Better in their words…

If our national objective of K-12 education is to produce Critically Thinking graduates (soundly rooted in the 3Rs), then the subject of Science is arguably the most important to get right. Currently, that is not happening.

Faithful readers have undoubtedly observed that I have repeatedly warned about the serious deficiencies of the K-12 Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), plus its accompanying partner in crime, A Framework for K-12 Science Education. (For prior commentaries, please search “NGSS” in my Archives.)

I can also understand that some readers may well believe that I am a lone voice in the wilderness regarding the NGSS — after all, 49 State Departments of Education (each staffed by numerous educational PhDs) have adopted all of or most of the NGSS/Framework package. Certainly, they know more about K-12 Science education curricula than I do, right?

Further, the major US conservative organizations focused on education (e.g., Heritage, AEI, etc.) have nary said a peep about the NGSS/Frameworkcombo. The obvious conclusion is that they don’t think this issue is even worth discussing, much less thoroughly investigating it. Again, it is logical to conclude that I am an outlier, right?

Please consider these realities —

Fact 1: I have written the most comprehensive Report about the NGSS/Framework suite in the country, bar none.

Fact 2: There have been numerous other qualified people who have publicly criticized the NGSS/Framework ensemble. (See below for a list I put together. They are in chronological order, with the oldest listed first.)

Fact 3: Of particular importance is the Fordham Institute’s 2013 assessment of every State’s K-12 Science Standards, plus the NGSS. It clearly concludes that twenty (20) States had better K-12 Science standards than the NGSS!

Fact 4: This litany of complaints has resulted in zero meaningful changes in the NGSS/Framework package, since it was released in 2013.

Fact 5: At this time, there is only one serious competitor to the NGSS/ Framework combination: The Franklin Standards (2024). My position is that although The Franklin Standards are not perfect, they are far superior to the NGSS/Framework amalgamation. [Note 1: The same quality people who wrote this also recently published K-12 Math Standards. Note 2: Hillsdale College has some good non-Science K-12 curricula offerings.]

Fact 6: Despite a) this very broad list of major NGSS objections, b) the fact that 20 States already had Science standards better than the NGSS, and c) there now is a superior option (Franklin), not a single State has retracted their NGSS/Framework endorsement! (This is further unequivocal evidence that the States are — by far — the main K-12 education problem.)

A Sample of Other Objections to the NGSS/Framework —

Some overview Studies and Reports re the NGSS/Framework:

— Report: In 2013, the independent Fordham Institute analyzed and rated the K-12 Science standards of every State, as well as the NGSS. Takeaway: the NGSS was only given a “C” rating — worse than twenty States!

— Book: Challenging Science Standards — A Skeptical Critique of the Quest for Unity. Charles Ault (2015)

— Report: Climbing Down — How the Next Generation Science Standards Diminish Scientific Literacy. (2021) [See accompanying video discussion.]

— Report: Science Betrayed — The propaganda infecting K–12 science curricula, especially on the environment, won’t go away. (2021)*

— Presentation: First, Do No Harm. (2021)

…..

The NGSS/Framework Is Advancing a Progressive Political Agenda:

— Citizens for Objective Public Education takes an official position and Recommends Against the NGSS Science Standards (2013)**

— Heather Mac Donald states that these “standards are troubling in their embrace of the nostrums of progressive pedagogy.” (2013)

— States Respond to NGSS Science Standards (2013)

— If you’re troubled by Common Core, check out the controversial NGSS(2013)

— Common Core and K-12 Science Education — Could This be a Start to Climate Youth? (2014)

— Wyoming Continues Battle Over Science Standards (2014)

— Keep an eye on high school climate modeling (2017)

— Environmental indoctrination in our schools (2019)

— Climate Alarmism Posing as Science Education for Children (2022)

— 7th Grade Science Should Not Include Climate Indoctrination (2022)

…..

The NGSS/Framework and Religion:

— NGSS embraces materialism and the religion of Secular Humanism(2013)

— Atheism, Darwinism, and Environmentalism in a Lab Coat: Next Generation Science Standards Coming to YOUR State Soon! (2013)

— Kansas Families Sue to Stop NGSS (on religious grounds) (2013)

— Atheism is the only religion tolerated by NGSS: Part 1 and Part 2(2015)***

— Report: Dangers of the Next Generation Science Standards. (2023)

…..

Some Misc NGSS/Framework Objections:

— Some Problems with the new Framework for K-12 Science Education(2011)****

— Five Criticisms of the Framework for K-12 Science Education (2011)

— Exiting the National Standards Bandwagon (2012)

— Boxed In: How the NGSS Impedes Science Teaching (2013)

— Disappointing Science Standards (2013)

— Kentucky Governor Overrides Legislature on NGSS (2013)

— How best to integrate content and practices in science (2013)

— NGSS is Science Education Plague (2015)

— Common Core’s Next Generation Science Standards! Where’s the Debate? (2017)

— Revising the NGSS (2022)

— NGSS Chemistry = Bad (2024)

…..

Some selected comments from the material referenced above —

* “It is a sad irony that the teaching of Science in American schools is so unscientific. In a more rational world, children would learn about nature and a mode of inquiry—the Scientific Method—that would awaken them to the awe, fascination, and surprise that the universe should inspire. Instead, the chronic problems afflicting K–12 education and the growing politicization of science have pushed us ever further from that ideal.”

** “The Framework and NGSS 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 objectively. For example, NGSS focuses on the negative effects of human interactions with the environment, while downplaying activities that 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 NGSScoverage of the issue lacks the needed balance. The promotion of particular political opinions and positions should not play a role in science education.”

*** “You won’t find a statement in the NGSS materials that denies the existence of God or the supernatural. Instead, the standards use a variety of techniques to convince students to believe that all events in nature, past and present, have been caused by natural processes. Since teleology (purposeful design) and God are never mentioned, students are led to believe that these concepts are unnecessary or irrelevant when reconstructing the history of the earth.”

**** “There is little criticism of the new Framework because it is not in the best interests of many Science educators to upset or question such a prestigious group selected by one of the most significant science organizations, the National Academy of Science. There is little criticism because if you are a science education researcher, it might have negative effects on future funding possibilities from government and non-government sources. If you are a Science teacher, the culture of schools today does not support questioning of standards reform, or anything remotely connected to the Common Core State Standards movement.”

Takeaway —

It should be very clear from the above that I am NOT the only person objecting to the NGSS/Framework bundle.

The NGSS/Framework set is horrifically bad. To boil it down to four reasons:

1 — It is unscientific. (For example, without adequate explanation or legitimate reasons, it dumped the traditional Scientific Method!)

2 – It is purposefully training students to be conformists, which is the direct opposite of being a Critical Thinker!

3 – It is undermining Judeo-Christian standards by advocating atheism.

4 – It is infusing Science with Woke ideology (e.g., there is a twenty-page Framework chapter on Equity).

It is irresponsible for ANY State to be endorsing this material.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Leave a comment

Share

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about 1-2 times a week).