“Objective” generally means not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. It means to teach, not to indoctrinate. It involves teaching methods which seek to reasonably and objectively inform students about, and cause them to critically analyze, competing viewpoints about religious issues and questions.


Articles that document concerns about the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)

1. NGSS represents the consensus of a small elite group of professionals.

Jack Hassard traces the history of science and Common Core standards in the U.S. NGSS reflects the values and decisions of 18 elite scientists and professors who have a vested interest in preserving the existing science establishment.

Jack Hassard, Whose Next Generation Science Standards?, The Art of Teaching Science Blog, Jan. 18, 2013.

2. NGSS embraces materialism and the religion of “Secular” Humanism.

Cal Beisner is President of Cornwall Alliance. Dr. Beisner shows that the new science standards promote a materialistic/atheistic worldview; this is particularly evident in sections that support unguided evolution and manmade global warming. The standards represent the consensus of a small group of scientific and educational elites. NGSS exemplifies “post-normal” science, that is, the promotion of a political agenda under the guise of objective science.

Calvin Beisner, Public School Science Standards: Political or Pure?, Cornwall Alliance newsletter, Feb. 23, 2013.

3. Science standards are barriers to learning science.

The NGSS standards are designed to support economic growth, job training, and global competitiveness. They are not designed to help students learn and make a connection to science. Teachers will find the standards difficult to use. NGSS will not lead to improved learning.

Jack Hassard, Boxed In: How the NGSS Impedes Science Teaching, The Art of Teaching Science, March 12, 2013.

4. COPE documents bias in NGSS Framework and Standards.

Parents, children, and taxpayers have a clear right to expect an objective, religiously
neutral curriculum in the public schools. NGSS violates this right with its materialistic ideology in origins science (evolution) and political bias in environmentalism (climate change).

Robert P. Lattimer, COPE Recommends Against Science Standards, Citizens for Objective Public Education, April 21, 2013.

5. Fordham urges caution on NGSS standards.

In this preliminary review of the final NGSS document, two writers from the Fordham Institute list a number of concerns: some science content is missing; some performance expectations are vague; science practices (skills) may be overemphasized; controversial subjects are not treated fairly. States should not rush to adopt NGSS.

Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Kathleen Porter-Magee, Science Standards, Common Core Watch, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, April 22, 2013.

6. Concern expressed about NGSS emphasis on climate education.

Joy Pullmann is a research fellow at the Heartland Institute. While most states are expected to eventually adopt the NGSS standards, there is a lot of concern about their emphasis on environmentalism – especially global warming. NGSS gives the impression that the climate debate is settled, while in reality it is not.

Joy Pullmann, States Respond to Common Core Science Standards, Heartland Institute, April 24, 2013.

7. Teacher recommends against NGSS standards.

Paul Bruno is a middle school science teacher in California. He argues that the new standards are difficult to read and excessively vague. They also overemphasize science skills (practices) over factual knowledge (content).

Paul Bruno, How Best to Integrate Content and Practices in Science, Education Gadfly, June 21, 2013.

8. COPE and Kansas families file Complaint against NGSS.

Joy Pullmann reports on the filing of COPE’s Complaint against NGSS. The Complaint alleges that the NGSS Framework and Standards will cause Kansas schools to establish and endorse a non-theistic religious worldview. Pullmann quotes Cal Beisner (Cornwall Alliance) and John Calvert (counsel for COPE) in her article.

Joy Pullmann, Kansas Families Sue to Stop National Science Standards, Heartlander Magazine, October 1, 2013.

9. Complaint creates awareness of NGSS.

Ben Velderman says that more people across the country are becoming aware of NGSS, and this will make it more difficult to implement the standards. Despite the claim that NGSS is a “state-led” effort, the federal government was involved in its development.

10. The NGSS turn science into indoctrination in Darwinism, environmentalism, and atheism.

Cal Beisner critiques NGSS for its dogma of Darwinism , which claims that life arose and developed by chance. The NGSS also present environmentalist dogma – catastrophic global warming and exaggerated, sometimes fictitious claims. The NGSS have deep and systemic flaws as they aim for adoption nationwide.

11. Atheism is the only religion tolerated by NGSS.

Carolyn Reeves is a retired science teacher who has authored a series of science textbooks for elementary schools. She discusses COPE’s mission and its lawsuit filed in Kansas against the adoption of NGSS in that state. The NGSS present a more systematic and dogmatic view of materialistic evolution that any previous science standards. The NGSS indoctrinate students in an atheistic worldview throughout grades K-12. Reeves presents information that parents can use to combat the implementation of NGSS in their local schools.

Carolyn Reeves, Kansas Parents Seek Fairness in Science Ed, AFA Journal, April 2015.

12. NGSS overemphasizes engineering and stresses skills over content knowledge.

Nancy Bailey is a Ph.D. educator who hosts a website on education issues. She is particularly interested in the critique of problematic school reforms. In this article Bailey says NGSS diminishes the role of teachers and takes away their flexibility. Content knowledge is shortchanged in favor of skills/projects. The content in chemistry and physics is very weak. In addition, the NGSS jargon is confusing.

Nancy Bailey, Common Core’s Next Generation Science Standards!, Nancy Bailey’s Education Website, March 28, 2017.

13. NGSS stresses project-based learning rather than content learning.

Ann Marie Banfield sent a letter to her local school board after her state (New Hampshire) adopted NGSS. She criticizes NGSS for its emphasis on skills/projects rather than content knowledge. She notes that the standards are quite weak in chemistry and physics, and that a number of important topics have been left out of biology. Banfield chastised the State Board of Education for adopting NGSS without a careful analysis of the content.

Ann Marie Banfield (with Shane Vander Hart), A Case Against the Next Generation Science Standards from New Hampshire, Truth in American Education, July 13, 2017.