<p class="AbstractSummary">Although the <em>Next Generation Science Standards</em> (<em>NGSS</em>) are not federally mandated national standards or performance expectations for K-12 schools in the United States, they stand poised to become a de facto national science and education policy, as state governments, publishers of curriculum materials, and assessment providers across the country consider adopting them. In order to facilitate national buy-in and adoptions, <em>Achieve, Inc</em>., the non-profit corporation awarded the contract for writing the <em>NGSS</em>, has repeatedly asserted the development of the Standards to be a state-driven and transparent process, in which the scientific content is taken "verbatim", from the 2011 NRC report, <em>Frameworks for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas</em>. This paper reports on an independently conducted fidelity check within the content domain of astronomy and the space sciences, conducted to determine the extent to which the <em>NGSS </em>science content is guided by the <em>Frameworks</em>, and the extent to which any changes have altered the scientific intent of that document. The side-by-side, two-document comparative analysis indicates that the science of the <em>NGSS</em> is significantly different from the <em>Frameworks</em>. Further, the alterations in the science represent a lack of fidelity, in that they have altered the parameters of the science and the instructional exposure (e.g., timing and emphasis). As a result the <em>NGSS</em> are now poised to interfere with widely desired science education reform and improvement. This unexpected finding affords scientists, educators, and professional societies with an opportunity, if not a professional obligation, to engage in positively impacting the quality of science education by conducting independent fidelity checks across other disciplines. This could provide a much needed formal support and guidance to schools, teachers, curriculum developers, and assessment providers.</p>
Did the Framework for K-12 Science Education trample itself? A reply to “Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards”
