Standards & Accountability

Many States Receive ‘D’ or ‘F’ in Review of Science Standards

February 07, 2012 5 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A new review offers a “bleak picture” of the state of state science standards across the nation, with just over half earning a grade of D or F.

Only California and the District of Columbia were given a solid A, while four states were handed an A-minus, according to the review by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

The Fordham report, issued last week, focuses on two main areas: “content and rigor,” and “clarity and specificity.” It argues, for instance, that many states’ standards are “so vague as to be meaningless.” The review also contends that state standards often undermine the teaching of evolution.

The review is the third Fordham has produced on science standards; the last came in 2005.

“The results of this rigorous analysis paint a fresh—but still bleak—picture,” wrote institute President Chester E. Finn Jr., a former education official in the Reagan administration, and senior director Kathleen Porter-Magee, in a foreword to the report. “A majority of the states’ standards remain mediocre to awful. In fact, the average grade across all states is—once again—a thoroughly undistinguished C.”

Sharp Critiques

The study comes as a major effort is under way to develop a set of common, “next generation” science standards. Twenty-six states are playing a lead role in crafting the new standards, guided by a framework developed by the National Research Council. A first draft of the standards is expected out for public comment in late March or April.

In explaining the F grade handed to Wisconsin, one of 10 states to receive failing marks, the Fordham report describes the standards as “simply worthless,” saying “no real content exists to evaluate.”

Patrick J. Gasper, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, said that his state’s standards were “considered exemplary” when released in 1998, but that they are not grade-specific.

“In a state like Wisconsin, providing too much specificity ran counter to our system, where local control is important,” he said.

Mr. Gasper added that a few years ago, the state issued a supplemental document to help school districts make curricular decisions, and that “many districts and educators have utilized this resource.”

Wisconsin officials are “anxiously awaiting” the completion of the common science standards, he said, though he cautioned that the state would not make a decision on adopting them until it reviews the final product, expected out by year’s end.

Grading the States on Science Standards

A new report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute gives most states low grades for science standards, which it judged on content, rigor, clarity, and specificity.

BRIC ARCHIVE

SOURCE: Thomas B. Fordham Institute

One issue the Fordham report highlights as cause for concern in state standards is the handling of evolution.

It says that while “many states” are addressing the topic better than in the past, “anti-evolution pressures continue to threaten state science standards.”

The report, for example, notes that Missouri has “asterisked all ‘controversial’ evolution content in the standards and relegated it to a voluntary curriculum that will not be assessed.” And the report says a common technique in some states is to direct students to study evolution’s “strengths and weaknesses.”

The report indicates that only four states—Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island—openly embrace human evolution in their science standards.

The National Research Council framework for common science standards, devised by a panel of experts in science and education, identified “biological evolution” as one of four “core ideas” for understanding the life sciences.

Scientific Inquiry

The Fordham Institute report says many states do a poor job of integrating scientific inquiry with content in their standards, and fail to make the link between science and mathematics.

Ms. Porter-Magee said she hopes that the report will spur states with poor grades to revise their standards, and that it highlights models worth considering to inform the common standards.

California and the District of Columbia, she said, “did an outstanding job” with their standards.

“Those standards in both cases were very comprehensive, really outlined all of the important science content that students need to learn across all the disciplines and all the grades,” she said. “They were also clear, free from jargon, [and] really provided the kind of road map that teachers, curriculum developers, and assessment developers need.”

Florida, although praised for its treatment of evolution, got a D for its standards, last updated in 2008. The report says the document “starts out well” in the primary grades, but in the upper grades “weakens into poor organization, ambiguous statements, and basic errors.”

A Florida official said she was “perplexed” and disappointed” by the grade. She said that one of the co-authors of the latest and earlier Fordham reports actually provided direct feedback to Florida on a draft of the 2008 standards, and that he provided a much more favorable assessment than the Fordham grade this time around.

“The rating is confusing to us,” said the state official, Mary Jane Tappen, a deputy chancellor at the Florida Department of Education, who said the state went through a rigorous process involving a variety of experts to help develop its standards.

In any case, Ms. Tappen said, the state would take another look at the document. “Certainly, if we have any errors or content that leads to misconception, we need to make those corrections immediately,” she said.

Ms. Porter-Magee said that the report and its grades reflect the work of five science experts, and that the think tank stands by its Florida analysis. At the same time, she said she sympathized with the concerns of Florida officials, adding that “Florida has been working hard to improve the quality of its standards.”

Ms. Porter-Magee cautioned that each state’s grade does not tell the whole story for its science standards, because it may have received higher or lower marks in particular domains of science.

“If a state got a C overall, it doesn’t mean it got a C in all areas,” she said. “For example, high school physics and chemistry was almost across the board among the weakest” domains in states’ science standards.

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the February 08, 2012 edition of Education Week as Nationwide Review of Science Standards Offers Low Marks

Events

School & District Management Webinar Crafting Outcomes-Based Contracts That Work for Everyone
Discover the power of outcomes-based contracts and how they can drive student achievement.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
Harnessing AI to Address Chronic Absenteeism in Schools
Learn how AI can help your district improve student attendance and boost academic outcomes.
Content provided by Panorama Education
School & District Management Webinar EdMarketer Quick Hit: What’s Trending among K-12 Leaders?
What issues are keeping K-12 leaders up at night? Join us for EdMarketer Quick Hit: What’s Trending among K-12 Leaders?

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Standards & Accountability State Accountability Systems Aren't Actually Helping Schools Improve
The systems under federal education law should do more to shine a light on racial disparities in students' performance, a new report says.
6 min read
Image of a classroom under a magnifying glass.
Tarras79 and iStock/Getty
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Standards & Accountability Sponsor
Demystifying Accreditation and Accountability
Accreditation and accountability are two distinct processes with different goals, yet the distinction between them is sometimes lost among educators.
Content provided by Cognia
Various actions for strategic thinking and improvement planning process cycle
Photo provided by Cognia®
Standards & Accountability What the Research Says More than 1 in 4 Schools Targeted for Improvement, Survey Finds
The new federal findings show schools also continue to struggle with absenteeism.
2 min read
Vector illustration of diverse children, students climbing up on a top of a stack of staggered books.
iStock/Getty
Standards & Accountability Opinion What’s Wrong With Online Credit Recovery? This Teacher Will Tell You
The “whatever it takes” approach to increasing graduation rates ends up deflating the value of a diploma.
5 min read
Image shows a multi-tailed arrow hitting the bullseye of a target.
DigitalVision Vectors/Getty