The debate surrounding the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) has intensified as many believe it diverges from the classical scientific method. Critics, like physicist John Droz, argue that this shift has negative consequences for academic integrity and student learning. Droz highlights that the classical scientific method is being phased out in favor of more subjective and culturally inclusive approaches that risk diluting core scientific principles.
Droz, who retired early to focus on educational reform, emphasizes the gravity of this shift. In an interview, he stated, “What we’ve effectively done is handed over a curriculum to the people on the left… Twelve thousand hours is about the amount of time a kid spends in school.” He illustrates a worrying trend where students are not just missing out on rigorous academics but are also being shaped by a leftist ideology that permeates various subjects, including mathematics and sciences, which he views as particularly troubling.
“This is not just about science; it’s about the ideology that is being fed to students,” Droz explained. He portrays the current state of education as a battleground where traditional values clash with new, progressive ideas. The NGSS, in his view, embraces a framework that favors personal experiences over empirically verified scientific methods, a significant departure from the tried-and-true linear steps of the scientific method established for nearly 500 years.
Proponents of the NGSS defend the standards as a means to engage students from diverse backgrounds. They argue that these new guidelines offer a more inclusive educational experience by relating scientific principles to students’ observations and cultural contexts. However, critics like Droz see this approach as a form of indoctrination that alienates students from objective reasoning.
The materials supporting NGSS, including a pivotal 2012 framework document, highlight ideas such as “Three-Dimensional Learning.” Critics argue, however, that despite claims of inclusivity, the method lacks a demonstrated capacity for fostering significant advancements or innovations. Droz pointed out, “I was unable to identify a specific invention or innovation developed using NGSS as a methodological framework. No satellite has ever been launched based on inclusion.” This raises fundamental questions about the efficacy of the new standards in promoting genuine scientific inquiry.
Examining the evaluation by the Fordham Institute sheds light on broader concerns about NGSS. Rated a C and positioned 23rd among standards in the U.S., the Fordham report criticized NGSS for emphasizing student practices at the expense of foundational knowledge. The disconnect between knowing science and doing science is a core issue that needs addressing. With 20 states opting to adopt the NGSS despite higher-rated alternatives, concerns grow about the direction of K-12 education.
In a broader context, Droz warns of the long-term ramifications of these educational practices. He asserts that students are graduating not just lacking critical thinking skills but also imbued with a progressive ideology. He states, “If we’re adding 3 million Marxist, non-thinking Marxist voters to the voting rolls every year, what are the implications of that to America?” This sentiment underscores the urgency placed on educational reform, emphasizing that the influence of educational systems on political ideologies can shape future generations’ perspectives.
Ultimately, Droz’s analysis paints a stark picture of the current educational landscape, arguing that without critical intervention, students may emerge from K-12 institutions not equipped to engage thoughtfully with the world around them. His call for action resonates deeply among those concerned about the educational direction of the nation. “The schools are the real problem,” he concludes, emphasizing the need to refocus efforts on the foundational integrity of education in America.
"*" indicates required fields
