The Next Generation Science Standards are available for public view. Follow this link to the Science Standards Survey (feedback) Website.

According to Achieve, Inc., the corporation that is writing and publishing the standards:

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are distinct from prior science standards in that they integrate three dimensions within each standard and have intentional connections across standards. To provide guidance and clarification to all users of the standards, the writers have created a system architecture that highlights the NGSS as well as each of the three integral dimensions and connections to other grade bands and subjects. The standards are organized in a table with three main sections: 1) performance expectation(s), 2) the foundation boxes, and 3) the connection boxes.

Key words here are integrate, three dimensions, connections.  Additional key words are performance expectations, foundation boxes, connection boxes.

Performance Expectations

  If you go to the How to Read the Standards page, you will see the System Architecture chart, which I have shown below.

At first we are overwhelmed with information for the four space science standards that appear on the sample.  If you roll your cursor over the page, pop-ups will appear giving you more information.  Below the actual four standards shown on the page are three columns of elements that Achieve states were used to develop the four-space science objectives.  The three elements are the major dimensions recommended by the authors of the earlier Framework written by scientists hired by the NRC last summer.  Major dimensions are science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts.

Standards are written as performance expectations, and are constructed as follows:

Students who demonstrate understanding can:

Standards are performance objectives, and they read like this.

How to Read the Next Generation Science Standards. Source: http://www.nextgenscience.org/how-to-read-the-standards, extracted May 12, 2012

Where’s the Beef?

The actual standards, called performance expectations appear on the top of the page of any search you do.  If you go to the search page you can choose the grade level K – high school) and the discipline (Earth and Space Sciences; Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science; Life Sciences; and Physical Sciences.

According to Achieve, Inc., the next generation standards are written as student performance expectations. This is a key difference in the NGSS compared to current standards. These statements each incorporate a practice, a disciplinary core idea, and a crosscutting concept.

What’s a student expectation?  It’s what the standards’ authors expect the student to know and be able to do at a particular point in time (grade level), and in a particular content area (Earth, Engineering, Physical, Life).  Performance expectations are behavioral objectives that are written in terms that allows test makers to design questions that can be used to determine if the expectation was met, or if the student reached/attained/met the objectives.

Here is another graphic that appears when you do a search for grade 5 and Earth Science.  I clicked on Earth Systems and Their Interactions.  There are eight performance expectations.  Note that the first few words are “action” or process terms,” such as use mathematical thinking, construct models, obtain-evaluate-communicate information, etc. The next part of the objective are the practices and core idea, and practices and crosscutting idea.

Here are some examples from Next Generation: Students who demonstrate understanding can:

• Use mathematical thinking to compare the relative abundance of salt water to fresh water and analyze data to identify the major locations of fresh water.
• Construct models to describe systems interactions for the geosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere and identify the limitations of the models.
• Obtain, evaluate, and communicate information describing the impacts human activities have on Earth systems and generate examples of actions individuals and communities have taken to conserve the Earth’s resources and environments.

Even using detailed analyses of practices, core ideas and crosscutting ideas, these standards do not appear to be any different than the previous NSES, and the many experiences we have writing objectives, and standards in the 1970s and 1980s for the Florida Assessment Project.

Here are some examples of  “standards” taken from the 1996 NSES:

• As a result of activities in grades 5 – 8 , all students should develop understanding of personal health
• As a result of activities in grades 9 – 12 , all students should develop understanding of conservation of energy and increase in disorder.
• As a result of activities in grades 9 – 12 , all students should develop understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe

Here are some examples of the Georgia Science Standards:

• Students will explore the importance of curiosity, honesty, openness, and skepticism in science and will exhibit these traits in their own efforts to understand how the world works.
• Students will understand the effects of the relative positions of the earth, moon and sun.
• Students will understand the effects of the relative positions of the earth, moon and sun.

The Next Generation Standards are more detailed, and define in more specific way what students should know and be able to do.

But why do we do this?  And is it going to make any difference in achievement test scores?  Especially high-stakes tests?  Let’s take a look.

Is it Worth It?

Dr. Yong Zhao would say no.  Dr. Yong Zhao,  Presidential Chair and Associate Dean for Global Education, College of Education at the University of Oregon. He is a fellow for the International Academy for Education. Zhao was born in China’s Sichuan Province and is author of Catching Up or Leading the Way (ASCD, 2009).

Dr. Zhao has already spoken out against the Common Core Standards, and questions whether these standards will produce world class learners.  He suggests that the Common Core Standards initiative won’t make a difference, and he cites the study done by Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institute in 2012.

The 2012 Report on American Education published by The Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institute focused on education policy as it affects student learning.

The report examined three aspects of American education including the effect of the common core on learning, the achievement gaps on NAEP, and how international tests are misinterpreted.

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).

Supporters of the standards movement have used the argument that if we “raise the bar” by writing more rigorous standards, then student achievement will increase.  In a 2009 study, also at Brookings, quality ratings of state standards as judged by the AFT and Fordham Foundation, were correlated with state NAEP scores.  Researchers found that the correlations were very weak.  According to the study, state with “weak” content standards as determined by the AFT and Fordham score about the same on NAEP as those with strong standards.  These findings of no relationship held up whether NAEP scores from 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, or the gains from 2000 – 2007 were used in the analysis.  And they found that relationship for scores of both white and black students.

This is significant.  In nearly 8 years of data analysis of content score quality correlated with NAEP scores, we see no relationship.  The quality of the standards did not bear any improvement in academic achievement scores.

Is it worth it?  It depends who is asking the question.  And it also depends on whose interests are at stake.

I urge you to go the Next Generation Science Standards site, and explore the standards from your point of view.

Do you think that American education needs a new set of science standards?  Do you think these new standards will lead to college and career ready students?