 |
|
|
|
|
author:
|
Lawrence S. Lerner
|
|
description:
|
"The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation is pleased to present this appraisal of state science standards, prepared by Dr. Lawrence S. Lerner, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at California State University, Long Beach, in consultation with a distinguished panel of fellow scientists and science educators.
...His [Dr. Lerner's] twenty-five criteria for judging state standards in this domain are a model for any such analysis. (Indeed, for a state that is starting from scratch to write or rewrite its science standards, those criteria would be a fine place to begin.) His appraisal of individual state standards against those criteria was systematic, careful, and rigorous. His five expert consultants played key roles in both stages of the analysis-and broadened the disciplinary base beyond Dr. Lerner's own specialty of physics. We are sincerely grateful to them."
Published by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, March, 1998.
|
|
published in:
|
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
|
|
published:
|
03/01/1998
|
|
posted to site:
|
04/30/1998
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
| Good science standards are of particular importance because they serve as the first step toward remedying the lamentable--one is tempted to say shameful--lack of science literacy among the general public.
|
The writing and rewriting of standards have been a significant part of the recent national enthusiasm for school reform and improvement. Assessment is a key to accountability, which has been a central theme in school reform. Standards- detailed expectations set for students at various grade levels-are the necessary basis on which examinations and other assessment instruments must be based. Furthermore, well-written standards can function as a roadmap for the subject area at hand for parents, teachers, school administrators and curriculum specialists, textbook writers and publishers, policy makers, and the general public.
Good science standards are of particular importance because they serve as the first step toward remedying the lamentable-one is tempted to say shameful-lack of science literacy among the general public. This study, one of five subject-area studies sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, evaluates the science standards of 36 states. A few states delegate the setting of standards to local authorities; some state standards are still in early draft stages and are thus unavailable; a few state standards are either idiosyncratic or so brief as to make evaluation impossible; and a few were simply unavailable. Nevertheless, the standards of more than two-thirds of the states form a basis for a reliable appraisal of the present state of affairs.
The standards documents were evaluated according to 25 criteria falling into five major categories:
- Purpose, expectations, and audience
- Organization
- Coverage and content (the most extensive category)
- Quality, and
- Negative criteria
While the application of these criteria is a complex and detailed process, the general principles are simple. A good standards document is clearly written and intelligible to all those who may reasonably have an interest in reading it, and it can readily serve as a basis for writing assessment instruments. It is well-organized. It covers the sciences thoroughly (at a level appropriate to the students) and correctly, in such a way as to make the structures of the sciences clear. It makes strong but realistic demands on the students. It does not attempt to peddle pseudoscience as the real thing, and it does not foster an antiscientific, antitechnological, or anti-intellectual world view.
Each state document was rated on each criterion on a scale from 0 (unsatisfactory) to 3 (perceptive and thoughtful meeting of the criterion.) On the basis of the numerical scores thus derived, percentages were calculated and letter grades (A-F) were assigned.
The results, criterion-by-criterion, are presented in Table 1, together with the total scores, percentages, and letter grades. Six states (17%) achieved A's, seven (19%) achieved B's, seven achieved C's, seven D's, and nine earned F's. Now, B is not a bad grade but it should not satisfy those responsible for writing the standards document. In an ideal world, all states would achieve A's. That ideal, moreover, is far from unattainable. It is truly regrettable that so many states did so poorly (C or below), especially in view of the many good models available.
The overall average performance is mediocre and very disappointing. Using the common procedure of assigning the value 4 to an A, 3 to a B, and so on, we calculate a national grade-point average of 1.8-that is, C-minus.
All the standards documents-even those rated A- have room for improvement. Because most of the documents take the form of lists, the tight theoretical structures of the sciences tend to be slighted. The lists are useful as a basis for drafting examinations or outlining text-book coverage, but they should be accompanied by unifying essays. Many documents attempt to achieve the desired unity by use of "themes," with highly varied success. But as a general rule, the overarching theories that are the skeletons of the sciences are perceptible only by implication even in the best-organized documents, and are invisible in many of the others.
