2018 Arizona Science Standards Revision – Survey Review Arizona Science Standards Revision Working Group Date and time of May 30, 2018  8:30 am – 3:30 pm meeting: Scope of work: On May 30, 2018 a working group of diverse grade level content experts and community members continued the review of public comment received via the public survey after the May 17, 2018 meeting. These committee members reviewed the draft of the 2018 Science Standards and addressed public comment/feedback that had been received as of May 28, 2018 via the public survey, which closed at 12:00 p.m. (noon) on May 31st 2018. For this meeting the working group committee reviewed public comment/feedback and • Identified if the comment was actionable • Identified what item the comment addressed • Suggested changes if needed based on public feedback/working group discussion Work completed: During the meeting the working group committee worked on grade level content (K-5) public feedback and the introduction section of the draft standards. The working group did not have enough time to address comments on topics of organization, depth-rigor, breadth, 2018 vs 2004 science standards, appendices of the 2018 draft science standards. Working group committee comments are compiled from May 17 - May 30, 2018 and this document begins with sections containing the introduction – high school grade levels. Artifact: The document (artifact) is the actual working document from the science working group committee. As the working groups discussed the feedback/comment they determined and comment on the artifact: • If the item was actionable by the committee (yes/no) • What the item addressed (specific standard, key concepts, organization, etc.) • Committee gave their suggestions of how to address the public comment/feedback Plans for next meeting: The next working group meeting will continue to focus on public feedback received from the survey in grade levels 6-12 and other general portions of the document as time allows. 2018 Science Standards Revision Public Comment Review Edited 5/30/17 Survey Question 12. Please comment on the Introduction section. Comment # Public Comment Actionable Yes/No Actionable Yes/No Suggested Changes Committee Notes The Introduction itself explains well the design and intended implementation, but on page 4, the Core Ideas, Life Science, L$ section: evolution is a not a theory, (or a theory in the science discipline). unity and diversity of organisms IS a result of Big Idea 10 is the basis for L4 on Intro p 4 and frame work pp 139-168 - Core adaptation, which is a component of evolution. Idea LS4 pp. 164-168 but discussed in group the differences of chemical 56 Yes Introduction pg 4 evolution, macro evolution and micro evolution. 61Messy No comment 69N/A No comment 80nobody cares. No comment 89There IS one scientific method, and it works. No comment Broad opinion based 114no comment No comment 123I feel the first year might be different by after that all should be ok. No comment I believe that some of the wording that was added however is not accurate, as mention prior I have concerns with the paragraph at the bottom of page 2 which explains patterns, I strongly disagree with the statement that identifies the Science Remove "Formerly and Engineering Practices to the scientific method, if anything in our current known as the scientific document it is related to the Inquiry process not the scientific method. Science has method.." statement changed even since I was in high school 25 years ago, the scientific method is a mode from beginning of the The Science and Engineering Practices did not derive from the Scientific of communicating findings not the way that science is done. Science and Engineering Method.The Scientific Method is procedure and the SEPs are critical 143 Yes Introduction pg 2-3 Practices pg. 3 components of scientific literacy. Take all the green out. Non- experts clearly wrote the additional pieces and do not have an understanding of the science and engineering practices nor the crosscutting 145concepts. Yes comment Public feedback is being reviewed The terms cross-cutting and intertwining are confusing at best. This attempt to intermingle three levels of cognition regarding science is very confusing and to what end, at that. Why aren't that standards simply setting out the core concepts needed Possible for functional literacy and practice in science? Rather than cross-cutting why not rewording/word simply call them ways of looking at the world ? clarification 152 Yes comment (intertwined) Not being an educator, it was a bit confusing. But once I took the time to read 154carefully it was understandable, with some work on my part. No comment We should go back to the standards that the committee created and adopt those, not 157Diane Douglas's internal review copy. No comment Statement doesn't address Introduction Overall, the introduction provides enough information and context to understand the standards. I'm confused by the ADE changes that were made. The example for Patterns