Google Find us on Google+

Nebraska Science Standards and NGSS

Feb 8, 2017 by

Henry W. Burke gave a presentation on “Nebraska Science Standards and NGSS” to the Nebraska State Board of Education during the February 3, 2017 Meeting.  His 5-minute talk begins at Time Mark 20:35 and ends at 25:30.  This is the Link to the State Board Meeting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG4fQ6Rhzqk&index=1&list=PLNK0HhYMn1wmx-16iJz4XPgg7H0-YWHTt

 

 

Nebraska Science Standards and NGSS

By Henry W. Burke

2.8.17

With good knowledge-based standards, students will receive a high-quality education; test scores will improve; graduation rates will increase; and Nebraska will have a better-educated citizenry. 

The existing Nebraska Science Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) will not provide a solid foundation for the new Nebraska Science Standards!

  1. NDE’S PLAN FOR SCIENCE STANDARDS

The Nebraska Department of Education (NDE) Science Standards webpage provides the following guidance on the Nebraska Standards revision process:

          The Nebraska Science Standards were adopted by the Nebraska State Board of Education on October 6, 2010.  The revised Nebraska Statute 525 79-760.01 states that “The State Board of Education shall develop a plan to review and update standards for each subject area every seven years.”  Operating under this revised statute, the review and revision of the Nebraska Science Standards will begin next fall (Fall 2016).

          https://www.education.ne.gov/science/index.html

The NDE website provides schedule information on the Content Area Standards webpage.  The “Standards Revision Timeline for All Content Areas” prescribes September 2016 as the Start Date for Revision of the Science Standards and August/September 2017 as the Targeted Completion/Approval by the State Board.

https://www.education.ne.gov/AcademicStandards/index.html

https://www.education.ne.gov/AcademicStandards/Images/TL%20Content%20Area%20Standards%202016%20TIMELINE%20ONLY.pdf

The revision process for the Science Standards began in September 2016; and the Science Standards must be revised and approved by August/September 2017.

Has the NDE signaled its direction on Science Standards?  Under “National Science Standards Guiding Documents,” the NDE states the following:

          In 2012, The National Research Council issued A Framework for K-12 Science Education that succinctly articulates expectations in science achievement for high school graduates. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), were built from the NRC Framework, and the ACT College and Career Readiness Standards in Science and released in 2013. These research-based documents are currently shaping science standards across the nation. These nationally recognized resources are among the many resources that will be used throughout the standards revision process.
As standards are only guidelines for instruction and not panaceas for change; moving toward research-based instructional practices requires ongoing, collaborative work among Nebraska’s teaching and learning professionals. 

            https://www.education.ne.gov/science/index.html

            Here are links for the Nebraska to NGSS Comparison Study:

          Executive Summary:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B40Tci2b-aTgRE4zWkhMT0Z3WkE/view?usp=sharing

            Appendices

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B40Tci2b-aTgTk9qX2U3ak9pUFU/view?usp=sharing

The above statements make it very clear that the NDE is leaning heavily toward the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).  Also the fact that the NDE spent significant dollars on the McREL Comparison Study is quite revealing.  This was a waste of taxpayers’ dollars!

  1. FORDHAM COMPARISON OF STATE SCIENCE STANDARDS

On 1.30.12, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute published “The State of State Science Standards 2012.”

https://edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-science-standards-2012.html?utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_campaign=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED

http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards/2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards-Press-Release.pdf

The Fordham Institute began comparing State Standards in 1997 and has developed some expertise in this area.  Because Fordham accepted over $1 million in funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Fordham has definite Common Core leanings.  Nevertheless, Fordham information can be useful.

In this comprehensive Fordham appraisal, six states received A’s (Ranks 1-6) and seven states received B’s (Ranks 7-13).  More than 75 % of the states received a Grade of C or lower.  Twelve states received C’s (Ranks 14-25); sixteen states received D’s (Ranks 26-41); and ten states received failing F grades (Ranks 42-51). 

Nebraska did not fare very well, scoring a solid “F” (Rank 44).

