According to Michael Wysession, Next Generation (NG) high school science boils down to about 1 semester of chemistry, 1 semester of physics, a school-year of life science, and a school-year of geoscience, which is a major departure from regular high school science. Michael Wysession (NG team leader) says that geoscience is legitimately on par with physical science. Surely, he must be joking! In my opinion, NG does not prepare students for college level science courses because important content in chemistry and physics has been weakened, reduced, or completely left out. Just as in the Common Core eight math "practices," higher level thinking skills dominate the science standards at the expense of content knowledge. The reformers think content is no longer that important. They are wrong! Content knowledge in long-term memory is the foundation for critical thinking and problem solving. In science, evidence is important, yet NG ignores the findings of cognitive science. (Source: Scientific American, "Kids Are Scientists," written by Michael Wysession, a professor of seismology, the leader for the NG Earth and Space Sciences team, and author of several Pearson Prentice Hall K-12 textbooks)
The writers of the Next Generation science standards left out key ideas from the past 100 years or so. What were these people thinking? Their knowledge is so fragile, as Feynman would say. Reforms, such as Next Generation, Common Core, NCLB standardized testing, minimal teacher guidance approaches, laptops or tablets for all, group work (and so on), do little to advance actual achievement. Our kids are mediocre in math and science because of screwy ideas and cockamamie reforms that don't work. Jacob Bronowski wrote, "Science is the acceptance of what works and the rejection of what does not." In science, evidence is everything, but NG ignores the findings of cognitive science. To me, Next Generation, which is another test-centered reform like Common Core, means that science content is left behind and so are our students.
Will Fitzhugh writes, “Skills have taken the place of content [not only in History, but also in science and math]. Content, after all, can be such a pain. What if someone asks you something and you don't know what they are talking about? Now you can just say ‘I was educated in critical thinking skills, and we moved far beyond content in my day.’ Another advantage is that with the content largely removed, the hard work of choosing what the content of a curriculum should be no longer needs to be faced (addressed).” This seems to be the case with Next Generation science. The reformists say that content is no longer important, yet content knowledge is the foundation for critical thinking and problem solving, that is, you can't solve chemical equilibrium problems unless you know chemical reaction and equilibrium content (knowledge), can apply it, and are able to do the calculations involved.
"Start with a small model that works." This is what we should do in education but we don't. Indeed, the Next Generation science standards and Common Core math standards are the latest large scale models that did not start with a small model that actually worked. Alan Manne (Stanford) writes, "To get a large model to work you must start with a small model that works, not a large model that doesn't work." I think the Next Generation science standards, which were built on the National Research Council science Framework, are flawed and unrealistic. There is scant evidence that the new standards will produce better science students or more informed citizens. Indeed, most of the key physics from the last 100 years or so [e.g., quantum theory] has been left out of Next Generation. Also, to me, the Next Generation favors issues more than content. In my opinion, the purpose of science and the scientific method is not to prove something right (or a point of view right) but to weed out bad ideas. "We need to get as much baloney out of our sandwiches as we can," says physicist Leonard Susskind. (TEDxCaltech: To honor Richard Feynman...)
 |
| Nobel Prize in Physics Quantum Electrodynamics QED |
 |
| Newton: Inverse Square Law |
The Big Bang theory "doesn't really describe how the Universe was born," writes Ben Gilliland. "Instead, it describes the evolution of the Universe after it came into existence." Of course, under the new K-12 science framework, students will likely never learn this, or that the Planck era (in which the quark, electron, and the massless photon existed) was at the very beginning of the Big Bang (13.8 billion years ago) or that quarks instantly (0.0000001 seconds later) formed larger particles called protons and neutrons, which, in turn, would eventually form stable hydrogen and helium atoms 377,000 years later, and so on. The building of a universe is an electrifying and thrilling field of basic physics, which includes the great minds of Einstein (time is not absolute, motion is relative), Heisenberg (uncertainty principle), and Feynman (time-traveling electrons). Richard Feynman figured out how time-traveling virtual electrons "can make something from nothing" in spacetime. It is compelling because the quantum world is counterintuitive and weird! Yet it is likely that students will not learn much of anything about quantum theory under the new science standards because it has been left out. When the new K-12 science framework was formed, the progressive powers-that-be assumed that many of the key ideas (e.g., relativity, uncertainty principle, time-traveling electrons and quantum mechanics) would be beyond the comprehension of children. But, I don't agree. I think young children are more apt to accept counterintuitive thoughts and enjoy weird ideas that stretch and spark their imaginations. Think, Big Bird? Big Bird is counterintuitive. Real birds actually fly, don't grow that huge, and don't speak English. Einstein's ideas are counterintuitive, too. Objects shrink, time slows, and mass increases (as objects move very fast). (Note: The Australian Cassowary monster bird grows to 6 ft. tall and 130 lbs.)
