How bad were the Next Generation Science Standards? So bad that the Fordham Institute which loved the Common Core couldn’t give these standard better than a C. A race to mediocrity in which Kansas crossed the finish line.
Here are five of the “significant flaws” as defined by Fordham:
Much essential content was omitted.
The grade-to-grade progression that was a strength of the NRC Framework was not fully realized in the NGSS. The result was that some content that was never explicitly stated in earlier grades was nevertheless assumed in later grades.
A number of key terms (e.g., “model” and “design”) were ill defined or inconsistently used and a number of actual errors were scattered throughout.
Recommended “practices” dominated the NGSS, relegating essential knowledge—which should be the ultimate goal of science education—to secondary status.
The articulation of “assessment boundaries” in connection with many standards threatened to place an unwarranted ceiling on important learning. Yes, teachers can go above and beyond what the boundary suggests, but with time and resources scarce, how many will actually teach students—even advanced students—content and skills that they know in advance “won’t be on the test”?
Notice this “relegating essential knowledge—which should be the ultimate goal of science education—to secondary status.” Why didn’t they recognize that with the math standards, I’ll never know.
You can read their entire report below: