Paper

State Science Standards: An Appraisal of Science Standards in 36 States

Alabama

The introductory section of the Alabama Course of Study--Science-Scientific Literacy¹³ entitled "Science Literacy: A Vision for Alabama's K-12 Science Education Program," ends, in complete disjunction with the main body, with this formulaic statement: "Explanations of the origin of life and major groups of plants and animals, including humans, shall be treated as theory and not as fact." The writers of the document have done their best to get around that statement, and in general have done well. The main strategy appears to be avoidance of the word "evolution" in the life-science sections (though it is freely used in the earth and space-science sections). In spite of this avoidance, the ideas of evolution that are indispensable to proper teaching of life science are adequately, if gingerly, introduced as early as 2nd grade. There is distortion in such constructs as "analyze the development of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution,"¹⁴ as though Darwin brought evolution forth fully armed and complete, as Zeus did Athena.

Through grade 8, the standards are set forth grade-by-grade.

The kindergarten program is clear and ambitious. It explicitly notes the need for children at this level to experience real objects, not models or pictures. It expects them to begin graphing information and to observe a wide variety of natural phenomena.

At 3rd-grade level, students are expected to apply probability and fractions, as well as graphing and computation, to scientific problems. They are introduced to the crucial idea that the motion of an object is connected to the presence of unbalanced forces. This idea is expanded steadily, culminating in the grade 9-12 standards: "Describe mathematically the relationships among potential energy, kinetic energy, and work";¹⁵ and "Apply the quantitative relationships among force, distance, work, time, and power."¹⁶

In general, the intellectual capacities and strengths of children at various stages of development are well expressed in the introductory passages for each grade-level cluster, and are consistently implemented in the materials themselves.

A few examples are not well chosen. The melting of ice cream is used to exemplify a reversible process,¹⁷ but in fact it is not reversible. Telescopes are said to magnify astronomical objects,¹⁸ which is not true for stars and other distant objects. Eighth-graders learn that "heat energy as infrared energy from deep space provides clues to the beginning of the Universe";¹⁹ microwave radiation is the key. The 6th-grade items concerning electricity do not belong to the Energy strand, and it doesn't make much sense to "relate energy and force to work."²⁰

Alaska

The three-page Alaska Content Standards²¹ seem fine as far as they go, but are too brief to evaluate.

Arizona

The rationale for the Arizona Academic Standards²² is clearly presented. In spite of their brevity (31 pages), the science standards are outstanding in their careful definitions and expositions. In particular, there is a fine treatment of energy. Consider the following:

Grades 1-3: Demonstrate that light, heat, motion, magnetism, and sound can cause changes.²³

Grades 4-5: Define energy.²⁴

Grades 6-8: Define the law of conservation of energy.²⁵

Grades 9-12: Identify, measure, calculate, and analyze qualitative and quantitative relationships associated with energy forms and energy transfer or transformation . . . ²⁶

Newton's laws are explicitly introduced at the grade 6-8 level,²⁷ an ambitious and laudable initiative. However, the Standards could be a little more extensive on planetary science.

Although the word "evolution" seems to be consciously avoided, at least in part on account of political pressure brought by a Board of Education member and her organization, understanding of the process is clearly required and the requirements clearly described. Evolution is not explicitly presented as the organizing principle of the life sciences, but it is interwoven fairly well through much (though not all) of the material.

