The State of the Arts in American science performance

January 31, 2012              
 State Science-Education Standards  Jeopardize U.S. Competitiveness 


Washington, D.C.— A major Thomas B. Fordham Institute report released today finds that the  K-12 science standards of  most states remain mediocre to awful, placing America’s national competitiveness, technological prowess and scientific
leadership in grave jeopardy.
Since the  Sputnik  launch of 1957, Americans have regarded science  education as crucial to our national security and
economic competitiveness.  Just recently, a National Science Board report found that the U.S. could soon be overtaken as
global leader in supporting science and technology, and  advocates educational improvement as crucial to America
maintaining its role as the world’s  engine of scientific innovation.  But  The State of State Science Standards, which reviews and analyzes the guidelines that inform K-12 science curriculum and instruction in every state and the District of Columbia, concludes that  what states presently expect of their schools in this critical subject is woefully inadequate.
In this comprehensive appraisal, more than 75 percent of states received grades of C or lower, and a majority  received D’s or F’s.  California and the District of Columbia earned  the only straight As—while Indiana, Massachusetts, South 
Carolina, and Virginia received A-‘s for their excellent state science standards.  But most states lack rigorous, content-rich standards.  Seven of them received B-level grades; 11 states received Cs; 17 states received Ds; and 10 states received
failing F grades.
“If America is to remain a prosperous, scientifically-advanced and economically competitive nation, then we must ensure that every school is teaching science to a very high standard,” said Chester E. Finn, Jr., Fordham’s president.  “In this
subject as in others reviewed by Fordham experts, the states set the bar, prescribing what schools should teach and students need to learn. They then develop assessments keyed to those standards.  If our expectations are low and unclear,
we’re guaranteeing the failure of our students and the weakening of our nation.”
Leading science education experts authored this analysis,  evaluating state science standards for their clarity, content completeness, and scientific correctness.  Science standards are the foundation upon which a state’s system of assessment,
instruction, and accountability rests.  Therefore, this review analyzes the standards themselves to ensure that they’re clear, thorough, and academically demanding. It does not investigate whether science standards are being properly assessed with
state tests, effectively implemented in the schools, or whether they are driving improvements in student achievement.
Shortcomings were many and diverse but there turned out to be four areas, in particular, where state science standards
were flawed.
1. While many states are handling evolution better today than during the last Fordham review in 2005, antievolutionary pressures continue to threaten and weaken  science standards in many jurisdictions.
2. A great many standards are so vague for educators as to be completely meaningless.  Only 7 states earned full credit scores for clarity and specificity while 29 earned a one or zero out of three.
3. Science educators, curriculum developers, and standards writers have focused excessive attention on “inquiry based learning”—attempting to help students learn through “discovery” instead of direct instruction of specific content.  In too many states, these inquiry standards are vague to the point of uselessness—depriving students of an education based on substantive scientific content.
4. Mathematics is essential to science, yet few states make this link between math and science clear—and many seem to go to great lengths to avoid mathematical formulae and equations altogether.  Students cannot adequately learn physics and chemistry without understanding mathematical concepts and mastering quantitative operations. “The brave souls, expert scientists and veteran educators  currently struggling to develop a draft of ‘common’ science standards under the aegis of Achieve, Inc., have a weighty burden,” Finn remarked. “Can they develop a K-12 product that is suitably content-rich, rigorous, clear and usable across America? Will such a product replace the mediocre standards that most states have in place today? But the authors don’t have to start from scratch. Besides a commendable
science-education “framework” from the National Research Council, they can look to the excellent standards already in use in several states  as models.  It’s no secret  what good science standards look like.  It’s a blight upon the United States,
however, that such standards are guiding the schools and teachers in so few places today.”
  
» Download Full Report

State reviews by Lawrence S. Lerner, Ursula Goodenough, John Lynch, Martha Schwartz, and Richard Schwartz
NAEP review by Paul R. Gross

Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Kathleen Porter-Magee

American science performance is lagging as the economy becomes increasingly high tech, but  our current science standards are doing little to solve the problem. Reviewers evaluated science standards for every state for this report and their findings were deeply troubling: The majority of states earned Ds or Fs for their standards in this crucial subject, with only six jurisdictions receiving As. Explore all the state report cards and see how your state performed.