The K-12 Science [conceptual] Framework from the National Research Council (July 2011) is a disappointment. It was used to develop the Next Generation Science Standards, which some states have already adopted. The framework merged science with engineering, skimped over math needed to do science, stressed science practices over content, and required little content knowledge in elementary and middle school, which is the same problem we have had for decades. For instance, the word “atom” is not used until 6-8 grade band. The idea that atoms are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons (atomic structure) isn't found until grades 9-12. The sequence is off. But, in my view, the biggest blunder, in addition to a lack of math and mixing science and engineering, is combining chemistry and physics (total 24 pages), while the Framework writers gave Life Science content 20 pages. Chemistry and Physics are woefully underrepresented in the Framework, yet physics is the most basic, inclusive science. Everything in science boils down to physics, which is mathematical, such as Newton's law of universal gravitation or today's Standard Model of Atoms.
The Framework is lean on core science content, especially chemistry and physics; downplays the major role of mathematics used in science; glosses over the great discoveries of scientists that moved science forward, and focuses more on practices and issues and less on actual science content. Also, the [progressive] powers-that-be have determined that hands-on science (discovery approach in group work) is the best way to learn science, but it isn't. Indeed, minimal guidance or discovery learning in small groups is an inferior way to learn science, or math, or any academic discipline. The new science Framework places process over content, which is an error in judgement. But bad ideas should not surprise us, especially since the Framework was supervised by National Research Council's Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education with a committee made up of mostly educators, not actual scientists. In short, the new standards seem to stress issues more than core science. Indeed, learning science and engineering practices or arguing issues is not the same as learning science. Opinions about issues are not science. But, for progressives, which control K-12 education, science is just another opinion and relative, write Berezow and Campbell (Science Left Behind). Well, there you have it.
Like Aristotle, the Framework writers relied too much on conventional ideas and common opinion--actually their [progressive-powers-that-be] opinion. Apparently, the trusted idea that children can learn science well from strong teacher-led instruction or by reading well-written science textbooks and books never occurred to the committee. Also, labs once a week are good for kids if used to reinforce scientific ideas they are studying. Dr. Mark A. McDaniel says that before engaging students in inquiry-based problem solving in science or mathematics [hands-on approach], they should have a sound knowledge base (background knowledge). Kids are novices; they should not reinvent science to learn science. Nor, should they argue issues they do not understand because they lack background knowledge (content) in long-term memory. Experiments and demonstrations should be used to reinforce key ideas kids are studying.
If we want students to understand the world and the universe in which they live, then we should teach them substantially more physics and mathematics early on. Furthermore, we should establish math and science standards that, at the least, match the benchmarks from the nations that excel in these academic disciplines. The new K-12 Science Framework does not do this. The science Framework is the latest version (or vision) of science education, but it is off target because it requires very little knowledge of math needed to do science and very little science content knowledge. The committee’s frame of mind in composing the framework is troublesome.