doesn't really capture the intent of that practice. I recommend that if an example is included, the ADE allow the working groups of educators to write a better Rewrite bottom example or to pull one from the Framework, as several examples are cited in that paragraph on page 2 document. I am also confused about the statement about the scientific method, this using pgs. 85-87 from indicates that there isn't a clear understanding of the practices (even the 2004 the Framework to use standards didn't refer to the scientific method) Please consult with high education examples from simple to faculty or research documents such as the Framework to better understand why the complex patterns. See reference to the scientific method is misleading and inappropriate. comment 143 about Scientific Method 163 Yes comment statement. It looks like it is subtly pushing anthropomorphic climate change. We do not have a significant effect on climate. Look for propaganda that serves political ends. The idea of anthropomorphic climate change is being used to push the destruction of prosperous countries, and capitalism as an engine of prosperity. One statement suggests that we have a significant impact on climate. We do not. The sun is the main driving force, and volcanoes have a significant effect. Carbon dioxide is not a culprit. It Remove terms "natural is necessary for the sustenance of life, and represents a tiny proportion of the and human" from E1 on atmosphere. It does not drive climate change. Standard-core idea for page 4 in Core Ideas for 165 Yes knowing science E1- pa Knowing Science. E1 is Big Idea #5. It does not include natural and human in the document I especially like the graphic used in the introduction. It is much better than the NGSS. 172 No comment It is well written although shorten this section. Most teachers will skip over this 180section No comment *Note: Gaps in comment number due to [No Answer Entered] Intro-Appendices 1 181It does not tell us how it will be implemented, it says it's up to the district. No comment 184It has a graph that is laid out nice and very easy to understand. No comment would like to see how the teachers are going to break it down to implement it into 185the classroom No comment If we keep these elements the introduction is good. But if we are making changes 186then the introduction needs to change. No comment 187Seems like it explains the expectations clearly. No comment 188If you keep this document the same, then the intro fits well. No comment 189It a lot of words it would be nice to simplify the facts. No comment 190It shows vertical articulation. No comment 191Fairly lengthy, but thorough. No comment 193While I appreciate the summary, it seems to be a lot of information. No comment The introduction focuses around the core ideas. The Science and Engineering Practices are much more rigorous than the Scientific Method and promote creative 195problem solving. No comment it focuses around the core ideas. the science and engineering aspect are much more 196vigorous than the scientific method. No comment 197Way to wordy. No comment 208Too complicated!! No comment The problem part is how they should be implemented because there is no building on 219different standards. No comment 3Dimensional approach The introduction section lists the three dimensions and provides examples along with 220the goals of the new standards. No comment 225It is clear. No comment 226That all grade levels need to be doing science about 60 minutes a day. No comment 227The introduction is easy to understand. No comment 228Fine. No comment Our group felt that there was sufficient information in the introduction section. 235 No comment 243The introduction section seems comprehensive and good. No comment 250Should offer a greater clarification of the about the core ideas. No comment 257It was familiar enough but more specifics will be useful. No comment IntroductionPage 2In the first sentence, remove 'between science disciplines' - this contradicts the next sentence, which is the correct interpretation of crosscutting concepts - it is not only within Science - but also between other disciplines.Page 3, 9, 21, 33, Appendix 2Remove 'Formerly known as the scientific method' → this simply is not the case.Page 5Under the heading, 'The standards are neither curriculum nor instructional practices' the statement 'Therefore, identifying the sequence of instruction at each grade - what will be taught and for how long - requires concerted effort and attention at the local level.' must be heeded by the State Board of Education and Arizona Department of Education. The local school district's will not have the time that is needed with the final standards to do the work that is described in this sentence. We need to begin teaching 3rd, 6th, and 9th grade students using Remove "science the new standards in August 2018. We won't have the final standards in our hands to discipline" on page 2. identify 'the sequence of instruction at each grade' with enough time to give the task Refer to comment 143 our 'concerted effort and attention'. This is not what we should be doing for our about Scientific Method. students. We will not be able to teach these standards with fidelity on the current Extend timeline for these standards and the assessments that will accompany them. transition/implementati on timeline with Introduction and assessment in 2021- There is a concern by commentor that the delay of standard approval will 265 Yes Appendix 2022. affect the sequence of instruction and assessment. 