Large-scale educational reforms often generate strong public discourse, as different stakeholders—educators, policymakers, parents, and the general public—engage in conversations about their potential benefits and challenges. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are two prominent standards-based reform initiatives that have shaped science and mathematics education in the United States. While both reforms aim to enhance student learning through structured frameworks, they have been received with varying degrees of public sentiment, particularly in online spaces such as Twitter.
Social media platforms provide a valuable lens into public perceptions of educational reforms, offering real-time insights into how different stakeholder groups respond to policy changes. Prior research has highlighted how sentiment toward the CCSS has often been polarized, with a notable presence of negative discourse, particularly in politically charged environments (Wang & Fikis, 2019). In contrast, initial findings suggest that the NGSS may have been received more positively, possibly due to differences in their adoption process, framing, and political entanglements (Hardy & Campbell, 2020). However, a systematic comparison of sentiment between these two reforms, particularly in terms of how different groups express their perspectives, remains an underexplored area.
This study aims to address this gap by examining public sentiment toward the NGSS and CCSS as expressed on Twitter. Specifically, we seek to answer the following research questions:
What is the overall public sentiment expressed toward the NGSS versus the CCSS on Twitter?
This question quantifies and compares the proportion of positive, negative, and neutral tweets related to each set of standards, providing an overview of how these reforms are perceived in public discourse.
How do different stakeholder groups (e.g., teachers, parents, administrators) differ in their sentiment toward NGSS versus CCSS on Twitter?
Using metadata and inferred user roles, this question explores whether educators, for example, express more positive sentiment than other groups, offering insights into how sentiment varies across different communities.
By leveraging computational methods, including natural language processing and social media analytics, this study provides a data-driven understanding of how the NGSS and CCSS are perceived in digital spaces. These findings have important implications for policymakers, educators, and researchers interested in the role of public opinion in shaping the success and sustainability of educational reforms.
RQ1: What is the overall public sentiment expressed toward the NGSS versus the CCSS on Twitter?
Show R Code
bing_counts_ngss |>ggplot(aes(x ="", y = n, fill = sentiment)) +geom_bar(width =1, stat ="identity", color ="white") +# Thinner slices with a bordercoord_polar(theta ="y", start =0) +# Aligns pie chart from the topgeom_text(aes(label = scales::percent(n /sum(n), accuracy =1)), position =position_stack(vjust =0.5), color ="white", size =5) +# Adds percentage labelsscale_fill_manual(values =c("positive"="#f1948a", "negative"="#34495e")) +labs(title ="Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)",subtitle ="Proportion of Positive & Negative Tweets Using Bing Lexicon",fill ="Sentiment") +theme_void() +theme(legend.position ="right", text =element_text(size =14))
Show R Code
bing_counts_ccss |>ggplot(aes(x ="", y = n, fill = sentiment)) +geom_bar(width =1, stat ="identity", color ="white") +# Thin border for claritycoord_polar(theta ="y", start =0) +# Aligns pie chart from the topgeom_text(aes(label = scales::percent(n /sum(n), accuracy =1)), position =position_stack(vjust =0.5), color ="white", size =5) +# Adds percentage labelsscale_fill_manual(values =c("positive"="#f1948a", "negative"="#34495e")) +labs(title ="Common Core State Standards",subtitle ="Proportion of Positive & Negative Tweets",fill ="Sentiment") +theme_void() +# Minimalist theme for a clean looktheme(legend.position ="right", text =element_text(size =14)) # Adjust text and legend position
The comparison of public sentiment toward the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) reveals striking differences in how these two educational reform initiatives are perceived. Analyzing Twitter data, the sentiment surrounding NGSS is overwhelmingly positive, with 87% of tweets expressing approval and only 13% conveying negativity. In contrast, CCSS has a far more divided reception, where 62% of tweets express negative sentiment and only 38% are positive.
