The State of State Standards 2000 English Language

History

Geography

Mathematics

Science

EDITEDBY CHESTERE. FINN, JR. ANDMICHAELJ. PETRILLI

January 2000 TheThe StateState oof StateState StandardStandardss 20020000

With Reviews by Sandra Stotsky English David Warren Saxe History Susan Munroe and Terry Smith Geography Ralph A. Raimi and Lawrence S. Braden Mathematics Lawrence S. Lerner Science

Published by Edited by The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation Chester E. Finn, Jr. and January 2000 Michael J. Petrilli Table of Contents

List of Tables and Figures...... v New Hampshire...... 85 New Jersey...... 87 Foreword...... vii New Mexico...... 89 New York...... 91 Executive Summary...... ix North Carolina...... 94 North Dakota...... 96 The State of State Standards Ohio...... 98 - In 2000: Overview and Implications. . . . 1 Oklahoma...... 100 by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Oregon...... 102 Michael J. Petrilli Pennsylvania...... 104 - In English, by Sandra Stotsky...... 7 Rhode Island...... 106 - In History, by David Warren Saxe...... 11 South Carolina...... 107 - In Geography, by Susan Munroe...... 15 South Dakota...... 110 - In Mathematics, by Ralph A. Raimi. . . . . 19 Tennessee...... 113 - In Science, by Lawrence S. Lerner...... 22 Texas...... 115 Utah...... 117 State-by-State Reports Vermont...... 118 Alabama...... 25 Virginia...... 120 Alaska...... 27 Washington...... 121 Arizona...... 29 West Virginia...... 122 Arkansas...... 31 Wisconsin...... 123 California...... 33 Wyoming...... 125 Colorado...... 35 Connecticut...... 36 Appendix A: Delaware...... 38 English Criteria and Detailed Grades...... 129 District of Columbia...... 41 Florida...... 43 Appendix B: Georgia...... 46 History Criteria and Detailed Grades...... 137 Hawaii...... 49 Idaho...... 51 Appendix C: Illinois...... 52 Geography Criteria and Detailed Grades. . . . 143 Indiana...... 53 Iowa...... 55 Appendix D: Kansas...... 56 Mathematics Criteria and Detailed Grades. . 151 Kentucky...... 59 Louisiana...... 62 Appendix E: Maine...... 64 Science Criteria and Detailed Grades...... 155 Maryland...... 66 Massachusetts...... 68 Appendix F: Michigan...... 69 State Documents Examined...... 163 Minnesota...... 71 Mississippi...... 73 Appendix G: Missouri...... 75 School-Based Accountability...... 175 Montana...... 77 Nebraska...... 79 Appendix H: Nevada...... 82 Contributors...... 177

iii iv Tables and Figures

Summary of the Scores...... x Table B3: History: Frequency Scores...... 140

Figure 1: Standards vs. Accountability...... 3 Table B4: History: Final Scores...... 141

National Report Card: English...... 8 Table C1: Geography: Scoring Summary...... 145

National Report Card: History...... 12 Table C2: Geography: General Characteristics...... 146

National Report Card: Geography...... 16 Table C3: Geog.: Comprehensiveness & Rigor K-4. . . 147

National Report Card: Math...... 20 Table C4: Geog.: Comprehensiveness & Rigor 5-8. . . 148

National Report Card: Science...... 23 Table C5: Geog.: Comprehensiveness & Rigor 9-12. . . 149

Table A1: English: Purposes, Audience, etc...... 131 Table D1: Mathematics Ratings...... 152

Table A2: English: Organization of Standards...... 132 Table E1: Science: Summary of Results...... 157

Table A3: English: Disciplinary Coverage...... 133 Table E2: Science: Purposes, Audience, etc...... 158

Table A4: English: Quality of Standards...... 134 Table E3: Science: Organization of Standards...... 159

Table A5: English: Anti-Academic Requirements. . . . . 135 Table E4: Science: Coverage and Content...... 160

Table A6: English: Summary...... 136 Table E5: Science: Quality of Standards...... 161

Table B1: History: All Criteria...... 138 Table E6: Science: Negatives...... 162

Table B2: History: Scores by Criteria Cluster...... 139 Table G1: School-Based Accountability in the 50 States175

v vi Foreword

How good are state academic standards? Are they better than two years ago? How many states now match solid standards with strong school accountability? Those are the central questions examined by this report. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation has been interested in the quality of state standards for some time. In 1997, our first-ever research monograph was Sandra Stotsky’s State English Standards: An Appraisal of English Language Arts/Reading Standards in 28 States. We followed it with five others in 1998 that dealt with academic standards: one each on history, geography, mathematics, and science standards, and a “summary” report: The State of State Standards. The news then was downright discouraging. Taken as a whole, state academic standards were a pretty sad set of norms for the nation’s schools and children. Most were vague, uninspired, timid, full of dubious educational advice, and generally not up to the task at hand. Their average grade was “D-Plus.” The news this year is a bit brighter. The average grade has risen to “C-Minus.” States are writing stronger standards with more detail and content and fewer digressions into pedagogical matters. We’ve identified eight states (and the District of Columbia) that now have solid enough standards to earn an “honors grade” when aver- aged across the subjects. (That compares with just three states in the previous round.) Of course, this means that 42 states still hold mediocre or inferior expectations for their K-12 students, at least in most subjects. Hence it must be said, 17 years after A Nation at Risk, 11 years after the Charlottesville Summit, and in the same year that our “National Education Goals” were to be met: most states still have not suc- cessfully completed the first stepof standards-based reform. The news gets bleaker when we look at the next steps: assessments and consequences. This report juxtaposes our reviewers’ appraisals of state academic standards with data on school accountability systems in those same states. The result: only fivestates boast both solid academic standards andstrong accountability. Meanwhile, battalions of governors, tycoons, educators, and other reformers assert with confidence that we’re living in the age of standards-based reform. It appears that they exaggerate. This report delivers a wealth of information. For those interested in the standards movement in general, turn to the overview essay, “The State of State Standards in 2000.” For those interested in trends in specific subjects, turn to the analytic essays written by our perceptive reviewers, “The State of State Standards in English…in History…” etc. For state officials and other reformers interested in learning how individual jurisdictions fared, turn to our “State-by-State Reports.” And for those intrepid souls interested in the nitty-gritty details, turn to our Appendices, where you will find detailed grades for every subject, the criteria used in our evaluations, a list of state documents examined, and a table on state accountability systems. We were extremely fortunate to regain the services of the same perceptive and tough-minded reviewers and authors who wrote the previous reports. They are leaders in their respective disciplines and extremely talented at making grounded judgments about often-unmanageable standards documents. Their participation in both rounds of reviews makes our evaluations consistent and credible. We thank them for their wonderful work: Sandra Stotsky, who evaluated English language arts/reading standards; David Warren Saxe, who evaluated history standards; Susan Munroe and Terry Smith, who evaluated geography standards; Ralph A. Raimi and Lawrence S. Braden, who evaluated mathematics standards; and Lawrence S. Lerner, who evaluated science standards. (Authors’ affiliations and contact information are listed in Appendix H.) Heartfelt gratitude also goes to Sheila Byrd, who painstakingly collected all relevant documents from the states. And my own special thanks to co-edi- tor Mike Petrilli, who did the heavy lifting on this report—and did it well—as on so many missions and projects for the Foundation over the past two and a half years. A few notes about the conventions and style of this report and the analyses undergirding it. We attempted to review every standards document that had changed since the last time we evaluated them. (This of course includes new documents in subjects and states that had none before.) We also asked states to send us any supporting documents that we should appraise. These arrived in many forms, such as teachers’ guides, curriculum frameworks, etc. In most subjects, our reviewers ended up reviewing 30-40 new sets of state standards. These had either been revised since our last review, complemented with new materials, or drafted for the first time. For standards that had not changed, we chose notto reproduce the previous analyses in our “State-by-State Reports” section. (These old-but-still-pertinent analyses can be found on our web site.) In the interest of com-

vii pleteness, however, we did print their grades in all relevant charts. To help the reader distinguish newly evaluated standards from those carried over from the previous evaluation, we placed all the old grades in italicsthrough- out the report. Because we used the same criteria and reviewers, readers may view these grades as current and comparable to new grades issued in 2000. This entire report can be viewed on our Foundation’s web site: www.edexcellence.net. There, readers will also find links to the previous standards reports, where the criteria and methodology are explained at length. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation is a private foundation that supports research, publications, and action projects in elementary/secondary education reform at the national level and in the Dayton area. Further information can be obtained from our web site or by writing us at 1627 K St., NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006. (We can also be e-mailed through our web site.) Hard copies of this and other Foundation reports can be obtained by calling 1-888-TBF-7474 (single copies are free). The Foundation is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.

Chester E. Finn, Jr. President, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation Washington, DC January 2000

viii Executive Summary

Two years ago, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation reviewed state academic standards in English language arts/reading, history, geography, mathematics, and science. These were the five essential subjects identified by the governors at the 1989 Charlottesville “education summit.” Because many states have changed their standards in the past two years, the Foundation has evaluated them once again. The news is good but modest. In every subject, the hypothetical “average state” made a mild improvement in the quality of its academic standards, and the number of states earning “honors” grades (A or B) rose:

1998 Average 2000 Average 1998 Honors 2000 Honors (# of states) (# of states) English D+ C- 6 19 History D D+ 4 10 Geography D C- 6 15 Math D+ C 12 18 Science C C 13 19

All Subjects D+ C- 3 9

A few welcome trends are also readily apparent:

1) State standards are becoming more specific and measurable. 2) Content is making a comeback. 3) States are less enamored of national standards promoted by professional organizations. Standards and Accountability

This report also juxtaposes what we know about the quality of states’ standards with what we know about the adequacy of their school-based accountability systems. Using data on standards from the present report and data on school accountability from Quality Counts ‘99(updated for 2000 by our Foundation), we have created a matrix that depicts the true state of standards-based reform in America today. Here are some highlights:

• Just five states--four of them in the South--combine solid standards with strong accountability. • Thirty states display a deadly combination of mediocre to awful (or no) standards and weak accountability. • Twelve states rest high-stakes accountability systems upon mediocre or inferior standards. Lessons

• Most states cannot legitimately claim to embrace standards-based reform. • States must improve their academic standards at the same time they are installing tougher accountability systems. • Since standards-based reform is so elusive, it should not be used as the sole “silver bullet” for revitalizing American K-12 education; other reform strategies should be embraced as well.

