Thinking about National Standards in Science Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2017172717Keywords:
standards, NGSS, national curriculum, practices, crisis narratives.Abstract
In this paper I present a critical reflection on the rationale and history of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which has sometimes been presented as the US version of a vision for a standardized science curriculum. I explore how the monograph, The Framework for K-12 Science Education, established the groundwork for the Next Generation Science Standards. I argue that crisis narratives often drive the arguments for standardization but in the US there was also an argument of the need to build a level of national uniformity in the content and practices that are presented to students as a tool for ensuring that children and youth have equitable access to important knowledge. However, at the same time educators have a responsibility for ensuring that homogenization achieved through standards does not enshrine the very inequities and ideologies public education seeks to change.
References
Achieve Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve Inc.
Barton, A. C. (1998). Reframing “Science for All” through the politics of poverty. Educational Policy, 12, 525–541. DOI: 10.1177/0895904898012005004
Bruner, J. (1992). Science education and teachers: A Karplus lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1, 5–12.
Cannon, E. N. & Woodward, A. L. (2012). Infants generate goal-based action predictions. Developmental Science, 15, 292-298. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01127.x
Edwards, R. (2008). Education – an impossible practice? Scottish Education Review, 40, 4-11.
Feynman, R. (1967). The character of a physical law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Paper prepared for the Formative Assessment for Teachers and Students (FAST) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Washington, DC.
Leahy, S., & Wiliam, D. (2011). Devising learning progressions. Paper presented in the Symposium on How to Build Learning Progressions at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 2011.
Goodman, M. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell.
Masters, G. & Forster, M. (1996). Progress maps. (Part of the Assessment Resource Kit) Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research, Ltd.
Milne, C. (2011). The invention of science: why history of science matters for the classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Milne, C. (2013). Creating stories from history of science to problematize a scientific practice: A case study of boiling points, air pressure, and thermometers. Paper presented at the 12th biennial International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching conference, University of Pittsburgh, USA, June 19–23, 2013.
Milne, C. (2017). Why materials matter: Exploring the role of instruments in learning science. In C. Milne & K. Scantlebury (Eds.) Material practice and materiality: Too long ignored in science education. Dordrecht: Springer
Milne, C., Wallace, R., & Doucet, F. (2017). On not getting lost: The educational value of using con,tent storylines in curriculum development, pedagogy and assessment. Dialogic presentation at the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education meeting, Tampa, FL, February, 2017.
National Research Council. (2006). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, S.R. Singer, M.L. Hilton, and H.A. Schweingruber, (Eds). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. Richard A. Duschl, Heidi A. Schweingruber, and Andrew W. Shouse, (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in informal environments: People, places and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, & M. A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177–196. doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Pratt, H. (2013). The NSTA reader’s guide to a Framework for K-12 Science Education. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC.: NSTA Press.
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error. The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Samuels, A. (2016). Good school, rich school; bad school poor school: Inequality at the heart of America’s education system. The Atlantic, August 25, 2016. Accessed at: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/
Shepard, L., Daro, P., & Stancavage, F. (2013). The relevance of learning progressions for NAEP. Commissioned by the NAEP Validity Studies (NVS) Panel. Accessed at: www.air.org/common_core_NAEP.
Slater, G. B., & Griggs, C. B. (2015). Standardization and subjection: An autonomist critique of neoliberal school reform. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 37, 438–459, doi: 10.1080/10714413.2015.1091259
Stoehr, K. J. (2017). Mathematics anxiety: One size does not fit all. Journal of Teacher Education, 68, 69–84.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barton, A. C. (1998). Reframing “Science for All” through the politics of poverty. Educational Policy, 12, 525–541. DOI: 10.1177/0895904898012005004
Bruner, J. (1992). Science education and teachers: A Karplus lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1, 5–12.
Cannon, E. N. & Woodward, A. L. (2012). Infants generate goal-based action predictions. Developmental Science, 15, 292-298. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01127.x
Edwards, R. (2008). Education – an impossible practice? Scottish Education Review, 40, 4-11.
Feynman, R. (1967). The character of a physical law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Paper prepared for the Formative Assessment for Teachers and Students (FAST) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Washington, DC.
Leahy, S., & Wiliam, D. (2011). Devising learning progressions. Paper presented in the Symposium on How to Build Learning Progressions at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 2011.
Goodman, M. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell.
Masters, G. & Forster, M. (1996). Progress maps. (Part of the Assessment Resource Kit) Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research, Ltd.
Milne, C. (2011). The invention of science: why history of science matters for the classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Milne, C. (2013). Creating stories from history of science to problematize a scientific practice: A case study of boiling points, air pressure, and thermometers. Paper presented at the 12th biennial International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching conference, University of Pittsburgh, USA, June 19–23, 2013.
Milne, C. (2017). Why materials matter: Exploring the role of instruments in learning science. In C. Milne & K. Scantlebury (Eds.) Material practice and materiality: Too long ignored in science education. Dordrecht: Springer
Milne, C., Wallace, R., & Doucet, F. (2017). On not getting lost: The educational value of using con,tent storylines in curriculum development, pedagogy and assessment. Dialogic presentation at the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education meeting, Tampa, FL, February, 2017.
National Research Council. (2006). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, S.R. Singer, M.L. Hilton, and H.A. Schweingruber, (Eds). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. Richard A. Duschl, Heidi A. Schweingruber, and Andrew W. Shouse, (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in informal environments: People, places and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, & M. A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177–196. doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Pratt, H. (2013). The NSTA reader’s guide to a Framework for K-12 Science Education. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC.: NSTA Press.
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error. The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Samuels, A. (2016). Good school, rich school; bad school poor school: Inequality at the heart of America’s education system. The Atlantic, August 25, 2016. Accessed at: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/
Shepard, L., Daro, P., & Stancavage, F. (2013). The relevance of learning progressions for NAEP. Commissioned by the NAEP Validity Studies (NVS) Panel. Accessed at: www.air.org/common_core_NAEP.
Slater, G. B., & Griggs, C. B. (2015). Standardization and subjection: An autonomist critique of neoliberal school reform. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 37, 438–459, doi: 10.1080/10714413.2015.1091259
Stoehr, K. J. (2017). Mathematics anxiety: One size does not fit all. Journal of Teacher Education, 68, 69–84.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Published
2017-08-31
Issue
Section
Artigos
License
The authors are responsible for the veracity of the information provided and for the content of the papers.
The authors who publish in this journal fully agree with the following terms:
- The authors attest that the work is unpublished, that is, it has not been published in another journal, event notices or equivalent.
- The authors attest that they did not submit the paper to another journal simultaneously.
- The authors retain the copyright and grant to RPBEC the right of first publication, with the work licensed simultaneously under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- The authors attest that they own the copyright or the written permission from copyright owners of figures, tables, large texts, etc. that are included in the paper.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example, to publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after the publication in order to increase the impact and citation of published work.
In case of identification of plagiarism, inappropriate republishing and simultaneous submissions, the authors authorize the Editorial Board to make public what happened, informing the editors of the journals involved, any plagiarized authors and their institutions of origin.
How to Cite
Thinking about National Standards in Science Education. (2017). Brazilian Journal of Research in Science Education, 17(2), 717-744. https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2017172717