"The Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards was charged with developing a framework that articulates a broad set of expectations for students in science. The overarching goal of our framework for K-12 science education is to ensure that by the end of 12th grade, all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science; possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues; are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives; are able to continue to learn about science outside school; and have the skills to enter careers of their choice, including (but not limited to) careers in science, engineering, and technology." (p. 14)
It sounds great! The caveat is that the Committee's statement is packed with vague, unclear ideas that cannot be measured. Indeed, unclear generalizations are commonplace in education and, in this case, the opposite of what science is. What is sufficient knowledge or appreciation? Also, I don't believe that the average citizen is going to read and study science and scientific studies after they graduate from school. To imply that they would is nonsense. The Framework’s expectations are fantasy. How can you have expectations that are nonspecific and not measurable? I guess the mostly “non-scientific” committee thought they could. For example, the word “atom” is not used until 6-8 grade band, and atomic structure (protons, electrons, and neutrons) is not introduced until high school. In short, content is diminished or restricted. (Surely, you’re joking!)
 |
Table by LT, ThinkAlgebra. It is based on Chemistry/Physics NRC Framework 2011
|
It is nonsense not to introduce the periodic table or the atomic model in grades 3-8, even if it is an old model, with protons and neutrons in a nucleus and electrons revolving in orbits. Incidentally, in high school NG, the old model for the atom is presented: "Each atom has a charged substructure consisting of a nucleus, which is made of protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons. (HS-PS1-1)" But, this is the model I would use for 3rd graders. It is as if Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann, and many others never existed. Kids won't be prepared to take physics or chemistry in college. I recommend that teachers fill in the missing science and math content using old textbooks. I don't see geoscience being a required one-year course or chemistry reduced to a semester course.
To the standards credit, the Big Bang is mentioned along with CMB or Cosmic Microwave Background. But, the standards also mislead, "Other than the hydrogen and helium formed at the time of the Big Bang, nuclear fusion within stars produces all atomic nuclei lighter than and including iron, and the process releases electromagnetic energy." (HS-ESS1- 2), (HS-ESS1-3) The problem is that hydrogen and helium, which eventuality became stable products of the Big Bang, did not exist at the time of the Big Bang as stated in the core standard--only quarks, photons, and electrons existed at the time of the Big Bang, then for only a fraction (of a fraction...) of a second.
As I skimmed some of the Next Generation core and often used the pdf Find Function, I see no mention of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, or a 5th fundamental force called the Higgs Field. The Higgs field gives particles mass and its force carrier (or boson) is the Higgs boson (found in 2012 using the Large Hardon Collider or LHC). I see no mention that physicists "recreated the conditions at the time of the Big Bang" with mini-Big Bangs. And, so on. Except for Newton, the names of scientists have been left out of the document.]
 |
| MIT's "Introduction to Chemistry" Lecture (Binding Energy of an electron using the Rydberg Constant for Hydrogen) |
There are too many fundamentals left out in the high school 40-page physical science [Next Generation] Evidence Statements, written by Jennifer Childress, Ph.D. from Achieve. In my view, Dr. Childress is not qualified to write standards or Evidence Statements in chemistry and physics because her Ph.D. is in biomedical science. Achieve proclaims, “All students should graduate from high school ready for college, careers, and citizenship,” which, to me, is an extraordinary claim. Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So, where is the evidence or proof that Next Generation [or Common Core] will accomplish its mission? There isn't any!
Ze'Ve Wurman says the Next Generation science standards, just like Common Core math standards, are undemanding intellectually (i.e., dumbed-down). He explains (June 3, 2015), "I'd call traditional algebra as supporting future STEM learning while the functional algebra [Common Core Algebra I] supports math appreciation you can talk about it, but you can't do anything with it." Wurman points out, "Common Core Functional Algebra I does not support the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). This is true because NG standards are empty of any expectations of using mathematics to solve science problems beyond plotting graphs on computers [or graphing calculators] and sagely pronouncing what those graphs seems to say. Dumbed-down math seems appropriate for dumbed-down science." Wurman states that Common Core functional algebra stresses the functional representations but not the solving of the equations. He writes, "Students are not expected to develop the analytical skills of handling most such functions beyond feeding them to programs that will graph them." For example, exponential equations appear in Common Core Algebra 1. Students graph equations on a graphing calculator, but they can't solve the equations using traditional algebra. In contrast, traditional algebra prepares students for actual science (chemistry, physics) and Algebra 2 and trig, etc.