ix SUMMARY OF THE SCORES National Report Card— State Standards Across All Subjects (in alphabetical order) STATE ENGLISH HISTORY GEOGRAPHY MATH SCIENCE CUM.GPA GRADE ‘98 Grade Alabama A B B B D 2.80 B- C- Alaska F F C D - 0.75 D- D+ Arizona B A B B A 3.40 B+ B+ Arkansas D F F D F 0.40 F F California A A C A A 3.60 A- B Colorado F D A D D 1.40 D+ D+ Connecticut D D D D B 1.40 D+ C- Delaware C D C C A 2.20 C+ D+ District of Columbia A F A B - 2.75 B- C- Florida B C B D F 1.80 C- D+ Georgia B C D B F 1.80 C- C- Hawaii F F F C D 0.60 D- D+ Idaho ------Illinois B F D D B 1.60 C- C- Indiana F C A C A 2.40 C+ C+ Iowa ------Kansas F B A A F 2.20 C+ D- Kentucky F D F B D 1.00 D F Louisiana B C A F C 2.20 C+ C- Maine B D F D D 1.20 D+ D- Maryland B B B C D 2.40 C+ F Massachusetts A B D D A 2.60 B- C Michigan F F B F D 0.80 D- D- Minnesota F F F F A 0.80 D- F Mississippi C C D A F 1.80 C- D Missouri F C B F C 1.40 D+ D- Montana F - - D D 0.66 D- F Nebraska A C F C B 2.20 C+ F Nevada B C C C C 2.20 C+ - New Hampshire D C B C F 1.60 C- C- New Jersey F F D C A 1.40 D+ D+ New Mexico D F F F F 0.20 F F New York C D D B C 1.80 C- D+ North Carolina B D C A A 2.80 B- C North Dakota F F F D F 0.20 F F Ohio D D D A B 2.00 C C- Oklahoma D B C B F 1.80 C- D- Oregon F B F D B 1.40 D+ D Pennsylvania C F - C - 1.33 D+ D- Rhode Island F - - F A 1.33 D+ C South Carolina B C A B B 3.00 B D South Dakota C C C A B 2.60 B- F Tennessee F D F F F 0.20 F D- Texas B B A B C 3.00 B B Utah C C C B B 2.40 C+ C+ Vermont D F F C B 1.20 D+ D+ Virginia B A D B D 2.40 C+ C+ Washington D F F F B 0.80 D- D- West Virginia B C B B F 2.20 C+ C Wisconsin A F F C C 1.60 C- D+ Wyoming D F F D F 0.40 F - United States C- D+ C- C C 1.72 C- D+ 1.72 C- D+ A 3.83 - 4.00 B+ 3.17 - 3.49 C+ 2.17 - 2.49 D+ 1.17 - 1.49 F <0.50 A- 3.50 - 3.82 B 2.83 - 3.16 C 1.83 - 2.16 D .083 - 1.16 B- 2.50 - 2.82 C- 1.50 - 1.82 D- 0.50 -0.82

x SUMMARY OF THE SCORES National Report Card— State Standards Across All Subjects (in rank order by cumulative GPA) STATE ENGLISH HISTORY GEOGRAPHY MATH SCIENCE CUM.GPA GRADE RANK (’98 RANK) California A A C A A 3.60 A- 1 (2) Arizona B A B B A 3.40 B+ 2 (1) South Carolina B C A B B 3.00 B 3 (28) Texas B B A B C 3.00 B 3 (2) Alabama A B B B D 2.80 B- 5 (11) North Carolina B D C A A 2.80 B- 5 (7) District of Columbia A F A B - 2.75 B- 7 (13) Massachusetts A B D D A 2.60 B- 8 (7) South Dakota C C C A B 2.60 B- 8 (43) Indiana F C A C A 2.40 C+ 10 (4) Maryland B B B C D 2.40 C+ 10 (43) Utah C C C B B 2.40 C+ 10 (4) Virginia B A D B D 2.40 C+ 10 (4) Delaware C D C C A 2.20 C+ 14 (24) Kansas F B A A F 2.20 C+ 14 (31) Louisiana B C A F C 2.20 C+ 14 (12) Nebraska A C F C B 2.20 C+ 14 (40) Nevada B C C C C 2.20 C+ 14 (-) West Virginia B C B B F 2.20 C+ 14 (7) Ohio D D D A B 2.00 C 20 (17) Florida B C B D F 1.80 C- 21 (24) Georgia B C D B F 1.80 C- 21 (14) Mississippi C C D A F 1.80 C- 21 (28) New York C D D B C 1.80 C- 21 (19) Oklahoma D B C B F 1.80 C- 21 (34) Illinois B F D D B 1.60 C- 26 (14) New Hampshire D C B C F 1.60 C- 26 (14) Wisconsin A F F C C 1.60 C- 26 (24) Colorado F D A D D 1.40 D+ 29 (19) Connecticut D D D D B 1.40 D+ 29 (17) Missouri F C B F C 1.40 D+ 29 (31) New Jersey F F D C A 1.40 D+ 29 (24) Oregon F B F D B 1.40 D+ 29 (28) Pennsylvania C F - C - 1.33 D+ 34 (38) Rhode Island F - - F A 1.33 D+ 34 (7) Maine B D F D D 1.20 D+ 36 (38) Vermont D F F C B 1.20 D+ 36 (23) Kentucky F D F B D 1.00 D 38 (42) Michigan F F B F D 0.80 D- 39 (34) Minnesota F F F F A 0.80 D- 39 (43) Washington D F F F B 0.80 D- 39 (31) Alaska F F C D - 0.75 D- 42 (21) Montana F - - D D 0.66 D- 43 (43) Hawaii F F F C D 0.60 D- 44 (21) Arkansas D F F D F 0.40 F 45 (43) Wyoming D F F D F 0.40 F 45 (-) New Mexico D F F F F 0.20 F 47 (43) North Dakota F F F D F 0.20 F 47 (40) Tennessee F D F F F 0.20 F 47 (37) Idaho ------Iowa ------

A 3.83 - 4.00 B+ 3.17 - 3.49 C+ 2.17 - 2.49 D+ 1.17 - 1.49 F <0.50 A- 3.50 - 3.82 B 2.83 - 3.16 C 1.83 - 2.16 D .083 - 1.16 B- 2.50 - 2.82 C- 1.50 - 1.82 D- 0.50 -0.82

xi xii The State of State Standards in 2000 by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli

The news is good but modest. In each of the five core K-12 subjects, the hypothetical “average state” made a mild improvement in the quality of its academic standards during the past two years, and the number of states earning “honors” grades (A or B) rose:

1998 Average 2000 Average 1998 Honors 2000 Honors (# of states) (# of states)

English D+ C- 6 19 History D D+ 4 10 Geography D C- 6 15 Math D+ C 12 18 Science C C 13 19 All Subjects D+ C- 3 9

This progress, limited as it is, deserves applause. dards dog. Vague standards are in some respects More states have become more serious about their worse than no standards, because they can mislead responsibility to identify the essential knowledge and the public into thinking that the state has done skills that today’s students must master in order to be something that in fact it has not. Fortunately, state contributing citizens and workers in the new millenni- standards writers are becoming more precise. In um. Perhaps they are learning from one another and English, for example, the percentage of states copying solid models; perhaps the analyses and criti- earning acceptable ratings on Sandra Stotsky’s cri- cisms of several national organizations (Achieve, the terion of “measurability” rose 24%. In geography, American Federation of Teachers, Education Week, the average score for “guidance to teachers” rose StandardsWork, the Council on Basic Education, etc., 38%. And in math, the average score for “clarity” as well as this Foundation) have made a real contribution. rose 40%. The American Federation of Teachers But before we uncork the champagne, let’s take a and Achieve have been pushing for clearer stan- closer look at some rude facts. Despite the progress dards for years; perhaps their efforts are finally that’s been made, only eight states and the District of paying off. (We note that our reviewers have Columbia currently boast strong standards across the again been tougher graders than the AFT, whose subjects. Which means that 42 states still hold annual appraisals of state standards are useful but mediocre to miserable expectations for their students. not nearly so precise in their criteria for accept- At a time when many school reformers have bet the able academic content in particular subjects.) farm on “standards-based reform,” this should give real cause for concern. 2)Content is Making a Comeback.

Three Welcome Trends States’ initial reluctance to specify any particular knowledge that all kids should know may be 1)State Standards are Becoming More starting to dissipate, together with an excessive Specific and Measurable. infatuation with “cognitive skills” unhinged from specific content. That is certainly the case in his- The importance of this development cannot be tory. It is also true for geography, where the overstated. Vague standards are worthless, “comprehensiveness and rigor” scores rose 15%. obscuring the desired results from teachers, par- And in math, scores for the “content” criterion ents, students, and the public, while creating an gained 20% since 1998. environment in which tests—often off-the-shelf, There are two big exceptions, however. In commercial tests—become the tail that wags the stan- English, most states still refuse to identify impor-

1 tant literary works or authors that all children shunning for their students. A clash would seem to should read. Currently, only one in four shows lie ahead. the resolve to list literary benchmarks. The other exception is, of course, the evasion of evolution in Standards and Accountability science standards. The Kansas example is well known, but plenty of other states have taken con- According to recent reports from Achieve, siderable pains to avoid use of the “E” word—and Education Week, the AFT, and others, a growing num- sometimes the entire concept, on which modern ber of states are getting serious about school account- biology rests—throughout their standards. For ability: attaching assessments and consequences to this, they lost many points—and the respect of their academic standards. One might suppose that this much of the American public. is good news and, in the abstract, it surely is. But what happens when states erect tough, high-stakes 3)States are Less Enamored of Standards accountability systems atop dubious standards? And Promoted by Professional Organizations. what happens in states that have great standards but no real accountability for attaining them? Is it not likely During the past decade, three subjects have been that both situations will produce only the illusion of deeply politicized by their own in-house “experts”: reform? English, history, and mathematics. In all three sub- We thought it would be illuminating to juxtapose jects, one can now see the beginnings of a backlash what we know about the quality of state standards against those experts. In English, for example, 45% with what we know about the adequacy of states’ of the states now insist on systematic phonics instruc- school-based accountability systems. Using data on tion during the early grades—up from 32% in 1997— standards from the present report and data on school an anathema to the International Reading Association accountability drawn primarily from Quality Counts and the National Council of Teachers of English. In ‘99(see Appendix G) we have created a table that history, rising scores reflect a growing rejection of the depicts the true state of standards-based reform in standards promulgated by the National Council of the America today (see p. 3). The table has six cells, sort- 1 Social Studies as well as the deeply flawed “national ing the statesby three levels of academic standards history standards” of a few years back. History actu- (solid, mediocre, inferior) and two kinds of account- ally seems to be making a modest comeback, emerg- ability (strong and weak). The results are indeed illu- ing from the murky stew called “social studies.” And minating, and more than a little alarming. Here are in mathematics, more states are embracing the princi- some highlights: ples undergirding California’s world-class math standards and rejecting the precepts of the National • Just five states--four of them in the South-- com- Council of Teachers of Mathematics (which, after bine solid standards with strong accountability. much criticism, are themselves under revision). Readers can spot this trend in the improved scores • Thirty states display a deadly combination of under the “false doctrine” category. mediocre to awful (or no) standards and weak This is a limited trend, however, and what is visi- accountability. ble in state academic standards does not necessarily carry over to other policy domains. This past fall, for • Twelve states rest high-stakes accountability example, the nation learned that entry into public- systems upon mediocre or inferior standards. school teaching would henceforth be more tightly joined to the standards promulgated by professional Let’s examine the six categories. groups, at least in those states that use the “Praxis” exam as a qualification for beginning teachers. When “The Honor Roll” the Educational Testing Service announced that the (Solid Standards, Strong Accountability) content tested by Praxis would henceforth be aligned with the standards of the National Council for These five states exemplify the theory and practice Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), it was of standards-based reform and, in so doing, prove that embracing for teachers those very same “profession- it is possible to put all the essential elements into al” standards in individual subjects that states are place. Note, though, how tiny this group is, and con-

1The District of Columbia was not included in the relevant tables in Quality Counts ’99, and thus cannot be included herein.

2 Figure 1. Standards vs. Accountability

Solid Standards Mediocre Standards Inferior or No Standards (A or B Average) (C Average) (D or F Average or Incomplete)

Strong Accountability "The Honor Roll" "Shaky Foundations" "Trouble Ahead" (See Appendix G) Alabama Florida Kentucky California Illinois New Mexico North Carolina Indiana South Carolina Kansas Texas Maryland Nevada New York Oklahoma Virginia West Virginia

Weak Accountability "Unrealized Potential" "Going Through the Motions" "Irresponsible States" (See Appendix G) Arizona Delaware Alaska Massachusetts Georgia Arkansas South Dakota Louisiana Colorado Mississippi Connecticut Nebraska Hawaii New Hampshire Idaho Ohio Iowa Utah Maine Wisconsin Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana New Jersey North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Tennessee Vermont Washington Wyoming

The Honor Roll.Only these five states can claim to be doing standards-based reform well.

Unrealized Potential.These three states have great academic standards. Too bad they don't count for much.

Shaky Foundations.These ten states have built school-based accountability on a relatively weak foundation.

Going Through the Motions.With mediocre standards and little or no accountability, these nine states give lip-service to standards-based reform, but not much else.

Trouble Ahead.With high stakes attached to bad standards, Kentucky and New Mexico might inadvertently destroy some great schools--and push all schools towards more nonsense.

Irresponsible States.These 21 states cannot claim to embrace standards-based reform.

3 trast it with this excerpt from the “action statement” “Shaky Foundations” agreed to at the 1999 “summit” on standards-based (Mediocre Standards, Strong Accountability) reform: “The commitments made by the nation’s governors and business leaders at the 1996 National Some of these ten states are poster children of the Education Summit—commitments to higher stan- standards-based reform movement. Their governors dards, better assessments, and tougher accountability and chief state school officers speak at high-profile measures—have clearly become central elements in a conferences; their systems earn emulation. Yet their nationwide campaign to improve school performance.” mediocre academic standards—at least in some sub- This is most charitably described as wishful thinking. jects—cannot bear the weight placed upon them by We don’t believe it’s right for America’s governors, high-stakes accountability systems. The combination education leaders, and business tycoons to claim that of vague standards and high-stakes accountability will the country has embraced standards-based reform lead to some worrisome outcomes. First, widespread when only five states have managed to match good cheating (as recently alleged in New York) will standards with real accountability. As for the fact that become more widespread, as frustrated educators fail four of the five of our “honor roll” states come from to find reliable guidance about what to teach even as the South, this has the makings of an interesting study. they know that their students must pass those tests. Why have Southern states embraced standards and Second, the tests themselves will turn into the states’ accountability with more enthusiasm than others? We de facto standards. Depending on the tests, this might suspect the good work of the Southern Regional not be catastrophic. But it would make much more Education Board has played a role, as has the early sense to fix the standards instead. Happily, with some (mid-1980s) recognition by a number of southern gov- re-writing and fine-tuning, all ten of these jurisdic- ernors that prosperity would come to their states only tions could easily join the honor roll. when education reform preceded it. (It is also a fact that many Southern states have been less smugly com- “Going Through the Motions” placent about the performance of their public schools (Mediocre Standards, Weak Accountability) and, politically speaking, are sometimes less beholden to the forces of the “education establishment” that These nine states are giving little more than lip wield so much clout in chillier climes.) service to standards-based reform. They have standards but they aren’t very good. Their leaders talk “Unrealized Potential” about accountability but haven’t translated speeches (Solid Standards, Weak Accountability) into action (or, worse, have installed high stakes for the kids but not for the grown-ups). With a little work, Remember those classmates of yours with lofty their standards could earn honors grades. Installing a SAT scores and crummy grades? Often termed bona-fide accountability system may prove tougher. “underachievers,” they had the smarts but didn’t “apply” themselves. The three states in this category “Trouble Ahead” are similar. They have fine academic standards but (Inferior Standards, Strong Accountability) it’s not clear that those standards count for much yet—especially for the adults who work in their public With high stakes attached to bad standards, schools. We respect the education leaders in these Kentucky and New Mexico run the risk of undermin- jurisdictions and understand the political battles that ing good schools and encouraging the spread of dubi- loom whenever anyone proposes putting educators’ ous academic content. This might be the most vexed jobs on the line. These states have some of the best category of them all. Should these states be applaud- standards in the nation. We hope that their leaders ed for their bold action on the accountability front? will now spend the necessary political capital to make Doesn’t the Kentucky experience suggest that even them matter. bad standards are better than no standards at all? Maybe. Maybe not. We worry that good, academically oriented schools in these states will face overwhelming and damaging pressure to change their ways. We also suspect that, over time, any accountability system that rests on questionable education theories and dubious content is bound to fail.

4 “Irresponsible States” We’re not that patient, or that willing to mislead (Inferior Standards, Weak Accountability) parents and cheat kids. If only a handful of states have got it right after a decade of trying to impose An astonishing 21 states cannot honestly claim to top-down, standards-based accountability on a public be serious about standards-based reform. Their acade- school system that is doing its best to resist, then poli- mic standards—at least in most subjects—are vague, cymakers who are serious about boosting achievement vapid, and misleading (or missing). Their education might think twice about putting all their eggs in this systems rarely punish (or reward) schools that produce one reform basket. It’s painfully clear that standards- bad or good results. To be sure, a couple of these based reform is not easy to get through legislatures states (most prominently Iowa) have decided on prin- and state boards of education, much less to implement ciple not to join the push for statewide standards and in the face of tenure laws, collective bargaining agree- accountability, preferring to leave such decisions to ments, an alphabet soup of vested interests, and vast individual communities. Others, though, have told bureaucratic inertia. Isn’t it time for states to put their citizens that they have, in fact, embarked on stan- some other arrows in their reform bows? dards-based reform at the state level. This turns out to Fortunately, a whole separate reform strategy is be an empty claim. They have neither the solid stan- marching across America in tandem with—some dards nor the tough-minded accountability systems would say in opposition to—standards based reform. that must accompany such a claim if it is to be taken Call it market-based reform. This strategy comes in seriously. They have a lot of work to do. If they myriad shapes and sizes, including charter schools, choose to do it, we hope they work on both parts at open enrollment, public-school choice, vouchers, etc. the same time. Until a state has standards worth This strategy embraces diversity, pluralism, and com- attaining, an accountability system keyed to its stan- petition. As we see it, these two major reform strate- dards may do more harm than good. gies complement one another. Each is apt to improve the other. Choice, after all, will only work well when Lessons reliable, standards-based consumer information is available. And focusing on academic results, as stan- State standards are improving but most still aren’t dards-based reform seeks to do, allows states to ease very good. More states have accountability systems, up on rules, regulations, and the preoccupation with yet very few can honestly boast that they’ve combined “inputs.” good standards with tough consequences. Still, gover- Standards-based reform done poorly, however, nors, federal officials, business leaders, and platoons could do great damage to market-style reform. of educators claim that American children now live Consider charter schools. In the 31 states that today and attend school in an age of “standards-based have both mediocre-to-inferior academic standards reform.” What to make of all this? andcharter school laws, these new schools are finding We’d like to encourage the push for better stan- themselves being held strictly accountable for reach- dards combined with serious accountability systems. ing standards that are not altogether worth reaching. The fact that a handful of states are doing this right Bad standards could force otherwise exemplary char- illustrates the fact that it’s possible to do it right. And ter schools to become worse, thus ruining a second yet, 11 years after the first national education “sum- reform strategy while perpetrating fraud in the name mit” and the setting of national education goals, it’s of the first strategy. That cannot be good for anyone. evident that standards-based reform isn’t yet working Let us be clear, though. Our criticism of lousy very well in the United States. Some people seem state standards and our alarm over their link with sys- quite content to let it take forever. (There is now temic accountability is no rejection of standards-based underway, for example, what strikes us as a craven reform. Nor is it some sort of half-veiled argument and defeatist move to simply remove the “deadline” for a laissez-faire system of unbridled competition from the national goals that weren’t attained during with no state accountability. We favor solid statewide the decade that was dedicated to that effort.) That will academic standards. We favor serious statewide allow all the standards setters, enforcers, testers, moni- results-based school accountability that rewards suc- tors, and analysts to maintain full-employment, and cess and penalizes failure on the part of children and will enable elected officials to continue to claim that adults alike. We alsofavor market-style reform that they and their states are fully engaged in standards- gives families choices among schools and that oblig- based reform, notwithstanding the skimpy evidence ates schools to satisfy their clients as well as their that this effort is causing their students to learn more. supervisors. We favor two-way accountability—to the

5 statewide system andto the school’s customers— that, after all this effort and all this time, we find that within a framework of high-quality academic stan- few if any academic standards have been set high dards in core subjects for every child and school in the enough, and we believe that standards sanstests and state. And we reject the criticism of standards-based consequences cannot get the job done. We wonder reform that has come—with mounting frequency and whether the standards on which all these accountabili- rising volume in recent months—from an odd array of ty systems rest are themselves academically sound. In journalists, school-establishment types, “testing some states today—more than just two years ago—it’s experts,” and “progressive” thinkers. That criticism clear that they are. But a lot of places still have a long takes many forms but most boil down to this: the stan- way to go to reach the high ground. Fine models dards are unrealistically high, the tests are limiting, exist. Other states should borrow from them and cre- and the consequences are unfair. ate for themselves a foundation on top of which it’s Please understand that this is notwhat we’re say- possible to build an accountability system worthy of ing. Indeed, it’s close to the opposite. Our worry is the name.

6 The State of State reviews, those 28 states sent in documents and/or supplementary materials that constitute either a revision Standards in English of those I had examined in 1997, drafts of documents Language Arts/Reading now being revised, or documents and/or supplementary materials completed since my July 1997 mono- by Sandra Stotsky graph was released. The other 21 states appear unlikely to have been influenced by these reports: 13 In 1997, I evaluated 28 state standards documents of them have not changed their documents and supple- in the English language arts and reading. These docu- mentary materials, and the other eight completed their ments either were already state-approved, some dating documents just before (or soon after) the 1997 mono- back to the late 1980s or early 1990s, or were drafts graph was released. of the states’ initial sets of standards in this field. I chose these 28 documents because a 1996 American Signs of Improvement Federation of Teachers (AFT) report had determined that 21 of them met its “common core” criterion. (I To see whether state standards had improved over evaluated the other seven documents either because time, I chose 10 of my criteria on which to compare they hailed from major states or because I wanted to the 1997 and 1999 results. Taken together, these crite- check my ratings against the AFT’s.) Thus, three- ria best illuminate possible trends as well as continu- quarters of those standards that I examined in 1997 ing areas of weakness in state standards documents in had already been judged to be the best standards docu- the English language arts and reading. I compared ments available at the time. If I had reviewed and overall results between the 28 states reviewed in 1997 graded all the other state documents available in 1997, and the 49 states reviewed in 1999, and noted how it is likely that the distribution of grades would have many of the 28 states whose documents were complet- been even lower. In any event, one state document ed or revised after 1997, or are now being revised, received an A, five received B’s, four received C’s, six received high ratings in 1999. (A few states prepared received D’s, and 12 received F’s. Thus, only 10 assessment material or supplementary material that earned grades of C or above, while 18 got D’s or F’s. addressed many of the problems in their original stan- This time (1999), I reviewed and rated 48 standards documents instead of revising them. Thus, the dards documents and the supplementary materials larger number of high scores in 1999 does not neces- accompanying them; these came from 48 states and sarily signal improvement in the states’ standards doc- the District of Columbia because Iowa—on princi- uments themselves.) ple—has no statewide standards and Idaho had not yet completed a full set. Using the same 34 criteria and Criterion A.3: The document expects all students to the same 0 to 4 rating scale that I had developed in demonstrate use of Standard English, orally and in 1997, the distribution of grades in this report is as fol- writing.Substantial improvement here. In 1997, only lows: six A’s, 13 B’s, six C’s, nine D’s, and 15 F’s. 13 of the 28 states (46%) rated a 4. In 1999, 35 of the Thus, half the states earned a C or above, while the 49 (71%) received a 4. Of these 35 states, 21 are other half earned D’s or F’s. Even more encouraging, among the 28 that have developed or revised their 19 of the 49 documents (or almost 40%) earned A’s or standards documents and/or supplementary materials B’s, indicating that they are of high quality. since 1997. Altogether, these grades (and the ratings on which they are based) suggest that the current documents, Criterion A.4: The document acknowledges the whether final drafts or under revision, are generally existence of a corpus of literary works called stronger than those I examined earlier. At the same American literature, however diverse its origins and time, note that 30 states still do notdeserve “honors” the social groups it portrays.Modest gains. In for their academic standards in this most fundamental 1997, 11 of the 28 (39%) rated a 4; in 1999, 20 of the of school subjects. And half of those states are oper- 49 (41%) received a 4. Of these 21 states, 11 are ating with standards that rated an F. among the 28 that have developed or revised their As many as 28 states may have been influenced standards documents and/or supplementary materials by the AFT’s annual reports on standards, my 1997 since 1997. monograph for the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and the January 1998 report issued by the Council for Basic Education (CBE). For the present round of

