Communication Center  Conference  Projects Share  Reports from the Field Resources  Library  LSC Project Websites  NSF Program Notes
 How to Use this site    Contact us  LSC-Net: Local Systemic Change Network
Educational Reform & Policy

Systemic Reform

Math Reform

Science Reform

Technology Integration

Equity

International Focus and TIMSS

Standards

Assessment and Accountability

School Culture

Public Engagement

Professional Development

Teaching and Learning

LSC Papers and Reports

Paper

  New!     

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

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 ScorePercentageGrade
Alabama5168D
Alaska1--N
Arizona7195A
Arkansas4661F
California7296A
Colorado5979D
Connecticut7093B
Delaware6992B
District of Columbia--N
Florida4155F
Georgia5067D
Hawaii7296A
Idaho2--N
Illinois6891B
Indiana7499A
Iowa--N
Kansas6181C
Kentucky3648F
Louisiana7093B
Maine5776D
Maryland--N
Massachusetts6587C
Michigan--N
Minnesota--N
Mississippi2939F
Missouri6485C
Montana--N
Nebraska5168D
Nevada--N
New Hampshire3749F
New Jersey7195A
New Mexico3141F
New York46080C
North Carolina--N
North Dakota2128F
Ohio--N
Oklahoma--N
Oregon6789C
Pennsylvania--N
Rhode Island7195A
South Carolina5675D
South Dakota--N
Tennessee4357F
Texas6688C
Utah6992B
Vermont6992B
Virginia44965D
Washington6891B
West Virginia3648F
Wisconsin3,46080C
Wyoming--N
Virgin Islands1--N

State (by rank)Raw ScorePercentageGrade
Indiana7499A
California7296A
Hawaii7296A
Arizona7195A
New Jersey7195A
Rhode Island7195A
Connecticut7093B
Louisiana7093B
Delaware6992B
Utah6992B
Vermont6992B
Illinois6891B
Washington6891B
Oregon6789C
Texas6688C
Massachusetts6587C
Missouri6485C
Kansas6181C
New York46080C
Wisconsin>3,46080C
Colorado5979D
Maine5776D
South Carolina5675D
Alabama5168D
Nebraska5168D
Georgia5067D
Virginia44965D
Arkansas4661F
Tennessee4357F
Florida4155F
New Hampshire3749F
Kentucky3648F
West Virginia3648F
New Mexico3141F
Mississippi2939F
North Dakota2128F
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)

StateA: Purpose,Expectations, & AudienceB: OrganizationC: Coverage & ContentD: QualityE: NegativesAdditional FactorsRaw ScorePercentageGrade
Alabama8618109-5168D
Alaska1---------
Arizona109251512-7195A
Arkansas661789-4661F
California109261512-7296A
Colorado89181212-5979D
Connecticut119231512-7093B
Delaware119221512-6992B
District of Columbia---------
Florida3614711-4155F
Georgia75161111-5067D
Hawaii129241512-7296A
Idaho2---------
Illinois109221512-6891B
Indiana129261512-7499A
Iowa---------
Kansas98191312-6181C
Kentucky4410711-3648F
Louisiana119231512-7093B
Maine108141312-5776D
Maryland---------
Massachusetts109211312-6587C
Michigan---------
Minnesota---------
Mississippi54758-2939F
Missouri98211412-6485C
Montana---------
Nebraska87121212-5168D
Nevada---------
New Hampshire4212712-3749F
New Jersey129231512-7145A
New Mexico456412-3141F
New York861691296080C
North Carolina---------
North Dakota135012-2128F
Ohio---------
Oklahoma---------
Oregon118211512-6789C
Pennsylvania---------
Rhode Island129231512-7195A
South Carolina96181211-5675D
South Dakota---------
Tennessee7614610-4357F
Texas109201512-6688C
Utah119221512-6992B
Vermont109241412-6992B
Virginia569121254965D
Washington118221512-6891B
West Virginia4412610-3648F
Wisconsin3871691286080C
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)

StateExpectations of Scientific LiteracyBasis for AssessmentClarity, Completeness, ComprehensibilityExpectations for Written & Oral WorkSubtotal
Alabama23128
Alaska-----
Arizona233210
Arkansas21126
California323210
Colorado32218
Connecticut333211
Delaware333211
District of Columbia-----
Florida20013
Georgia23027
Hawaii333312
Idaho-----
Illinois333110
Indiana333312
Iowa-----
Kansas32319
Kentucky21014
Louisiana333211
Maine323210
Maryland-----
Massachusetts322310
Michigan-----
Minnesota-----
Mississippi11125
Missouri32319
Montana-----
Nebraska33118
Nevada-------
New Hampshire12104
New Jersey333312
New Mexico10034
New York32128
North Carolina-----
North Dakota00101
Ohio-----
Oklahoma-----
Oregon333211
Pennsylvania-----
Rhode Island333312
South Carolina32229
South Dakota-----
Tennessee31127
Texas333110
Utah333211
Vermont332210
Virginia31105
Washington333211
West Virginia30014
Wisconsin31318
Wyoming-----
Virgin Islands-----

Note: See Criteria, Section III, for the precise meaning of the abbreviated table headings.

 to previous page   next page