Some subjects are inadequately treated or even omitted in the documents of many states. Among them are energy, evolution (especially human evolution), modern astronomy, and the role of scientific revolutions.
Good standards are not a magic solution to the problem of improving science teaching and learning in our schools. Nevertheless, improved standards are essential to academic progress, and we may hope that this analysis will help to call attention to the areas where improvement is needed.
NATIONAL REPORT CARD
State Science Standards (Maximum Score = 75)
| State (in alphabetical order) | Raw Score | Percentage | Grade |
| Alabama | 51 | 68 | D |
| Alaska1 | - | - | N |
| Arizona | 71 | 95 | A |
| Arkansas | 46 | 61 | F |
| California | 72 | 96 | A |
| Colorado | 59 | 79 | D |
| Connecticut | 70 | 93 | B |
| Delaware | 69 | 92 | B |
| District of Columbia | - | - | N |
| Florida | 41 | 55 | F |
| Georgia | 50 | 67 | D |
| Hawaii | 72 | 96 | A |
| Idaho2 | - | - | N |
| Illinois | 68 | 91 | B |
| Indiana | 74 | 99 | A |
| Iowa | - | - | N |
| Kansas | 61 | 81 | C |
| Kentucky | 36 | 48 | F |
| Louisiana | 70 | 93 | B |
| Maine | 57 | 76 | D |
| Maryland | - | - | N |
| Massachusetts | 65 | 87 | C |
| Michigan | - | - | N |
| Minnesota | - | - | N |
| Mississippi | 29 | 39 | F |
| Missouri | 64 | 85 | C |
| Montana | - | - | N |
| Nebraska | 51 | 68 | D |
| Nevada | - | - | N |
| New Hampshire | 37 | 49 | F |
| New Jersey | 71 | 95 | A |
| New Mexico | 31 | 41 | F |
| New York4 | 60 | 80 | C |
| North Carolina | - | - | N |
| North Dakota | 21 | 28 | F |
| Ohio | - | - | N |
| Oklahoma | - | - | N |
| Oregon | 67 | 89 | C |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | N |
| Rhode Island | 71 | 95 | A |
| South Carolina | 56 | 75 | D |
| South Dakota | - | - | N |
| Tennessee | 43 | 57 | F |
| Texas | 66 | 88 | C |
| Utah | 69 | 92 | B |
| Vermont | 69 | 92 | B |
| Virginia4 | 49 | 65 | D |
| Washington | 68 | 91 | B |
| West Virginia | 36 | 48 | F |
| Wisconsin3,4 | 60 | 80 | C |
| Wyoming | - | - | N |
| Virgin Islands1 | - | - | N |
| State (by rank) | Raw Score | Percentage | Grade |
| Indiana | 74 | 99 | A |
| California | 72 | 96 | A |
| Hawaii | 72 | 96 | A |
| Arizona | 71 | 95 | A |
| New Jersey | 71 | 95 | A |
| Rhode Island | 71 | 95 | A |
| Connecticut | 70 | 93 | B |
| Louisiana | 70 | 93 | B |
| Delaware | 69 | 92 | B |
| Utah | 69 | 92 | B |
| Vermont | 69 | 92 | B |
| Illinois | 68 | 91 | B |
| Washington | 68 | 91 | B |
| Oregon | 67 | 89 | C |
| Texas | 66 | 88 | C |
| Massachusetts | 65 | 87 | C |
| Missouri | 64 | 85 | C |
| Kansas | 61 | 81 | C |
| New York4 | 60 | 80 | C |
| Wisconsin>3,4 | 60 | 80 | C |
| Colorado | 59 | 79 | D |
| Maine | 57 | 76 | D |
| South Carolina | 56 | 75 | D |
| Alabama | 51 | 68 | D |
| Nebraska | 51 | 68 | D |
| Georgia | 50 | 67 | D |
| Virginia4 | 49 | 65 | D |
| Arkansas | 46 | 61 | F |
| Tennessee | 43 | 57 | F |
| Florida | 41 | 55 | F |
| New Hampshire | 37 | 49 | F |
| Kentucky | 36 | 48 | F |
| West Virginia | 36 | 48 | F |
| New Mexico | 31 | 41 | F |
| Mississippi | 29 | 39 | F |
| North Dakota | 21 | 28 | F |
| Alaska1 | - | - | N |
| District of Columbia | - | - | N |
| Idaho2 | - | - | N |
| Iowa | - | - | N |
| Maryland | - | - | N |
| Michigan | - | - | N |
| Minnesota | - | - | N |
| Montana | - | - | N |
| Nevada | - | - | N |
| North Carolina | - | - | N |
| Ohio | - | - | N |
| Oklahoma | - | - | N |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | N |
| South Dakota | - | - | N |
| Wyoming | - | - | N |
| Virgin Islands1 | - | - | N |
Grading Scale: A= 95-100%, B = 90-94%, C = 80-89%, D = 65-79%, F = below 65%