7 NATIONAL REPORT CARD State English Language Arts/Reading Standards

STATE (alphabetical) SCORE GRADE ‘97 GRADE STATE (by rank) SCORE GRADE RANK(‘97 Rank) Alabama 91 A D California 94 A 1 (-) Alaska 44 F - Massachusetts 94 A 1 (1) Arizona 77 B B Alabama 91 A 3 (15) Arkansas 51 D - District of Columbia 90 A 4 (-) California 94 A - Nebraska 86 A 5 (-) Colorado 44 F F Wisconsin 86 A 5 (6) Connecticut 56 D - Maryland 84 B 7 (-) Delaware 66 C D Illinois 82 B 8 (2) District of Columbia 90 A - Louisiana 80 B 9 (-) Florida 74 B D Nevada 80 B 9 (-) Georgia 78 B B Virginia 80 B 9 (3) Hawaii 36 F F Georgia 78 B 12 (5) Idaho - - F South Carolina 78 B 12 (-) Illinois 82 B B West Virginia 78 B 12 (-) Indiana 43 F F Arizona 77 B 15 (4) Iowa - - - Maine 76 B 16 (-) Kansas 39 F F Florida 74 B 17 (11) Kentucky 44 F - North Carolina 74 B 17 (-) Louisiana 80 B - Texas 74 B 17 (9) Maine 76 B - Pennsylvania 71 C 20 (-) Maryland 84 B - New York 70 C 21 (10) Massachusetts 94 A A South Dakota 70 C 21 (-) Michigan 27 F F Delaware 66 C 23 (13) Minnesota 45 F F Mississippi 65 C 24 (13) Mississippi 65 C D Utah 61 C 25 (7) Missouri 40 F F New Mexico 58 D 26 (-) Montana 28 F - Connecticut 56 D 27 (-) Nebraska 86 A - New Hampshire 56 D 27 (12) Nevada 80 B - Oklahoma 56 D 27 (8) New Hampshire 56 D D Wyoming 56 D 27 (-) New Jersey 41 F F Arkansas 51 D 31 (-) New Mexico 58 D - Washington 50 D 32 (15) New York 70 C C Ohio 48 D 33 (17) North Carolina 74 B - Vermont 48 D 33 (-) North Dakota 35 F - Oregon 46 F 35 (19) Ohio 48 D F Minnesota 45 F 36 (19) Oklahoma 56 D C Alaska 44 F 37 (-) Oregon 46 F F Colorado 44 F 37 (18) Pennsylvania 71 C - Kentucky 44 F 37 (-) Rhode Island 15 F - Indiana 43 F 40 (24) South Carolina 78 B - New Jersey 41 F 41 (28) South Dakota 70 C - Missouri 40 F 42 (22) Tennessee 38 F F Kansas 39 F 43 (27) Texas 74 B B Tennessee 38 F 44 (23) Utah 61 C C Hawaii 36 F 45 (21) Vermont 48 D - North Dakota 35 F 46 (-) Virginia 80 B B Montana 28 F 47 (-) Washington 50 D D Michigan 27 F 48 (26) West Virginia 78 B - Rhode Island 15 F 49 (-) Wisconsin 86 A C Idaho - - - - Wyoming 56 D - Iowa - - - -

To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1997, at which time they were reviewed and graded by Dr. Stotsky. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

8 Criterion A.6: The document expects explicit and Criterion D.5a: The standards are of increasing systematic instruction in decoding skills in the pri- intellectual difficulty at each higher educational mary grades as well as the use of meaningful read- level. Modest gains. In 1997, 12 states (43%) rated a ing materials. Substantial improvement. In 1997, 9 3; none rated a 4. In 1999, 25 (51%) rated a 3 or 4; states (32%) seemedto have this expectation and rated three earned 4’s. Of these 25 states, 17 are among the a 4; in 1999, 22 (45%) seemedto have this expecta- 28 that have developed or revised their standards doc- tion and earned a 4. Of these 22 states, 13 are among uments and/or supplementary material since 1997. the 28 that have developed or revised their standards documents and/or supplementary materials since 1997. Criterion D.5b: The standards index or illustrate growth through the grades for reading by referring Criterion B.2: The standards are grouped in cate- to specific reading levels or to titles of specific liter- gories reflecting coherent bodies of scholarship or ary or academic works as examples of a reading research in the English language arts. Small level. Modest gains. In 1997, five (18%) rated a 3 or decline. In 1997, 13 states (46%) rated a 4; in 1999, 4 (of these five, four earned 4’s). In 1999, 11 (22%) 22 (45%) did. Of these 22 states, 13 are among the 28 rated a 3 or 4 (of these 11, nine earned 4’s). Of these that have developed or revised their standards docu- 11 states, 10 were among the 28 that have developed ments and/or supplementary materials since 1997. or revised their documents since 1997. (A few states that had provided examples in an earlier document, Criterion C.2: The standards clearly address read- such as Hawaii, did not do so in the revised docu- ing (and viewing) to understand and use information ment.) through the grades. They include progressive development of reading skills and a reading vocabulary, On these 10 criteria, I found substantial improve- and knowledge and use of a variety of textual fea- ment (the share of states rating a 3 or a 4 rose by at tures, genres, and reading strategies for academic, least 10 percentage points) in four, modest gains in occupational, and civic purposes. Substantial five, and a small decline in one. On the whole, these improvement. In 1997, only five states (18%) rated a comparisons revealed some encouraging trends: (1) A 4; in 1999, 16 (33%) did. Of these 16 states, four majority of the states (33) have learned how to create have developed or revised their standards documents measurable standards. (2) Half the states now create and/or supplementary materials since 1997. standards of increasing intellectual difficulty through the grades. (3) Many more states now include a well- Criterion C.3: The standards clearly address the developed set of vocabulary objectives through the reading (or viewing), interpretation, and critical grades (16 in 1999, compared to five in 1997). (4) All evaluation of literature.Modest gains. In 1997, 15 but 13 states make their expectations clear for the use (54%) rated a 3; in 1999, 31 (63%) earned a 3. Of of Standard English orally and in writing. (5) Most these 31 states, 19 are among the 28 that have devel- states (39) have good standards in place for research oped or revised their standards documents and/or sup- processes. Finally, more states (11 in 1999, compared plementary materials since 1997. to five in 1997) now specify the level of reading difficulty they expect, especially in high school. They do Criterion C.6: The standards clearly address this either by designating the reading levels they want research processes.Modest gains. In 1997, 21 states at the grade levels to be assessed or by providing (75%) received a 3 or 4; in 1999, 39 states (80%) examples of well-known literary works whose level of rated a 3 or 4. Of these 39 states, 24 are among the difficulty is clear to teachers (and parents). 28 that have developed or revised their standards doc- Note that a high proportion of the 28 states that uments and/or supplementary materials since 1997. have completed or revised their standards documents and/or supplementary materials since 1997 received a Criterion D.3: The standards are measurable. high rating on the criteria presented above. The Substantial improvement. In 1997, 15 states (54%) shares ranged from 36% (10 of 28) to 86% (24 of 28), rated a 3 or 4; in 1999, 33 (67%) earned a 3 or 4. Of with most around 50%. This suggests that the newer these 33 states, 21 are among the 28 that have devel- standards are generally stronger than the older; per- oped or revised their standards documents and/or sup- haps the criticisms voiced in the past several years plementary materials since 1997. have had a positive effect. Still, we have a long way to go before all states have strong and measurable academic standards that drive assessments in the English

9 language arts and reading and shape local curricula objectives (16) is also cause for concern, given the and classroom instruction in ways that increase expec- importance of vocabulary knowledge in the develop- tations for all students. ment of reading ability, an ability that is crucial to learning in all subject areas. Continuing Challenges The standards for literary study, while pleasing in some respects (31 states now have reasonably good A disturbing number of states (16) still don’t have literary standards), pose a different problem. Only 21 measurable standards (even if, as is the case in some states specify the study of American and British litera- states, their assessments are good). An even larger ture, and many of those provide no other specifics number (24) failed to create standards that reflect such as literary periods, literary traditions, or core increasing levels of intellectual difficulty, thus provid- authors (never mind titles) with which all American ing poor guidance for curriculum development. To students should be familiar before they graduate from some extent, this problem stems from the failure of a high school. At stake is not only the literary and cul- large number of states (27) to use a coherent and tural heritage of the English-speaking world but our research-based set of categories for generating stan- civic culture itself. It is in danger of being lost due to dards. a failure of nerve—an unwillingness on the part of The most serious problems with the 1999 stan- state officials to hammer out some literary and cultural dards documents arose in the teaching of reading and specifics in standards documents that will serve to the study of literature. Only 22 states seem to expect guide state assessments and, in turn, the development systematic phonics instruction. Given the ample and of local curricula. It is heartening that a few states definitive research evidence available on this question, have begun to specify reading levels to indicate the that number should be far larger. (I use the word level of difficulty they expect in high school. But this “seem” because one cannot be sure what some states positive trend does not compensate for the failure to really expect in this area, as few specify the use of specify suitable content for the K-12 English curricu- decodable texts in the primary grades.) The small lum. number of states with well-developed vocabulary

10 The State of State now. Although a troubling 15 states still get failing marks, the country’s overall gains in this subject are Standards in History noteworthy. They demonstrate not only that it is pos- by David Warren Saxe sible to write history standards that explain to teachers, students, and parents in clear and accountable On the whole, state history standards have terms just what is to be taught and learned, but also improved significantly in the past two years. For the that it’s possible to improve upon the formula. vast majority of states, history is now part of the edu- Moreover, a number of states have shown that it’s pos- cational infrastructure. Forty-six states plus the sible to write history standards with state and local District of Columbia offer some sort of history content resources rather than relying on the dictates of nation- in their state standards, up from 37 in 1998. While al organizations and special interest groups. the quality continues to vary widely, the trend is unde- niably positive. Content Makes a Comeback

Highlights: What makes the greatest difference in the improvement (or lack thereof) in state scores is, in a • Of the 10 states that have added standards since word: content. States that earned higher grades or 1998, Arizona tops the list with an outstanding set demonstrated improvements provided stronger content of history standards that earned an A. Impressive in their standards. States that had flat or lowered starts were also made by Oregon, which earned a scores either did not provide enough significant con- B, and by Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina, tent or continued to omit it altogether. and South Dakota, each earning a C for its initial Note that this evaluation did not expect state his- effort. tory standards to conform to a predetermined list of dates, events, persons, facts, concepts, ideas, books, or • Sixteen states improved their history scores, seven other markers; I left such decisions to the sovereign by a full letter grade (Alabama C to B, California states. Nonetheless, I did expect every state to identi- B to A, Delaware F to D, Georgia D to C, fy what it deemed to be important and significant Kentucky F to D, New York F to D, and North items from history. I held states accountable for spec- Carolina F to D); three by twofull letter grades ifying precisely what students should know about U.S. (Missouri F to C, Nebraska F to C, and Oklahoma history and relevant world and European history. D to B); and, most notably, two raised their scores Those states that continued to receive failing grades threefull letter grades (Kansas F to B and were not able—for whatever reasons—to do so. Maryland F to B). A second source of better grades in many states was special interests’ diminishing influence in prepar- • Nine states revised their standards but showed no ing state history standards. The prime example is improvement in grades. Five of these continued California, where standards writers rejected the once- to earn failing grades (Illinois, New Jersey, obligatory “mentioning” of every factional and demo- Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont). graphic interest group. In those states that scored D’s and F’s, on the • One state and the District of Columbia revised other hand, special interests evidently continue to their standards, but their efforts led to lower exert undue influence. Many of the states with poor grades. Connecticut dropped from C to D and the grades still use the ahistorical approach found in the District of Columbia from C to F. so-called “national social studies standards” promulgated by the National Council for the Social Studies • Only Iowa, Montana, and Rhode Island did not (NCSS). Nationally, though, the trend seems to be to offer any state history standards for review, and recognize NCSS as one of many special interests that Idaho has only completed standards for grades 9-12. strive to influence state standards. (While most states still use the term “social studies” to describe that part The number of passing grades changed impres- of the curriculum that includes history, fewer are using sively and, consequently, the number of failing grades the NCSS model as their template for history instruc- dropped. Only four states had earned A’s and B’s in tion.) This represents progress. So does the growing 1998, but ten now deserve honors grades. Twenty-five distance between most states’ standards and the so- states earned D’s and F’s in 1998, compared with 24 called “voluntary national history standards” that were

