

As leaders in our fields our own experiences in schooling will not be the same as those of students today or of those in different social positions from our own and discomfort can occur as we learn about and work across these differences. It’s important to be willing to sit with discomfort and not try and push it away. If we are white, we may not have considered how racial privilege has operated to give us advantages in the wider world before, and realizations can lead us to feel uncomfortable. Conversations about equity can often put people from nondominant communities in a difficult spot, too, when others expect them to “teach” them about their group; such teaching requires uncompensated emotional labor (citation). Another source of discomfort is our deep wish as individuals to want to be able to fix injustices we see right away. While such a motivation is well-intentioned, the work of promoting equity is a life-long endeavor and requires people and organizations to work together toward change, often along long-timescales. Thinking that any single meeting or encounter can address historical injustice is not just unrealistic, it is also presumptuous and insulting. A stance of humility and critical hopefulness is needed, a hope based in the recognition that there are possibilities for change, cracks within unjust systems we can open and create new possibilities with others (Duncan-Andrade, 2009).

Another stance that is important in leading for equity is viewing difference as a resource, an asset, rather than a problem to be solved. This practice guide emphasizes the importance of coherence in educational systems from this asset-based frame, including sharing a vision for teaching and learning. It might be tempting to conclude, then, that the goal of leadership is to get everyone on exactly the same page, by whatever means are required, including through incentives or sanctions for people who don’t get on board with the vision. This approach, though, will undermine efforts to create broad ownership in the vision. In addition, there are many ways for a system to be coherent, without requiring everyone to agree on every single aspect of a vision. There can be coherence even when people have different ideas about equity. Bringing together people and forming networks will bring in novel perspectives that, as a leader, you may never have heard. Learning from our efforts to create more inclusive networks requires that we embrace difference and multiplicity of voices, rather than using the networks simply as a platform for us to broadcast our vision.

As evidenced by the stories from science leaders found in this guide, who have embarked on a journey of systemic reform for equity, leadership isn’t easy. However, it is rewarding in ways that many will never know or understand. It has the potential to impact an untold number of teachers and students for years to come and serve to cultivate leaders who will carry the work forward in future generations. It is the hope of the researchers and practitioners that engaged in ACESSE for equity and coherence in science education that others feel inspired and supported to start or continue leading equitable change in their school, district, community or state. The time for responsible, caring and bold leadership in science education is now!

Reflections

Explore the following questions individually and with your leadership teams and collaborators to refine your personal and collective understandings about how centering vision in education reform can improve your implementation efforts:

• How did my own experiences prepare me to relate to and support the dreams of particular students? How did they not?
• What additional understandings do I need to develop to understand the life experiences of students who have different pathways from my own?
• How do I get the support I need to do the learning to engage in broad visions of science learning?

References

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.

Bang, M., Brown, B. A., Barton, A. C., Rosebery, A., & Warren, B. (2017). Toward more equitable learning in science: Expanding relationships among students, teachers, and science practices. In C. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 33-58). Washington, DC: NSTA.

Bang, M., Faber, L., Gurneau, J., Marin, A., & Soto, C. (2016). Community-Based design research: Learning across generations and strategic transformations of institutional relations toward axiological innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(6), 28-41.

Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A., & Medin, D. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human Development, 55, 302-318.

Banks, J. A., Au, K. H., Ball, A. F., Bell, P., Gordon, E. W., Gutierrez, K. D., Heath, S. B., Lee, C. D., Lee, Y., Mahiri, J., Nasir, N. S., Valdes, G., & Zhou, M. (2007). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep. The LIFE Center (The Learning in Informal and Formal Environments Center), University of Washington, Stanford University, and SRI International and Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington. https://education.uw.edu/cme/LIFE

Bell, P., Tzou, C., Bricker, L. A., & Baines, A. D. (2012). Learning in diversities of structures of social practice: Accounting for how, why, and where people learn science. Human Development, 55, 269-284.

Braaten, M., Bradford, C., Kirchgasler, K. L., & Barocas, S. F. (2017). How data use for accountability undermines equitable science education. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(4), 427-446.

Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cazden, C., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Processes (pp. 165-197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.

Coburn, 2004 [GET THIS CITATION]

Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(10), 1109-1136.

Corno, L. (2004). Introduction to the special issue, Work habits and work styles: Volition in education. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1669-1694.

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York: Routledge/Falmer.

Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 5(1, 2), 183-204.

Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Developing curriculum vision and trust: Changes in teachers’ curriculum strategies. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 321-337). New York, NY: Routledge.

Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing roses in concrete. Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 181-194.

Farrell, C., Penuel, W. R., Daniel, J., & Coburn, C. E. (2019). Research-practice partnerships: Current practices, future possibilities. Boulder, CO: National Center for Research in Policy and Practice.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.

Ford, M. J. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2-3), 147-177.

Furtak, E. M., & Penuel, W. R. (2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of “hands‐on” and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167–186. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21488

Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

González, N. E., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gunckel, K. L., & Tolbert, S. (2018). The imperative to move toward a dimension of care in engineering education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 938-961.

Hammerness, K. (1999). Seeing through teachers’ eyes: An exploration of the content, character and role of teachers’ vision. (PhD doctoral dissertation), Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Hammerness, K. (2006). Seeing through teachers’ eyes: Professional ideals and classroom practices. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hammerness, K. (2010). To seek, to strive, to find, and not to yield: A look at current conceptions of vision in education. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Second international handbook of educational change. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J. D., Berliner, D. C., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358-390). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hand, V., Penuel, W. R., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2012). (Re)framing educational possibility: Attending to power and equity in shaping access to and within learning opportunities. Human Development, 55, 250-268.

Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.

Jackson, 1975 [CITATION]

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally-relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Learning in Places. (2018). Families & communities in curriculum co-design. Retreived from http://learninginplaces.org/domains/family-leadership/family-community-leadership-expertise/

Manz, E. (2015). Representing argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 553-590.

McLaren, 1991 [CITATION]

Munter, C., & Correnti, R. J. (2017). Examining relations between mathematics teachers’ instructional vision and knowledge and change in practice. American Journal of Education, 123(1), 171-202.

National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, cultures, and contexts. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2015). Guide to implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, cultures, and contexts. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

North, C. E. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning (s) of “social justice” in education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 507-535.

Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2006). Learning power: Organizing for education and justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.

Penfield, R., & Lee, O. (2010). Test-based accountability: Potential benefits and pitfalls of science assessment with student diversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 6-24.

Rivet et al., 2016 [CITATION]

Rodriguez, A. J., & Morrison, D. (2019). Expanding and enacting transformative meanings of equity, diversity and social justice in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(2), 265-281.

Rosebery, A., Warren, B., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2016). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1571-1600.

Valencia, R. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Gallagher, L. P., Korbak, C., & Lopez-Prado, B. (2009). Is alignment enough? Investigating the effects of state policies and professional development on science curriculum implementation. Science Education, 93(4), 656-677.

Penuel, W. R., & Shepard, L. A. (2016). Assessment and teaching. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 787-851). Washington, DC: AERA.

Tzou, C. T., & Bell, P. (2010). Micros and Me: Leveraging home and community practices in formal science instruction. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1135-1143). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.