Larry Cuban writes that the Framework is a “science for living.” A blogger’s reply rephrases Cuban by saying that the Framework represents “issues-orientated, inquiry-based science.” Ze’ve Wurman concludes, “The document simply teaches students science appreciation, rather than science.” I call it the document to nowhere. The science framework lacks sufficient chemistry and physics content and depth and states unclear goals; e.g., "all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science."
A few years ago I wrote that mathematics should be brought back into elementary and middle school science. Today’s science programs or textbooks seem to skimp on the math needed to do the science. In the Sputnik era, the United States produced superior, coherent science programs. For example, Science--A Process Approach or SAPA (1967) stressed process in the context of content, along with the mathematics used to do science. For instance, in Part B (First Grade) four of the six science processes were math or math related [Using Numbers (arithmetic), Measuring (metric), Communicating (graphing), and Using Space/Time Relationships (geometry)]. In short, the math needed to do the science was a major part of the SAPA science program. Moreover, the math taught in the program was very specific and ahead of grade level.
[Note. In the Next Generation 2nd grade standards, "Assessment of quantitative measurements is limited to length,” but my 1st graders in the early 80s measured mass in g, length in cm, and liquid volume in mL. They even found the volume of irregular objects like a small rock by water displacement in a graduated cylinder because they learned the relationship that1 mL water balanced 1 centimeter cube. Thus, if the rock displaced 4 mL of water, then its volume was 4 cubic centimeters.]
In contrast, the Framework glosses over mathematics and does't mention the metric system. "Create a computational model or simulation of a phenomenon, designed device, process, or system." (HSESS3-3) "Use a computational representation of phenomena or design solutions to describe and/or support claims and/or explanations." (HS-ESS3-6) These statements do not mean that the student actually does mathematics (writes and solves equations) to find solutions to problems, such as using trig to find the distance to an object in space (parallax]. Solving equations is not mentioned in the Framework or in the Next Generation standards. In fact, I could not find a single equation, not even distance = rate x time or E = mc^2.
College professor James S. Walker (Physics) writes, “The goal of physics is to gain a deeper understanding of the world in which we live.” Indeed, the goal of all science is to gain an in-depth grasp of our world. Richard Feynman says that students should study physics because it plays a basic role in all phenomena. But, the Framework does not specifically state this view as its main premise. In fact, the Framework stresses “practices” of scientists; however, learning the processes of scientists should not imply that students are learning science content. Critical thinking in any discipline requires considerable content knowledge. Learning what a scientist does is not the same as learning science content. Likewise, learning what a mathematician does is not the same as learning math content. Kids are novices, not experts. They need to learn content, lots of it. In math class, I do not expect students to learn what mathematician do. I expect them to learn math content and how mathematics works--how one idea links to or builds on another idea. I want students to learn essential content, skills and uses so they can work math problems from different disciplines, including physics.
Richard Feynman writes, “Physics is the most fundamental and all-inclusive of the sciences, and has had a profound effect on all scientific development.” To Feynman, the scientific method is “observation, reason, and experiment.” This is what we should teach kids. Feynman refers to rules of the game, which scientists guess and check by experiment. Feynman stresses, “The sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment.” Untestable ideas do not make sense in science. Ian Stewart, a mathematician, writes, “Mathematics has played a central role in the physical sciences for hundreds of years.” The framework does not emphasize the intrinsic link between science and mathematics. Leonard Mlodinow (The Upright Thinkers) writes, "Today, at least among scientists, there is virtually universal agreement about the validity of the mathematical approach to understanding the physical world. Yet it took a very long time for that view to prevail."
Physics is the fundamental science, but it is mistreated in the Framework. First, it is lumped together with chemistry. If life science is treated as separate topic, then chemistry and physics should be separated and expanded. Life science content takes up about 20 pages, while physics and chemistry combined take up 24 pages. The choices made by the Framework’s committee show a bias--life science content is more important than chemistry or physics. The committee writers say that chemistry and physics have too much in common to be treated separately, but I can make the case that chemistry and life science have much in common, too. The framework committee tries to justify lumping science with engineering rather than with mathematics. The word “atom” is not used until grades 6-8. The idea that atoms are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons (atomic structure) is reserved for grades 9-12. This makes no sense.