11 NATIONAL REPORT CARD State History Standards

STATE (alphabetical) SCORE GRADE ‘98 GRADE STATE (by rank) SCORE GRADE RANK(‘98 Rank) Alabama 47 B C California 60 A 1 (2) Alaska 6 F F Virginia 59 A 2 (1) Arizona 57 A - Arizona 57 A 3 (-) Arkansas 2 F F Kansas 51 B 4 (27) California 60 A B Maryland 49 B 5 (26) Colorado 21 D D Massachusetts 49 B 5 (4) Connecticut 18 D C Alabama 47 B 7 (5) Delaware 23 D F Oklahoma 43 B 8 (16) District of Columbia 8 F C Texas 41 B 9 (3) Florida 26 C C Oregon 38 B 10 (-) Georgia 31 C D Nebraska 35 C 11 (36) Hawaii 2 F - Louisiana 33 C 12 (10) Idaho - - - Nevada 33 C 13 (-) Illinois 16 F F Indiana 32 C 14 (6) Indiana 32 C C Georgia 31 C 15 (14) Iowa - - - Missouri 31 C 15 (34) Kansas 51 B F South Dakota 31 C 15 (-) Kentucky 20 D F West Virginia 30 C 18 (8) Louisiana 33 C C South Carolina 27 C 19 (-) Maine 19 D D Florida 26 C 20 (9) Maryland 49 B F Mississippi 26 C 20 (43) Massachusetts 49 B B New Hampshire 26 C 20 (11) Michigan 15 F F Utah 26 C 20 (13) Minnesota 4 F F New York 25 D 24 (24) Mississippi 26 C - Delaware 23 D 25 (23) Missouri 31 C F Colorado 21 D 26 (15) Montana - - - Tennessee 21 D 26 (17) Nebraska 35 C F Kentucky 20 D 28 (30) Nevada 33 C - Maine 19 D 29 (18) New Hampshire 26 C C Connecticut 18 D 30 (12) New Jersey 11 F F North Carolina 18 D 30 (31) New Mexico 2 F F Ohio 18 D 30 (19) New York 25 D F Illinois 16 F 33 (20) North Carolina 18 D F Michigan 15 F 34 (22) North Dakota 14 F - North Dakota 14 F 35 (-) Ohio 18 D D New Jersey 11 F 36 (36) Oklahoma 43 B D Wisconsin 11 F 36 (21) Oregon 38 B - Vermont 10 F 38 (28) Pennsylvania 0 F F District of Columbia 8 F 39 (7) Rhode Island - - - Washington 7 F 40 (25) South Carolina 27 C - Alaska 6 F 41 (29) South Dakota 31 C - Minnesota 4 F 42 (32) Tennessee 21 D D Arkansas 2 F 43 (33) Texas 41 B B New Mexico 2 F 43 (35) Utah 26 C C Hawaii 2 F 43 (40) Vermont 10 F F Wyoming 2 F 43 (-) Virginia 59 A A Pennsylvania 0 F 47 (36) Washington 7 F F Idaho - - - - West Virginia 30 C C Iowa - - - - Wisconsin 11 F F Montana - - - - Wyoming 2 F - Rhode Island - - - -

To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1998, at which time they were reviewed and graded by the Foundation and its reviewers. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

12 promulgated in 1994 amid much furor. Setbacks While the flaws of the national history standards are now well known, fewer people understand the Special interests harmed state history standards in problems with the NCSS approach. Briefly stated, New Jersey and the District of Columbia. New that organization has abandoned efforts to promote a Jersey’s standards are simply dismal. They appear to balanced, history-rich curriculum. Instead, NCSS has reject the basic belief that human beings have free taken up the banner of multiculturalism and diversity- will. They reject the notion that the greatest service of based citizenship education by promoting a rather public education is the development of what Jefferson politicized and non-history-based curriculum. It is a called the “autonomous citizen” who is fully aware, far cry from the open, honest study of the past. Thus informed, and capable of participating in our republi- it is a good thing that more states appear to be treating can form of government. These standards are among the NCSS recommendations as one among many the most “politically correct” in the nation. sources of factional pressure rather than as a model to To be sure, the state downplays the significance of embrace. its standards. Its document says, “The New Jersey Arizona illustrates the point. That state has taken Social Studies Curriculum Framework is not a man- a bold step in curriculum development by basing its dated social studies curriculum.... [While the] social new standards on Constitutional authority rather than studies program should be founded on a core of solid, special interests and politics. As the opening state- discipline-based knowledge ... it will be a district’s ment notes: decision as to the core, or the foundation, of the local program.” In other words, these are not really To maintain the Union that supports our freedoms, statewide standards. Localities will determine the citizens [sic] must rely on the knowledge, skills, essential core of what is actually taught to children. and character of its citizens and those they elect to Perhaps that’s just as well, when one examines what’s public office. Critical to the preservation and in the document. Consider this example: improvement of America’s republican form of government is the study of America’s founding Discuss the internment of Japanese Americans principles, namely the principles as detailed in the during World War II. Review the stated reasons United States Constitution, the Declaration of for this unfortunate action, and explain that the Independence, and in the Federalist Papers. The decision to intern these people was based on the authority of the Arizona standards rests with unfair apprehension that Japanese Americans Article IV, Section 4 of the United States would be loyal to Japan, the wartime enemy, Constitution. The relevant and operative phrase rather than to their adopted country. Emphasize states “The United States shall guarantee to every that the U.S. government’s internment of state in this Union a Republican Form of Japanese American citizens was government-spon- Government....” Since public education is a state sored discrimination. Students research intern- obligation, its design must, by constitutional ment policies of other governments in recent his- authority, contain some form of schooling that tory and learn that the governments have found supports our republican form of government. popular support for such policies, however unwise —Arizona Standards in History, Civics, Geography, and unfair. and Economics draft (August 1999) —New Jersey Social Studies Curriculum Framework, Final Draft (March 1999) With this statement, Arizona became the first state to claim the guarantee clause (Article IV, Section 4) as Nobody is defending the wartime internment of the explicit foundation for its education standards in this Japanese Americans, which most people (the present field. And what follows is a set of praiseworthy stan- author included) view as an ignoble and unfortunate dards, save for one shortcoming: they are not organized episode in our history. But is the state supposed to grade-by-grade, but rather are presented in grade clus- tell children and teachers what to think about it? Note ters. Nonetheless, for states seeking to review, revise, or the judgmental cues “unfortunate,” “unfair apprehen- rewrite their teaching of history, Arizona and California sion,” and “emphasize that ... [internment] was gov- presently represent the gold standard, together with ernment-sponsored discrimination.” This example Virginia, which was already there two years ago. includes no discussion of actual wartime events or of contemporary developments in Asia, including the treatment by Japan of Chinese and Korean civilians

13 (much less of U.S. prisoners-of-war). For students to Final Thoughts understand such matters, they must also come to understand the nature of war. On that count, these Some states that worked hard to revise their state “standards” explain little. Other woeful examples standards will be disappointed with their poor grades. abound in the New Jersey document, which seems not The grades do not reflect effort, but, rather, specific to agree that the appropriate role of history is to results. And let me note, in advance of laments that understand the past as best we can, not to judge it by this review is based on some sort of “conservative today’s standards and sensibilities. agenda,” that several fairly conservative states also Another major disappointment was the District of received low grades. What makes the difference in a Columbia’s history standards. These standards, after state’s grade has nothing to do with its politics. It has rejecting a promising earlier version that earned a C in to do with its intellectual criteria for history. Good 1998, have been revised completely. They now reflect history is not bound by ideology or party. It entails history as seen through the prisms of race, gender, the study of the past in such a way that truth, honesty, sexual orientation, and class. For example, one stan- and solid objective work are expected from all chil- dard, repeated in several grades, states: dren. I would argue that such study is essential for the continuation of the Union. Conversely, the surest road The student will interpret how individuals, groups, to ruin is to forget who we are and where we have and institutions in the U.S. have been both tools come from. of justice and injustice towards groups of people Happily, this review confirms that good history distinguished by gender, race, sexual orientation, standards can and are being written. The next chal- and class. lenge is to ensure that textbooks, statewide tests, —History Benchmarks, Content standard 4, teacher preparation programs, certification require- Grade 5, page 25 ments, in-service training, and college history depart- ments develop complementary programs, policies, and As with the New Jersey standards, students in practices. schools that stay faithful to these standards are unlikely to learn the basics of U.S. history. I hope that, as these standards move into practice, teachers, students, and parents will call for their thorough overhaul.

14 The State of State dards and boosted its score by a whopping 43 points. Missouri’s score is based upon the state’s submission Standards in Geography of entirely new assessment material. And Arizona, by Susan Munroe incomplete in 1998, entered the field with a strong B of 78. During the second half of 1997, we at the Casados We also looked to see how well states that submit- Group gathered and analyzed documents relating to ted standards in the previous round ranked on their geography standards from 38 states and the District of new submissions (see list below). This measure ranks Columbia. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation pub- states by how many points their scores have risen as a lished our findings in February 1998. In this second consequence of going back to the drawing board. Six round, we repeated the process using the same criteria, states—see the asterisks in the table that follows— evaluating state standards documents that are entirely jumped two or more full letter grades. For them, new or extensively revised that we received by mid- clearly, the renewed effort was worthwhile. Note, September 1999. though, that eight of the 18 states rated in both rounds This year, 46 jurisdictions are included in the still have grades lower than C, showing that they will report. Two states, Iowa and Rhode Island, have no need to do much more to make their standards thor- standards and do not plan to develop any. Idaho, ough and challenging. Montana, and Pennsylvania have standards in process. Changes in scores during this two-year period 1.*Maryland (+43) from an F (27) to a B (70) reflect some progress. In 1998, the average score was 2.*Oklahoma (+26) from an F (36) to a C (62) a low D. This time, appraising new contributions 3.*Kansas (+24)from a D (56) to an A (80) combined with scores of states that made no changes, 4. Georgia (+22.5) from an F (35.5) to a D (58) the average went up to a C-. This is good, if not spec- 5.*Delaware (+21.8) from an F (42.2) to a C (64) tacular, headway. 6. North Dakota (+21) from an F (15) to an F (36) The total increase in the number of states receiv- 7.*DC (+19.5) from a C (61.5) to an A (81) ing honors grades (A’s and B’s), however, shows real 8. New York (+18) from an F (40) to a D (58) gains. Most encouraging is the addition of four states 9. California (+ 15.5) from a D (50.5) to a C (66) to the “A” category. The District of Columbia, 9. *Louisiana (+15.5) from a C (67.5) to an A (83) Kansas, Louisiana, and South Carolina now join 11.Kentucky (+14) from an F (26) to an F (40) 1998’s Colorado, Indiana, and Texas in that distin- 12.New Jersey (+13) from an F (37) to a D (50) guished group, making a total of seven states that 13.Florida (+7.5) from a C (65) to a B (72.5) received a grade of 80 or higher. D.C scored a low C 14.Mississippi (+7) from an F (46) to a D (53) in 1998 (61.5) but moved up to 81. Kansas jumped 15.Vermont (+6) from an F (22) to an F (28) from a D of 56 to 80. Louisiana moved from a solid 16.Alabama (+5) from a C (65) to a B (70) C (67.5) to 83. South Carolina received an incom- 17.Connecticut (+3) from an F (49) to a D (52) plete last time and an 83 this time. Colorado remains 18.Missouri (+3) from a C (67) to a B (70) the star of this field with the most thorough and rigorous standards. It scored 90 in 1998. The new “A” States Receiving C’s states have done a commendable job: If their standards are coupled with sound instruction, assessment, Nine states received C’s in 1998: three of them, and accountability, we can assume their children will Alaska, North Carolina, and Utah, remain in that cate- learn geography well. gory, as they did not send in substantive revisions. There were three B’s in 1998 (Michigan, New They are joined this year by five more states: Hampshire, and West Virginia, all of whose scores California, Delaware, Nevada, Oklahoma, and South remain the same). This year, five states joined them— Dakota. Two of these states did significantly better Alabama with a 70, Arizona with a 78, Florida with a than before: California now displays a welcome 72.5, and Maryland and Missouri, both scoring 70, emphasis on geography learning that is independent of bringing the combined “B” group to eight states. history. It raised its score by 15.5 points. Delaware, Alabama beefed up its elementary and middle school because it added performance indicators, saw its score fundamentals, thus adding five points to its former rise by 21.8. score. Similar adjustments below the high school The other three states to join the “C” group— level increased Florida’s score by 7.5 points. Oklahoma, Nevada, and South Dakota—all have new Maryland undertook a massive revision of its stan- standards. Oklahoma submitted weak standards last