1 The information provided in this three-page document was insufficient to support an evaluation.
2 The Idaho Framework is not directly comparable to the documents evaluated here. See the main text.
3 Based on draft Standards only, not the Curriculum Guide.Inclusion of Curriculum Guide (1986) would raise letter grade to B.
4 Scores have been adjusted due to "additional factors." For detailed explanation, see state-by-state evaluations.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
(Maximum Score = 75)
| State | A: Purpose,Expectations, & Audience | B: Organization | C: Coverage & Content | D: Quality | E: Negatives | Additional Factors | Raw Score | Percentage | Grade |
| Alabama | 8 | 6 | 18 | 10 | 9 | - | 51 | 68 | D |
| Alaska1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 10 | 9 | 25 | 15 | 12 | - | 71 | 95 | A |
| Arkansas | 6 | 6 | 17 | 8 | 9 | - | 46 | 61 | F |
| California | 10 | 9 | 26 | 15 | 12 | - | 72 | 96 | A |
| Colorado | 8 | 9 | 18 | 12 | 12 | - | 59 | 79 | D |
| Connecticut | 11 | 9 | 23 | 15 | 12 | - | 70 | 93 | B |
| Delaware | 11 | 9 | 22 | 15 | 12 | - | 69 | 92 | B |
| District of Columbia | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Florida | 3 | 6 | 14 | 7 | 11 | - | 41 | 55 | F |
| Georgia | 7 | 5 | 16 | 11 | 11 | - | 50 | 67 | D |
| Hawaii | 12 | 9 | 24 | 15 | 12 | - | 72 | 96 | A |
| Idaho2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Illinois | 10 | 9 | 22 | 15 | 12 | - | 68 | 91 | B |
| Indiana | 12 | 9 | 26 | 15 | 12 | - | 74 | 99 | A |
| Iowa | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Kansas | 9 | 8 | 19 | 13 | 12 | - | 61 | 81 | C |
| Kentucky | 4 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 11 | - | 36 | 48 | F |
| Louisiana | 11 | 9 | 23 | 15 | 12 | - | 70 | 93 | B |
| Maine | 10 | 8 | 14 | 13 | 12 | - | 57 | 76 | D |
| Maryland | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Massachusetts | 10 | 9 | 21 | 13 | 12 | - | 65 | 87 | C |
| Michigan | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Minnesota | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Mississippi | 5 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 8 | - | 29 | 39 | F |
| Missouri | 9 | 8 | 21 | 14 | 12 | - | 64 | 85 | C |
| Montana | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Nebraska | 8 | 7 | 12 | 12 | 12 | - | 51 | 68 | D |
| Nevada | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| New Hampshire | 4 | 2 | 12 | 7 | 12 | - | 37 | 49 | F |
| New Jersey | 12 | 9 | 23 | 15 | 12 | - | 71 | 45 | A |
| New Mexico | 4 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 12 | - | 31 | 41 | F |
| New York | 8 | 6 | 16 | 9 | 12 | 9 | 60 | 80 | C |
| North Carolina | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| North Dakota | 1 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 12 | - | 21 | 28 | F |
| Ohio | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Oklahoma | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Oregon | 11 | 8 | 21 | 15 | 12 | - | 67 | 89 | C |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 12 | 9 | 23 | 15 | 12 | - | 71 | 95 | A |
| South Carolina | 9 | 6 | 18 | 12 | 11 | - | 56 | 75 | D |
| South Dakota | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Tennessee | 7 | 6 | 14 | 6 | 10 | - | 43 | 57 | F |
| Texas | 10 | 9 | 20 | 15 | 12 | - | 66 | 88 | C |
| Utah | 11 | 9 | 22 | 15 | 12 | - | 69 | 92 | B |
| Vermont | 10 | 9 | 24 | 14 | 12 | - | 69 | 92 | B |
| Virginia | 5 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 12 | 5 | 49 | 65 | D |
| Washington | 11 | 8 | 22 | 15 | 12 | - | 68 | 91 | B |
| West Virginia | 4 | 4 | 12 | 6 | 10 | - | 36 | 48 | F |
| Wisconsin3 | 8 | 7 | 16 | 9 | 12 | 8 | 60 | 80 | C |