TABLE 1 – FORDHAM: COMPARISON OF STATE SCIENCE STANDARDS

Rank State Grade Score

(out of 10)

      1 California       A     10
      2 District of Columbia       A     10
      3 Indiana       A-       9
      4 Massachusetts       A-       9
      5 South Carolina       A-       9
      6 Virginia       A-       9
      7 New York       B+       8
      8 Arkansas            B       7
      9 Kansas       B       7
    10 Louisiana       B       7
    11 Maryland       B       7
    12 Ohio       B       7
    13 Utah       B       7
    14 Connecticut       C       6
    15 Georgia       C       6
    16 Michigan       C       6
    17 Missouri       C       6
    18 New Mexico       C       6
    19 Texas       C       6
    20 Washington       C       6
    21 Delaware       C       5
    22 Florida       C       5
    23 Minnesota       C       5
    24 Mississippi       C       5
    25 Vermont       C       5
    26 Alabama       D       4
    27 Arizona       D       4
    28 Hawaii       D       4
   29 Illinois       D       4
    30 Maine       D       4
    31 New Hampshire       D       4
    32 North Carolina       D       4
    33 Rhode Island       D       4
    34 Tennessee       D       4
    35 West Virginia       D       4
    36 Colorado       D       3
    37 Iowa       D       3
    38 Kentucky       D       3
    39 Nevada       D       3
    40 New Jersey       D       3
    41 Pennsylvania       D       3
    42 Alaska       F       2
    43 Idaho       F       2
    44 Nebraska       F       2
    45 Oklahoma       F       2
    46 Oregon       F       2
    47 South Dakota       F       2
    48 Wyoming       F       2
    49 Montana       F       1
    50 North Dakota       F       1
    51 Wisconsin       F       0

 

Source:

Thomas B. Fordham Institute, “The State of State Science Standards 2012,” 1.30.12.

http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards/2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards-Press-Release.pdf

Note:

Rank numbers were inserted for Table 1, in the same order as the Fordham Table.

 

  1. FORDHAM EVALUATION OF NEBRASKA SCIENCE STANDARDS

On 1.30.12, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute published “The State of State Science Standards 2012.”

https://edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-science-standards-2012.html?utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_campaign=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED

Fordham published State Profiles for each of the 51 states (50 states plus the District of Columbia).

When Fordham reviewed Nebraska’s 2010 Science Standards, Nebraska received a Failing Grade.  For Content and Rigor, Nebraska got a Score of 1 out of 7; for Clarity and Specificity, Nebraska got 1 out of 3.  The Total Score for Nebraska was 2 out of 10, for a Grade of “F.”  Nebraska earned very low scores for Content and Rigor in all sections except for Physical Science.

http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards/2012-State-Science-Standards-Nebraska.pdf

The following are direct quotations from the Fordham State Profile report for Nebraska:

  1. Overview

The Nebraska science standards are inadequate in nearly every way. They lack sufficient depth and breadth at every grade span, and critically important areas receive woefully inadequate attention—or are completely absent.

  1. Organization of the Standards

The Nebraska science standards are constructed in four strands: inquiry, physical science, life science, and earth/space science. Each strand is then divided into substrands and finally into standards. Nebraska does not provide grade-specific standards. Instead, standards are provided for four grade bands: K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12.

  1. Content and Rigor

The K-8 physical science materials are the best that Nebraska’s science standards have to offer. Unfortunately, they are barely passable, and everything else is worse. Great chunks of critical content are missing, while what’s present is often pitched well below a reasonable grade level, weakly developed, or simply wrong.

Scientific Inquiry and Methodology

The scientific inquiry and methodology standards are essentially useless.

Physical Science/High School Physics/High School Chemistry

The physical science material starts off well enough at the primary grades and progresses in depth through the grade spans covering Kindergarten through eighth grade. But at the high school level, the standards suffer a serious drop in quality—one might call it a collapse.

Earth and Space Science

While some important earth and space science content is included from Kindergarten through eighth grade, serious gaps plague Nebraska’s standards.