15 NATIONAL REPORT CARD State Geography Standards

STATE (alphabetical) SCORE GRADE ‘98 GRADE STATE (by rank) SCORE GRADE RANK(‘98 Rank) Alabama 70.0 B C Colorado 90.0 A 1 (1) Alaska 64.0 C C Indiana 85.0 A 2 (2) Arizona 78.0 B - Louisiana 83.0 A 3 (7) Arkansas 23.0 F F South Carolina 83.0 A 3 (-) California 66.0 C D District of Columbia 81.0 A 5 (15) Colorado 90.0 A A Texas 80.5 A 6 (3) Connecticut 52.0 D F Kansas 80.0 A 7 (17) Delaware 64.0 C F Michigan 79.0 B 8 (4) District of Columbia 81.0 A C Arizona 78.0 B 9 (-) Florida 72.5 B C New Hampshire 76.0 B 10 (5) Georgia 58.0 D F Florida 72.5 B 11 (10) Hawaii 33.0 F - West Virginia 72.0 B 12 (6) Idaho - - C Alabama 70.0 B 13 (10) Illinois 51.5 D D Maryland 70.0 B 13 (34) Indiana 85.0 A A Missouri 70.0 B 13 (8) Iowa - - - Nevada 69.0 C 16 (-) Kansas 80.0 A D Utah 66.5 C 17 (9) Kentucky 40.0 F F California 66.0 C 18 (20) Louisiana 83.0 A C North Carolina 65.0 C 19 (10) Maine 30.5 F F Alaska 64.0 C 20 (13) Maryland 70.0 B F Delaware 64.0 C 20 (24) Massachusetts 50.0 D D Oklahoma 62.0 C 22 (29) Michigan 79.0 B B South Dakota 62.0 C 22 (-) Minnesota 22.0 F F Virginia 59.0 D 24 (16) Mississippi 53.0 D F Georgia 58.0 D 25 (30) Missouri 70.0 B C New York 58.0 D 25 (26) Montana - - - Ohio 54.0 D 27 (18) Nebraska 43.0 F - Mississippi 53.0 D 28 (23) Nevada 69.0 C - Connecticut 52.0 D 29 (22) New Hampshire 76.0 B B Illinois 51.5 D 30 (19) New Jersey 50.0 D F Massachusetts 50.0 D 31 (21) New Mexico 41.0 F F New Jersey 50.0 D 31 (28) New York 58.0 D F Nebraska 43.0 F 33 (-) North Carolina 65.0 C C Oregon 42.0 F 34 (-) North Dakota 36.0 F F New Mexico 41.0 F 35 (25) Ohio 54.0 D D Kentucky 40.0 F 36 (35) Oklahoma 62.0 C F Tennessee 40.0 F 36 (26) Oregon 42.0 F - North Dakota 36.0 F 38 (39) Pennsylvania - - - Washington 34.0 F 39 (31) Rhode Island - - - Hawaii 33.0 F 40 (-) South Carolina 83.0 A - Wisconsin 31.0 F 41 (32) South Dakota 62.0 C - Maine 30.5 F 42 (33) Tennessee 40.0 F F Vermont 28.0 F 43 (37) Texas 80.5 A A Wyoming 26.0 F 44 (-) Utah 66.5 C C Arkansas 23.0 F 45 (36) Vermont 28.0 F F Minnesota 22.0 F 46 (37) Virginia 59.0 D D Idaho - - - (16) Washington 34.0 F F Iowa - - - - West Virginia 72.0 B B Montana - - - - Wisconsin 31.0 F F Pennsylvania - - - - Wyoming 26.0 F - Rhode Island - - - -

16 time but its latest document is almost completely new. which rose 38%. It’s good that new attention is being directed to the considerable needs of educators in the States Receiving D’s classroom. It can’t have happened soon enough!

Six states scored D’s in 1998. Of those, Comparison of Average “General Massachusetts, Ohio, and Virginia did not submit new Characteristics” Scores, 1998 & 2000 material and Illinois’s submission was virtually unchanged. Kansas and California enhanced their 1998 2000 % Change scores and left the “D” range, where they were replaced by five states: Connecticut, Georgia, Clear Writing 2.54 2.61 +3.5% Mississippi, New Jersey, and New York. Though Specificity 1.97 2.02 +2% these grades are weak, they do reflect improvement Balance 2.55 2.68 +5% from the F’s scored last time (Georgia’s score Strong Verbs 2.47 2.65 +7% improved by 22.5 points). Thus nine states now fall Benchmarks 1.83 1.85 +1% into the “D” category. Guidance 1.44 1.99 +38% (maximum 3 points each) States Receiving F’s Total 12.81 13.80 +8 % Just seven states received new F’s, compared with (maximum 18) 18 in 1998. The states are Hawaii, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and Comprehensiveness and Rigor in Wyoming. Tennessee submitted material that was not relevant to the appraisal and Washington’s and Content and Skill Areas Wisconsin’s submissions did not have significant changes, meaning that their scores remained the same. The second set of criteria looks at the standards’ Hawaii, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wyoming submitted Comprehensiveness and Rigor—the quality of geo- no standards in 1998. Their new submissions are graphic knowledge and skills required of students. weak, with scores of 33, 43, 42, and 26 respectively, This measure, for the most part, is unique to geogra- and are marred by inconsistencies and confusion. phy. It is this measure, covering geography’s funda- Kentucky pulled up its score from 26 to 40, North mentals (categorized as “the World in Spatial Terms”), Dakota moved from 15 to 36, and Vermont from 22 to and its categories of “Places and Regions,” “Physical 28, yet these states’ standards are weak and need seri- Systems,” “Human Systems,” “Environment and ous rethinking. A total of 14 states now fall into this Society,” “Skills, Applications and Organization,” that category. tells us whether the teaching of this subject is being taken seriously at the state level. Again, the chart General Characteristics below compares average scores received in 1998 with those received in 2000. Our criteria come under two main headings. One, The overall average rose 15%—a healthy increase. General Characteristics, rates a state’s standards on six The two lowest-scoring categories in 1998 saw the usability measures that are not specific to geography. biggest percentage increases this time. “Applications” The characteristics are: clear, jargon-free writing; moved up by a substantial 25%, indicating new specificity; balance; use of strong verbs; inclusion of emphasis on requiring students to use geographic benchmarks; and overall guidance for teachers. Each information that they have learned. “Physical characteristic is measured on a scale of 0-3 with a Systems” saw a much-needed increase in attention. It total of 18 as a maximum score for the entire category. rose 16% over 1998. But these two categories need The chart below shows the states’ progress by continued reinforcement as they still come in much comparing scores received in 1998 (covering 39 juris- lower than any other category. “Spatial Terms” saw a dictions) with the scores received for 2000’s report strong 15% increase. “Places and Regions” and (covering 46 and including states not re-reviewed “Skills” tied for a 14% increase. since 1998). Overall, general characteristics rose 8%. Use of strong verbs increased by 7%. The most significant increase lay in the category “Guidance to Teachers,”

17 Comparison of Average “Comprehension & the case in 1998 when “Skills” came in second. Rigor” Scores, 1998 and 2000 Scores are definitely better this time than last, but there are no significantly strong scores. 1998 2000 % Change Scores in high school also rise by 15% overall. “Skills,” closely followed by “Human Systems,” Spatial Terms 1.70 1.95 +15% received the most attention in 1998. In 2000, “Skills,” Places & Regions 1.62 1.85 +14% with 2.10, closely followed by “Applications,” with Phys. Systems 1.15 1.34 +16% 2.07, received greatest emphasis. “Skills” rose by .32 Human Systems 1.73 1.95 +13% and “Applications” by .49. This shows new emphasis Enviro. & Soc. 1.64 1.80 +10% on thinking geographically and using geography to Skills 1.68 1.93 +14 % solve problems. But, while scores are better, none is Applications 1.31 1.64 +25% remarkable. Organization 1.87 2.09 +11% (maximum 3 points each) In Conclusion

Total 12.70 14.55 +15% Most states submitting new information this year (maximum24) show a marked increase in the use of material from the national geography standards. There appears to be Reducing the statistics to grade clusters is also heightened awareness of the national standards as a revealing. Elementary scores increased by 9%. States model and resource. Similarly, we see within various do best teaching fundamentals (Spatial Terms) in states’ standards serious pains taken to capture geogra- grades pre-K through 4. True in 1998, it is of some phy’s spatial perspective. We also find decreased significance this round as there is a 13% increase in emphasis on social studies and more on actual geogra- “Spatial Terms” scores, to 2.37 out of a possible three phy. points. If this concentration on teaching and learning The strength of the elementary grades’ focus on the primary elements of geography truly permeates fundamentals, and the overall rise in average scores in pre-K through grade 4 classrooms, children will be middle and upper grades, can only be termed good exposed to significant subject matter regarding geog- news. And the strong showing of honors states—15 in raphy’s basics, a welcome event. all—shows welcome progress. This accumulation of In 2000, middle grades scores increased by 15% evidence should encourage those teachers, professors, overall. They are best in coverage of human systems and national organizations that are working to get (2.01) followed by fundamentals (1.97). In 1998, solid geography taught to U.S. K-12 students. While “Human Systems” (2.11) was followed by “Skills” they are making significant strides, however, much with 1.69, then “Spatial Terms” (1.67). This was not still needs to be done.

18 The State of State Ohio retained their earlier documents, California having added only some clarifying summary material to Standards in Mathematics its standards. North Carolina has printed a formal by Ralph A. Raimi revision that differs little from its predecessor.) We had given Kansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota a In February 1998, Lawrence Braden and I D, a B, and an F respectively in Fordham I, an enor- reviewed the math standards of 47 states and Japan. mous change. The list of states that improved their (We shall include the District of Columbia as a “state” mathematics standards by two grade levels or more for discussion purposes and I shall refer to the 1998 follows: report as Fordham I.) The state standards documents reviewed for Fordham I were all prepared by the end State 1998 2000 of 1997, most of them during 1996 or 1997, as federal District of Columbia D B initiatives at that time had greatly accelerated the bur- Hawaii F C geoning “standards movement.” The present report Kansas D A (“Fordham II”) evaluates only those new or revised Kentucky D B documents received by August, 1999, about two years Maryland F C later. Since we obtained no new document from Japan Nebraska F C in the interim, and since Japan is not one of our states Oklahoma F B anyhow, we shall omit Japan from this summary of South Carolina D B comparisons between the states’ performances as South Dakota F A graded in the two reports. Of the 47 states evaluated in Fordham I, 15 have Unfortunately, two states that sought to improve published no substantial revision in the interim and we their standards with new documents ended up scoring presume they are still using the documents reviewed one or two grade levels lower as a result. Tennessee, there. One state (Idaho) has stated that its earlier doc- which we discussed in depth in Fordham I, was the ument is no longer official state policy, but has sent us more notable of these. At the time of Fordham I, only an incomplete and tentative version of its proba- Tennessee had two documents, an old but sound cur- ble replacement; we have therefore given no grade to riculum guide for the high school level, which we Idaho in Fordham II. This makes Idaho the only state, rated excellent, and a new one for K-8, written by apart from Iowa—which as a matter of policy publish- another group of authors in enthusiastic accordance es no state standards—for which Fordham II has no with recent educational theories. We considered it grade, either new or carried over from Fordham I. baneful. The “average” we were asked to report was Three states that we didn’t evaluate in Fordham I have of course quite meaningless. Tennessee got a now sent standards that had been in preparation at that mediocre score though neither of the two documents time. Of the 31 others included in Fordham I, all but was mediocre by itself. By the time of Fordham II, Idaho have now published or sent to us replacement however, Tennessee had replaced its old high school standards or revisions of the earlier ones. standards with a document matching the K-8 stan- In all, Fordham I evaluated 47 states. Their aver- dards in language and spirit, a pity. age score (16 was the maximum, zero the minimum) was 6.5, which warranted a D grade. Fordham II eval- Trends uated 34 new documents, which, along with the 15 “carry-over” scores for the states which made no A majority of the other states that wrote revisions changes, earned an average score of 8.2, falling into did not make violent changes, though the scores do the C range. A marked improvement, especially when show that more states improved than worsened. We you consider the fact that almost one-third of the analyzed national improvement by quoting average states have made no changes since 1997. If you nationwide scores for each of our four criteria sepa- remove these 15 states from the calculation, the rise in rately. That is, we scored each criterion on a scale of average score is even more impressive. 0 to 4, 4 being the best, and the table below shows Some of the improvements are spectacular. that the average score for Clarity, over the 47 states Whereas only three states (California, North Carolina, evaluated in Fordham I, was 1.5 out of a possible 4. and Ohio), earned an A in Fordham I, the addition of The corresponding figure for the 49 states evaluated in three more states in Fordham II—Kansas, Mississippi, Fordham II is 2.1, an improvement of 40%, and so and South Dakota—now make it six. (California and with the other three criteria. The last column,