Arkansas

The Arkansas Science Curriculum Framework²⁸ is a minimal document, about 10 pages long. On the level of generalities, it contains some admirable statements:

Communicate successfully with others about investigations and their explanations.²⁹

Understand that the laws of science are universal. Understand that scientific thought is non-dogmatic. Understand that a scientific theory is based on testable evidence that is open to falsification and can be used to predict future events.³⁰

Recognize that discrepancies between theory and observation are the result of either inadequate theory or inaccurate observations. Perform error analysis on collected data. Evaluate the historical developments of, and multi-cultural contributions to, the scientific body of knowledge (nature of light, expanding universe, plate tectonics, quantum physics, periodic table, evolution).³¹

Understand that mathematics is the precise language of communication and problem solving in science.³²

Laudable as these statements are, it is hard to see how they might form a basis for assessment. If the standards were strong on specifics, the generalities might serve a useful purpose in binding ideas together. Unfortunately, the document is weak when it comes to specifics. For example, grade K-4 students are to "explore the relationships between mass/weight, force, and motion,"³³ and "experiment with static and current electricity."³⁴ But what do these statements mean at the K-4 level? There is similar vagueness throughout.

In following the vogue of assigning broad themes to science, the Framework gives the impression that there is only one possible set of themes.³⁵ The choice of themes is, moreover, idiosyncratic.

Some of the standards don't make sense. What is one to make of the following: "Explain the relationship among mole, chemical bonding, and molecular geometry within chemical compounds"; or "Understand that energy always flows from areas of high energy to areas of low energy (entropy)"?³⁶

Biological evolution is treated gingerly, in "Who? Me?" terms, as if the writers didn't quite know how to cope with Epperson v. Arkansas. The only two references to it are "describe how biologists might trace possible evolutionary relationships among present and past life forms," and "evaluate scientific theory concerning the origin and subsequent development of living things."³⁷ In contrast, there is straightforward treatment of geological evolution³⁸ and cosmology, and even mention of the HR (Hertzsprung-Russell) diagram.³⁹

California⁴⁰

The California Science Framework⁴¹ is unusual in that the standards are presented in the form of short essays rather than as lists of topics. The approach gives weight to the important concept that the sciences are tightly integrated bodies of knowledge, and not mere lists of things that the student is expected to know. It also gives strong suggestion, by example, as to how a textbook might be constructed. The fundamental organizing principles of all the sciences are explicitly discussed, and the Framework is built around them. Unlike lists, these essays cannot be turned into assessment instruments by simple rephrasing. Nevertheless, in the hands of skilled persons they are a firm foundation for writing such instruments. A commission is currently at work developing a set of standards for assessment, based on the Framework.

Colorado

In a laudable attempt to subsume the science standards under six main headings, the Colorado Model Content Standards for Science⁴² express those headings in somewhat awkward and unclear terms. Of greatest concern are Standards 2 and 3:

2. Physical Science: Students know and understand common properties, forms, and changes in matter and energy.

3. Life Science: Students know and understand the characteristics and structure of living things, the processes of life, and how living things interact with each other and their environment.

Too many different things are forced into the Procrustean bed of a single sentence--more-over, a sentence that is required to begin, "Students know and understand. . . ." The standards would be clearer and more useful if they were expressed with primary attention to content rather than form.

The Colorado Standards are typical of too many in their cavalier handling of the concept of energy. The term is used without definition, and sometimes misused, as in "[grade K-4 students can] compar[e] quantities associated with energy movement. . . ."⁴³ In the same section, a hodgepodge of terms is incorrectly lumped together as forms of energy: "for example, changes in temperature, velocity, potential energy, kinetic energy, conduction, convection, radiation, voltage, current." The following standard is even worse, setting up a concept and then inadvertently undermining it. The section begins, "Students understand that interactions can produce changes in a system, although the total quantities of matter and energy remain unchanged." A little later, this is exemplified for grade 9-12 students as follows: "[Students can identify, describe, and explain] physical and chemical changes involving the conservation of matter and energy (for example, oscillating pendulum/spring, chemical reactions, nuclear reactions." But matter conservation is irrelevant in the first example, is tautological in the second, and is false in the third. Nuclear reactions conserve neither mass nor energy separately, but do conserve relativistic massenergy.

On the other hand, there is a good treatment of the distinction between static and dynamic equilibrium.⁴⁴ Evolution is treated thoroughly in the life sciences. Cosmological and stellar evolution, plate tectonics, and other nonbiological evolutionary processes are also given prominent mention. The concept of the model and the relation between the model and the system it represents are extensively discussed.