| Wyoming | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Virgin Islands1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Grading Scale: A= 95-100%, B = 90-94%, C = 80-89%, D = 65-79%, F = below 65%
1 The information provided in this three-page document was insufficient to support an evaluation.
2 The Idaho Framework is not directly comparable to the documents evaluated here. See the main text.
3 Based on draft Standards only, not the Curriculum Guide.Inclusion of Curriculum Guide(1986) would raise letter grade to B.
TABLE 2. PURPOSE, EXPECTATIONS, AND AUDIENCE
(Category A: Maximum Score = 12)
| State | Expectations of Scientific Literacy | Basis for Assessment | Clarity, Completeness, Comprehensibility | Expectations for Written & Oral Work | Subtotal |
| Alabama | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 10 |
| Arkansas | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| California | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 10 |
| Colorado | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 8 |
| Connecticut | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 11 |
| Delaware | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 11 |
| District of Columbia | - | - | - | - | - |
| Florida | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Georgia | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 7 |
| Hawaii | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 12 |
| Idaho | - | - | - | - | - |
| Illinois | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 10 |
| Indiana | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 12 |
| Iowa | - | - | - | - | - |
| Kansas | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 9 |
| Kentucky | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Louisiana | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 11 |
| Maine | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 10 |
| Maryland | - | - | - | - | - |
| Massachusetts | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 10 |
| Michigan | - | - | - | - | - |
| Minnesota | - | - | - | - | - |
| Mississippi | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Missouri | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 9 |
| Montana | - | - | - | - | - |
| Nebraska | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Nevada | --- | - | - | - | - |
| New Hampshire | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| New Jersey | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 12 |
| New Mexico | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| New York | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
| North Carolina | - | - | - | - | - |
| North Dakota | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Ohio | - | - | - | - | - |
| Oklahoma | - | - | - | - | - |
| Oregon | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 11 |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 12 |
| South Carolina | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 |
| South Dakota | - | - | - | - | - |
| Tennessee | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| Texas | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 10 |
| Utah | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 11 |
| Vermont | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 10 |
| Virginia | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Washington | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 11 |
| West Virginia | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Wisconsin | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 8 |
| Wyoming | - | - | - | - | - |
| Virgin Islands | - | - | - | - | - |
Note: See Criteria, Section III, for the precise meaning of the abbreviated table headings.
 
|
|
|
