The New Hampshire Learning Initiative (NHLI) is offering a two-day professional development workshop for K–12 science teachers focused on designing a “student-centered, competency-based instructional model aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS),” with connections to Career Connected Learning. The workshop costs $495 per participant and will be held April 9–10 at the McLane Audubon Center in Concord.
At face value, professional development sounds like a positive investment. But the substance of this training raises serious concerns about educational quality, instructional rigor, and the responsible use of taxpayer funds.
The Standards Problem
The workshop is explicitly aligned with NGSS, a set of science standards that has faced sustained criticism for lacking clarity, coherence, and depth of content—particularly when compared with the science curricula used in higher-performing countries. Critics have noted that NGSS deemphasizes systematic content knowledge in favor of broad practices and skills, making it more difficult for students to build the cumulative scientific understanding required for advanced study.
If New Hampshire is serious about improving science achievement, professional development should be grounded in rigorous academic standards, not ones whose effectiveness remains contested.
The Pedagogy Problem
The workshop also promotes “student-centered” and “competency-based” instruction. These approaches shift the teacher’s role away from direct instruction toward facilitation, often relying heavily on technology and peer collaboration. While hands-on learning has an appropriate place in science education, decades of cognitive science research show that novice learners benefit most from explicit instruction delivered by a knowledgeable teacher.
Student-centered models frequently reduce time spent on structured content instruction and increase time spent on activities that prioritize process over knowledge. In science, where cumulative understanding is essential, this tradeoff matters.
Competency-Based Education: Where Is the Evidence?
Competency-Based Education (CBE) is currently embedded in New Hampshire statute, yet there is little independent, peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating that CBE has improved academic outcomes in New Hampshire—particularly in science. Instead, CBE often shifts emphasis away from disciplinary knowledge toward generalized workforce skills.
Preparing students for careers should not come at the expense of learning science itself. Collaboration and problem-solving skills are valuable—but they cannot substitute for scientific literacy.
Local Control and Professional Autonomy
Another troubling aspect is that a non-governmental organization is effectively instructing teachers on how they should teach science in the classroom. Decisions about pedagogy and curriculum implementation should remain local, grounded in evidence, and responsive to student needs—not driven by national education trends or professional development vendors.
What Are Taxpayers Paying For?
At $495 per participant, this training represents a significant public expense. Yet it promotes instructional frameworks and standards that lack a strong track record of improving science achievement. Meanwhile, the organizations delivering these trainings benefit financially, regardless of student outcomes.
Professional development should strengthen teachers’ content knowledge, deepen their understanding of science, and equip them with proven instructional tools—not promote unproven educational fads.
What Should Be Done Instead?
Advocate for high-quality, content-rich science standards and assessments.
Provide professional development focused on subject-matter mastery and effective, evidence-based instruction.
Respect local decision-making and teacher professionalism.
Strong science education requires a well-educated, knowledgeable teacher delivering clear instruction, supported by rigorous curriculum and assessments. U.S. students already struggle internationally in science achievement. Chasing instructional trends will not reverse that reality.
In 2023, U.S. 8th-grade math scores on the TIMSS test dropped to 488, a significant 27-point decline from 2019 that ranks them behind top systems like Singapore (605), Taiwan, and South Korea, which outpaced them by over 100 points. While 8th-grade science scores remained above the international average, math performance saw a sharp decline, with 19 systems scoring higher.
Professional development funded by public dollars should have one overriding purpose: to measurably improve public education for students. That means strengthening academic outcomes, improving instructional quality, and ensuring teachers are better equipped to teach their subject matter.
What is troubling about this workshop is that it does not appear to meet that standard.
Instead of focusing on improving science content knowledge, instructional clarity, or academic rigor, the training is built around:
**contested national standards (NGSS),
**unproven instructional models (competency-based education),
**and pedagogical approaches that often reduce direct instruction in favor of facilitation and technology-mediated learning.
There is little evidence that these approaches have improved science achievement for New Hampshire students. Absent independent, peer-reviewed evidence showing measurable gains in science literacy, it is reasonable to question why taxpayers are being asked to fund this work.
When an NGO provides professional development without demonstrating clear, outcome-based benefits for students, it begins to look less like public service and more like rent-seeking behavior—an organization sustaining itself through public funds while promoting educational trends that align with its institutional preferences rather than student results.
Publicly funded professional development should be held to the same standard as any other public investment:
**What problem is it solving?
**What evidence supports the solution?
**How will success be measured?
**And who is accountable if outcomes do not improve?
Without clear answers to those questions, taxpayers are justified in asking whether this training serves students—or whether it primarily serves the organizations delivering it.
The path forward is not complicated: invest in teachers’ knowledge, respect their role as instructors, and put academic content—not educational fashion—at the center of science education.
