that participated in the focus groups and those that submitted letters are provided at the end of this summary.
NRC staff and the committee chair reviewed this input, developed summaries identifying the major issues raised, and outlined possible revisions. Committee members then evaluated these summaries and potential revisions, and they had the opportunity to examine the public feedback in detail. After discussions at its fifth and sixth meetings, the committee made substantial revisions to the framework based on the feedback.
We summarize this feedback below and describe the revisions that were made in response. In cases in which the committee chose not to revise or to make only a limited revision, we explain why this choice was made. We organize the discussion into two sections: overarching issues, which pertain to the draft framework as a whole, and issues relating specifically to any of the framework’s three dimensions or its learning progressions.
In general, the feedback about the draft framework indicated support for the overall approach. In the online surveys, many individuals commented that they were impressed with the document and thought it provided a good next step toward refining standards for K-12 science education. At the same time, there were many critiques and suggestions for how to improve it. In looking across all of the modes of gathering feedback, some key overarching issues emerged:
• concerns about the purpose, audience, and voice;
• suggestions of additional fields or topics to include;
• how best to incorporate and describe ideas in engineering and technology;
• concerns that there was too much material;
• lack of guidance or examples about how to convey the integration of crosscutting concepts, core ideas, and practices;
• insufficient indication of connections to other topics or issues, such as mathematics and literacy;
• need for a stronger statement about science for all and insufficient attention to diversity and equity;
• lack of “standards” for curriculum, programs, assessment, and professional development similar to those that were included in the National Science Education Standards ; and • lack of attention to the challenges inherent in implementing the framework.