UPDATE: The Next Generation Science Standards are available for public view and feedback here.

According to various bloggers, the Next Generation Science Standards are to be released today for public review.  The release has been delayed twice, and hopefully we’ll see the draft of the science standards.

According to the Next Generation Science Standards site at Achieve, Inc., the standards will be available for two rounds of public feedback “to help guide the writing team.  Feedback will be aggregated and made public.”

In the run up to the development, writing and now the release of the new science standards, there has been a lot posturing, and rationalization for why America needs new science standards, and why there is the need to develop a national science assessment based on this set of standards.

Is there Research to Support this Effort?

Over on Anthony Cody’s website, Living in Dialog, he ran a post this week that conversation between Dr. Yong Zhao, Presidential Chair and Associate Dean for Global Education, College of Education at the University of Oregon.  Zhao was born in China’s Sichuan Province and is author of Catching Up or Leading the Way (ASCD, 2009),and Yvonne Siu-Runyan, professor emerita from the University of Northern Colorado, and past president of NCTE.

Here is part of the interview in which Dr. Zao was asked about the common standards and education.  Zao concluded that it’s an expensive and futile exercise that will likely cause more damages in terms of narrowing the curriculum and leading to more teaching to the test.

YSR: You are suggesting that educators and local schools must find inventive ways to educate our young to live in an ever-changing unknown world. Do you think that the Common Core State Standards can accomplish this? I just read the piece in Ed Week where Anthony Cody featured you entitled, “Yong Zhao Interview: Will the Common Core Create World-Class Learners?” In this interview you question the value of the Common Core State Standards. Why? Many think that this will help to solve the issues of inequities in our schools.

YZ: Well, I don’t. I think the best analysis of why the Common Core Standards Initiative won’t make a difference is done by Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institute in the 2012 Brown Center Report on American Education, which you can find at this link. It is based on sound research and shows the Common Core won’t improve performance, reduce the achievement gap, or increase efficiency, as the proponents have suggested.

I have written quite a lot about this initiative. The simple message is that they will not improve education. It is an expensive but futile exercise.

YSR: I know implementing the Common Core State Standards is and will continue to be expensive, but why do you think it is a futile exercise?

YZ: It is futile exercise that will likely cause more damages in terms of narrowing the curriculum and leading to more teaching to the tests.

Dr. Zao referred to the Brookings Institute research on the Common Core.  According to the report, the common core will have little to no effect on student achievement.  It suggested that:

Despite all the money and effort devoted to developing the Common Core State Standards—not to mention the simmering controversy over their adoption in several states—the study foresees little to no impact on student learning. That conclusion is based on analyzing states’ past experience with standards and examining several years of scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

The evidence is that the research does not support the principle rationale that the new standards will result in higher achievement scores of American students.

Questions about the Science Standards

In a recent publication entitled Achieving a New Generation of Common Science Standards, we have argued that there are many reasons to question the viability of the new standards.

How does the Framework for K – 12 Science Education fare and how will this affect the standards upon which they are based? There are several criticisms that I identify here, and ask you to think about your own professional work, and what you think of these criticisms.

1. Composition of Committee and Design Teams.

You will probably agree that a committee that is going to create a framework for K – 12 science education ought to be comprised of a mix of individuals from academia, research organizations and K – 12 schools. An examination of the report shows that there were 19 individuals on the Conceptual Committee, and 19 people on the four design
teams. There were no K – 12 educators on the Conceptual Committee. There were two persons listed of the 19 design team members who worked in either a state department of education or a school district. But there were no science teachers listed in the report. This is a serious problem in my opinion because it sends the message that K – 12 science educators are either not capable or not interested in serving on such boards, and committees.

2. Discipline Myopia.

Using Dr. Wraga’s terminology, you can see that I am extending this criticism to the Framework for K – 12 Science Education. The Framework promotes four disciplinary content areas, Life science, Earth/Space Science, Physical Science, and Engineering and Technology. As a result, the curriculum that is implied from the Framework is overly discipline oriented, and except for the addition of the area entitled Engineering and Technology, is no different than the 1996 National Science Education Standards. Even in elementary and middle school, there is little attempt of interrelate the content of science. Interdisciplinary science is not a structure in the
Framework.

3. Student as Outsider.

This might seem overly critical, but the Framework is written from the standpoint of the discipline of science, and very little attention is placed on students, their communities, and environment. The content is seen as out there to be learned, rather than putting the context of learning at the center of the Framework. Much of the work in environmental education, STS, science and social issues is put on the periphery of the Framework.

4. What about the Content?

One reader had this to say about the content in the life science section of the Framework: “That section is certainly improved, but still reads as if written by individuals with only a superficial background in biology. In the evolution section, natural selection is still ill defined and treated as the only mechanism for change. In the information processing section, animals are apparently the only organisms that can sense and respond to their environment.“ Although Dr. Fugate is questioning the nature of the content, because there were no science teachers on any of the panels, we can question the relevancy as it relates to K – 12 students. Or at least we can raise questions.

5. Pipeline Mentality.

The Framework underscores the domination of curriculum by a pipeline mentality, and disregards the more important notion of preparing citizens to live in a changing world.  Very few students will go on to careers in science or engineering, and as you read this report, you’d think that this is still the major goal for teaching science in our schools.

Some Concerns at Achieve, Inc.

Although not arm twisting, it is interesting to note that Achieve has sent a letter to Governor Jerry Brown of California which is really the stump speech that suporters of the common standards, and the next generation science standards give when asked why?  Why new standards?

Here are links to two letters that are being circulated that show the kind of pressure put on Governor’s and groups that have not fully embraced the standards movement, and question actions that are leading to the narrowing of curriculum based on standards and high-stakes tests.

Letter from the Chair of Achieve, Inc. to Governor Jerry Brown, of California

Business Sign-on Letter Supporting K-12 Science Standards from Battelle 

We’re Still Waiting

We wait for the Next Generation of Science Standards.  We’ll announce the release on this site, and how you can view the standards.

What are your expectations of the standards?  Do you think new science standards will improve student science achievement?