The strong support for NGSS suggests that this framework has been well received by educators, policymakers, and the public. Its research-based foundation, gradual adoption, and the presence of engaged communities, such as those participating in #NGSSchat, may have contributed to its acceptance. Unlike CCSS, NGSS has largely avoided becoming a political flashpoint, allowing it to gain traction among key stakeholders without the same level of controversy.
On the other hand, the significant proportion of negative sentiment surrounding CCSS highlights the challenges it has faced since its implementation. From the outset, CCSS has been the subject of heated debates, with criticism focusing on its rigid assessment structure, high-stakes testing, and the perception that it imposes a one-size-fits-all approach to education. Many teachers and parents have voiced concerns about its practicality, arguing that it places undue pressure on students and educators alike. The politicization of CCSS further fueled opposition, making it a polarizing topic in public discourse.
The stark contrast in sentiment between NGSS and CCSS underscores the importance of how educational reforms are introduced and implemented. NGSS appears to have benefited from a collaborative, research-driven rollout, fostering greater acceptance and enthusiasm. In contrast, CCSS, despite its intention to improve educational outcomes, has struggled with widespread resistance, much of which may stem from its top-down approach and association with contentious policy debates. Understanding these patterns of public sentiment can provide valuable lessons for the future of education policy, emphasizing the need for stakeholder engagement, transparent implementation, and responsiveness to public concerns.
RQ2: How do different stakeholder groups (e.g., teachers, parents, administrators) differ in their sentiment toward NGSS versus CCSS on Twitter?
Show R Code
ggplot(log_scaled_data, aes(x = standards, y = log_sentiment, fill = stakeholder_group)) +geom_bar(stat ="identity", position ="dodge") +scale_fill_manual(values =c("Teacher"="#1B9E77", "Parent"="#D95F02", "Other"="#7570B3")) +labs(title ="Log-Scaled Sentiment Scores by Stakeholder Group",subtitle ="Comparison of NGSS vs CCSS",x ="Standards", y ="Log-Transformed Sentiment Score", fill ="Stakeholder Group") +theme_minimal() +theme(legend.position ="right",text =element_text(size =14),plot.title =element_text(face ="bold", size =16),plot.subtitle =element_text(size =14),axis.title.x =element_text(size =14),axis.title.y =element_text(size =14))
The log-scaled sentiment scores reveal clear differences in how various stakeholder groups perceive the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The use of a log transformation in this analysis helps manage the wide variation in sentiment scores, ensuring that extreme values do not overshadow smaller but meaningful differences. Since raw sentiment scores can vary dramatically, a log scale compresses large discrepancies while preserving the sentiment’s direction—whether positive or negative. This adjustment enhances the interpretability of the results, allowing for a clearer comparison across stakeholder groups.
Teachers exhibit a more favorable sentiment toward NGSS, suggesting that they find its inquiry-based approach more beneficial compared to CCSS, where their sentiment remains only slightly positive. This trend may reflect the difficulties teachers faced with CCSS’s rigid structure and standardized assessments, whereas NGSS provides a more flexible, conceptually driven framework. Parents, on the other hand, express a strong negative sentiment toward CCSS, reinforcing the idea that many found its instructional methods, particularly in mathematics, confusing and ineffective. However, their sentiment toward NGSS is slightly positive, indicating a more neutral or cautiously optimistic stance. While NGSS has not generated overwhelming enthusiasm among parents, it does not provoke the same level of frustration that CCSS has historically caused.
The category labeled as “Other,” likely encompassing policymakers, administrators, and the general public, exhibits the most pronounced divergence in sentiment. Their strong negative reaction to CCSS underscores how controversial and politically charged this set of standards has become, while their highly positive sentiment toward NGSS suggests a broader acceptance of this reform. These findings highlight that while CCSS remains polarizing, particularly among parents and the broader public, NGSS enjoys a comparatively higher level of approval, especially among educators and other stakeholders. The results suggest that future education reforms may benefit from the more adaptive and research-based approach that NGSS embodies, avoiding the widespread resistance that has defined the reception of CCSS.
