Debate Over Science Standards Continues

According to the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Massachusetts’ current state science standards are “clearly superior” to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) which were issued earlier this year.  The Fordham report spurred a counter-statement by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), continuing the ongoing debate about the quality of the NGSS.  The wide-ranging debate underscores the need for Massachusetts to proceed carefully when evaluating the NGSS and our own current standards.

The Fordham Institute report “Exemplary Science Standards: How Does Your State Compare?” compares the standards of 38 states with the NGSS and “exemplary” standards of three other states – one of them Massachusetts. The report draws on earlier papers by the Fordham Institute, including its “Final Evaluation of the Next Generation Science Standards,” and “The State of Science Standards 2012.” The institute’s panel of seven experts rated the NGSS a “C” overall, citing numerous content issues, and some problems with lack of rigor and clarity.  Massachusetts’ current standards were graded an “A-.”

Fordham’s evaluation of the NGSS cites the omission of essential content, lack of clarity, failure to include important elements in early grades, specific errors, a focus on practice over knowledge, and concerns over “assessment boundaries” limiting teachers’ willingness to go behind material that will be tested.  The Massachusetts current standards received full marks for “clarity and specificity” and high marks for “content and rigor,” with noted minor omissions and occasional lack of detail.

The analysis has received criticism, including from the National Science Teachers Association. The NSTA argues that the NGSS is based upon a “current and robust body of research” and contains a “teachable number of core ideas,” while stating that the Fordham reports are “based on personal opinions” and lacking “substantive research.”  NSTA points out that “science education leaders, educators, and others from 26 states led the charge to develop and write the new science standards with input from thousands in the science and science education community, including science teachers. This unprecedented involvement of so many groups and individuals–especially those who will be charged with implementing the standards in the classroom–sends a strong message about the promise of and support for NGSS.”

Standards articulate what students should know and be able to do in each grade level.  Massachusetts’ science, technology, and engineering (STE) standards set consistent benchmarks for biology, chemistry, physics and engineering across the state.  The state’s current process of revision is heavily focused on whether the NGSS, or a modified version of those standards, should be adopted.  The STE revision is an opportunity for improvement, and the Commonwealth should be careful that any changes it makes are beneficial to students and achievable by educators.  MBAE would argue there is a major omission in both the NGSS and our current STE standards – the lack of critical elements of computer science, as we have noted in past posts.

The current revision of STE standards comes at a critical time. Our continued position as a national leader in education and our ability to compete on an international scale will be determined by the expectations we set and the opportunities we provide.  Strong, comprehensive standards are needed to prepare our students for the STEM opportunities in our workforce, and to ensure all students are informed, technologically literate citizens.   Massachusetts must ensure that any action it takes on STE standards meets this critical need.