There have been deletions from the NGSS to the OAS. For example a unit on Global Warming found in the middle school and high school standards under ESS3.D: Global Climate Change and a section on Darwinian Evolution found in the NGSS high school standards under LS4.C: Adaptation were removed. I did not review each section of either set of standards, however, because after I identified word-for-word language common to both sets of standards, there was truly no necessity to do so. At that point it seemed completely logical and realistic to accept the sameness of the standards and provide previous reviews of the NGSS as means for evaluation. Many reviewers have complained bitterly about the NGSS. You can find very excellent evaluations here: Review by the Thomas Fordham Institute
(supporters of the Common Core State Standards) Fordham issued a complete technical analysis which detailed numerous problems including that the NGSS,
never explicitly requires some content in early grades that is then assumed in subsequent standards.
They give the standards a C. (in the interest of full disclosure; Fordham gave Oklahoma
aggregated several reviews together but opined;
The science standards, like those for math and English, are not based on empirical evidence of efficacy nor are they tested in any environment. They are fresh out of the box and will be field-tested statewide in any state that signs on.
highlights many criticisms of the Thomas Fordham study but also a review from Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, who approaches his critique from a faith-based perspective. He quotes Beisner as saying,
“The standards frequently present science as “an enterprise promoted by consensus.” On the contrary,
consensus is not a scientific but a political value, as should be clear to anyone familiar with the history of science, which chronicles scores or even hundreds of great reversals of once reigning paradigms
documented, e.g., in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific R
evolutions. Science does not seek to attain truth by popular
vote, but by logical reasoning from premises provided by observations of the surrounding world.
Erik Robelen writes in EdWeek
that the National Science Teachers Association finds a lack of clarity and coherence in the standards
performance expectations and that the standards do not make clear
what students are to know and be able to do, and
they should be taught those things.
, an anonymous chemistry teacher who participated in developing the standards says,
The "Next Generation Science Standards" have set out to backwards engineer the whole science curriculum into a coherent, self-validating tool. The goal all along was an instrument to market both teaching and assessment products to a captive education system, not to provide a framework for good teaching of the sciences.
I personally like the way the NGSS (aka OAS) standards are organized. In my opinion, the specific standards were easier to identify for each grade level than the PASS under which I taught. Unfortunately, I most dislike the FACT that our Oklahoma State Department of Education would give the good citizens of Oklahoma whose trust and tax dollars they enjoy, a set of standards based entirely on the NGSS and then call them