Education Week - January 29, 2014 - 6

Common Science Standards Are Slow to Catch On in States
Preoccupation with implementing the common core is an oft-cited obstacle
By Liana Heitin
All 26 states that teamed up to
help develop the Next Generation
Science Standards committed to
seriously consider adopting them.
But nine months after the K-12
standards were finalized, only eight
of those "lead state partners" have
formally signed on, including California,
Kentucky, and Maryland.
(The District of Columbia also has
adopted them.)
The national pace of adoption
contrasts with that for the Common
Core State Standards, which
were approved in rapid succession
by most states in the months after
they were finalized. Proponents of
the new science standards, however,
emphasize that the speed of adoption
across the country is on par
with what they'd expected.
Some states say they're tied up
with implementation of the common-core
standards for mathematics
and English/language arts, and
are hesitant to effect more instructional
change anytime soon.
In other states, such as Minnesota
and Arizona, legislative restrictions
have slowed the adoption process.
How widespread the standards become
remains to be seen. The hope
of organizers from the outset was
that most states would ultimately
embrace the new science standards,
which emphasize science concepts
and processes and ask students to
apply their knowledge through scientific
experiments, investigations,
and engineering design.
"I think it will take a couple of
years-I always thought it would
take two to three years-but I'm
very optimistic the majority of
states will adopt," said David L.
Evans, the executive director of the
National Science Teachers Association,
which was a partner in developing
the standards.
Just last week the state board of
education in Illinois voted to approve
the standards, though a legislative
review is required before
adoption is official.
However, some non-lead states are
sending signals that adoption is unlikely.
For example, in South Carolina,
the legislature took formal steps last
summer to block adoption outright.
'Sucking Up' the Oxygen
One reason that formal action on
the science standards is happening
more slowly than with the common
core is the lack of federal incentives,
said Stephen L. Pruitt, a senior vice
president at Achieve, a Washingtonbased
research and advocacy group
that oversaw the science standards'
development. The federal Race to
the Top program favored states
that had adopted the common core
or other college- and career-ready
standards. There are no similar financial
incentives in place for the
science standards.
"We knew going into this that it
would be a much slower adoption
than the common core," Mr. Pruitt
said. "States have their hands full.
We applaud states for taking their
time and doing their due diligence."
Between writing curricula, providing
professional development, and
preparing for the impending assessments,
states-and especially teachers-do
have a lot on their plates.
Brian J. Reiser, a professor of
learning sciences at Northwestern
University in Evanston, Ill., said,
"I'm hearing from a lot of states,
'We want to make sure we have the
common core solid under our belts
and that our teachers are more comfortable
and further along and then
we'll jump into science.' "
Paul Cottle, a physics professor at
WA
OR
SD
MI
IA
OH
IL
CA ü
*
AZ
KS ü
*
AR
GA
WV
*TN
üKY
NC
NJ
MD
DE
*
ü
MT
MN
NY
VT
*
NH ME
ü
CT *
ü
MA
RI
*
*
ü
ü
DC ü
*
for the state education department,
said in an email that "due to the
review of the current English/language
arts and mathematics standards,
the review process for the science
standards has been delayed."
The state has also undergone a
leadership change: Tony Bennett
resigned as education commissioner
last summer after a school-grading
controversy from his tenure in Indiana
came to light. In addition, the
state board of education's vice chairman,
John Padget, said at a board
meeting in June that he wants to
strengthen Florida's standards, but
would not recommend replacing
cannot revise its standards again
until the 2017-18 school year, a state
official said.
Little Public Debate
Interestingly, there's been less pub-
lic back-and-forth so far about the
content of the science standards than
has been the case with the common
core, even given the hot-button political
issues-including the teaching of
climate change and evolution-embedded
in the standards.
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute,
a Washington-based think tank that
is a staunch advocate of the common
that with the common core, "the
backlash came much later. I wonder
if with the science standards it's the
same thing. The folks most likely to
be opposed to these things haven't
spoken up now, but perhaps they'll
speak up a few years from now," when
more states begin implementation.
But at least a few states have
waylaid adoption because of concerns
over the standards' content.
The South Carolina General Assembly
recently passed a proviso that
expressly prohibits adoption of the
Next Generation Science Standards.
Dino Teppara, a spokesman for the
education department, wrote in an
email, "As the current S.C. science
standards received an A- from the
Fordham Foundation and are held
up as a national model, many members
of the General Assembly were
concerned about adopting standards
that were not up to the same level."
Ms. Hrabluk of the Arizona edu-
cation department explained that,
in response to teachers' feedback,
her state is working to break up the
standards, which are grouped by
grades 6-8 and 9-12, into the specific
objectives that will be taught
at individual grade levels. In terms
of adoption, she said, "the most accelerated
timeline would be 201415,
but we don't have a definitive
timeline yet."
The science standards will also
require the development of new
assessment tools. The National
Research Council released a report
in December laying out a vision
for the science assessments, which
Ms. Hrabluk said was later than
expected and has pushed back the
timeline for building the tests.
n"Lead state partners" in developing the
Next Generation Science Standards
* States that have adopted the standards
SOURCES: Achieve; Education Week
ü
WHERE STATES STAND
The Next Generation Science
Standards were issued in April.
Since then, eight states and
the District of Columbia have
adopted them.
Florida State University in Tallahassee,
put it more bluntly in an email:
"Common core seems to be sucking
up all of the educational oxygen."
Even those states that have adopted
are moving slowly with implementation.