267Awesome except the poorly written example of patterns. No comment See comment 163 On page 2 it states that tectonic processes follow a pattern. If this were true, why 275can't we predict an earthquake or tsunami? INACCURATE! Yes Introduction See comment 163 Validity to commentor's statement Page 2 refers to predicting patterns of tectonic movement. While plates have predictable movement we cannot predict outcomes of their movement. 276 Yes Introduction See comment 163 Validity to commentor's statement 277Although, much of the green verbiage needs to be revised or removed. No comment 279This portion looks fine to me. No comment *Note: Gaps in comment number due to [No Answer Entered] Intro-Appendices 2 You now have material that used to be in 1st grade (human body) in third grade. If they can handle it in an earlier grade they should. Also there is repetition in things such as plants, which could be repeated learning or each grade level assuming the 284other person is teaching it. Yes Introduction For K-2/3-5 groups Not part of the Introduction. In the Core Ideas for knowing science could L4 read something like L4: The theory of evolution seeks to make clear the continuity, unity, and diversity of living and extinct organisms ? This will then encompass that evolution is a continual process that takes time but connects all species?Core Idea U3 for using science makes science seem very 291commercial. Yes Introduction See comment 56 292No comment. No comment remove information about scientific method and paragraphs about patterns. Neither See comment 163 and 300are correct or make sense. Yes Introduction 143 The introduction does not provide any details on how this is to be implemented. It 305lists the basic ideas covered in each grade level. No Instruction 311These are not what the committee created No comment Though the time expectation only addresses the number of minutes per week the standards should be taught and misses the more important number of weeks 313required to teach the specified information. No Instruction The introduction needs to include vocabulary for each standard Sub-Category (ex: Physical Science, Earth and Space), as well as explicit expectations for what expected Each Core Idea is of the student in each standard. explained and embedded in the standard is the content- 320 No Introduction including key words Key words The introduction gave enough information to be able to understand the layout when I 326went to my grade level. No comment Throughout the document, the science and engineering practices are explained as being 'formerly known as the scientific method,' which is misleading. While the part of the old standards that most closely resembles the practices was the scientific method, they are not the same thing. The 'scientific method' is a linear procedure devised by well-meaning teachers and does not resemble in any real way what scientists actually do. The 'Science and Engineering Practices' are intended to be a comprehensive, non-linear outline of all of the roles and tasks a scientist must do. Without explanation of this key difference, there is a danger of teachers continuing to teach the 'scientific method,' which is contrary to the intent of the standards. 328 Yes See comment 143 335It was very clear. No comment Not enough information to help suggest how or what steps build to teach the larger 341pictures. No comment 347This question seems misplaced/should be at the beginning. No comment As a new teacher, I'd prefer it to be more explicit in terms of what the standards are 351saying. no comment 352Introduction is fine. No comment Cross-curricular implementation and possibilities should be emphasized in each content introduction if they will remain grouped by discipline area. Many of the essential standards can be taught in all discipline areas and shouldn't be limited to Comment lacks clarity. one specific content area.additionally, Appendix 3 should be acknowledged or present here to make the big idea/main end goal clear to all what students will be assessed 354on. No comment Necessary to understand the coding, scope and sequence. It is very clearly explained. 355 No comment The introduction provides a nice overview for all grade levels. Also giving an overview of Crosscutting Concepts, Science and Engineering Practices, and Core Ideas for K-12. 