Apologies @DrSPruitt, @rodgerwbybee, @JayLabov, & @jackrhoton if I came across too strongly in your session on Saturday @NSTA. I came across strongly as I was trying to make several important points about @OfficialNGSS. I love the vision of the NGSS. 1/24
But, I'm deeply concerned that, unless implementation strategies are changed substantially, the vision will not be reached for a very long time. My goal for what I said Saturday and for this follow up is to increase the chances for success. 2/24
Part of what I wish to do here is turn the NGSS on itself and use the CCCs and SEPs to study and better understand the NGSS as an innovation. Use successful innovations - those that stick and make a positive difference - in other fields as models for implementing NGSS. 3/24
I was a freshman in high school in 1977'-78'. It is simple to identify huge changes in systems of energy, retail, transportation, communication, and entertainment - that have improved user experience and outcomes since then. It is very difficult to do so for education. 4/24
Look back 40 years to 1978 and consider how differently each of those systems operated. For one example, consider how driving has changed. To help you along in your thinking, and to consider some parallels to NGSS, see: bit.ly/BreaktheboxNGSS. 5/24
How has science education changed in those years? @thomascmurray WARNING: Crude over-simplification! We've changed the way information is put on the front wall of the classroom. The 3 or 4 legged stool you used to describe science ed is buried up to the seat in this culture. 6/24 
It's not about to move, let alone fall over. I'll ask again: What improvements in the general population in science literacy can you see in the last 40 years? If you can identify one (I can't), what innovation in K-16 science ed can you tie that improvement to? 7/24
If you can't make such a connection, that's a very serious problem, especially if you can't identify a PROFOUND difference in NGSS implementation as compared to NSES implementation. I see differences, but not profound ones. 8/24
The NGSS as fantastically different from NSES. It envisions well-integrated curriculum across not only the K-12 system of science education but the entire school curriculum. This would be the biggest change in schooling since the 1-room schoolhouse era. That's a heavy lift. 9/24
We also must attend to roles of cultural and cognitive biases in hampering needed change across many systems. We need to accept that all of us, or nearly all of us, believe things that are obviously untrue. Much of my work is in climate change ed. priweb.org/tfgcc 10/24
I study why people believe bullshit. Motivated reasoning and identity-protective cognition are amongst the most important ideas that are nearly invisible in the formal curriculum. We are all tremendously effective at fooling ourselves if it jeopardizes our identity. 11/24
I'm asking you to recognize that, just maybe, you believe some bullshit too. Of course, when we believe bullshit, we can't easily see it - because we believe the bullshit. 12/24
Accepting that I believe bullshit has made me a better educator because it's made me more empathetic. It also hurts. Recognizing that a key obstacle to ed reform is better understood by seeing parallels to climate change denial is especially painful. bit.ly/SameObstacles2 13/24
How can innovation overcome these obstacles? Again, we need to understand what makes innovation work. Sticky innovations that change outcomes and are broadly adopted are "optimally distinct." hbr.org/2016/07/the-go… @j1berger 14/24
That means that it's not so different from current practice that people can't wrap their heads around it, but that it's different enough to make a difference. It also tends to put put two well understood ideas together in unconventional ways. 15/24
That applies not only to innovations in business, but also to the most cited scientific research kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/h… and music pbs.org/program/sgt-pe…
@UzziLeadership 16/24
@UzziLeadership 16/24
It should apply to education too. We should recognize that sweeping innovation is often characterized more by replacement of components or whole systems than it is by modifying systems. A jet plane is not a modified canal boat. A solar farm is not a modified coal plant. 17/24
The education system we need may not be created by modifying schools, classrooms and courses, but by their replacement. While @rodgerwbybee may have invented the 5E model, there was no equivalent of Charles Darwin who invented natural laws in "On the Origin of Courses." 18/24
Speaking of evolution, in my chat with @rodgerwbybee after the session, he suggested looking to selective breeding to improve species as a model for changing ed. That's on the right track, but education isn't a species, it's an ecosystem. 19/24
is a disturbance to the ecosystem of education. Such disturbances yield 5 qualitatively different kinds of outcomes. Which kind was NSES? What kind of disturbance will NGSS prove to be? On what evidence do you base that prediction? search.proquest.com/openview/11602… 20/24
I fear NGSS will prove to be an example of the first kind of disturbance - a bit of jiggling around for a while that ultimately leaves the system essentially unchanged. Prove me wrong. Use arguments that don't follow the same patterns as those of a climate change denier. 21/24
I suggest engaging in a "premortem" of the NGSS. hbr.org/2007/09/perfor… Imagine it's 2028 and NGSS failed. While we've changed some language around science ed, the outcomes are unchanged. Why'd it fail? We imagined that. What will you do to prevent failure?
@KleInsight 22/24
@KleInsight 22/24
My version of an NGSS premortem is here: bit.ly/NGSS-premortem. There's a lot of intro echoing the above in this thread. Skip to slide 75. 23/24
I hope you'll recognize this as a way of turning NGSS on itself, or on its implementation. Especially think of the SEPs. What models are the basis for implementation? What's the evidence undergirding your argument? 24/24 fin.
Bonus: Our Teacher-Friendly Guide to Climate Change @TeachClimate came out shortly after the Heartland Institute's non-science book. Our book should go to teachers everywhere. We've raised enough to send it to 25% of US high schools. Help us out. Donate. bit.ly/DonsGG
