The Fordham Institute strongly supports CC. In Fordham's own evaluation of the NGSS the new standards only receive 5 OUT OF 10 POSSIBLE POINTS, out of 10 possible points, numerous states had from 7 to 10 points. According to Fordham NGSS rank about mid-range when compared to the 50 states, and below the ACT, TIMSS, and NAEP frameworks.
So about half the states that adopt NGSS will be downgrading or at minimum not improving their state's own science standards. The publishing companies will profit immensely. President of Fordham Institute, Chester Finn, in reference to NGSS 7:00-8:00 "MY ORGINATION HAS RECENTLY EVALUATED THE NEWLY EMERGED SCIENCE STANDARDS AND WE DON'T THINK VERY HIGHLY OF THEM, WE WOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGING STATES TO ADOPT THEM."
NGSS starts in the earliest grades teaching evolution and man-made global warming as fact. The problem is not that these are taught, but that they are taught as fact with no opposing viewpoints taught. It is in an apparent attempt by the creators of CC to indoctrinate our youngest students into only one side of an issue.
Searching evolution at the NGSS website you get four pages of standards:
http://www.nextgenscience.org/search/node/evolution http://www.nextgenscience.org/search/node/evolution?page=1 http://www.nextgenscience.org/search/node/evolution?page=2
Searching natural selection at the NGSS website you get three pages of standards:
If you search global warming on the NGSS website you get one page with these standards:
http://www.nextgenscience.org/msess-wc-weather-climate http://www.nextgenscience.org/ms-ess3-5-earth-and-human-activity http://www.nextgenscience.org/ms-ess3-5-earth-and-human-activity
If you search intelligent design or creationism at NGSS website you get nothing.
One of the groups that oppose the new standards is COPE, Citizens for Objective Public Education. IN REFERENCE TO NGSS TEACHING OF EVOLUTION Robert Lattimer Ph.D writes:
"Our key concern is that the Framework and Standards address ultimate religious questions and then use a doctrine or 'Rule' that permits only materialistic or functionally atheistic answers. That is, NGSS requires a materialistic explanation for any phenomenon addressed by science. This is neither educationally objective nor religiously neutral. The religious questions children will be exposed to are: Where do we come from and what is the nature of life? The only answers provided by NGSS will be functionally atheistic. U.S. courts have ruled on numerous occasions that religion includes both theistic and non-theistic beliefs. In our view the promotion of a materialistic/atheistic worldview by public education is not consistent with First Amendment principles of religious neutrality. The Framework and Standards utilize a variety of devices to achieve this non-theistic religious effect. One is to begin to imbue the immature minds of impressionable children at the age of six in Kindergarten and to continue that program for 13 years. Another device is omission. The Standards fail to include material about legitimate scientific critiques of materialistic narratives of the origin of the universe, of life and its diversity. COPE is not interested in banning the teaching of evolution. Rather it seeks to have origins science taught objectively so that the effect is religiously neutral. Instead of promoting only a materialistic/functionally atheistic explanation about where we come from and the nature of life, science education should focus on teaching the actual state of our scientific knowledge regarding the subject."
IN REFERENCE TO NGSS TEACHING OF GLOBAL WARMING Robert Lattimer Ph.D writes:
"COPE’S analysis also shows that the Framework and Standards seek to imbue students with particular political views regarding climate change, sustainability, renewable energy, and other environmental matters. They fail to present these controversial issues objectivity. For example, NGSS focuses on the negative effects of human interactions with the environment, while downplaying activities which show responsible stewardship of the Earth. NGSS also promotes the view that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are a major contributor to global warming. This (like other aspects of climate change) is debatable, but NGSS coverage of the issue lacks the needed balance. The promotion of particular political opinions and positions should not play a role in science education."
My Thoughts: In the months and years to come, as people study NGSS other prominent originations and individuals will come out against the new science standards. If we are going to implement national standards they should be high caliber, not average. The NGSS are mediocre at best, they lack math, they are controversial, and expensive to implement. The main beneficiary of these new standards is the publishers. Why should states, districts, schools and teachers jump through these hoops, take time away from student learning, to implement standards that are no better, and in many cases worse than the standards they currently use?