The committee justifies its decisions on content by saying that the document is broad-based and for all students. It uses very general statements. It is merely a structure to composed standards. In my view, the framework falls woefully short because it leaves out important ideas in both chemistry and physics, such as relativity and quantum theory. The Framework asks students to pretend to be scientists (or engineers) by stressing science and engineering practices. In short, the Next Generation standards are not about learning and applying core content.
The new science framework from the National Research Council (Framework for K-12 Science Education) has never been tested. Ironically, experimental testability is a fundamental principle in science. Yet, educators are asked to accept the framework “on authority,” something Galileo Galilei argued against. The framework is a guide for states and schools to write new science standards. The new science framework, oddly enough, was written by the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education and its committee, which is made up of mostly educators, not real scientists. How good is the framework? Don’t ask. (I think I hear the late Richard Feynman grumbling, “If it disagrees with experiment, then it is wrong.”) Accepting something on authority puts us back to the days before Galileo.
The science framework lacks sufficient chemistry and physics content and depth and states unclear goals; e.g., "all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science." The framework writers “anticipate” that all students will be able to “to engage in public discussions on science-related issues, to be critical consumers of scientific information related to their everyday lives, and to continue to learn about science throughout their lives.” (You must be joking!) The writers write, “We hope that a science education based on the Framework will motivate and inspire a greater number of people [to go into the science fields]” and its allied subjects, such as psychology, computer science, and economics.” (Psychology and economics are not true sciences.) Let me point out that these well-intended expectations are assumptions and assumptions are just that. There is absolutely no evidence that the Framework's new vision will produce better science standards or better science students. But, this is the committee’s “hope,” which is code for "no supportive evidence."
Moreover, the Framework committee says that students should continue to take honors and AP courses in the sciences. Why? Apparently, the standards based on the Framework have serious flaws. In fact, it is likely that the Next Generation standards will not prepare students for traditional honors or AP courses. Actually, many AP courses are below the college-level. For STEM students, I recommend that high schools establish traditional chemistry and algebra-based physics courses and use college-level textbooks to make up for the flaws and deficiencies in the new science standards. There should also establish a strong pre-college science and math sequence in middle school. Kids must know content and be able to apply it.
The college educated citizen, much less the average citizen, does not have the expertise needed to understand many of the scientific issues or studies that arise. This will not change. Often, I have trouble comprehending some of the more complex articles in Scientific American or parts of M-theory (The Grand Design, Hawking, Mlodinow). What is troublesome is that the design teams (content experts in the sciences) were excluded from the committee’s final decisions. The Framework document states (p. 17), “No members of the design teams participated in the discussions during which the committee reached consensus on the content of the final draft.” This alone makes the framework suspect.
Ze’ve Wurman writes, “I noticed something odd. The Framework does not expect students to use any kind of analytical mathematics while studying science.” In short, kids do not use mathematics to solve science problems. Wurman notes, “There is nothing about actually being able to model a system by equations, or solve it using mathematical techniques.” Wurman searched for words like algebra in the 280 pages of “lofty prose.” Nothing, well almost. Wurman did find reference to one equation, which starts as a word equation (distance traveled = velocity multiplied by time elapsed) and is then symbolized as s = vt. I am not sure students understand what velocity means in science, because students are seldom taught vectors and do not learn how to “resolve” the components of a vector to solve physics problems.
Wurman points out, “Only statistics and computer applications (e.g., simulations, spreadsheets) seem to have a place in this strange document.” Wurman concludes, "The document simply teaches students science appreciation, rather than science.”
This post first appeared on April 7, 2012. I have changed a few sentences and added additional parts. Some parts have been edited on 6-26-15 and additions made on 7-18-15.
Comments: ThinkAlgebra@cox.net
End
Draft 1
Last Update: 6-17-15, 6-24-15, 6-26-15, 7-18-15
© 2012, 2015 LT/ThinkAlgebra.org
