Thomas B. Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence

The State of State Science Standards 2005

December 7, 2005

by Paul Gross, Ursula Goodenough, Lawrence S. Lerner, Susan Haack, Martha Schwartz, Richard Schwartz, Chester E. Finn, Jr.

Science education in America is under attack, with "discovery learning" on one flank and the Discovery Institute on the other. That's the core finding of our just-released comprehensive review of state science standards, the first since 2000. Written by pre-eminent biologist Paul R. Gross, The State of State Science Standards finds that even though the majority of states have reworked, or crafted from scratch, their science standards over the past five years, we're no better off now than before. That's the bad news. The good news is that many of the standards are easily fixed. More involvement by bench scientists, and better editing, could greatly improve what's out there. Plus, there are a number of excellent models to follow (California, Massachusetts, and South Carolina, for example). The public's anxiety about the future of our nation's scientific prowess is palpable—and reasonable. How serious are we in addressing their concerns? To find out, read the report.

Currently available in pdf format only.

Click here to read the press release.

Contents

Executive Summary

PDF versionPDF version

The nation's policy and business leaders are increasingly and understandably anxious about maintaining America's scientific and technological leadership in a competitive world. Naturally they look to the education system, where they issue urgent calls for higher standards and greater rigor. But are states heeding the calls? In setting standards for their K-12 science programs, are they expecting enough of their students? As they prepare to implement the No Child Left Behind Act's science testing mandate, are states seizing the opportunity to raise the bar to a level that will ensure the nation's scientific prowess in years to come?

The answerprovided in this, the first comprehensive review of state science standards since 2000is mixed. The good news is that 19 states have put in place standards clear and rigorous enough to earn them an "honors" grade of "A" or "B." Over half of U.S. children attend school in these states. Unfortunately, 15 states deserve failing grades, signifying either that they have no real standards for their science program, or that their standards are so vague and weak as to be meaningless. The remaining 16 jurisdictions get "C" or "D" marks. (Iowa is not included because it does not publish science standards.)

Have the states raised their expectations over the last half- decade? As is apparent on page 6, most states received a different grade in 2005 for their science standards than in 2000. However, while state standards are very much in flux, the nation, in its entirety, is neither making progress nor losing ground when it comes to expectations for what students should learn in science during the K-12 years. The same number of states received "honors" grades this year as in 2000, while the percentage of failing grades inched up just slightly from 26 percent to 30 percent. This flat trend line at the national level is worrisome, especially as America's world competitors make their own countries' science education a major focus.


 
 



Common Problems

Some statesnotably A-rated California, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Virginiaproduced exceptional academic standards documents that, if followed in the classroom, would result in excellent science programs. But most state standards have serious problems. These include:
 
  1. Excessive Length and Poor Navigability. Sprawling, almost impenetrable documents, uncontrolled in size and poorly organized, are too common a result of a push to cover everything.
  2. Thin Disciplinary Content. States' zealous embrace of "inquiry-based learning" has squeezed real science content (astronomy, biology, chemistry, ecology, physics, etc.) out of the curriculum to make room for "process." Of course, without content, there is little for science students to process.
  3. Do-It-Yourself Learning. Many state standards documents take a very good ideaWhenever practical, science learners should find things out for themselvesand take it to an absurd level, declaring that all knowledge should be "discovered" by the student rather than passed along by the teacher. In many areas of sciencee.g., atomic structure, plate tectonics, population genetics, thermodynamicsthis is simply not possible.
  4. Good Ideas Gone Bad. Too many state standards documents create a false dichotomy between "rote" and "hands-on" learning. Of course students should engage science in the laboratory or field, but they also must learn and memorize some thingsfacts, words and definitions, and problem-solving techniques, for example. Yet many states minimize the importance of the latter. At the same time, several states promote the fallacious idea that "all cultures" have made similar contributions to science. Alas, that's simply not true.
  5. Shunning Evolution. A disturbing and dangerous trend over the past five years, in response to religious and political pressures, is the effort to water down the treatment of evolution, as shown by the map on page 7.


Evolution

The attack on evolution is unabated, and Darwin's critics have evolved a more-subtle, more dangerous approach. A decade ago, the anti-evolution movement, which acquired a command post and funding source in the Discovery Institute of Seattle, Washington, argued vigorously for explicit teaching of the evidence for intelligent designfor the role of external, conscious agency in the history of life on Earth. When examined by qualified scientists and mathematicians, however, that evidence turned out not to be evidence, and so it remainsno evidenceat the time of writing. The promoters of intelligent design creationism have perforce retreated to arguments that invoke the popular and conveniently vague educationist formula, "critical thinking." The claim now is that evidence against "Darwinism" exists, that curriculum-makers should include it as an exercise in critical thinking, and that "freedom of speech" or "fairness" requires that they do so. The hidden agenda is to introduce doubtany possible doubtabout evolution at the critical early stage of introduction to the relevant science.

Still, even under relentless attack, defenders of the teaching of evolution are holding their ground. In fact, comparing this year's scores of how states are handling evolution with the scores assigned in 2000, when Dr. Lawrence Lerner did a similar survey for Fordham (See table 6 on page 25), we find that the teaching of evolution hasn't changed much. Twenty states earned a "sound" grade this year for their treatment of evolution, down slightly from 24 in 2000. The number of states earning "passing" grades held steady at 7, while those earning "marginal" grades rose from 6 to 10. Failing grades (or worse, as in Kansas) held steady at 13.

back to top

Next >

© Copyright 2003-2010 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute. All Rights Reserved.