Life Science

The life science standards are vapid and lifeless.

Taken as a whole, Nebraska’s science standards do not articulate nearly enough of what students need to know and be able to do. They earn an average score of one out of seven for content and rigor.

  1. Clarity and Specificity

The Nebraska standards usually avoid garbled language, but only because they say woefully little. The failure of the material to cover so many integral areas of science erodes its ability to be specific.

This overall vagueness results in a score of one out of three for clarity and specificity.

 

  1. FORDHAM EVALUATION OF NGSS

On June 11, 2013, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute issued the report “Final Evaluation of the Next Generation Science Standards.”

https://edexcellence.net/publications/final-evaluation-of-NGSS.html

  1. COMPARISON OF STATE SCIENCE STANDARDS WITH NGSS

 

TABLE 2 – FORDHAM: COMPARISON OF STATE SCIENCE STANDARDS WITH NGSS

Rank State Grade Score

(out of 10)

Relative Quality
      1 California       A     10 Clearly superior
      2 District of Columbia       A     10 Clearly superior
      3 Indiana       A-       9 Clearly superior
      4 Massachusetts       A-       9 Clearly superior
      —     NAEP Framework       A-       9 Clearly superior
      5 South Carolina       A-       9 Clearly superior
      —     TIMSS Framework       A-       9 Clearly superior
      6 Virginia       A-       9 Clearly superior
      7 New York       B+       8 Clearly superior
      8 Arkansas            B       7 Clearly superior
      9 Kansas       B       7 Clearly superior
    10 Louisiana       B       7 Clearly superior
    11 Maryland       B       7 Clearly superior
    12 Ohio       B       7 Clearly superior
    13 Utah       B       7 Clearly superior
     —     ACT Framework       C       6 Too close to call
    14 Connecticut       C       6 Too close to call
    15 Georgia       C       6 Too close to call
    16 Michigan       C       6 Too close to call
    17 Missouri       C       6 Too close to call
    18 New Mexico       C       6 Too close to call
    19 Texas       C       6 Too close to call
    20 Washington       C       6 Too close to call
     —     NGSS       C       5 Too close to call
    21 Delaware       C       5 Too close to call
    22 Florida       C       5 Too close to call
    23 Minnesota       C       5 Too close to call
    24 Mississippi       C       5 Too close to call
     —     PISA Framework       C       5 Too close to call
    25 Vermont       C       5 Too close to call
    26 Alabama       D       4 Too close to call
    27 Arizona       D       4 Too close to call
    28 Hawaii       D       4 Too close to call
    29 Illinois       D       4 Too close to call
    30 Maine       D       4 Too close to call
    31 New Hampshire       D       4 Too close to call
    32 North Carolina       D       4 Too close to call
    33 Rhode Island       D       4 Too close to call
    34 Tennessee       D       4 Too close to call
    35 West Virginia       D       4 Too close to call
    36 Colorado       D       3 Clearly inferior
    37 Iowa       D       3 Clearly inferior
    38 Kentucky       D       3 Clearly inferior
    39 Nevada       D       3 Clearly inferior
    40 New Jersey       D       3 Clearly inferior
    41 Pennsylvania       D       3 Clearly inferior
    42 Alaska       F       2 Clearly inferior
    43 Idaho       F       2 Clearly inferior
    44 Nebraska       F       2 Clearly inferior
    45 Oklahoma       F       2 Clearly inferior
    46 Oregon       F       2 Clearly inferior
    47 South Dakota       F       2 Clearly inferior
    48 Wyoming       F       2 Clearly inferior
    49 Montana       F       1 Clearly inferior
    50 North Dakota       F       1 Clearly inferior
    51 Wisconsin      F      0 Clearly inferior

Source:

Thomas B. Fordham Institute, “Final Evaluation of the Next Generation Science Standards,” June 11, 2013.

https://edexcellence.net/publications/final-evaluation-of-NGSS.html

Note:

  1. Rank numbers were inserted for Table 2, in the same order as the Fordham Table.
  2. Table 1 and Table 2 are essentially identical except that Table 2 includes NAEP, TIMSS, ACT, NGSS, and PISA Frameworks.  Also Table 2 lists the “Relative Quality,” comparing the states’ Science standards with NGSS.

http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/20130612-NGSS-Final-Review_7.pdf

Fordham’s “Final Evaluation of the Next Generation Science Standards” grants the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) a grade of “C.”