356 NO comment although there is enough information and context to help me understand how the standards are designed, it is hard to follow and additional graphics, such as tables, would help the organization and clarity of the introduction 358 No comment graphic table if what? *Note: Gaps in comment number due to [No Answer Entered] Intro-Appendices 3 The introduction is very informative and provides background information that is 360helpful. No comment Gave a brief description of what is expected throughout the 3 dimensions of scientific 362learning. No commwnr The introduction section gives a thorough description of the big ideas that are the 365basis for the new standards. No comment Like that the science and engineering inquiry process is intergrated into a more cohesive well rounded process instead of being linear. Like that the introduction clearly explains both the practices and sources of the core ideas. 366 No comment I Like that the science and engineering inquiry process is integrated into a more cohesive process instead of being linear. Like that the introduction clearly explains 367both the practices and sources of the core ideas. No comment Quick overview. Nice to remind teachers of its structure. Not sure it is enough for 369teachers not familiar with the K-12 Framework. No comment Three dimensional teaching is the best, research way to go.The Framework for K-12 Science Education and the Working with the Big Ideas of Science Education was a smart decision. On page 2 however where there is information in green the introduction becomes muddy as there are incorrect science examples used. The statement In Earth and space sciences, tectonic processes follow a pattern is false. If it were true we would never be surprised by an earthquake. In science tectonic plate movement is taught not a tectonic PROCESS. The Science and Engineering practices were never the scientific method and even our 2004 standards don't allude to one way of doing science which is what the antiquated scientific method does.L4: The theory of evolution seeks to make clear the unity and diversity of living and extinct organisms.(cid:9)Should say The diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of evolution. (cid:9)Based on the documents in which the committee use to write the standards, Working with Big Ideas of Science Education, rewriting this statement makes it unclear and confusing. 378 Yes Intro see comments 163, 143, 56 Nature of Science is not included in the front matter. Would like to see a comment of reference to the appendix for explanations of what is included in each practice. Some may not have a clickable document when they are reviewing or making decisions about curriculum. On page 4, Each standard is written at the intersection of two core all explanations are in Appendix and just have to turn pages to the back. The ideas , I would like to see that it is at the intersection of three dimensions and Core Ideas is one of the 3 dimensions and intersects with the other two. reference the crosscutting concepts too. Referenced crosscutting concepts and standards will be addressed in the 380 Yes organization concept box. 386Formerly known as the scientific method? What is with this wording? No comment The need for examples of crosscutting concepts should be moved to the Appendix. 387 yes comment see comment 163 The Introduction makes sense, however there is no consistency within the breadth of 389the standards that reflects the NGSS principles. no comment use Big Ideas and Framework 416images are useful no comment 430It is even a bit long. no comment 435Add some more detail about how to age appropriately interpret standards. no comment 451Wording is a bit confusing no comment 466Do not understand the introductory explanation. no comment More specific information and guidance should be given to help schools navigate how the transition into the new standards from grade to grade should be executed. There seems to be a great deal more spiraling throughout grade levels, which is an excellent strategy. However, we need specific guidance on how to transition effectively so that students are not experiencing gaps. This also means that teachers need to be held accountable for teaching science in elementary grades, and not merely though the use of informational/expository text. Students must experience science through inquiry. instruction and 472 no curriculum resources 492The introduction was understandable after a brief scan. no comment 497The background of the standards made sense. no comment *Note: Gaps in comment number due to [No Answer Entered] Intro-Appendices 4 This is clear and communicates the ideas behind the cross cutting concepts, core ideas, science and engineering practices as well as the intention of the standards to not be the curriculum or instruction....MINUS the key concepts that were added 512during the internal review. no comment The time allocation is not fully reasonable in most classroom days-- Science and Social Studies need to be alternated or the 45 minute block needs to be split between them. 516 no comment 527It's written clearly. no comment I can understand it but I was on the committee and was specifically educated on the 530graphic and the rationale. no comment 550Perfect no comment 551Lengthy. no comment 1001Na no comment Scientific standards should be based on scientific research and nothing else. Replacing and watering down the proven science of evolution is a disservice to our kids, a disservice to our teachers, and a disservice to our educational body. STOP TRYING TO ERASE SCIENCE WITH YOUR PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. 