19 NATIONAL REPORT CARD State Mathematics Standards

STATE (alphabetical) SCORE GRADE ‘98 GRADE STATE (by rank) SCORE GRADE RANK(‘98 Rank) Alabama 11.5 B B California 16.0 A 1 (1) Alaska 5.9 D C Kansas 14.9 A 2 (30) Arizona 12.2 B B South Dakota 14.2 A 3 (41) Arkansas 5.5 D F North Carolina 13.9 A 4 (2) California 16.0 A A Ohio 13.5 A 5 (3) Colorado 5.4 D D Mississippi 13.0 A 6 (6) Connecticut 4.7 D D West Virginia 12.5 B 7 (4) Delaware 9.1 C C Arizona 12.2 B 8 (5) District of Columbia 10.0 B D Georgia 12.2 B 8 (9) Florida 5.5 D D Virginia 11.8 B 10 (7) Georgia 12.2 B B Utah 11.7 B 11 (8) Hawaii 7.5 C F Alabama 11.5 B 12 (9) Idaho - - F Kentucky 11.0 B 13 (26) Illinois 6.8 D D Texas 10.8 B 14 (12) Indiana 9.3 C C New York 10.4 B 15 (11) Iowa - - - Oklahoma 10.3 B 16 (32) Kansas 14.9 A D South Carolina 10.3 B 16 (30) Kentucky 11.0 B D District of Columbia 10.0 B 18 (28) Louisiana 3.7 F F Vermont 9.5 C 19 (14) Maine 5.2 D F Maryland 9.4 C 20 (34) Maryland 9.4 C F Indiana 9.3 C 21 (14) Massachusetts 5.5 D F Nevada 9.3 C 21 (-) Michigan 2.3 F F New Jersey 9.2 C 23 (13) Minnesota 3.2 F - Delaware 9.1 C 24 (17) Mississippi 13.0 A B New Hampshire 8.0 C 25 (21) Missouri 2.7 F F Nebraska 7.7 C 26 (34) Montana 6.5 D F Hawaii 7.5 C 27 (43) Nebraska 7.7 C F Wisconsin 7.4 C 28 (19) Nevada 9.3 C - Pennsylvania 7.0 C 29 (23) New Hampshire 8.0 C C Illinois 6.8 D 30 (20) New Jersey 9.2 C C Montana 6.5 D 31 (41) New Mexico 2.5 F F Wyoming 6.2 D 32 (-) New York 10.4 B B North Dakota 6.0 D 33 (22) North Carolina 13.9 A A Alaska 5.9 D 34 (18) North Dakota 6.0 D D Oregon 5.8 D 35 (25) Ohio 13.5 A A Arkansas 5.5 D 36 (37) Oklahoma 10.3 B F Florida 5.5 D 36 (27) Oregon 5.8 D D Massachusetts 5.5 D 36 (42) Pennsylvania 7.0 C D Colorado 5.4 D 39 (24) Rhode Island 1.0 F F Maine 5.2 D 40 (33) South Carolina 10.3 B D Connecticut 4.7 D 41 (28) South Dakota 14.2 A F Louisiana 3.7 F 42 (42) Tennessee 3.3 F C Tennessee 3.3 F 43 (16) Texas 10.8 B B Minnesota 3.2 F 44 (-) Utah 11.7 B B Missouri 2.7 F 45 (36) Vermont 9.5 C C New Mexico 2.5 F 46 (37) Virginia 11.8 B B Washington 2.5 F 46 (37) Washington 2.5 F F Michigan 2.3 F 48 (42) West Virginia 12.5 B B Rhode Island 1.0 F 49 (47) Wisconsin 7.4 C C Idaho - - - - Wyoming 6.2 D - Iowa - - - -

20 Adjusted Change, takes account of the fact that about however, since the purpose of the evaluation was not one-third of the states did not write a new document primarily to produce a final grade, but rather to point between the two evaluations, and thus contributed out, item by item, how the states were performing on nothing to the comparison. If you leave these states the items named. If encouraging improvement in one out of the account, the contributions of those that gave category entails improvement in some others, all the us new documents in 1999 raised the scores of those better, provided there is some difference in what is states by about the percentages in the last column. measured. At any rate, it is not surprising that That this is not quite a direct comparison—three states Negative Qualities showed improvement alongside we studied in Fordham II were not in Fordham I, and Clarity, though not as much. vice-versa for Idaho—doesn’t change the general The other two rubrics showed a 20% improvement tenor of the figures given. each, or 30% (“Adjusted change”) when only those states that wrote new or revised documents are counted. But percentages alone do not provide the best Comparison of Average Scores measure of the worrisome state of Reason in math over all States standards, since of all the four categories Reason had the most room for improvement. The Reason average 1998 2000 Change Adjusted Change score was 0.9 in Fordham I. Bringing it up to 1.1 may be a large percentage rise, but it’s still a long way Clarity 1.5 2.1 40% rise 60% rise from 4.0. Content 2.0 2.4 20% rise 30% rise The Content demanded by the state standards is Reason 0.9 1.1 20% rise 30% rise also a bit more rigorous than in 1997. This is a good Negatives 2.0 2.6 30% rise 45% rise sign, especially as there is inevitable inertia in curriculum change: one would not expect rapid change in Total Score 6.5 8.2 26% rise 40% rise subject matter and its pacing. Still, one way in which we could improve Content without a revolution in Most striking is the fact that we found the largest subject matter would be to reduce the number of cur- improvements in the first category, Clarity. This was ricular headings at each grade level. Alas, the obvious to us in our reading, well before we calculat- American math curriculum remains, overall, “a mile ed the totals and made comparisons. The kind of wide and an inch deep,” and still needs dredging. prose found in so many of the state standards evaluated in Fordham I was appallingly vague, so general as A Call for Reason to be unusable for guiding statewide testing or the choice of textbooks. Alas, this sort of writing remains Even a model list of content items is a poor guide widespread, but it is heartening to see that a good without a proper attitude towards the nature of the number of states made successful efforts to stamp that subject. The injection of reason into the lessons, out. grade by grade, is or should be a national priority, Correlated with vagueness (and poor prose gener- whether in the teaching of the most elementary algo- ally) were some of the negative qualities, “false doc- rithms of arithmetic or in the coupling of algebra with trine” and “inflation,” especially the latter, that entered geometry in the middle and high schools. Even some the scores under the fourth rubric, Negative Qualities. states that have sought courageously to advance the Pretentious writing is “inflation” at the same time as it pacing of subject matter, moving more algebra into is unclear or indefinite, as defined under the Clarity the middle and junior-high schools for example, often rubric. False doctrine is similarly undesirable, but have scanted the very thing that would make this extra might be definite and clear just the same. We have content possible and memorable, rather than routine, not calculated any correlations among our criteria, incoherent, and ultimately incomprehensible.

21 The State of State difference between these standards and those of states that previously had them. Standards in Science The good news is the abundance of fine models by Lawrence S. Lerner that states can use as a starting point to improve those state science standards that still fall short. In addition In the nearly two years since the publication of to various national models, several states now have State Science Standards: An Appraisal of Science splendid standards. What’s more, they are varied in Standards in 36 States (hereinafter referred to as SSS), format to suit the needs of those who wish to choose there has been a flurry of writing and revision of acad- diverse approaches. emic standards all across the nation, science very much included. Of the 36 states whose science stan- Continuing Problems dards were evaluated in SSS, more than half (19) have made substantial revisions to or have completely As we stressed in SSS,almost all of the state stan- rewritten their standards. Ten more states now have dards either shortchanged or ignored certain important standards available for scrutiny, making a total of 46 subject areas within science. This still holds true. states that currently have science standards. Iowa With few exceptions (noted in the discussions of indi- remains an exception, having decided to leave all such vidual states), states deal poorly with the mathemati- matters to local school boards. Alaska’s standards, cal aspects of the sciences—especially the physical which were too brief to bear evaluation, are unchanged. sciences—at higher grade levels. The same is true of The District of Columbia’s, Idaho’s, and Pennsylvania’s extra-solar-system astronomy, of human evolution, of standards are all in development. the mass of evidence supporting biological evolution In evaluating new or revised standards, we applied other than the fossil record, of human health and dis- the same criteria as those employed in SSS, applying ease in relation to their biological foundations, and of them as much as possible in the same way. In the 18 the nature of scientific revolutions. Laboratory work cases where comparison of ratings is possible, four and fieldwork generally receive insufficient explicit states made substantial improvements, four made treatment. The term “energy” is used a great deal but more modest improvements, five were unchanged, one is seldom defined with sufficient precision to make its rated a slightly lower score, and four scored signifi- applications intelligible. Momentum, an equally cantly lower after the revision. Note, however, that, of important physical concept, is rarely mentioned. Only the eight states whose standards showed improvement, a few states make clear the seamless connections three had already rated so high that their scores could among the historical sciences, so that the student can not increase much. clearly see the continuum from cosmological evolution to solar-system evolution to geological evolution The Results to biological evolution. Some states treat biological evolution very ginger- Have the two years of intense activity since the ly or not at all. Some never use the word but do as publication of SSS resulted in significant changes in good a job as possible given that restriction. the quality of science standards? Briefly, the answer Unfortunately, it is impossible to build the life sci- seems to be no. In SSS,of the 36 states whose stan- ences around their theoretical basis without mention- dards were evaluated, the distribution is: A, 17%; B, ing the basis itself. Other states touch on the subject 19%; C, 19%; D, 19%; and F, 25%. For the 46 states as briefly as possible, inserting one or two items at evaluated in the present round,the distribution is: A, grade 8 or (more commonly) during high school, as if 20%; B, 22%; C, 13%; D, 20%; and F, 26%. The the subject were a curious sidelight of biology. A few slight improvement, however, mainly results from the states insert items involving such creationist buzz- coarse letter-grade spans. The median score remains words as micro- and macro-evolution, as though this essentially unchanged, having moved from 61 (81% or minor distinction were worthy of specific mention. C) to 64 (85% or C). Kansas and Alabama are special cases (Kansas’s If we consider only the ten states that did not have review is included herein; Alabama’s standards have standards in 1998, or whose standards were not avail- not changed since 1998). In the case of Kansas, the able at the time of the SSS study, the grade distribution deletion of cosmology, geology, and biological evolu- is: A, 20%; B, 20%; C, 10%; D, 30%; and F, 20%. tion weighed heavily on its failing score. The median score is thus 56 (75% or D). Given the Whatever the specific tactics employed, these small sample, it is risky to attribute significance to the approaches all shortchange the student in two ways.

