ScienceFreedom.org

Utah Science 32% NGSS or 95% NGSS

In testimony before the Utah State Board of Education Board Members on the 11^th of December 2016, the day that the Board voted to pass the Utah “Science Engineering Education” standards (SEEd) for grades 6-8, Vice Chair Dave Thomas claimed that only 32% of the proposed standards under consideration were based on the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), yet the evidence speaks to the contrary. If you are only counting a word-for-word match on a standard for NGSS performance standards, then you can only come up with a 17% match. Even that number allows for a few word adjustments. We all know a word-for-word match is not required to be functional, practical match for a performance standard.

We measured the conformity to the NGSS: One new standard was written (6.3.4). Two standards originating from the previous Utah Standards were added (7.2.4 & 8.1.2). Some existing NGSS standards went through a thesaurus translation but generally without change in character. Some NGSS standards remain word-for-word. Six standards were formed by combining two or more of the previous NGSS standards. Most of the previously duplicated standards were removed. Only one NGSS standard (MS-LS1-8)¹ is not represented. All of the concepts from the rest can be found in the Utah “SEEd” for grades 6-8. The October draft for science standards is comprised of 59 standards. The balance of the proposal is then composed of 95% NGSS content. You can view the work that shows the arrival to this conclusion here “Summary of Performance Standard Changes from the April NGSS Word-for-Word Draft”²

I contacted Vice Chair Dave Thomas several time about this discontinuity from fact and asked him to show his work that lead him to the 32% conclusion. I have not heard a word back from Dave Thomas to this point (7 Sept 2016).

It is very concerning that Dave Thomas made this false claim, as it is likely that it had an impact on the Board Members Votes. This 32% statement was even contradicted by Official USOE communications. They said that "most SEEd standards remain based on the Next Generation Science Standards." This quote is directly from the materials presented to Board members from the USOE as they introduced the October draft³. I don't know anyone who would say that 32% equates to MOST of the standards.

USOE has release several documents related to the implementation of the “Utah” “SEEd” standards. The First “Science and Engineering Education (SEEd) Standards Frequently Asked Questions”⁴ references almost exclusively NGSS or NGSS aligned resources. More damaging to the 32% claim though is the second document, “Current Standards and SEEd Alignment.”⁵ You will find in the “Current Standards and SEEd Alignment” document that the USOE has shown that every single “SEEd” performance standard has an alignment with the NGSS save only three, which are the same three that we pointed out above. To look at from the other prospective, Every NGSS concept for grades 6-8 are found in the Utah “SEEd” except one (MS-LS1-8)⁶. Again, how does that square with that 32% figure? Moreover the absent standard (MS-LS1-8) always seemed out of place when comparing the other topics included in NGSS grades 6-8. It looks like this omission is more a statement on what the future revision of NGSS will be like than any divergence from NGSS concepts.

Some would ask “Why does it matter anyway?” Considering what was passed is 95% NGSS material the all of the concerns with the NGSS still remain. See “Letter to Utah State Board of Education - October 2015 SEEd Standards”⁷ and “Issues With Next Generation Science Standards Proposed for Adoption in Utah and the Adoption Process”⁸. Furthermore, Even if the “SEEd” standards were very benign in how they are written yet "most SEEd standards remain based on the Next Generation Science Standards,"⁹ not to mention the 95% that can be demonstrated, then science teachers will feel that any NGSS aligned materials will be suitable for Utah science classrooms. “And what is wrong with that?” some have asked. This danger is well demonstrated by the article “USOE Recommends Atheist Lesson Plan”¹⁰

I have a very deep concern that these standards were passed on false pretenses and shoddy research. The “State Science Education Coordinating Committee” and USOE has run roughshod over the process. The Board of Education has simply become a rubber stamp of the “State Science Education Coordinating Committee” and the USOE once a bit of sleight of hand has been employed.

Where is the accountability? How is this process going to be cleaned up? We think that the parents in the State of Utah would really like to know!