The Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Change the Equation each recently released reports on state science standards and performance.

The Fordham report looks at the K-12 science content standards for all states, the District of Columbia as well as the “assessment framework that undergirds the NAEP science assessment.” The report compares each set of science standards to a Fordham-created rubric and concludes most states’ standards are inadequately rigorous or lack clarity. The Fordham report does not evaluate states’ implementation or assessment practices.

The Change the Equation report, on the other hand, does look at states’ assessment practices for science standards. The report compares the state assessments’ proficiency cut scores to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) cut score for proficiency. The Change the Equation report finds the majority of states set their cut score for proficiency far below NAEP’s bar for proficiency.

It is possible for states to receive high marks for their standards from Fordham, but still have their proficiency bar set lower than NAEP. Does this mean the state’s standard is too low? Or is NAEP’s standard too high? Are state assessments and the NAEP measuring students on the same benchmarks?

Regardless of where you fall on this highly debated topic, one thing is clear - varying definitions of what it means to be proficient sends mixed signals to students, districts, and policy makers on whether our nation’s students are college and career ready. 

Efforts to create unified vision of what students need to learn to be successful in college have resulted in the Common Core State Standards for English and mathematics. Common science standards, known as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), are currently being developed by a group of 26 states. If the adoption of Common Core standards for English and math are any indication, the science standards will also be widely adopted.  Along with the standards, common assessments are expected to be developed along with a common definition of what is needed to succeed in an entry-level college course.

Laying the Foundation has developed rigorous science lessons and labs that districts have been using for over seven years to promote hands-on learning and engage students in making real world connections with the material. “LTF science materials and training places a heavy emphasis on hands-on learning using rigorous, content-based activities that emphasize laboratory experience and the use of technology in the classroom,” shares Brian Graves the LTF Director of Science.

Graves also notes our vertically aligned materials address the NGSS core content areas of physical science, life science, as well as earth and space sciences. Once the standards are released, we anticipate our materials to be well-aligned with the rigorous expectations of the New Generation Science Standards, just as we found our well-established math and English curriculum to be aligned with CCSS for those subjects.

“The graphing, data interpretation/analysis, and mathematical-problem solving encouraged by LTF Trainers provide important links from early grade science classes to math-based expectations in AP-level courses,” adds Graves. “To me that matches the Next Generation Science Standards’ stated goal of providing vertically aligned science standards ‘rich in content and practice’.”

Further Exploration:

To learn more about the NGSS visit http://www.nextgenscience.org/.

To explore what it means to prepare teachers to implement CCSS, take part in our webinar series from 3:00pm to 4:00pm (CST) on the following days this week: 

• Monday, Feb. 6 Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An Overview Click here

• Wednesday, Feb. 8 Implementing the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts Click here 
  

• Thursday, Feb. 9 Implementing the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics Click here 
  

• Friday, Feb. 10 Supporting the Common Core State Standards with LTF Science Lessons Click here