Next Generation Science Standards: Good or Bad for Science Education?

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent essay “Next Generation Science Standards: Good or Bad for Science Education?” [Hake (2013c)]. The abstract reads:

**************************************************
According to information at the Next Generation of Science Standards (NGSS) site http://bit.ly/Wwgjka: “the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were written to help students meet the particular challenges of reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language in their respective fields.” . . . . . . [[Pro and con opinions on CCSS are set forth in “The Contentious Common Core Controversy” [Hake (2013a)] at http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv and "The Contentious Common Core Controversy #2" [Hake (2013b)] at http://bit.ly/Wtj62R]] . . . . . . In contrast, the NGSS “will lay out the core ideas and practices in science that students should master in preparation for college and careers.” A side-by-side comparison of similarities and differences of CCSS and NGSS is given in “Conceptual Framework for Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards” [Pruitt (2012a)] at http://1.usa.gov/10wb4Yv. The second draft of NGSS was released on 8 January 2013, and the final version is scheduled for this month, March 2013.

At http://bit.ly/YPwB7j the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) has criticized the second draft, stating that “the wording of many of the NGSS performance expectations is confusing to the point that it is not clear what students are actually supposed to do,” and that “the science content of the current form of NGSS contains so many errors that most science teachers and scientists will doubt the credibility of the entire enterprise.”

At http://bit.ly/XvHuPS, Janet Coffey and Bruce Alberts delineate the Good and the Bad in the second draft:
Good: “[NGSS] builds on A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas at http://bit.ly/zy0qqG [which puts] forth a vision of science education that is notable for emphasizing student participation in key science and engineering practices, such as asking questions and defining problems; developing and using models; engaging in argument from evidence; and learning cross- cutting concepts such as energy and matter, cause and effect, and structure and function. To allow room for these in the school day, the Framework stressed the importance of minimizing the number of disciplinary core ideas that standards require to be taught.”
Bad: “ . . . . . the sheer volume of content referenced in the framework moves to the foreground in the NGSS draft and threatens to undermine this promise. . . . . . . . Urgently needed is a vigorous R&D agenda that pursues new methods of and approaches to assessment. . . . . . A systematic commitment to the wrong quantitative measures, such as the inexpensive multiple-choice testing of factoids, may well result in the appearance of gains at the tremendous cost of suppressing important aspects of learning, attending to the wrong things in instruction, and conveying to students a distorted view of science.”

It remains to be seen whether or not the above deficiencies will be overcome in the final version of NGSS.
**************************************************

To access the complete 221 kB essay please click on http://bit.ly/147K6qY.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 20 March 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013a. “The Contentious Common Core Controversy,” online on the OPEN! AERA-H archives at http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv. Post of 3 Mar 2013 11:01:22 to AERA-H and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake’sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/Z7TV0W with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2013b. "The Contentious Common Core Controversy #2" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/Wtj62R. Post of 5 Mar 2013 11:32:15-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/ZjbgoZ with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2013c.”Next Generation Science Standards: Good or Bad for Science Education?” online as a 221 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/147K6qY.

The Contentious Common Core Controversy

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “The Contentious Common Core Controversy” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT: The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) http://www.corestandards.org/ have engendered considerable controversy - see e.g., “Resistance to Common Core standards growing” [Strauss (2013)] at http://wapo.st/Y7kwdK. Stimulated by Diane Ravitch’s (2013) admonition at http://bit.ly/XGpEpK “to think critically about the standards,” I searched Google for “Common Core State Standards” to obtain 3,010,000 hits at http://bit.ly/15QLBZR on 03 March 2013 10:15-0800. Careful consideration of all those leads me to suggest the following sixteen as especially valuable:

ANTI- CCSS
1. “Eight problems with Common Core Standards” [Brady (2012)] at http://wapo.st/15Z4kTg.

2. “Engineering Good Math Tests” [Burkhardt (2012)] at http://bit.ly/VaJgpp;

3. “How Common Core will change testing in schools” [Krashen (2012)] at http://wapo.st/12bt9w5;

4. “Debunking the Case for National Standards: One-Size-Fits-All Mandates and Their Dangers” [Kohn (2010)] at http://bit.ly/Z0xoUV;

5. “Do young kids need to learn a lot of facts? ” [Miller & Carlsson-Paige (2013)] at http://wapo.st/13oJVqW.

6. “Whoo-Hoo! Occupy the Schools” [Ohanian (2013)] at http://bit.ly/XGs4oq;

7. “Why I Cannot Support the Common Core Standards” [Ravitch (2013)] at
http://bit.ly/XGpEpK;

8. “Do We Need a Common Core? ” [Tampio (2012)] at http://huff.to/ZBaDb6.

PRO-CCSS
9. “Creating a Comprehensive System for Evaluating and Supporting Effective Teaching” [Darling-Hammond et al. (2012)] at http://stanford.io/Wj1w1E;

10. “Standards Worth Attaining” Finn (2012) at http://bit.ly/XHtS0k;

11. “A Common Core Standards defense” [Hirsch (2013)] at http://wapo.st/Y1gwvk;

12. “What English classes should look like in Common Core era” [Jago (2013)] at
http://wapo.st/XdE2cM;

13. “International Lessons About National Standards” [Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani (2009)] at http://bit.ly/xPjmJ4.

14. “Seizing the Moment for Mathematics” [Schmidt (2012)] at http://bit.ly/Z0BbS2;

15. “On Naked Standards - And Free Curriculum” Tucker (2012) at http://bit.ly/Y531xl;

16. “The Case for National Standards” [Weingarten (2009)] at http://wapo.st/XbIJ6K.

For an earlier review of the pros and cons of the Common Core Standards see “National Education Standards for the United States? ” [Hake (2009)] at http://bit.ly/Z0DMLK. In a subsequent post I shall discuss the “Next Generation Science Standards” (NGSS) http://bit.ly/y1gJPx and their relationship to the “Common Core State Standards. ”
***************************************************

To access the complete 38 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm

"I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation. . . . . They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. . . . . Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states. . . . . . it was well understood by states that they would not be eligible for Race to the Top funding unless they adopted the Common Core standards. . . . . "
- Diane Ravitch (2013) at http://bit.ly/XGpEpK

"The countries that consistently outperform the United States on international assessments all have national standards, with core curriculum, assessments and time for professional development for teachers based on those standards. . . . . Should fate, as determined by a student's Zip code, dictate how much algebra he or she is taught? . . . . Education is a local issue, but there is a body of knowledge about what children should know and be able to do that should guide decisions about curriculum and testing."
- Randi Weingarten (2009), president of the American Federation of Teachers at http://wapo.st/XbIJ6K.

"So much orchestrated attention is being showered on the Common Core Standards, the main reason for poor student performance is being ignored - a level of childhood poverty the consequences of which no amount of schooling can effectively counter."
- Marion Brady (2012) at http://wapo.st/15Z4kTg.

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 03 March 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “The Contentious Common Core Controversy,” online on the OPEN! AERA-H archives at http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv. Post of 3 Mar 2013 11:01:22 to AERA-H and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.