Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Introduction
On
September
12,
2013,
Republican
Tom
McMillin
introduced
House
Bill
Number
4972
(HB-4972,
see
Appendix
1)
to
the
Michigan
House
of
Representatives.
The
bill,
which
was
sponsored
by
four
other
Republican
representatives,
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
Education,
where
it
currently
awaits
further
action.
The
bill
seeks
to
amend
section
1278
of
the
Revised
School
Code
(Public
Act
451
of
1976)
to
ensure
that
The
state
board
model
core
academic
curriculum
content
standards
shall
not
be
based
upon
the
Next
Generation
Science
Standards.
While
the
bill
may
never
become
law,
it
represents
the
complex
issues
and
competing
interests
involved
in
determining
what
should
be
taught
in
public
schools.
HB-4972
is
fairly
narrow
in
that
it
aims
only
to
block
a
particular
framework
from
being
applied
to
curriculum
and
assessment
in
Michigan,
yet
the
bill
highlights
perpetual
debates
about
the
aims
and
control
of
public
education
that
have
existed
since
its
inception.
This
paper
compares
the
current
debate
surrounding
national
science
education
standards
to
the
issues
central
to
the
Common
School
Movement
of
the
mid
19th
century;
I
argue
that
similar
motivations
underlie
the
current
and
historical
reform
efforts
as
well
as
their
opposition.
The
Common
School
Movement
(1820
1860)
planted
the
seeds
that
have
led
to
our
modern
public
school
system,
in
which
tax-supported
schools
are
freely
available
to
all
children.
Horace
Mann
was
the
most
prominent
of
the
reformers
who
called
for
state
intervention
to
improve
and
standardize
schools.
The
reformers
believed
that
education
held
the
power
to
shape
individuals
moral
character
and
to
instill
discipline,
which
were
seen
as
the
keys
to
overcoming
social
ills
and
ensuring
the
survival
of
the
republic.
The
ideals
of
the
common
school
were
closely
linked
to
Protestantism,
and
their
creation
necessitated
greater
taxation
and
state
oversight.
Opposition
to
the
creation
of
common
schools
thus
came
from
Catholics,
as
well
as
those
of
the
working
class
that
rejected
taxation
that
might
disproportionately
benefit
the
middle
and
upper
classes,
those
in
favor
of
local
control
versus
state
control,
and
the
wealthy
who
could
afford
to
pay
for
their
own
private
education.
Although
current
science
education
reform
efforts
focus
more
on
intellectual
achievement
than
on
moral
aims,
the
emphasis
on
equal
educational
opportunities
for
all
students,
the
necessity
of
state
intervention
in
education,
and
the
belief
that
mass
education
is
essential
for
addressing
social
and
economic
concerns
are
as
central
to
todays
reform
efforts
as
they
were
during
the
Common
School
Movement.
Therefore,
opposition
to
national
science
education
standards
comes
from
groups
who
fear
that
their
ideological
viewpoints
are
not
represented
or
are
discredited
by
the
standards,
as
well
as
from
those
who
favor
less
taxation
and
state
control.
HB-4972
(see
Appendix
1)
is
an
artifact
that
represents
the
opposition
to
current
science
education
reform
efforts.
As
Frasier
(2009)
pointed
out,
The
question
of
who
should
hold
the
authority
and
responsibility
for
the
education
and
enculturation
of
the
youth
is
as
unresolved
an
issue
today
as
it
was
in
Manns
time
(p.
46).
The
Next
Generation
Science
Standards
The
concept
of
national
education
standards
is
a
relatively
recent
development;
only
in
the
past
two
decades
have
we
begun
to
develop
and
implement
national
benchmarks
for
learning
in
public
schools.
During
the
1980s
and
early
1990s,
multiple
national
reports
called
for
reform
in
science
education.
In
1991
the
National
Science
Teachers
Association
urged
the
National
Research
Council
(NRC)
to
coordinate
the
development
of
national
science
education
standards.
The
NRC
is
a
division
of
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences,
which
was
chartered
in
1863
to
"investigate,
examine,
experiment,
and
report
upon
any
subject
of
science.
