the fifteen-year period between the publication of both science standards documents and the CCSS, “major advances in science” warranted adjustments to K–12 science instruction. Aside from the demand for an up-to-date curriculum, new science standards were needed for at least four additional reasons.
1. Reduced economic competitiveness of the U.S., including decreases in U.S. patent applications and technology exports (National Science Board, 2012)
2. Comparatively low or average performance of U.S. students on international reading, science, and mathematics assessments (Fleischman, Hopstock, Pelczar, & Shelley, 2010) and in terms of high school graduation rates (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012)
3. Low academic achievement of U.S. students in science (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012)
4. Low rates of scientific and technological literacy among U.S. adults (Miller, 2010)
The NRC (2012) added to the call for updated science standards, noting that “understanding science and engineering, now more than ever, is essential for every American citizen” (p. 7). As evidence, the organization pointed to “everyday decisions” (2012, p. 7) such as interpreting water policy or choosing between medical treatments—relatively common decisions for many Americans. According to the NRC, K–12 science education in the U.S. had failed to prepare Americans for these situations.
These concerns, among others, incited widespread re-evaluation of the way the U.S. approaches science education. Ultimately, these doubts spurred an effort to develop a new, common set of science standards—“the first broad national recommendations for science instruction since 1996” (Gillis, 2013). This broad initiative was named the Next Generation Science Standards* (NGSS Lead States, 2013).
The Next Generation Science Standards Initiative
The three-year process of forging the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) began with the partnership of four prominent organizations in the fields of education and science.
1. The National Research Council (NRC), a nonprofit organization that produced the National Science Education Standards (NSES) in 1996
2. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a nonprofit organization that produced the Benchmarks for Science Literacy in 1993
3. Achieve, a nonprofit education reform organization that partnered with the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA & CCSSO; 2010a, 2010b) to produce the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2010
4. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), an organization of science teachers, science supervisors, administrators, scientists, and business and industry representatives dedicated to improving science education in the U.S.
These four partner organizations collaborated at various stages of the development process to create the NGSS. Table 1.1 depicts an overview of this process.
Table 1.1: Development Process of the Next Generation Science Standards
| Development Stage | Time Period | Development Steps |
| Conceptualization | 2009–2012 | • The NRC, AAAS, Achieve, and NSTA teamed up to develop the NGSS. • Achieve (2010) published its International Science Benchmarking Report. • The NRC (2012) published A Framework for K–12 Science Education after multiple rounds of revision. |
| Writing | 2012–2013 | • Using the NRC (2012) framework as a guide, Achieve managed twenty-six lead states and forty-one writers and reviewers as they drafted the NGSS. • Achieve released two public drafts of the NGSS (one in May 2012 and one in January 2013) for web-based review and feedback. • The AAAS, the NSTA, state leaders, K–12 teachers, professors, and scientists reviewed the NGSS draft and offered feedback. • The NRC conducted an independent review of the NGSS to ensure alignment to its framework. • Achieve published the final version of the NGSS in April 2013. |
Source: Adapted from Henderson, 2013.
* “Next Generation Science Standards” is a registered trademark of Achieve. Neither Achieve nor the lead states and partners that developed the Next Generation Science Standards were involved in the production of, and do not endorse, this product.
As shown in table 1.1, the formation of the NGSS proceeded in two main phases: (1) conceptualization and (2) writing. Here, we briefly describe each phase.
Conceptualization of the NGSS
Unlike the CCSS, which were conceived, drafted, and published in a period of about one year, initial writing of the NGSS did not begin until 2011, two years after the project’s inception. Instead, the process of creating the NGSS began with an extensive foundational period of research and theorizing that occurred in two stages: (1) international benchmarking and (2) creation of the NRC framework.
International Benchmarking
Achieve (2010) took the first step in developing the NGSS by using an analytical method called benchmarking. In business, benchmarking is the practice of comparing a company’s procedures and expectations to those of highly successful companies or to a set of industrywide best practices. This allows a business to identify which areas need attention in order to improve overall performance. Educational benchmarking applies this same principle to a classroom, school, or district. For example, throughout a school year, a district might conduct benchmark assessments to help teachers monitor student progress or modify their instruction. A district or an individual school could also perform benchmark analyses of high-performing schools to identify areas it can improve within its own system.
Achieve’s (2010) process of international benchmarking involved reviewing and evaluating science standards from other countries around the world. The overall goal of the international benchmarking study, according to Achieve (2010), was to “inform the development” (p. 3) of the NGSS. Achieve (n.d.e) summarized the benefits of international benchmarking:
International benchmarking is important from a national perspective to ensure our long-term economic competitiveness. Many feel it is necessary for American students to be held to the same academic expectations as students in other countries. The successes of other nations can provide potential guidance for decision-making in the United States.
However, international benchmarking does not simply involve copying the standards of high-performing nations. Instead, Achieve (2010) recommended that results of its study be used as guidelines during the process of standards development, rather than strict rules that must be followed or replicated:
International benchmarking does not mean that the United States should simply emulate other countries’ standards. In recent years, the United States has made significant strides in advancing the research base that underpins science education and also has its own exemplars. It is also the case that there are shortcomings in all of the standards Achieve examined that are equally instructive for improving standards. (p. 9)
Achieve’s
