19 APRIL 2013 VOL 340 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 276 EDUCATIONFORUM I magine that politicians and the people they represent understood how human activity impacts Earth, including climate. And imagine that they had learned how to evaluate claims, argue from evidence, and understand models. These understandings and practices are prominent in the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) framework to guide the next iteration of standards for U.S. elementary and secondary school students ( 1). We discuss how aspects such as authorship, coordina- tion among subject areas, and broader goals of college and career readiness give reason to believe that this effort will be more success- ful than previous attempts to use standards to improve science education ( 2). Concurrent development in English Lan- guage Arts (ELA) (“literacy”) and Mathemat- ics, under the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) ( 3, 4), has provided the opportunity to build on the strengths of these literacy and math documents from a science education perspective. Closely following the CCSS, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are being developed by Achieve, a nonprofit organization, working directly with 26 lead states ( 5). This structure acknowledges that the standards will be adopted and imple- mented at the state level. Past educational standards were devel- oped by professional organizations on behalf of scientists and educators and in different subject areas independently, yielding more material than any K–12 school system (kin- dergarten to high school) could teach well ( 6, 7). Now there is a call for “fewer, clearer, and higher” standards ( 8). Building on Literacy and Math The CCSS focus not only on what it will take to become a successful student in higher education but also a successful employee. Broadening the scope in this way, skills and abilities that support civic participation are explicit in the standards. Reading standards give earlier and more extensive treatment of informational text than in the past. This is echoed in the writing standards; “The abil- ity to write logical arguments based on sub- stantive claims, sound reasoning, and rele- vant evidence is a cornerstone” ( 9). Writing standards include in-depth research with an emphasis on analysis and presentation. Stan- dards for speaking and listening include “Integrate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media (e.g., visually, quantitatively, orally) in order to make informed decisions and solve prob- lems, evaluating the credibility and accuracy of each source and noting any discrepancies among the data” ( 3). We see a similar emphasis on reasoning and problem-solving in the math standards. Comparisons with high-performing countries find that spending more time on fewer topics gets better results. Thus, the math standards emphasize focus and coherence rather than covering topics in a curriculum that is a “mile wide and an inch deep” ( 10). Greater depth in each topic comes from students’ development of mathematical expertise defined by eight standards for mathematical practice. The math standards take an overdue step toward greater synergy with science by introducing modeling in secondary grades. The math standards define modeling as “the process of choosing and using appropriate mathematics and statistics to analyze empiri- cal situations, to understand them better, and to improve decisions” ( 4). The elaboration of the basic modeling cycle resonates with the Opportunities and Challenges in Next Generation Standards SCIENCE EDUCATION E. K. Stage, 1 * H. Asturias, 1 T. Cheuk, 2 P. A. Daro, 3 S. B. Hampton 3 Goals for literacy, math, and science education may increase citizens’ capacity to argue from evidence. Math ELA Science M1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them M2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively M6. Attend to precision M7. Look for and make use of structure M8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning S2. Develop and use models M4. Model with mathematics S5. Use mathematics and computational thinking S1. Ask questions and define problems S3. Plan and carry out investigations S4. Analyze and interpret data S6. Construct explanations and design solutions E2. Build a strong base of knowledge through content-rich texts E5. Read, write, and speak grounded in evidence M3 and E4. Construct viable arguments and critique reasoning of others S7. Engage in argument from evidence E1. Demonstrate independence in reading complex texts and in writing and speaking about them E7. Come to understand other perspectives and cultures through reading, listening, and collaborations S8. Obtain, evaluate, and communicate information E3. Obtain, synthesize, and report findings clearly and effectively in response to task and purpose E6. Use technology and digital media strategically and capably M5. Use appropriate tools strategically Relations and convergences in literacy (3), math (4), and science and engineering (1) practices. Adapted from ( 12). *Corresponding author. stage@berkeley.edu 1 Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. 2 Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 3 National Center on Education and the Economy, Washington, DC 20006, USA. Published by AAAS