After
nearly
four
years
of
collaboration
among
teachers,
scientists,
and
education
researchers,
the
NRCs
National
Science
Education
Standards
were
released
in
1996.
Similar
to
the
early
national
standards
written
in
other
disciplines,
the
1996
NRC
standards
were
influential
in
national
science
education
reform
efforts,
but
implementation
was
never
mandatory,
and
states
varied
widely
in
how
closely
their
benchmarks
aligned
with
the
NRCs
recommendations.
In
recent
years
there
has
been
growing
consensus
that
states
should
adopt
uniform
national
standards
to
define
what
students
should
learn.
This
stems
from
the
accountability
movement
in
education
that
began
with
the
2001
No
Child
Left
Behind
Act,
as
well
as
national
reports
that
call
for
extensive
education
reform
to
prepare
students
to
compete
in
the
global
marketplace.
In
2009
the
National
Governors
Association
and
the
Council
of
Chief
State
School
Officers
led
the
development
of
the
Common
Core
State
Standards
(CCSS)
for
mathematics
and
English
language
arts.
These
standards
were
released
in
2010
and
were
quickly
adopted
by
45
states,
although
most
states
are
still
very
early
in
the
implementation
phase.
Common
assessments
aligned
to
the
standards
are
expected
to
be
available
in
the
2014
2015
school
year.
In
2011
the
NRC
released
A
Framework
for
K-12
Science
Education,
which
laid
the
foundation
for
a
new
set
of
national
science
education
standards.
The
Framework
sought
to
revise
the
1996
National
Science
Education
Standards
in
light
of
new
research
on
teaching
and
learning
and
to
capitalize
on
recent
support
for
the
Common
Core
State
Standards.
The
Framework
asserts
that
current
science
education
is
ineffective
because
it
is
not
organized
systematically
across
multiple
years
of
school,
emphasizes
discrete
facts
with
a
focus
on
breadth
over
depth,
and
does
not
provide
students
with
engaging
opportunities
to
experience
how
science
is
actually
done
(p.
1).
The
Framework
argues
that
K-12
science
and
engineering
education
should
focus
on
a
limited
number
of
disciplinary
core
ideas
and
crosscutting
concepts,
be
designed
so
that
students
continually
build
on
and
revise
their
knowledge
and
abilities
over
multiple
years,
and
support
the
integration
of
such
knowledge
and
abilities
with
the
practices
needed
to
engage
in
scientific
inquiry
and
engineering
design.
(p.
2)
The
Next
Generation
Science
Standards
(NGSS)
were
developed
from
the
NRCs
Framework
for
K
12
Science
Education.
The
writing
team
consisted
of
41
members,
most
of
whom
were
K
12
educators,
from
26
lead
states.
The
standards
underwent
two
rounds
of
public
feedback
and
revision
before
being
released
in
April
2013.
Although
Michigan
was
one
of
the
lead
states
involved
in
the
development
of
the
NGSS,
the
State
Board
of
Education
has
yet
formally
to
adopt
the
standards.
HB-4972
seeks
to
ensure
that
Michigan
will
not
adopt,
align
assessments,
or
participate
in
the
implementation
of
the
NGSS.
Equal
Educational
Opportunities
The
ideal
of
equal
educational
opportunities
for
all
students
was
at
the
heart
of
the
Common
School
Movement.
Manns
vision
was
that
public
schools
were
common
in
the
highest
sense,
as
the
air
and
light
were
common
(as
cited
in
Reese,
2005,
p.
11),
and
would
afford
equal
educational
opportunities
to
all
children
regardless
of
socioeconomic
class.
Mann
believed
that
knowledge
is
power,
and
thus
called
common
schools
the
great
leveling
institutions
of
this
age
(as
cited
in
Reese,
2005,
p.
28).
However,
in
Manns
time
equal
opportunity
excluded
many
groups,
including
African
Americans.
Current
reform
efforts
in
science
education
echo
the
motivations
of
the
Common
School
Movements
emphasis
on
equal
educational
opportunity
and
broaden
it
to
demand
equal
opportunity
for
non-dominant
social
groups.