1008 no comment see comment 56 1017The referenced to evolution must be reinstated. no comment 1.(cid:9)Page 1, introduction, 2nd para, 1st sentence, last two words (and various places throughout text) - material world is a better descriptor, includes human created phenomenon not typically found in the natural world.2.(cid:9)Page 3, 1st para, 1st sentence (and various places throughout the text) - 'Suggest deleting Formerly known as the scientific method, What is described in this section as science and engineering practices is a much broader process than the scientific method which is more narrowly limited to the observation and description of phenomena; use of hypotheses to explain phenomena, make predictions and quantify new observations; and use of properly performed and independent experimental tests of the predictions. This practices within the scientific method are not replaced by the described science and engineering practices, but rather are an essential methodology utilized within that process. 3.(cid:9)Page 4 Table Core Ideas for Knowing Science P4 (and various places throughout the text) - As written this core idea does not well reflect what is given as one of the big ideas of science education – that the total amount of energy in the Universe remains the same and that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Suggest deleting the added phrase in a closed system' or changing it to 'in the Universe.'4.(cid:9)Page 4 Table Core Ideas for Knowing Science L4 (and various places #1 - keep as is and throughout the text) - The suggested rewording in 1.4 changes the meaning of the refer to Big Idea. #2 - statement and should be removed. The original statement succinctly communicated see comment 143 3. that evolution is responsible for organism unity and diversity. This is current accepted Remove the phrase scientific theory. It is an important organizing concept in scientific research and our "in a colsed system" 4. See commetn 56 5. understanding of the natural world. As such it is appropriate to include in life science Remove the word standards. The revised language in 1.4 misconstrues what the theory of evolution is as "purpose" from U1 or well uses the word theory in a way that is inconsistent with established scientific ideas pg 4. Remove meaning. 5.(cid:9)Page 4 Table Core Ideas for Using Science U1 (and various places the words both throughout the text) - It is generally understood that the purpose of science is to "postiive and negative" 1020explain phenomena and (sometimes) predict not necessarily to always find the cause yes Comment from U4 pg 4 or causes of phenomena (although at a broader level that may be one of the goals of This section: One example of a crosscutting concept can be seen within patterns. Patterns are present in all science disciplines and much of science is about explaining observed patterns. In life sciences, classification systems represent patterns. In physical sciences, atomic structure is a pattern. In earth and space sciences, tectonic processes follow a pattern. Using graphs, charts, maps, and statistics in combination with the science and engineering practices, students can use their knowledge of patterns to formulate investigations, answer questions, and make informed predictions about observed phenomena. Is muddled and meaningless. What is a teacher supposed to do with that? atomic structure is a pattern is not something any physicist has said ever. Does the author think this is an episode of Numb3rs? 1025 No Comment See comment 163 1030too confusing No Comment *Note: Gaps in comment number due to [No Answer Entered] Intro-Appendices 5 It provides enough information if one comes with a lot of background knowledge. I 1032hope ADE provides training. No Comment 1034It needs to show how propaganda has seeped into the standards. No Comment 1048It is sufficient. No Comment 1.(cid:9)Page 2. I do like the addition of the discussion of patterns as a crosscutting concept.2.(cid:9)Page 3. The addition of 'Formally known as the scientific method' detracts from the significance of 'science and engineering practices.' As a scientist and science educator, the use of the term scientific method implied that science was like a recipe, going step by step. This is far from how real science is done.3.(cid:9)One thing that I failed to have incorporated into the original draft of the Science Standards (I was on the Standards Committee as well as the NGSS review). In the 40 or so years that I have been a practicing scientist, I never asked a question or defined a problem without first making an observation. In the Framework and NGSS they go so far to use the example of asking the question 'Why is the sky blue?' How can you ask that question without having first made an observation?4.