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.

PDF version

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.

Florida

PDF version

	Points	Out of a Possible
A. Expectations, Purpose, Audience	6.0	12
B. Organization	6.0	9
C. Science Content and Approach	11.3	27
D. Quality	1.8	9
E. Seriousness	5.8	6
Inquiry	2	3
Evolution	0	3
Raw Score	32.9	69
Final Percentage Score	48	100
GRADE	F
Reviewed: Sunshine State Standards, Grade Level Expectations: Science (1999)

It's a good thing that Florida is reworking its science standards. The current documents are reasonably well organized but sorely lacking in content. Their handling of physics, stronger than for the other subjects, is disappointing, due to a prevalence of errors in fact and presentation. A second-grader, for example, "... knows that a thermometer measures the amount of heat absorbed by an object." This is careless and false: a thermometer measures temperature, or better, changes in temperature, not the amount of heat absorbed.We hope that any second-grade teacher who cannot distinguish between heat and temperature will not pass this disability on to the students.

The classification of simple machines is naive. Energetics of phase change is presented misleadingly; treatment of electricity and magnetism, a central subject of school physics, is minimal. In the physical sciences, as elsewhere, most Benchmark statements are at a low level and tend toward safe ambiguity. Quantitative relationships and even the most obvious applications of mathematics are passed over. The treatment of chemistry content in K-8 is scanty; butas one reviewer observed"Even less is required in 9-12."

What is provided for earth and space science is adequate but thin, and again, nebulous. For grades 9-12, the standards require that the student "understands the relationship between events on Earth and the movements of the Earth, its moon, the other planets, and the sun." A reviewer comments: "This is so vague it could be construed by some to mean astrology." There is nothing on minerals and rocks until quite late.

The "Nature of Science" materials serve in Florida's standards to cover Inquiry. Conventional sentiments are expressed, so that in grade 4 the student "uses criteria to understand and analyze the impact of scientific discoveries...." The criteria to be used, howeverpresumably an important issue for the fourth gradeare unnamed.

Life sciences and evolution are given shorter shrift than any of the others. The E-word is sedulously avoided. Here, there are some loose, if not incorrect, generalities offered as standards: "... knows that the fossil record provides evidence that changes in the kinds of plants and animals in the environment have been occurring over time." There is little in the way of useful guidance for teachers or others toward appropriate content in the biological sciences and especially in the history of life and the basic mechanisms of change.

The superficiality of the treatment of evolutionary biology alone justifies the grade "F," but there is in any case scant mitigation elsewhere in these documents. Florida standards are in revision.We hope that the work will be fruitful.

< Previous Next >

The State of State Science Standards 2005

Contents

Florida