Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fordham Institute Review of the Next Generation Science Standards

Fordham Institute Review of the Next Generation Science Standards

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,159 |Likes:
Published by Shane Vander Hart
Fordham Institute reviews the Next Generation Science Standards and compares them with other state standards.
Fordham Institute reviews the Next Generation Science Standards and compares them with other state standards.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Shane Vander Hart on Jun 14, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/10/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 Final Evaluation of theNext Generation Science Standards
June 13, 2013by Paul R. Gross with Douglas Buttrey, Ursula Goodenough,Noretta Koertge,Lawrence Lerner, Martha Schwartz, and Richard SchwartzForeword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Kathleen Porter-MageeIntroduction and Overview by Paul R. Gross
 
Final Evaluation of the Next Generation Science Standards Page 1
Contents
Foreword 
………………………………………………….……………………………….
 By Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Kathleen Porter-Magee2
Final Evaluation of the Next Generation Science Standards 
………………………….
..
 
16I. Introduction
and Overview ……...………………………………….…………………..
 
16By Paul R. Gross
II. Organization of Standards…….………………………………………………………..
 
25
II. Clarity and Specificity …….…………………………………………………………...
 
27III. Discipline-
Specific Feedback…………………………………………………………
 
31
Physical Science…………………………………………………
………………
 
31
Life Science…………………………………………
…………………………...
 
41
Earth and Space Science…………………………...……………………………
46Engineering, Technology, and Applied Science
………..………….………………
51
Appendix A: Methods, Grading Metric, and Criteri
……………………………………
53
Appendix B: About the Authors 
…………………………………...
…………………………
 
64
 
Final Evaluation of the Next Generation Science Standards Page 2
Foreword
Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Kathleen Porter-Magee
Let us start with the bottom line: We know this Fordham report will be controversial, if only because so many have invested much time, treasure, and energy in the development of the NextGeneration Science Standards (NGSS) and they urgently want these standards to be embracedthroughout American K 
 – 
12 education. We respect them, acknowledge their hard work, andhonor their intentions.Having carefully reviewed the standards, however, using substantially the same criteria as we previously applied to state science standards
 — 
criteria that focus primarily on the content, rigor,and clarity of K 
 – 
12 expectations for this key subject
 — 
our considered judgment is that NGSSdeserves a C.Before you gasp or grump or lash out, let us remind you that, only a year ago, twenty-six statescience standards received grades of D or F from our reviewers, while twelve also earned Cs.Just thirteen jurisdictions
 — 
one in four 
 — 
had standards worthy of honors grades. Only sevenearned grades in the A range. (You can see which in the table below.)As is widely understood, weak standards are not the only
 — 
or the most worrisome
 — 
 problemfacing science education in the United States in 2013. Achievement in this field has been dismal.The most recent appraisals by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2009)found barely one-
third of fourth graders at or above the “proficient” level in science, followed by
a mere 30 percent in eighth grade and an embarrassing 21 percent at the end of high school.Other studies have shown that just 30 percent of U.S. high school graduates are prepared for college-level work in science.
1
 By international standards, our performance in science is even worse. According to results fromthe most recent PISA assessment (released in 2010), fifteen-year-olds in the United States rankedtwenty-third out of sixty-five countries. On the 2007 TIMSS science assessment, U.S. eighthgraders overall ranked eleventh out of forty-eight nations, with only 10 percent of American
students scoring at or above the TIMSS “advanced” level.
 In short: American science education at the K 
 – 
12 level needs a radical upgrade. And in our estimation, such an upgrade begins with dramatic improvements in the
expectations
that drivecurriculum, teaching, learning, and assessment in this crucial realm. Evaluated against our criteria (spelled out in Appendix A), NGSS earned a higher score than the standards currently in place in twenty-six states (and they are clearly superior to the standards of at least sixteen of those states).
2
If schools in those states aligned their curricula and instruction to the NGSS, their students would likely be better off when it comes to science education.
1
 
ACT, Inc., “The Condition of College & Career Readiness” (Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc., 2011),
2
As we did in comparing the Common Core standards for English language arts and math with those of individualstates, we believe that any state scoring two or more points higher on our 0-10 point rubric has standards that are
“clearly superior” to the NGSS. Similarly, any state whose standards score two or more points lower than NGSS has

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->