(cid:9)Page 4: The individuals who edited what was presented to them by the Standards Committee clearly do not have an understanding of what a theory is. A theory is based on evidence, not belief!! Evolution is real. There are important details that we are trying to understand: gradual evolution vs. punctuated evolution. Bacteria have gradually evolved to become resistant to antibiotics. Ask the dinosaurs about punctuated evolution! There is a theory called gravitational theory. Gravity is real and the predictions of Einstein, based on observational evidence, have supported his General Theory of Relativity, but there are still experiments going on. 5.(cid:9)Page 9, etc. As others have written, I am not happy with the addition of the 'Key Concepts' column. As has been stated by others, these are just words without connection to crosscutting concepts and as such become a checklist without a deeper understanding of learning.6.(cid:9)In general, because of my area of expertise, I will limit my comments to Earth and Space Science. 2. See comment 143 3. Lacks clarity 4. See 1050 Yes Core Ideas comment 56. 5. In progress of edit I previously alluded to the confusion caused by writing refer to standard in the standard. Refer to what? This lack of appropriate detail is very harmful to the overall integrity of this enormous effort.Critically, under Core Ideas for Knowing Science point L4 should be strengthened in scope and in direct language. Replace seeks to make clear with explains. And change end of sentence to . . . of organisms and the processes by which they speciate and evolve to fit their environments. 1081 Yes Core Ideas See comment 56 1082No comment. No Evolution is not just a theory, it is well established fact by science. Making Biological evolution to Theory of Evolution is a step backwards not an improvement. 1085 Yes Core Idea See Comment 56 Generally the introduction is strong and helps me understand the standards. With all the ADE additions, I question whether the time frames for instruction are appropriate. It seems like those will need to be doubled or tripled in order for teachers to now teach all of the vocabulary out of context. 1092 No Time Not enough clarity I am not a teacher, but believe it is important to include the teaching of evolution as 1095appropriate at every level. Yes Core Idea See Comment 56 This section would benefit from examples of how the crosscutting concepts, core ideas, and practices might be represented in a curriculum exemplar. 1096 No Curriculum - Resources 1133They are generally well set-up No Comment 1140nothing to comment on by me No Comment The integration of science study, the nature of science, and technology, and the cross 1164cutting concepts are well explained. No Comment 1165No comment No Comment 1167It is Christian-based. No Comment 1171Only SCIENCE in Science class! No Comment *Note: Gaps in comment number due to [No Answer Entered] Intro-Appendices 6 1186Seems very confusing, with all of the bubble charts. No Chart 1.(cid:9)Page 2. I do like the addition of the discussion of patterns as a crosscutting concept.2.(cid:9)Page 3. The addition of 'Formally known as the scientific method' detracts from the significance of 'science and engineering practices.' As a scientist and science educator, the use of the term scientific method implied that science was like a recipe, going step by step. This is far from how real science is done.3.(cid:9)One thing that I failed to have incorporated into the original draft of the Science Standards (I was on the Standards Committee as well as the NGSS review). In the 40 or so years that I have been a practicing scientist, I never asked a question or defined a problem without first making an observation. In the Framework and NGSS they go so far to use the example of asking the question 'Why is the sky blue?' How can you ask that question without having first made an observation?4.(cid:9)Page 4: The individuals who edited what was presented to them by the Standards Committee clearly do not have an understanding of what a theory is. A theory is based on evidence, not belief!! Evolution is real. There are important details that we are trying to understand: gradual evolution vs. punctuated evolution. Bacteria have gradually evolved to become resistant to antibiotics. Ask the dinosaurs about punctuated evolution! There is a theory called gravitational theory. Gravity is real and the predictions of Einstein, based on observational evidence, have supported his General Theory of Relativity, but there are still experiments going on. 5.(cid:9)Page 9, etc. As others have written, I am not happy with the addition of the 'Key Concepts' column. As has been stated by others, these are just words without connection to crosscutting concepts and as such become a checklist without a deeper understanding of learning.6.