Fordham ranked the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) between the states of Washington and Delaware (Rank 20-21).  That means 20 states have better Science standards than NGSS; and 31 states have worse Science standards than NGSS.  Fordham uses the terms “Clearly superior,” “Too close to call,” and “Clearly inferior” in its Table and comparisons.

  1. Evaluation of NGSS

http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/20130612-NGSS-Final-Review_7.pdf

  1. Problems and Shortcomings

The Fordham report lists a number of “Problems and Shortcomings” for NGSS.  These include:

          First, missing and “implicit” content. Pruning and prioritizing can be taken too far, and it does nobody any favors to pretend to omit content from one grade that later turns out to have been essential. Yet the NGSS sometimes does precisely that: it never explicitly requires some content in early grades that is then assumed in subsequent standards.

          Second, the risk posed by including “assessment boundaries” along with the standards. These are meant to cap large-scale assessments—to put a ceiling on the content and skills that will be measured at each grade—not to limit curriculum or instruction.

          Third, the failure to include essential math content that is critical to science learning. As our physics and chemistry reviewers explain:

                   In reality, there is virtually no mathematics, even at the high school level, where it is essential to the learning of physics and chemistry. Rather, the standards seem to assiduously dodge the mathematical demands inherent in the subjects covered. There is math available in the Common Core that could be used to enhance the science of the NGSS. No advantage is taken of this.

  1. The College-Readiness Quandary

Fordham discusses what it means to be “college ready.”  Does it mean being prepared to major in STEM subjects or ready to take “general education” science courses?  The NGSS writers concede that NGSS students moving into STEM fields should take additional coursework.  The Appendix states:

          It would certainly be recommended that students, especially those considering careers in a STEM-related field, would go beyond these courses to take science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses that would enhance their preparation.

The content of NGSS fails to ensure that all students will be equipped to enter STEM disciplines.  By omitting essential content, NGSS does not prepare students to meet the college admissions requirements.

  1. Practices and Knowledge

Good science consists of practices as well as knowledge.  “But doing it well requires a careful balance that seems somehow to have eluded the NGSS authors.”  School children acquire knowledge in order to put it into practice.

          This is something that education pioneers like E. D. Hirsch, Jr. and cognitive scientists like Daniel Willingham have repeatedly and convincingly argued. ‘There is a consensus in cognitive psychology,’ Hirsch explains, ‘that it takes knowledge to gain knowledge.’

          Even more critically, Willingham argues that “those with a rich base of factual knowledge find it easier to learn more—the rich get richer” and that

                   factual knowledge [actually] enhances cognitive processes like problem solving and reasoning. The richer the knowledge base, the more smoothly and effectively these cognitive processes—the very ones that teachers target—operate. So, the more knowledge students accumulate, the smarter they become.

          Unfortunately, the NGSS suffer from the belief—widespread among educators—that practices are more important than content.

Fordham cited the South Carolina Science Standards, which received an A- grade.  The South Carolina Standards include an academic standard plus a series of “indicators.”  This makes the content clear and what students need to do with the content they learn.  The skills (i.e., indicators) actually support the specific knowledge students must learn to become scientific thinkers.  For example, this seventh grade standard states:

          The student will demonstrate an understanding of the classification and properties of matter and the changes that matter undergoes.

This standard is followed by ten indicators that explicitly state the content assumed and what the student must do with that knowledge.

Fordham offers these summary comments:

          We have long advised leaders seeking to improve their standards to look to—and borrow from—other states that have developed clearer and more rigorous standards, as well as from sound national and international models and frameworks. Our advice here is similar. We encourage states that are dissatisfied with their present K–12 science standards to look to places like South Carolina and the District of Columbia…

  1. BUILD STANDARDS ON A SOLID FOUNDATION

In my 10.5.16 report to the State Board of Education, I listed the six parameters for exemplary standards and stressed the need to build the standards on a solid foundation.  I repeat those recommendations here:

How should the NDE proceed on standards development?  First, the Department should revise the “Nebraska Department of Education Content Area Standards Reference Guide” to include the six sensible and time-tested parameters of exemplary standards (i.e., Burke parameters). 

Next, the Board should apply the Burke parameters to all future standards that are to be written.  Because the revision of the Science Standards is just getting underway, the NDE has an immediate need for a high quality reference guide.

These are the steps needed to develop good standards:

  1. Build Standards on a Type #1 Foundation

The Board should ensure that the standards writers build the standards on a solid Type #1 foundation.  In order to accomplish this, the writers must first understand the differences between a Type #1 and a Type #2 education.

  1. Assemble the Standards Writing Team

Because I have criticized the existing and proposed Nebraska Standards, I believe it is important for me to offer some positive suggestions to do it the right way.

The NDE should assemble a writing team of experienced classroom teachers and educators, made up preferably of those who are currently in the classrooms each day.  Tell them that the final standards must follow the six Burke parameters.  Make sure that the writing team clearly understands the differences between Type #1 and Type #2 educational philosophies. 

  1. Focus on Writing Clear Type #1 Knowledge-Based Standards

Focus on the six attributes of exemplary Type #1 state standards.  The standards must be: (1) explicit, (2) knowledge-based…fact-based, (3) academic, (4) clearly-worded, (5) grade-level specific, and (6) measurable.  Do not let the writing team wander away from these six basic parameters.  For example, do not let the standards fall into the Type #2 trap (how the student feels about something, the student’s opinion on an issue, personal beliefs, emotional assumptions, non-measurable factors, etc.).  Standards must be knowledge-based (fact-based)! 

As the writing team is writing the standards, members must constantly be reminded to follow the six parameters of good Type #1 standards, checking constantly to see that proper scope and sequence are occurring within each grade level and between each grade level.

  1. RECOMMENDATIONS ON SCIENCE STANDARDS FOR NEBRASKA

With the above three steps in mind, I will focus on the first step – Build Standards on a Type #1 Foundation.  Several options are available for the foundation of the new Nebraska Science Standards.

  1. Existing Nebraska Science Standards As a Base

One possible option for the foundation of the new Nebraska Science Standards is the 2010 Nebraska Science Standards.  As covered in this report, Fordham gave the 2010 Nebraska Science Standards a failing Grade of “F.”  Content and Rigor got a Score of 1 out of 7; Specificity got a Score of 1 out of 3.  The Total Score for Nebraska was 2 out of 10, for a Grade of “F.”

Does this sound like a good foundation?  Based on past practices, the NDE will likely ask the Science writing teams to revise the Nebraska Science Standards, using the existing Nebraska Standards as a base.  In addition to the poor Fordham Score of “F,” the Nebraska Science Standards are Type #2.  As explained many times before, Type #2 standards will produce very poor results. 

  1. Next Generation Science Standards As a Base

The NDE website indicates that the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are being considered.  NDE states:

          These nationally recognized resources are among the many resources that will be used throughout the standards revision process.

The National Research Council, NGSS and ACT are the resources listed by NDE.  Should Nebraska base its Standards on the NGSS?  As covered earlier, Fordham gave the NGSS a Score of “C” and placed 20 states above the NGSS.  Also the Fordham report listed many weaknesses with NGSS.  For example, Fordham questioned the college-readiness of NGSS and found the NGSS lacking in knowledge-based standards.