Matt D. Krehbiel, a science education
consultant for the education department
in Kansas, where the standards
were approved in June, said
the transition to the new standards
will take three to four years, and even
then will be an ongoing process.
"We're really encouraging districts
to take their time," he said. Among
other states that have adopted, he
added, "If there's a general theme, it's
that folks are really encouraging a
slow approach."
Though not a lead state, Florida
submitted comments on early drafts
of the standards and was expected
to seriously consider adoption. However,
Cheryl Etters, a spokeswoman
6 | EDUCATION WEEK | January 29, 2014 | www.edweek.org
them with the Next Generation Science
Standards.
In Pennsylvania, another non-lead
state, a spokesman for the state department
of education said there
were no plans to adopt the standards.
Kathy Hrabluk, an associate superintendent
in the Arizona Department
of Education, said schools and
districts are "now very focused in
Arizona on implementation of the
college- and career-ready standards.
... We're very conscious about making
sure we don't completely overwhelm
educators."
For some states, specific legislative
or regulatory processes are holding
up action on the new standards.
In Tennessee, which was a lead
state, the science standards are not
up for revision for another year. North
Carolina's current science standards
have only been in place for one year,
said Beverly Vance, the section chief
for science and curriculum instruction
at the state education department.
"We will not be adopting [the Next
Generation Science Standards] in the
near future-definitely not for the
2014-15 school year," she said.
Minnesota is in the unusual position
of having a formal state statute
that governs the standards adoption
schedule. Based on that, the state
core, has been a leading critic of the
science standards. But as the group's
executive vice president, Michael J.
Petrilli explains, its opposition is
based mainly on a belief that the
standards overemphasize behaviors
and give short shrift to science content
knowledge.
"There's not enough focus on con-
tent. ... The standards seem to go out
of their way to downplay the knowledge,"
he said.
Last June, the group issued a re-
port giving the science standards a
C grade. The report concluded that
the standards in 12 states and the
District of Columbia are "clearly superior."

But Mr. Reiser of Northwestern re-
futes Fordham's characterization of
the standards. The new science standards
require "a greater attention to
the content based on what decades
of research says about the best way
to help kids understand ideas," he
said. "No one that understands the
Next Generation Science Standards
would say the point is to emphasize
practice and not content."
Regarding the lack of resistance
to the science standards, Mr. Petrilli
said, "It's surprising how little noise
there's been."
At the same time, Mr. Petrilli said
Professional Development
Despite the holdups and naysayers,
proponents of the science standards
are confident they'll see widespread
adoption down the road.
Mr. Evans from the National Sci-
ence Teachers Association said he's
optimistic, and sees great enthusiasm
for the standards among educators.
"Science teachers everywhere are
really connecting with the Next Generation
Science Standards-they're
looking at the new standards and
looking at the research behind them
and changing the way they teach,"
he said.
Mr. Reiser said he has been providing
professional development on the
science standards for teachers already,
including in states such as Illinois
that have not yet adopted them.
Even Mr. Petrilli anticipates the
adoption numbers will rise substantially.

"If conservatives don't get orga-
nized, I think we're going to see these
standards in half the states, including
in states that would have been
better off sticking with their standards,"
he said.
Coverage of informal and school-based
science education, human-capital
management, and multiple-pathwayslinked
learning is supported by a grant
from the Noyce Foundation, at www.
noycefdn.org. Education Week retains
sole editorial control over the content
of this coverage.
http://www.noycefdn.org http://www.noycefdn.org http://www.edweek.org
Education Week - January 29, 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - January 29, 2014
