{"id":1680,"date":"2012-07-19T08:53:08","date_gmt":"2012-07-19T12:53:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/coreeducationllc.com\/blog2\/?p=1680"},"modified":"2012-07-19T08:53:08","modified_gmt":"2012-07-19T12:53:08","slug":"draft-of-common-core-science-standards-draws-friendly-fire","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.coreeducationllc.com\/blog2\/draft-of-common-core-science-standards-draws-friendly-fire\/","title":{"rendered":"Draft of Common Core Science Standards Draws ‘Friendly Fire’"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The first public draft of the common science standards is facing criticism for \u201clack of clarity and coherence\u201d and omitting key content knowledge in favor of \u201can overdose on scientific \u2018practices.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 However, these critiques are not being viewed as unfriendly\u2014rather, the two organizations offering the feedback (the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and the Fordham Institute) are taking a \u201ccritical friend\u201d approach.\u00a0 Both groups advocate for the creation of common science standards, but say that the proposed standards need more work.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe quest for fewer standards has led to over-compression, overgeneralization, and omission,” wrote Fordham’s set of seven expert reviewers.\u00a0 “Much necessary ‘prior knowledge’ to attain some standards is never supplied. Such omission is in some ways disingenuous, as it will require curriculum developers and teachers to fill in many gaps, expanding<\/em> thereby the number of explicit standards and their breadth.\u201d<\/p>\n

The proposed standards are guided by a framework developed by the National Research Council, and the standards-writers have several priorities:<\/p>\n