Re: [Phys-L] NGSS and kinematics

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

To paraphrase a famous saying:
  I'm not opposed to all standards;
  I'm opposed to dumb standards.

That should go without saying, but I don't want anybody to
get the wrong impression. I've done a fair bit of teaching
to the test, namely a federally-created federally-mandated
test, and I'm 99% happy to do so, because it's a good test.
Sometimes bureaucrats do a good job. The test is ipso_facto
the standard, and is sometimes called a standard, but it's
not "just" a standard; it's very much a test. I add some
special topics, and I tighten things a bit so that even if
the student has a bad day they're still well within the
envelope, but mostly I teach to the test.

  I /tell/ students that such-and-such special topic is not
  on the test, and explain why it's important anyway.



In contrast, NGSS is not a good standard. Really not.


On 10/27/21 9:05 PM, Joseph Bellina via Phys-l wrote:

> John you have clearly followed this more closely.

I'm flattered, but please don't overestimate my contribution.
Here's the story:  Once upon a time the NGSS existed as a draft.
They released the draft and asked for public comment. It was
obviously an incipient disaster. I was tempted to run away as
fast as I could, but I figured that would disqualify me from
complaining later; people would say why didn't you go through
channels? Why didn't you make constructive suggestions? So ...
I dutifully filed a lengthy and reasonably constructive comment
on (a) the physics problems and (b) the pedagogy problems. Then
I put on my manager hat and pointed out (c) the obvious process
problems; that is, they desperately needed to involve some
subject-matter experts, and also some real live teachers.

They may have partially heeded some of my suggestions, insofar
as they /deleted/ some of the worst passages. I was hoping they
would replace those passages with corrected versions, but no,
they just deleted them. Apparently that was their process for
dealing with "controversial" topics.

Obviously they didn't heed my process suggestions.

I reckon what most teachers want (besides more time and money) is:
 *) A good text.
 *) Good formative and summative assessments.

You don't have to mandate those things; teachers would eagerly
download decent texts and assessments if they were available.

A standard is far, far down on the list of things teachers want.
Nobody is gonna look at the standard unless they're forced to.

You may well ask, cui bono? Who had a motive for creating the
NGSS? Certainly not teachers. I can't prove it, but the logical
suspects are certain big publishing houses that sell expensive
texts and tests. It allows them to say "You cannot possibly
criticize our products in any way, because they conform to the
standard." Their argument is fallacious several times over, but
some suckers will fall for it. If you cooked up in a test tube
the optimal argument to appeal to not-very-bright bureaucrats,
this is what it would look like.

One may hypothesize that the same lobbyists who lobbied for
creation of the standard went on to lobby for the adoption of
the resulting high-priced textbooks and testing services.



> Is there any sense that the writers understood the deep pedagogical
> challenges there are in helping students change their beliefs about
> how the world works?

No.