(cid:9)In general, because of my area of expertise, I will limit my comments to Earth and Space Science.Because of the setup of this form and the fact that I have received a message that my session will end soon. I will call this done and redo this at a time I can input all of my comments. There does not seem to be a way to save and return, just done. 1210 Yes Core Ideas See comment 1050 1219Get rid of intelligent design. Restore references to evolution. No Comment 1221Again it is to broad to understand exactly what they want. No Comment 1222Can be improved No Comment 1223Get rid of intelligent design. Restore references to evolution. No Comment 1226Don't revise. No Comment The theory of evolution needs to be taught in school. Colleges expect students understand and be educated on this subject, and so many careers. Deleting the word 1237and using analogies is childish and immature. No Comment 1246none No I'd have appreciated a bit more detail but I realize how difficult that can while 1252maintaining readability, be so it's not a big deal. No Comment As a former educator I don't see information on how the standards are intended to be 1259implemented. The information is very broad No Curriculum-Resources It does not include an understanding of the progression of standards but is thorough and provides a solid overview of the standards and how to use them. 1278 NO Standards 1287Agree No Comment The introduction has unnecessary information that takes away from the design and 1291implementation No Organiztion What information? The introduction under the Life, Physical and Earth and Space Science is not 1293necessary. No Comment Not found in introduction It provides enough information to know that these are inadequate, politically driven 1303standards. No Comment *Note: Gaps in comment number due to [No Answer Entered] Intro-Appendices 7 The following paragraph needs adjustment: One example of a crosscutting concept can be seen within patterns. Patterns are present in all science disciplines and much of science is about explaining observed patterns. In life sciences, classification systems represent patterns. In physical sciences, atomic structure is a pattern. In earth and space sciences, tectonic processes follow a pattern. Using graphs, charts, maps, and statistics in combination with the science and engineering practices, students can use their knowledge of patterns to formulate investigations, answer questions, and make informed predictions about observed phenomena. Classification systems are a result of patterns, not a representation.In all science disciplines, patterns are used in conjunction with data to form an explanation for observed behavior or make a prediction of future behavior. The use of the phrase The science and engineering practices, formerly the scientific method... is misleading. Scientists use science practices, not a set method for each experiment. The use of the term scientific method has not been a part of professional scientific practice for decades. 1305 Yes CCC See comment 163 The sheer willful ignorance of removing Evolution from the curriculum is mind bogling. It would put Az students at a vast disadvantage when moving to higher education. If the superintendent's intention is to replace evolutionary theory with intelligent design she should be removed from office and barred from working in 1311education for life. Do jot do this. No Comment See comment 56 While the introduction appears to mirror the NGSS Standards and NRC Framework, edits such as formerly known as the scientific method, the science and engineering practices... illustrate deep ignorance of how scientific practices, from field work to argumentation with evidence, represent a profound shift in understanding of how scientific knowledge is constructed. There never has been the scientific method, despite the stereotypical belief that hypothesis testing is the only method to be taught and learned. 1315 No Comment I found the Internal Review additions to greatly improve the Introduction section. 1337 No Comment They do not explain what the process was and who implemented the changes regarding the elimination and playing down of evolution. These changes cannot be accepted. I see no explanation here as to why these changes were made. 1339 No Comment This introduction is slightly better than the 2004 standards, but it will not prepare Professional 1341teachers to understand 3-dimensional implementation. No Develoment 1. The difference in high school essential standards and standards plus is not clear.2. It is incorrect to refer to the science and engineering practices as formerly the scientific method 3. I do not believe the following disclaimer is enough to prevent many teachers from using the key concepts as performance objectives, just like the current flawed standard lists. Suggestions for key concepts and connections to other content area standards are included to assist teachers when implementing the Science Standards and are not intended to be the minimum or maximum content limits. 