  1. Standards from Other States

In past testimonies, I have suggested that Nebraska borrow good standards from other states.  Likewise, Fordham opined:

          We have long advised leaders seeking to improve their standards to look to—and borrow from—other states that have developed clearer and more rigorous standards…

https://edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-science-standards-2012.html?utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_campaign=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED

A few options include:

  1. South Carolina

As Fordham suggested, South Carolina might be a good state to select for its Science Standards.  Fordham gave the South Carolina Science Standards a Grade of “A-“ and made favorable comments about the standards.  Also South Carolina is a non-Common Core State and that is very important.

http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards/2012-State-Science-Standards-South-Carolina.pdf

The “South Carolina Academic Standards and Performance Indicators for Science” can be found here:

http://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/file/agency/ccr/Standards-Learning/documents/South_Carolina_Academic_Standards_and_Performance_Indicators_for_Science_2014.pdf

  1. Indiana

Fordham scored Indiana with a Grade of “A-.”  Indiana is also a non-Common Core state (partially).

http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards/2012-State-Science-Standards-Indiana.pdf

The “Indiana Science & Computer Science Standards” are shown here:

http://www.doe.in.gov/standards/science-computer-science

  1. Virginia

Virginia also received a Grade of “A-“ from Fordham.  Virginia is a non-Common Core state.  Virginia lists standards for K-6; for Grades 7-12, standards are shown by course.

http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards/2012-State-Science-Standards-Virginia.pdf

The “Virginia Standards of Learning for Science” are found here:

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/science/index.shtml

 

CONCLUSION

The Nebraska Department of Education (NDE) began the process of revising the Nebraska Science Standards in September 2016.  The Science Standards will be adopted by August/September 2017.

Based on the NDE website, it is clear that the NDE is looking seriously at the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).  In fact, the NDE spent money on a McREL contract to determine how closely the Nebraska Science Standards are aligned with NGSS.

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute rated all of the State Science Standards in 2012.  Nebraska was ranked No. 44 out of the 50 states (50 states plus D.C.) 

When Fordham reviewed Nebraska’s 2010 Science Standards, Nebraska received a Failing Grade.  For Content and Rigor, Nebraska got a Score of 1 out of 7; for Clarity and Specificity, Nebraska got 1 out of 3.  The Total Score for Nebraska was 2 out of 10, for a Grade of “F.” 

 In 2013, Fordham evaluated the final Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and compared the States’ Science Standards with NGSS.  This document is “Final Evaluation of the Next Generation Science Standards.”

Fordham granted the NGSS a grade of “C,” and ranked NGSS between the states of Washington and Delaware (Rank 20-21). 

Fordham determined that NGSS is missing implicit content and essential math skills.  NGSS does not make students “college ready” and NGSS does not include adequate knowledge-based content.

To have exemplary Standards, Nebraska must incorporate the six parameters of good standards.  The standards must be: (1) explicit, (2) knowledge-based…fact-based, (3) academic, (4) clearly-worded, (5) grade-level specific, and (6) measurable. 

Also the standards must be built on a solid Type #1 foundation.

The existing 2010 Nebraska Science Standards would serve as a very poor foundation for the new Science Standards.  Fordham gave the Nebraska Science Standards a failing grade of “F” and was very critical of the Nebraska Standards.  Because the Nebraska Standards are Type #2, they will produce very poor results.  Do not use the existing 2010 Nebraska Science Standards as the foundation for the new Nebraska Science Standards!

The NDE is looking closely at the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).  Fordham granted the NGSS a grade of “C” and ranked 20 states above NGSS.

Also the Fordham report listed many weaknesses with NGSS.  For example, Fordham questioned the college-readiness of NGSS and found the NGSS lacking in knowledge-based standards.  For these reasons, Nebraska should not use the NGSS as the foundation for the new Science Standards.

Another option would be to use the Science Standards of other states.  Three good choices are South Carolina, Indiana, and Virginia.  Fordham gave each of these states an “A-“ grade and made favorable comments about their Standards.

=======================================

Bio for Henry W. Burke

 Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E.  He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 45 years. 

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction company. 

Henry Burke has served as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke

E-mail:  hwburke@cox.net

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Advertisements
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponPrint this pageEmail this to someone

Leave a Reply

UA-24036587-1
%d bloggers like this: