Jennifer Anderson

Comm 1270
Prof. Pierce
Dec. 3, 2015
Personal Position Paper
It has recently come to my attention that Utah is looking into adopting
new science core standards into our educational curriculum. So, naturally
being the kind of mom that supports beneficial education improvements and
learning, I looked into it. And it left me feeling extremely uncomfortable
with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) expectations.

Utah Test Scores vs. Graduation Rates

81
75
70
68

2010

82
76
70
69

2011

83.9
78
73
61.9

2012

84
81
73

83

78

44.2

46.8
42.2
39.2

44.6
44.1

2013

2014

2015

Graduation

English

Math

Science

We have spent

years now and many thousands of taxpayer and donor dollars trying to fix
Americas education problem without much success. Who better to assess
and suggest improvements to our educational standards than the
professionals themselves right? The problem with adopting these standards,
that I hope the Utah Board of Education already realizes, is that many of the
forms of regulation that become nationalized leave little room for
adaptation, imagination and overall improvement by the communities that
are expected to implement them.

The Utah State Office of Education reports that our current graduation
rate is at 78%. (USOE) Just this past year the legislature has made
performance based pay to improve teaching standards. Sage testing
replaced Criterion Reference Tests starting in 2014 to better assess our
students educational gains in a national context. Not only does this reaffirm
how fast our world is changing but it is putting an enormous amount of stress
on many different aspects of our lives.
The effects of all these changes are already being seen in our test
scores and in relation to our graduation rates. The new standards will only
contribute to the problem that we are already experiencing with testing
criteria. Utah just started the Sage exam. If the Board of Education expects
to adopt these new standards, you must also be expecting to adjust the Sage
testing (again) to include information from the NGSS standards.
Another area that is questionable with this program is that is has no
checks and balances. The only people responsible for the changes in the
vision are either the people who created the system, or the states
themselves. The program itself even suggests that the standards are only to
guide teaching and learning in science for the next decade (NGSS) as they
are adapted to current curriculum. If our education system is capable of
keeping up with scientific advances and information, then The Board of
Education need only use these standards to update what is already in place.
In the book, Argumentation and Critical Decision Making, authors,
Rieke, Sillars and Peterson explain that science exists in an atmosphere of

the free exchange of ideas to withhold information inhibits scientific

progress. (Rieke, et.al.) Testing in itself is only a means only to ensure the
accuracy of information retention but The Board of Education must also be
able to question the fluidity of these standards.
If the Board is to exchange one set of standards for another there will
be no returning to the old standards. We have an obligation to ensure that
the decisions we are making now are the most beneficial to overcoming
potential future challenges, competition and growth in our education system.
I have not been able to find any discussions on the repercussions or
alternatives to adopting the standards and that makes me suspicious of the
reasoning for adopting the NGS standards. It just looks too much like were
walking into a tornado blind.
When you regulate standards you are really telling people what they
can no longer do. Teachers must be re-trained, money must be invested and
more time will be lost in furthering standard expectations. We already tried
this method of adopting national programs such as, No Child Left Behind and
Common Core, in an effort that has had little effect improving the success of
our education system. Adopting one more national program without
validating its efficacy would be superfluous of this educational board.
I believe that the main reason this Board is considering the NGSS is
because it is the most cost effective way to improve current state standards
and raise student learning expectations. Utahs amazing education system
manages to work with the lowest amount of educational spending in the U.S.

(Wood) while still providing a remarkable educational experience for our

students. That takes some major ingenuity if you ask me.
Our education system already teaches our children to dream about
their future as they apply themselves in other core subjects. They want a job
that is multi-dimensional, competitive and challenging. Yet, they also want
security in knowing that what they are learning now they will still be able to
use when they graduate or go to apply for a job. I am not against the
training, I think it will be good for the teachers of our future, I just ask that
you balance the expectations and training with the regulations and
standards.
There was a beginning course I took in college where the professor had
to adjust his teaching material to the students because he found that the
majority of them were already proficient in the course material. He openly
questioned why the majority of the students had even taken the class. The
resounding answer was because it was required.
Regulation has become a canon in education whose only motivation is
not only to solve the problem but to dominate the outcome. If all we teach
our children is to do what is required we cant expect innovation to flourish
because we never have the chance to dream of something better.
It reminds me of an unattributed saying that states, History is written
by the victors and the people who are willing to collaborate to improve on a
single good idea. Edison didnt just purchase patents so that he could

reproduce them, he wanted to make it better. Dont we have the same if not
more important obligations to advancement?
This Board should not adopt the national scientific standards because I
know you still believe in progress. By choosing to adopt the NGS standards
you must realize how they become nationalized regulations that leave little
room for adaptation, imagination and overall improvement by the
communities that are expected to implement them. This decision needs to
be developed more. Its applications need clarified and its contributions
enhanced before it is adopted.
Give our kids an education they can be proud of, vote NO to adopt the
Next Generation Science Standards.

Citations
USOE. Data Reports- Assessment. State of Utah Office of Education.
Copyright 2010. Accessed Dec. 3, 2015 at
http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/Reports/Assessment.aspx
NGSS. (2009) Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve, Inc. Web.
Accessed Dec. 3, 2015 at http://www.nextgenscience.org
Reike, Richard D., Sillars, Malcolm O., & Peterson, Tarla Rai. (2013)
Argumentation and Critical Decision Making: 8th edition. Pearson Higher
Education. Print. Accessed Dec. 3, 2015
Wood, Benjamin. (2015) Were No. 51: Utah Last Again For Per-Student
Spending. Salt Lake Tribune. Web. Accessed on Dec. 3, 2015 at
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2579711-155/were-no-51-utah-last-again