Science Standards Under Fire

November 12, 2013 //

The Next Generation Science Standards are under attack for a variety of reasons. Even defenders of the Common Core are dissatisfied. Read here to learn why.

Categories Common Core, Curriculum, Education Industry, Education Reform

16 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

daveeckstrom says:

November 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm

This is a group that opposes teaching evolution in public schools. No wonder they are against science standards.

Reply
- NYS Teacher says:
  
  November 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm
  
  Did you read the standards?
  
  Reply
- Robert D. Shepherd says:
  
  November 12, 2013 at 4:44 pm
  
  Yes, but the bulk of the article is quotation from a critique of the NGSS published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. The Fordham Institute is a big proponent of the CCSS and is not a proponent of ID.
  
  Reply
teachingeconomist says:

November 12, 2013 at 5:15 pm

I do think that daveeckstrom has figured out why this group is opposed to the science standards.

Reply
- concernedmom says:
  
  November 13, 2013 at 8:37 am
  
  This is my first impression also. Just as we need to dig deeper when it comes to associations with the reformers, I think a little more exploration of this group’s connection is in order. This link is from the link Diane provided.
  
  http://truthinamericaneducation.com/about-us/network-participants/
  
  I clicked on a few of these links. I suggest others do also.
  
  This group may oppose teachings outside the CCSS. What the CC does is makes it easier for them to oppose teachings across the country. At least that what it seems like to me. Hopefully, I am just paranoid and this group doesn’t have other motives.
  
  Reply
maria says:

November 12, 2013 at 6:05 pm

I guess this post is to allow readers to see the right wing side of the controversy.

Reply
- deb says:
  
  November 12, 2013 at 6:21 pm
  
  Explain right wing views of science.
  
  Reply
  - Metro Issues :: Lou (@MetroIssuesLou) says:
    
    November 13, 2013 at 9:49 am
    
    deb, the main gist is opposition to teaching evolution or including teaching religion (creationism/ID) in a science classroom.
  - deb says:
    
    November 14, 2013 at 12:51 am
    
    Ah. That is all? Hmm. That isn’t science. Also they oppose climate change teaching.
    
    I see this stuff being shoved out and church shoved in. What about those who believe differently?
    
    I am a little tired of the Prosperity Gospel and the followers of so-called Christian NOVELS trying to force feed laws and science and history through their narrow understanding.
Alabama teacher says:

November 12, 2013 at 6:49 pm

A big concern of mine is that the standards assume that kids already know things that in reality, especially in a Title One school, they might not.

Reply
Alice in PA says:

November 13, 2013 at 8:22 am

I like the big concept approach of the NGSS. It is not a list of unconnected topics, but rather emphasizing the realtively few overarching theoretical models like conservation of mass and evolution. On the surface it may seem like important things are missing, but they are there as supporting material for the big ideas. For example, there is no explicit mention of stoichiometry in chemistry/physical science. However, it is there under “Use mathematical representations to support the claimthat atoms, and therefore mass,are conservedduring a chemical reaction” and ” Construct and revise an explanationfor the outcome of a simple chemical reaction based on the outermost electron states of atoms,trends in the periodic table, and knowledge of the patternsof chemical properties.” However, two apsects of the NGSS worry me. First, there is the immediate push for a test, even as the committees admit that any test without a performance/lab component will not do it justice. Second, there is no money for professional development. The NGSS is a different way of viewing science and teachers will need help in making transitions. Of course, if the idea is to prove how poor teachers are, then my two concerns make sense.

Reply
- Jay Fogleman says:
  
  November 13, 2013 at 1:38 pm
  
  I agree with Alice. I am excited about the NGSS because they extend and enhance work that was started with the previous standards. Eliminating cherished topics is essential if deep understanding is to be nurtured.
  
  I am also concerned that a concurrent effort to develop national assessments will actually discourage teachers from using the NGSS to thoughtfully improve their teaching. I can’t believe that using such assessments to evaluate teachers was what the NGSS authors intended.
  
  The lack of an extensive federal or CSSS effort to design, test, and implement a sustained program of free NGSS PD for all teachers well ahead of assessing students is evidence of a tepid commitment (at best) to science literacy on the part of our leaders.
  
  Reply
- katranrocks says:
  
  November 14, 2013 at 12:44 am
  
  I agree. I’ve read the HS Physics standards over and over again and content that initially appears to be missing (such as thermodynamics) is in there still; they just deemphasize the moderately useless stuff like engines.
  
  As someone who teaches physics to 9th graders, I like the fact that the new physics standards aren’t basically “how to read a formula sheet” like the current ones are. You can pass the CA STAR test in Physics without having learned all the content by being fluent in using a formula sheet. I’m not going to argue that formula sheets are unimportant, but they aren’t the end-all and be-all to thinking about physics.
  
  And yes, we need PD.
  
  Reply
Yvonne Siu-Runyan says:

November 13, 2013 at 12:12 pm

I worry.

Reply
Tracy says:

November 15, 2013 at 8:57 am

Any science standards that open the door for not teaching evolution as science, and teaching creationism or ID or anti-global warmimg…even as a slight possibility, I cannot agree with. It needs to be explicitly stated that evolution is science, used the scientific method, is repeatable, etc….creationism and ID do not…..end of story. It is for this ONE reason that I would consider national type standards, to make sure that kids in bible belt states (and communities elsewhere) are not taught faith-based pseudo-science.

Reply
- Alice in PA says:
  
  November 15, 2013 at 9:51 am
  
  That is one of the strengths of the NGSS – evolution and climate change are explicitly addressed as science. While there are flaws, the standards have reduced the number of individual topics, which I have been led to believe did not happen for the ELA and math standards. Instead, there are umbrellas of big causal models, which is really much closer to actual science. This could lead to deeper science teaching and learning, but only if it well-resourced for the teacher and student…something that has also NOT happened for the ELA and math standards.
  
  Reply