Current
science
education
reformers
argue
that
the
achievement
gaps
among
demographic
groups
are
due
to
persistent
inequities
in
the
quality
of
instruction
and
distribution
of
resources.
The NGSS are based on the NRCs Framework for K 12 Science Education (2011),
which
states
that
arguably,
the
most
pressing
challenge
facing
U.S.
education
is
to
provide
all
students
with
a
fair
opportunity
to
learn
(p.
281).
The
framework
lists
many
potential
barriers
to
achieving
equality,
but
focuses
on
addressing
two
in
particular:
(1)
inequities
across
schools,
districts,
and
communities,
and
(2)
instructional
approaches
to
include
and
motivate
diverse
student
populations.
Appendix
D
of
the
NGSS,
All
Standards,
All
Students,
includes
strategies
for
making
the
high
standards
of
learning
achievable
for
all
students,
especially
those
from
non-dominant
groups.
Clearly
the
Common
School
Movements
ideal
of
equal
educational
opportunities
is
still
alive
and
well,
but
has
yet
to
be
fully
realized.
achievement
to
be
celebrated
and
a
degradation
to
be
avoided
(p.
70).
The
U.S.
has
undoubtedly
made
enormous
progress
over
the
past
century
towards
offering
equal
educational
opportunities
to
all
children.
Yet
not
all
stakeholders
hold
the
same
idea
of
what
equality
in
educational
opportunity
entails,
and
every
victory
for
equality
brings
about
new
problems
to
address.
Cohen
and
Neufeld
argued
that
achieving
equality
has
often
come
at
the
expense
of
high
academic
standards,
and
it
has
led
to
disagreements
about
the
type
of
education
that
different
students
need.
In
Michigan
the
revised
school
code
requires
the
State
Board
of
Education
to
develop
core
academic
curriculum
content
standards
to
ensure
that
high
academic
standards,
academic
skills,
and
academic
subject
matters
are
built
into
the
instructional
goals
of
all
school
districts
for
all
children
(1976
PA
451
sec.
1278).
Yet,
HB-4972
demonstrates
the
debate
about
what
those
standards
should
actually
entail,
as
well
as
disagreements
about
who
holds
the
authority
to
determine
those
standards.
The
Role
of
the
State
in
Education
The
United
States
Constitution
implicitly
delegates
public
education
to
the
states,
but
the
role
of
the
state
in
education
is
complex
and
full
of
contradictions.
In
addition,
the
federal
government
has
increasingly
shaped
educational
decisions
through
funding
programs
such
as
Title
I
of
the
Elementary
and
Secondary
Education
Act
of
1965,
which
was
reauthorized
as
the
No
Child
Left
Behind
Act
(NCLB)
of
2001.
While
the
goal
of
NCLB
may
have
been
school
accountability
to
ensure
learning
for
all
children,
its
implementation
has
incited
much
suspicion
and
opposition
to
federal
intervention
in
education
from
stakeholders
at
all
levels.
The
fact
that
the
NGSS
were
written
by
a
consortium
of
26
states
led
by
Achieve,
Inc.
has
generated
suspicion
of
federal
involvement
in
the
development
of
the
standards.
This
is
further
complicated
by
the
fact
that
Achieve,
Inc.
also
led
the
development
of
the
CCSS,
which
were
required
to
be
adopted
by
any
state
that
applied
for
a
grant
through
the
federal
Race
to
the
Top
program
launched
in
2009.
Reformers
of
the
Common
School
Movement
realized
that
state
intervention
was
necessary
to
ensure
equal
educational
opportunities
among
different
communities,
but
they
were
met
with
vigorous
opposition
from
those
who
believed
that
local
control
was
best
for
schools.
This
debate
continues
today
and
is
especially
represented
by
the
opposition
to
CCSS
and
NGSS.
Public
statements
by
Representative
McMillin
have
hinted
at
many
possible
reasons
for
his
introduction
of
HB-4972,
but
his
most
consistent
story
has
focused
on
local
control
of
schools.
McMillins
other
activities
in
the
legislature
have
made
it
clear
that
it
is
not
just
the
NGSS
that
he
opposes,
but
any
national
standards
that
would
limit
local
control.
In
February
2013
Representative
McMillin
introduced
similar
legislation
(HB-4276)
to
prevent
Michigan
from
implementing
the
CCSS,
which
the
State
Board
of
Education
had
adopted
in
2010.
Although
the
bill
did
not
become
law,
McMillin
was
successful
in
amending
the
state
budget
to
require
affirmative
action
of
the
legislature
authorizing
implementation
of
the
CCSS
(Public
Act
59
of
2013).
House
Concurrent
Resolution
0011
(2013)
authorized
the
implementation
of
the
CCSS
with
conditions
that
give
the
state
authority
to
add
or
remove
standards
that
are
in
the
best
interest
of
the
students
of
Michigan,
and
it
reiterates
that
districts
have
the
flexibility
to
develop
or
adopt
their
own
standards
under
the
Revised
School
Code,
PA
451
of
1976.
The
story
of
Michigans
adoption
of
the
CCSS
and
the
ongoing
debate
about
the
NGSS
demonstrate
the
complexity
of
the
role
of
the
state
in
public
education,
as
well
as
the
increasingly
blurred
lines
between
federal,
state,
and
local
control.
Although
these
debates
play
out
publicly
between
the
legislature
and
the
State
Board
of
Education,
Michigan
law
still
places
the
ultimate
authority
for
what
is
taught
in
public
schools
in
the
hands
of
local
districts.
Of
course,
since
the
Department
of
Education
is
responsible
for
accreditation
of
school
districts,
this
authority
may
not
be
as
great
as
the
law
would
suggest.
Similarly,
although
Michigans
Constitution
delegates
leadership
and
general
supervision
of
public
education
to
the
State
Board
of
Education
(Article
VIII,
Section
3),
the
legislature
may
intervene
directly
through
legislation
or
indirectly
though
state
funding.
The
current
system
therefore
represents
a
complex
and
vaguely
defined
set
of
checks
and
balances
that
shape
the
curriculum
of
local
school
districts.
academic
learning.
The
reformers
of
the
Common
School
Movement
believed
that
the
promotion
of
a
core
of
common
Protestant
values
would
prevent
wayward
behavior
and
promote
social
cohesion.
Manns
(1842)
Fifth
Report
to
the
State
Board
of
Education
of
Massachusetts
argued
that
mass
public
education
would
also
lead
to
economic
wealth.
The
report
included
anecdotal
evidence
from
business
owners
and
managers
that
workers
who
had
attended
common
schools
were
more
competent
and
of
stronger
character
than
uneducated
workers.
The
idea
that
education
is
the
key
to
addressing
social
concerns
is
also
at
the
heart
of
current
reform
efforts
in
science
education,
although
the
NGSS
emphasize
the
development
of
scientific
literacy
rather
than
moral
character
to
do
so.
The NGSS argue that new standards are necessary to address four major concerns:
(1)
reduction
of
the
United
States
competitive
economic
edge,
(2)
lagging
achievement
of
U.S.
students,
(3)
preparation
for
careers
in
the
modern
workforce,
and
(4)
scientific
and
technological
literacy
for
an
educated
society
(NGSS
Lead
States,
2013).
The
principal
conceptual
shifts
compared
to
previous
standards
include
the
integration
of
the
practices
of
science
with
content
knowledge,
and
the
prominent
place
given
to
engineering.
The
standards
emphasize
human
impacts
on
the
environment
as
well
as
the
content
knowledge
necessary
for
addressing
issues
such
as
global
climate
change.
Thus
the
NGSS
highlight
the
social
nature
of
the
development
of
scientific
knowledge
and
the
relationship
between
science,
technology,
and
society.
Overall
the
NGSS
represent
a
shift
toward
much
more
socially
oriented
goals
for
science
education
than
has
traditionally
been
taught.
10
In many ways the Common School Movement was in response to changes brought
Similar to the reform efforts of the Common School Movement, The Next Generation
11
NGSS
represents
questions
about
the
aims
and
control
of
public
education
that
have
remained
unanswered
since
the
Common
School
Movement.
This
paper
has
focused
on
the
public
good
of
education,
which
includes
only
two
(democratic
equality
and
social
efficiency)
of
the
three
competing
goals
for
education
identified
by
Labaree
(1997).
Not
included
in
this
discussion
is
the
perspective
of
the
individual
educational
consumer,
which
inevitably
leads
to
even
more
complexity
and
compromise.
Labaree
contended
that
the
growing
dominance
of
social
mobility
over
the
other
two
goals
has
reconceptualized
education
as
a
private
good.
However,
current
reform
efforts
such
as
the
NGSS
demonstrate
that
democratic
equality
and
social
efficiency
are
still
prominent
goals
of
public
education.
The
current
debate
about
science
education
standards
reminds
us
that
we
not
only
have
conflicting
goals
for
education,
but
that
the
question
of
authority
over
public
education
has
never
been
fully
resolved.
Labaree
argued
that
the
history
of
conflicting
goals
for
American
education
has
brought
contradiction
and
debilitation,
but
it
has
also
provided
us
with
an
open
structure
of
education
that
is
vulnerable
to
change
(p.
74).
This
gives
us
reason
to
embrace
the
disagreements
around
school
reform
and
use
the
occasion
to
reaffirm
the
importance
of
public
education.
12
References
Cohen,
D.K
&
Neufeld,
B.
(1981).
The
failure
of
high
schools
and
the
progress
of
education.
Daedalus,
110,
69-89.
Fraser,
J.W.
(2009).
The
common
school
movement,
1820-1860.
In
J.
Fraser
(Ed)
The
school
in
the
United
States:
A
documentary
history
(2nd
ed.)
(pp.
44-57).
New
York:
Routledge.
House
Bill
No.
4276,
Michigan
(2013).
House
Bill
No.
4972,
Michigan
(2013).
House
Concurrent
Resolution
0011,
Michigan
(2013).
Labaree,
D.
F.
(1997).
Public
goods,
private
goods:
The
American
struggle
over
educational
goals.
American
Educational
Research
Journal,
34(1),
39-81.
Mann,
H.
(1842).
Fifth
Annual
Report
of
the
Secretary
to
the
Board
of
Education
of
Massachusetts,
excerpts.
Boston.
Michigan
Constitution.
Article
VIII,
Section
3.
Michigan
Department
of
Education
budget
FY
2013-14,
PA
59,
Article
IV,
Section
231
(2013).
National
Governors
Association
Center
for
Best
Practices,
Council
of
Chief
State
School
Officers.
(2010).
Common
core
state
standards.
National
Governors
Association
Center
for
Best
Practices,
Council
of
Chief
State
School
Officers,
Washington
D.C.
National
Research
Council.
(2011).
A
framework
for
K-12
science
education:
practices,
crosscutting
concepts,
and
core
ideas.
Washington,
DC:
The
National
Academies
Press.
NGSS
Lead
States.
(2013).
Next
generation
science
standards:
For
states,
by
states.
Washington,
DC:
The
National
Academies
Press.
Reese,
W.
J.
(2005).
The
Origins
of
the
Common
School.
In
Americas
public
schools:
From
the
common
school
to
No
Child
Left
Behind.
(pp.
10-44).
Baltimore,
MD:
Johns
Hopkins
University.
Revised
School
Code,
Michigan
PA
451380.1278
(1976).
13
Appendix 1
03464'13
TAV
14
2
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
are built into the instructional goals of all school districts for
22
all children. The state board also shall ensure that the Michigan
23
24
25
26
academic skills and academic subject matter, and are not used to
27
03464'13
TAV
15
3
1
The core academic curriculum may vary from the model core academic
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
03464'13
TAV
16
4
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
elective course under Snyder v Charlotte School Dist, 421 Mich 517
22
23
24
SEC. 1278D. (1) THE STATE BOARD AND THE DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT
25
26
27
(2) AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, THE STATE BOARD
03464'13
TAV
17
5
1
(3) THE STATE BOARD SHALL ENSURE THAT THE STATE BOARD MODEL
AND 1278B ARE NOT BASED UPON THE NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS.
03464'13
Final Page
TAV