benchmarking study involved a quantitative and qualitative review of the science standards from specific countries with particularly strong performance on international assessments or of special interest to the United States (Achieve, n.d.e). The quantitative component included an analysis of the science content and skills in each nation’s standards, which yielded the four key findings shown in table 1.2 (page 6).
Table 1.2: Four Key Findings of Achieve’s Quantitative International Benchmarking Analysis
| Finding #1 | All countries required participation in integrated science instruction through the lower secondary level. Seven of ten countries continued that instruction through grade 10, providing a strong foundation in scientific literacy. |
| Finding #2 | Content standards in other countries focused most heavily on biology and physical sciences (physics and chemistry content taken together) and least heavily on Earth and space sciences. |
| Finding #3 | Other countries’ standards focused life science instruction strongly on human biology and relationships among living things in a way that highlighted the personal and social significance of life science for students. |
| Finding #4 | Crosscutting content common to all of the sciences (such as the nature of science, the nature of technology, and engineering) received considerable attention, as did the development of inquiry skills at the primary level and advanced inquiry skills at the lower secondary level. |
Source: Adapted from Achieve, 2010, pp. 2–3.
In the qualitative component of the study, Achieve (n.d.d) identified the following features of effective science standards:
• The use of an overarching conceptual framework
• Clarification statements to provide examples that clarify the level of rigor expected and connect concepts with applications
• Concrete links between standards and assessments
• Development of inquiry and design processes in parallel to facilitate students engaging in both science and engineering practices
Traces of all four of these features were observable in the final version of the NGSS. Nonetheless, the first element—use of an overarching conceptual framework—had perhaps the most direct influence on the development of the standards. It manifested as A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (NRC, 2012).
Creation of the NRC Framework
In January of 2010, the NRC convened a group of eighteen experts in science, engineering, cognitive science, teaching and learning, curriculum, assessment, and education policy. Together, the NRC committee set out to create a conceptual framework for science education, which the committee described as
a broad description of the content and sequence of learning expected of all students by the completion of high school—but not at the level of detail of grade-by-grade standards or, at the high school level, course descriptions and standards. (NRC, 2012, p. 8)
In other words, the committee did not draft actual standards. Rather, the NRC identified the most important aspects of a competitive science curriculum and articulated these elements across grades K–12 with the intention that the framework would guide the drafting of new science standards.
To begin the process of creating its framework, the NRC committee contracted four design teams—comprised primarily of professors and university faculty—to focus on four scientific disciplines: (1) physical sciences, (2) life sciences, (3) Earth and space sciences, and (4) engineering, technology, and the applications of science. Each design team reviewed the “relevant research on learning and teaching” (NRC, 2012, p. 17) in its respective scientific discipline. The design teams also considered content and skills articulated in previous science standards documents, such as the NRC’s (1996) NSES, the AAAS’s (1993, 2009) Benchmarks, the National Assessment Governing Board’s (2008) Science Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, and the College Board’s (2009) Standards for College Success in science. Using this research to inform their work, the design teams drafted sections of the framework, presented them to the NRC committee, and revised the drafts according to committee feedback.
This process continued until the summer of 2010, when the NRC posted the first draft of its framework online and invited the public to ask questions and offer comments. In addition to collecting online feedback from over two thousand people, the NSTA and the AAAS coordinated focus-group response sessions and solicited reactions from science and engineering organizations and experts across the country (NRC, 2012). Over the next several months, the NRC committee used this feedback to make “substantial revisions” (NRC, 2012, p. 18) to the document draft. One year later, in July of 2012, the NRC published the final version of A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.
Writing the NGSS
To begin the writing process, Achieve invited all fifty states to apply to become one of the NGSS lead states. In the end, the following twenty-six states joined together to draft the new science standards (Achieve, n.d.f).
1. Arizona
2. Arkansas
3. California
4. Delaware
5. Georgia
6. Illinois
7. Iowa
8. Kansas
9. Kentucky
10. Maine
11. Maryland
12. Massachusetts
13. Michigan
14. Minnesota
15. Montana
16. New Jersey
17. New York
18. North Carolina
19. Ohio
20. Oregon
21. Rhode Island
22. South Dakota
23. Tennessee
24. Vermont
25. Washington
26. West Virginia
Each state assembled a group of writers and reviewers from a variety of scientific, educational, and business communities to help draft the standards. The forty-one-member writing team included K–12 science teachers, experts in special education and English language acquisition, state standards and assessment developers, business and industry professionals, and workforce development specialists (Achieve, n.d.i). Though Achieve facilitated these individuals and the twenty-six lead states’ work, the
