There is a very curious relationship between NAEP Science Framework and the Next Generation Science Standards that I discovered while studying the NGSS and wanting to find out what was emphasized on the NAEP Science Assessments. I had read on an NSTA list that I receive that someone had questioned the distribution of questions on the NAEP Science Assessment. They had reported that the questions were distributed as follows: 30% Physical Science; 30 Life Science and 40% Earth Science. I also wondered about that and went to the NAEP Website to find out.
I ended up at the NAEP 2009 Science Framework publication which you can download here. The Commissioner of Education Statistics, who heads the National Center for Education Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education, is responsible by law for carrying out the NAEP project. The National Assessment Governing Board, appointed by the Secretary of Education but independent of the Department, sets policy for NAEP and is responsible for developing the framework and test specifications that serve as the blueprint for the assessments.
In 2009, the NAEP published the latest framework for science. I admit that I had not read this document until today. But I had read the NRC’s Framework for K-12 Science, and I have studied the Next Generation Science Standards.
We all know that the NGSS was developed by Achieve, and released the first Public version of the new standards last week. We also knew that the standards were based on the NRC’s Framework for K-12 Science that was developed and written by a 17 member task force set up by the NRC with funding from the Carnegie Foundation.
A Curious Similarity
What I found curious was how the NAEP document describing the rationale and the design of the science framework which is used to develop science assessment items was so similar to the NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards framework. The NAEP science framework was developed prior to the development of NRC’s science framework, and of course before the Next Generation Science Standards.
Table 1 compares and contrasts the NAEP Framework, the NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education, and the Next Generation Science Standards. The language used in all three documents is very similar especially when defining key ideas including content or disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts and ideas. When the NRC Framework was published in 2011, that was great fan fare over the new framework, and the ideas that had formulated the NRC’s committee to design the framework along three lines, shown in Table 1: Disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concept, and science and engineering practices.
These three big ideas would be used to develop the Next Generation Science Standards.
It turns out that the NAEP had developed its new science framework which they use to design and write test items or assessment for their science assessments. It is very similar to the NRC Framework, or maybe it would be better to say that the NRC Framework is similar to the Assessment framework. There is also an overlap in some key members of the planning, steering, and writing committee on the NAEP and NRC committees. How might this influence the direction taken by each of the frameworks? I am not questioning the credentials of the members of any of these groups. I am only wondering about the overlap.
There is another similarity among the three projects, and that is the lack of K-12 educators in the planning processes, and the writing and development process. I couldn’t find one teacher on the NAEP committees. There were no teachers on the NRC Framework committee. And one of the members of the NRC was later hired by Achieve to head up the development of the Next Generation Science Standards.
NAEP Science Framework, 2009 | NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education, 2011 | Next Generation Science Standards, 2012 | |
Science Content or Disciplinary Core Ideas |
|
|
|
Crosscutting Content or Concepts | Interaction of science content and practices of science |
|
|
Science Practices |
|
|
|
Framework Development | WestEd and CCSSO, AAAS, NSTA | National Research Council | NRC, Achieve, NSTA, AAAS |
Table 1. Comparison of Science Frameworks Designed by NAEP, NRC, & Achieve
NAEP is a low-stakes test, and is perhaps one of the most reliable measures we have of student performance in science, math and reading. However, the fact that the government assessment framework preceded the NRC and Achieve frameworks raises questions about what this sequence means, and what are we to expect in the future.
There is strong evidence that a national high-stakes science assessment will be developed and required of all states that the adopt the NGSS. If you don’t believe me, then you should check to see what the record shows about the Common Core State Standards’ national computer-based assessment. A recent study by the Pioneer Institute reported that to implement the Common Core in the states will cost more than $15 billion, and that does not include testing.
There is also evidence some influential groups have been involved in all three enterprises including the Thomas Fordham Foundation, Achieve, Inc., the U.S. Department of Education, Council of Chief State School Officers, and the National Governors Association. There were no requests for proposals for any of this work in the documents that I have read. In each case, organizations were appointed by boards, or foundations, or councils. There was no attempt in these developments to build in any kind of research and evaluation of the projects. And of course, this is really odd in that these groups are creating products (tests and standards) that will hold others accountable: teachers, students, administrators, schools, & school districts.
Do you think that the relationship among these three groups is curious? Or is it simply of little concern, and we should move on?
0 Comments