What? NGSS is Common Core Science???
Some have criticized others for saying things like “NGSS is the Common Core Science” or “NGSS is the science component to Common Core.” True, NGSS was not a packaged component of the Common Core; however, let's examine the commonalities of NGSS and CCSS:
NGSS and CCSS are National Standards.
NGSS and the CCSS were produce by some of the same players (particularly Achieve, a collection of states which gave some feedback to each of the processes: see http://www.achieve.org/achieving-common-core http://www.achieve.org/next-generation-science-standards , and http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/04/17/28science_ep-2.h32.html).
NGSS and CCSS creation and/or implementation was funded by some of the same people. (NGSS http://nextgenscience.org/sponsors // CCSS GE Foundation http://www.achieve.org/ge-foundation / Noyce Foundation http://www.mathedleadership.org/ccss/collaborations.html
Dupont http://achievethecore.org/common-core-intro-for-parents) and Who are the Power Brokers behind the Common Core State Standards?http://drrichswier.com/2014/01/06/who-are-the-power-brokers-behind-the-common-core-state-standards/)
NGSS Copyright is held by Achieve, one of the key architects of CCSS – see NGSS (http://nextgenscience.org/trademark-and-copyright-guidelines##1.0).
NGSS was designed to integrate with CCSS and references concepts in CCSS by the CCSS index. (Example http://nextgenscience.org/ms-ets1-3-engineering-design )
They both are intended to be used unaltered. ( http://nextgenscience.org/frequently-asked-questions#4.2 http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently-asked-questions/
They each recommend the other. (http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently-asked-questions/#faq-2314 http://nextgenscience.org/frequently-asked-questions#CCSS%20Literacy
Yes NGSS involved other content experts and used other resource material but this would be expected even if NGSS was packaged with CCSS. Further, on the NGSS website, under Frequently Asked Questions, one question states “Will the new standards be the Common Core State Standards for Science?” In the answer, they indicate that the creators made every effort to fulfill that function. Directly after that statement under the question “How will states use these standards documents?” the answer reads: “To reap the benefits of the science standards, states should adopt them in whole without alteration. States can use the NGSS, as they are using the CCSS in English language arts and mathematics, to align curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional preparation and development.” From statements made by the creators of both of these standards NGSS is the designated science complement to the CCSS.
We have on record multiple USOE officials making statements like this one from Sydnee Dickson:
"Our board has been very clear, that if national standards are developed, or even a consortium of states come together that we will not adopt those because there are just too many philosophical variances within those, and so, they've just been really clear, up front, that we're not going there,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQGN31POb_Y
And now we find under our noses the Common Core (CCSS) complement for science – a national standard proposed for adoption in Utah, created by much of the same players as CCSS and pushed by USOE and even Sydnee Dickson herself. Further, there is ample evidence that USOE tried to cast this as a Utah grown standard. Even as late as the last public hearing in SLC on science standards, you can watch Diana Suddreth parrot the tired line “the standards ... have been developed over a process of about 3 years in conjunction with primarily Utah science educators but with input from others along the way,” and yet we find that “the standards” are a word-for-word copy of the NGSS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izVPsNYB6PU#t=3m56s Our current science standards do need an overhaul, but they come with a lot less social engineering, dogmatic philosophy, and political baggage. Let's build from the Utah foundation that we have. Thanks, Vincent Newmeyer