Addressing Three Common Myths about the Next Generation Science Standards.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Although the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013) were released over two years ago, misconceptions about what they are and are not persist. The NGSS provide for consistent science education opportunities for all students regardless of demographics with a level of rigor expected in every location and community. All students can study and achieve in science. The NGSS are based upon the National Research Council's consensus report A Framework for K 12 Science Education (NRC 2012) The NGSS passed a fidelity review by the NRC in which reviewers analyzed the congruency of the standards with the vision and content of the Framework. As a New York science teacher active in local, state, and national discussions about sciene standards, and a member of the NGSS writing team, I have encountered common misconceptions about the NGSS in these discussions with fellow teachers. In this article, I address the misconceptions most relevant in the science classroom. Myth 1: Science in elementary school is already contained in the Common Core State Standards, English Language Arts The Common Core State Standards, English Language Arts (CCSS, ELA) (NGAC and CCSSO 2010) being used in many states do not replace meaningful science instruction that integrates three dimensional learning outlined in the Framework. The CCSS, ELA standards on technical literacy are not intended to supplant science learning as called for in the NGSS. And yet many teachers at the elementary level are being told by administrators that the science in the CCSS, ELA should be the extent of a student's science instruction. The major concern is that the explicit call to read about science in the CCSS, ELA may be implemented in a way that would limit the engagement of students with disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and science and engineering practices (NRC 2014) Students being taught using only the CCSS, ELA approach miss the opportunity to develop and use models, plan and carry out investigations, and engage in argument from evidence. They cannot come close to experiencing the vision for science and engineering education articulated in the Framework and NGSS. The shift should be from teaching about science to engaging students in science and engineering practices. In this vision, core ideas are used as evidence in scientific arguments and to support explanations. The focus moves from the memorization of content to the understanding and application of ideas. Being literate in science and engineering requires one to possess skills in reading, understanding, obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. But this is only one of the eight practices specified in the Framework and NGSS. The Framework points out that even if a student has developed grade appropriate reading skills, just reading about science is often challenging to students. Three reasons are: Science texts make extensive use of complex sentence structure and passive voice. They contain special words that are essentially unfamiliar. Often, these special words are ambiguous to students. Reading a science text is quite different from reading a novel or newspaper. The precise meaning of each word or clause may be important. Therefore, science texts must be read to extract information accurately. Science texts are multimodal, using a mix of words, graphs, diagrams, tables, and mathematics to communicate information. Understanding science requires more than simply knowing the meanings of technical terms (NRC 2012) Stage et al. (2013) assert that concurrent development in CCSS, ELA and CCSS, Mathematics has provided an opportunity to enhance literacy and math processes and proficiencies from a science education perspective. Goals for literacy, math, and science education may build students' capacity to engage in argument from evidence. The shift from doing more than just reading science texts should not be interpreted to mean that reading is not important in science.