1. Committe with ADE should make a solution to solve the confusion 2. See 1342 Yes Introduction comment 143 3. See comment 380 1348Do not alter the standards to weaken true science re: evolution, etc. No Comment 1366Original language should remain No Comment 1370It is very comprehensive. No Comment While I support the removal of the term scientific method , the very wordy replacement, repeated multiple times throughout the document, needs to be 1384rethought. No Comment Lacks clarity of "wordy replacement" 1403Teach evolution. Evolution is science. No Comment The Key Concepts column makes sense. It gives teachers some direction on where to go with the standard. Without them, we would struggle to come up with reasonable test questions. If I cover waves with light and someone else covers them with springs, the state testing might be confusing for one group or the other. 1408 No Key Concepts See comment 380 *Note: Gaps in comment number due to [No Answer Entered] Intro-Appendices 8 If the state allows teaching creationism, they will also have to teach other religion's creation myths, such as Hopi, Navajo, Tohono OOdham, etc. For example,in the Maya 1426creation myth, humans are created out of corn. No Comment 1443No much difference between 2014 and current No Comment I have spent some time in the A Framework for K–12 Science Education that I believe these new standards were based on. Someone who has not done so is not likely to understand the difference between big ideas and key concepts unless training are administered or teachers are given more time to review standards before Professional 1449teaching them next year. No Develoment I am concerned you didn't even have the expertise to correctly describe the Earth's crust on a public document. I'd be embarrassed....truly I feel for you. Like I said...What I am understanding is that we've got teachers with limited knowledge of science writing this curriculum and if that's what you're trying to convey than you did it! Nice! But I don't think that's what you're trying to do. I'd do it for free honestly...I'd review your science materials because I actually care about the children and what they learn. I've definitely got the expertise to write all the Earth Science and Space Science here. 1464 No Comment My general comments are included previously and apply to the various grade levels. 1481 No Comment Evolution should be taught, clearly, in our schools. Anything otherwise is a violation of 1483the separation of church and state. No Comment see comment 56 1485Organization is okay. No Organization I appreciate the attempts to include a broader understanding of the scientific process in the standards, however I do not see that well-reflected in the standards Science and Engineering pracices are reflected in the introduction as part of 3- 1515themselves. No Comment on SEPs dimensional learning 1518EVOLUTION IS ESSENTIAL SCIENCE ALL AGES SHOULD LEARN. No Comment see comment 56 The introduction is clear about how the standards are organized and the importance of the intertwining of core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and scientific practices. 1538 No Organization 1547Removal/replacement/minimizing evolution is completely unacceptable. No Comment see comment 56 1553Again, the framing of the verbage is sneaky and backhanded No Comment 1556Needs to be redrafted to remove intelligent design options. No Comment NO CREATIONISM! NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT OF RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. SCIENCE ONLY IN SCIENCE CLASS. 1575 No Comment see comment 56 1583Adding and maintaining teaching Evolution needs to be continued. No Comment see comment 56 There is way too much information that is cluttering up these standards. It is hard to see what is going on and where to start and where to finish. Take a look at New York State standards they are much clearer on what the teacher should be looking at. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/sci/documents/p-12-science-learning- standards.pdf 1595 No Arizona Board of Education Directive 1603Evolution. PUT IT BACK. No Comment see comment 56 I have concerns about the number of minutes per week listed for teaching science. There are many opportunities for integrating science instruction with reading, writing, and mathematics and the table of minutes does not make clear if this type of integration into other subject areas can be included in number of minutes specified. Especially in schools with half day kindergarten, devoting 90 minutes a week solely to science instruction is not realistic, unless those minutes can be counted as part of an integrated study of reading, writing, and math. Possible to suggestion 1605 Yes Time to reword pg 6 of intro Time allotment and implimentation are local control 1628Teach Science and facts in Schools not faith and religion. No Comment see comment 56 1639No. Too complicated. No Too broad 1641N/A No 1645No comment. No 1664See comment #9 No *Note: Gaps in comment number due to [No Answer Entered] Intro-Appendices 9