Connecticut

The Connecticut Standards⁴⁵ are currently in the seconddraft stage, and the following remarks can only be tentative. Highschool biology, chemistry, and physics courses are not included.

While the document is brief, it is easy to read, correct as to facts, and clear in its expectations of students.

I found one serious slip that I hope will be corrected in later drafts. Like many states, Connecticut draws heavily on two publications from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and one from the National Science Teachers Association (see note 1), quoting and paraphrasing in many cases. But whereas Indiana gets the following quotation right: "Scientists' explanations about what happens in the world come partly from what they observe, partly from what they think [emphasis added],"⁴⁶ the Connecticut Standards read, "[Students will] recognize that scientists' explanations about what happens in the world come partly from what they observe and partly from what they believe [emphasis added]."⁴⁷ "Belief" is a word scientists treat with great care and use very little in the context of science; science is based on evidence and not belief.

There are a few other errors. Typical is this one: "[Students will] understand that telescopes magnify the appearance of the moon, the planets, and the stars."⁴⁸ In fact, stars are not magnified by telescopes; rather, their images are rendered brighter by the greater lightgathering power of the instrument.

Evolution is properly treated as the organizing principle of the life sciences, and it is possible to perceive biological evolution as a part of the overall history of the universe, the solar system, and the earth. For example,

• [Students will] explain how evolutionary relationships among organisms can be inferred from DNA and protein sequences [grades 9-12]

• . . . know that many thousands of layers of sedimentary rock provide evidence for the history of the Earth and its changing life forms [grades 58]

Delaware

The Delaware Standards⁴⁹ begin with a wellchosen set of eight standards, each described succinctly but clearly in a oneparagraph essay. Standard Four, Earth in Space, gives more prominence to extrasolarsystem astronomy than most standards, at least at the grade 9-12 level. However, still more emphasis, beginning at lower grade levels, would be even better.

The standards are neither a list of items nor a detailed essay, but a sort of compromise consisting of descriptions of what is to be learned that are shorter than essays but longer than simple list items. Almost all are accompanied by sample activities. Here are three examples:

• Technology applies knowledge to solve problems and to change the world to suit us better. Technological innovation plays an important role in improving the quality of life. Such innovation involves scientific disciplines as well as other disciplines such as engineering, mathematics, medicine, and economics in order to create practical, cost effective solutions to problems and opportunities. Compare present day technologies (methods and equipment to perform a specific function) to those of the past such as washing machine/washboard, refrigerator/ice box . . . or compare technologies used in this country to those used in other parts of the world (e.g., heavy equipment/elephants, electric stove/cooking over a fire). Discuss the impact these technological differences have had on the quality of life.⁵⁰

• Mechanical energy comes from the motion and/or the position of physical objects. The work done on an object depends on the applied force and on the distance that the object moves. Observe and describe changes in kinetic and potential energy in common activities such as bouncing a ball or swinging on a swing.⁵¹

• Evolution does not proceed at the same rate in all organisms, nor does it progress in some set direction. Some organisms have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years while others have died out altogether. In addition, some complex organisms have evolved from simple unspecialized forms of life (e.g., green algae to vascular plants), while other species are the result of complex life forms evolving to simple forms (e.g., winged birds to flightless birds). Environmental changes have a strong influence on this whole process. Use specimens, models and illustrations (e.g., vertebrate brain comparisons, fossils, and modern horse anatomy) to develop an understanding of evolutionary change.⁵²

The completeness of these short statements, together with their wellorganized order, makes it easy to discern the underlying theoretical structure, even though that structure is not set forth in an extended discourse.

The statements are almost always scientifically accurate. A very few slips have crept in. For example, "Momentum allows objects to remain in motion after the applied force is removed."⁵³ Rather, in the absence of an applied force the momentum remains unchanged. The statement as it stands is a conflation of Newton's first and second laws.