22 NATIONAL REPORT CARD State Science Standards

STATE (alphabetical) SCORE GRADE ‘98 GRADE STATE (by rank) SCORE GRADE RANK(‘98 Rank*) Alabama 51 D D California 75 A 1 (2) Alaska - - - Delaware 74 A 2 (9) Arizona 71 A A Indiana 74 A 2 (1) Arkansas 46 F F North Carolina 73 A 4 (-) California 75 A A Massachusetts 72 A 5 (16) Colorado 59 D D Arizona 71 A 6 (4) Connecticut 70 B B Minnesota 71 A 6 (-) Delaware 74 A B New Jersey 71 A 6 (4) District of Columbia - - - Rhode Island 71 A 6 (4) Florida 37 F F Connecticut 70 B 10 (7) Georgia 40 F D Nebraska 70 B 10 (24) Hawaii 55 D A South Carolina 70 B 10 (23) Idaho - - - Oregon 69 B 13 (14) Illinois 68 B B Utah 69 B 13 (9) Indiana 74 A A Vermont 69 B 13 (9) Iowa - - - Illinois 68 B 16 (12) Kansas 7 F C Ohio 68 B 16 (-) Kentucky 58 D F South Dakota 68 B 16 (-) Louisiana 64 C B Washington 68 B 16 (12) Maine 56 D D Texas 66 C 20 (15) Maryland 56 D - Nevada 65 C 21 (-) Massachusetts 72 A C Louisiana 64 C 22 (7) Michigan 51 D - Missouri 64 C 22 (17) Minnesota 71 A - New York 60 C 24 (19) Mississippi 29 F F Wisconsin 60 C 24 (19) Missouri 64 C C Colorado 59 D 26 (21) Montana 49 D - Kentucky 58 D 27 (32) Nebraska 70 B D Maine 56 D 28 (22) Nevada 65 C - Maryland 56 D 28 (-) New Hampshire 43 F F Hawaii 55 D 30 (2) New Jersey 71 A A Alabama 51 D 31 (24) New Mexico 31 F F Michigan 51 D 31 (-) New York 60 C C Montana 49 D 33 (-) North Carolina 73 A - Virginia 49 D 33 (27) North Dakota 41 F F Arkansas 46 F 35 (28) Ohio 68 B - New Hampshire 43 F 36 (31) Oklahoma 29 F - Tennessee 43 F 36 (29) Oregon 69 B C North Dakota 41 F 38 (36) Pennsylvania - - - Georgia 40 F 39 (26) Rhode Island 71 A A Florida 37 F 40 (30) South Carolina 70 B D West Virginia 36 F 41 (32) South Dakota 68 B - New Mexico 31 F 42 (34) Tennessee 43 F F Wyoming 31 F 42 (-) Texas 66 C C Mississippi 29 F 44 (35) Utah 69 B B Oklahoma 29 F 45 (-) Vermont 69 B B Kansas 7 F 46 (18) Virginia 49 D D Alaska - - - - Washington 68 B B District of Columbia - - - - West Virginia 36 F F Idaho - - - - Wisconsin 60 C C Iowa - - - - Wyoming 31 F - Pennsylvania - - - - *Please note that 1998 rank was out of 36 states. To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1998, at which time they were reviewed and graded by the Foundation and its reviewers. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

23 First, they rob the student of an understanding of the reduce scientific theory to a series of items without vast field of the life sciences. Second, they make it loss of meaning and understanding. Such constructs difficult or impossible for the student to see how sci- as the too-frequently encountered “Eighth-graders will ence works, mislead the student as to what is science investigate the Big Bang theory of the origin of the and what is not, and convey the misconception that universe” are of very limited use. biology is somehow not as “scientific” as physics or The solution to this difficulty is not abstruse. One chemistry. To a lesser extent, the same is true of mod- needs merely to introduce each cluster of items with a ern astronomy and geology. brief passage that explains why and how the informa- The use of computers for such purposes as word tion that follows forms a cogent and useful whole. processing, constructing web pages, or making graphs North Carolina does this admirably; California with is too often subsumed under “science.” Understanding somewhat less success. Writing such passages the workings of computers is certainly legitimate sci- requires a real grasp of the “big picture” of the science or technology, but the use of software packages ences, but there is no shortage of persons who can do that. is not, as useful as it may be. Many state science standards documents were Historical treatments are mostly spotty and sel- based to a greater or lesser extent on one or more of dom go beyond the naming of a few famous scientists, the well-known national models published during the whose names often seem to have been chosen at random. past decade or so. Most frequently cited (or evident in More broadly, nearly all of the standards docu- the language used) were the American Association for ments suffer from what may be called the “laundry- the Advancement of Science’s Benchmarks for list syndrome.” It is not too difficult to make a list of Science Literacy(Oxford University Press, 1993), and concepts that students should know at the end of a the National Academy of Science’s National Science given grade or grade span, and there is nothing wrong Education Standards (National Academy Press, 1996). with doing so. But in the sciences, more is needed. (In individual state reviews, they are referred to as The sciences are characterized by the tight, logical AAASand NAS,respectively.) Neither is above criti- theoretical structures that serve as the framework on cism and, indeed, some of the best standards modeled which facts (or observations or data), known or yet to after them exceed them in quality. In too many cases, be discovered, can be placed so as to reveal a cogent however, the product turns out to be inferior to the whole. Unfortunately, it is not really possible to model.

24 Alabama Report Card 1998 2000 English D A History C B Geography C B B- Math B B Science D D

Cum. GPA 1.80 2.80 Overall Grade C- B-

English making explicit mention of the instruction until the ages of 9 or study of American and British lit- 10, and deferring world history Alabama has completely revised erature, as well as of some works completely until the ages of 13 or its earlier standards document and or authors it expects students to 14, is too late for many children to now has one that’s first-rate in read during the high school years. gain a proper start in this subject. almost every way. The 1993 docu- For the most part, Alabama now ment had many strengths, which has English language arts stan- Geography are retained. In addition, the new dards that are sufficiently specific, document addresses extremely comprehensive, and demanding to Alabama receives a B with a well the limitations in the earlier lead to a high and common core of score of 70, an increase of five one. The standards are now orga- academic expectations for all its points since 1998. The state’s nized grade by grade in coherent students. standards have been cleaned up strands. They draw on NCTE’s and added to. Grades K-4 have original six “language” processes History improved the most while middle- but in a way that doesn’t make grade scores show slight increases. “viewing” and “presenting” two The Alabama Course of Study Few changes were made at the new language processes. It is the contains standards that are specifi- high school level, so scores there best scheme I’ve seen that’s based cally focused on history. From remain low. on NCTE’s original notion. grades 4 through 12, the history Alabama has added new geogra- Moreover, most of Alabama’s stan- standards are as good as any in the phy knowledge regarding funda- dards are measurable. Laudably, nation. There is some evidence in mentals to both kindergarten and the new document also expects the front matter that multicultural- grade 6 map-and-globe skills sec- explicit and systematic instruction ism is an important focus, which is tions. Some of the new material is in decoding skills in the primary a problem until the state spells out challenging. For example, the grades while also suggesting the just what it means in this area. state asks third graders to address quality of the independent reading Unfortunately, there is virtually no problems regarding absolute loca- it hopes for through the grades. history introduction or preparation tion by using grid systems. The There is a good vocabulary strand prior to grade 4, and European and use of examples increases the stan- running almost consistently from world history are delayed until dards’ teacher-friendliness. And the primary grades through grade grade 8. A comprehensive history there are some interesting innova- 10. Finally, Alabama offers exam- program would take better advan- tions in the material. The state ples of literary works to indicate tage of the enthusiasm and curiosi- asks kindergartners to “estimate the expected difficulty level in ty of younger children. It would distance using non-standard mea- most of the secondary grades, seem that holding all history sures” (e.g., giving book lengths

25 rather than inches and feet). K-6 Math grade-by-grade sections on Graphic Literacy and Reference The state supplied no evidence Skills now fall under one heading that its standards have been called Information Literacy. revised since 1998. Some of the language surround- ing benchmarks is soft. Young students are asked to “develop an Science awareness of” or “become familiar with” certain material. This is not The state supplied no evidence measurable and replaces the more that its standards have been specific verb: “know.” revised since 1998.

26 Alaska Report Card 1998 2000 English - F History F F Geography C C D- Math C D Science - -

Cum. GPA 1.33 0.75 Overall Grade D+ D-

English ary study, and writing. Geography Nevertheless, despite its appear- Alaska has one of the shortest ance in both sets of standards, lit- Alaska retains its grade of C standards documents in the land: erary study is very underdeveloped with a score of 64. A new format less than a dozen pages. Although in this document. It seldom men- and good copy-editing have length does not correlate with tions literary genres, elements, and improved the appearance and read- quality, so brief a document is devices, and there are no literary ability of the original but no sub- unlikely to contain the details or cultural specifics. Worse, the stantive changes have been made needed for high-quality English document stresses having students to the 1996 document, which was language arts/reading standards. make connections between the lit- reviewed in 1998. And this is so with Alaska’s. It erature they read and their person- superficially addresses various al experiences. In addition, Math areas of the language arts; only although most of the standards in writing seems to be covered ade- the document are measurable, The Content Standards, which quately, research and reading to a many of the objectives are similar form a brief and general introduc- lesser extent. Many important across grade levels. With these tion to the Performance Standards, matters remain unclear (e.g., limitations, Alaska’s standards ask for deductive reasoning in part whether systematic phonics cannot be judged as explicitly sup- D4, but apart from some vague instruction is expected in the pri- porting high and common academ- exhortations (“in both concrete mary grades). ic expectations for all its students. and abstract contexts,” it explains) Part of the problem lies in its Much will depend on what is actu- there is little indication in the organizing strands. The document ally contained in the statewide Performance Standardsof just first lists the content standards, assessments. It is not possible to where this reasoning is to take grouped into five categories: one predict their quality and rigor from place. The Performance mixes writing and speaking; these standards. Standards, in fact, imply or permit another mixes literary study, view- much less content than the corre- ing, reading, and listening; a third History sponding document we reviewed is about strategy use and project in 1998, especially in the crucial work; a fourth deals largely with The state supplied no evidence areas of arithmetic and geometry. research; and a fifth deals with that its standards have been There is little downright bad forms of “cultural” respect—a revised since 1998. advice, and a good program could murky area for standards. The be taught consistent with these document then lists the perfor- standards, but the omissions would mance standards for reading, liter- also permit a very weak one.

27 More than omissions, there are midpoint.” Yet the distance and Science inconsistencies in the level of the midpoint formulas are the very expectations themselves, which beginning of coordinate geometry, The Alaska Content Standards, suggests inflation or carelessness. so cautioning the reader to include unchanged from the 1997 version, For example, Item 6 under them renders suspect the sincerity is a very short, ungraded docu- Geometry (Ages 11-14) says, of the very ambitious opening of ment intended to do no more than “[U]se coordinate geometry to the same sentence, which would set forth general principles. It represent and interpret relation- indeed be a great deal to ask at does not contain enough informa- ships defined by equations and ages 11-14. tion to be evaluated on the basis of formulas including distance and the criteria used here.

28 Arizona Report Card 1998 2000 English B B History - A Geography - B B+ Math B B Science A A

Cum. GPA 3.33 3.40 Overall Grade B+ B+

English Geography one content area that covers some fundamental knowledge followed The state supplied no evidence Arizona receives a B with a by two performance objectives. that its standards have been score of 78. It has developed The number of content areas and revised since 1997. interesting geography standards performance objectives increases that are rich, imaginative, and as students progress through school. History exacting. The integral aspect of Elementary (K-5)standards are geography as a discipline is nicely demanding. Students are asked to The Arizona Standards In demonstrated. There is an empha- cope with cardinal directions and History, Civics, Geography, and sis on the patterns of geography grids in early grades (1-3). Economics are outstanding in that encourages students to think Standards are comprehensive nearly every respect. The one area spatially. Standards have more except in the area of physical sys- of concern is that they are not pre- definition and specificity in the tems. Material on ecosystems is sented grade-by-grade. However, early grades and then get broader. covered relatively well within the the clusters are tight and may Still, they’re excellent at every content area of human/environ- prove workable. That aside, level. While there are no bench- ment interaction. Information Arizona’s history standards are marks, per se, the performance regarding migration, settlement, among the nation’s very best. objectives are filled out nicely in and economic activities also Teachers, students, and parents most instances, making the stan- appears in this content area, show- will easily understand their expec- dards measurable. A nine-page ing how geography’s various ele- tations and evaluation experts will glossary includes a good quantity ments can be aggregated without have little trouble identifying what of well-considered geography diminishing its whole. The is to be tested. The history presen- terms. emphasis on doing geography tation is balanced, and specifically Arizona has extensively used while demonstrating learning is tied to the worthy task of provid- Geography for Life: The National strong. And students are asked to ing an education for the mainte- Geography Standardsto develop apply what they have learned—for nance of “the Union that supports the material. Each of six grade- example, by using the spatial per- our freedoms.” The Arizona level clusters focus on one geogra- spective “to describe a community Standards reflect the serious oblig- phy standard: Readiness (kinder- issue.” ation that states have to deliver the garten); Foundations (grades 1-3); The middle-school (6-8) stan- very best to each child. Essentials (grades 4-5); Essentials dards score even higher. While (grades 6-8); Proficiency (grades they do not explicitly include the 9-12); and Distinction. term “mental maps,” one objective Kindergarten standards encompass asks students to draw a map after

29 “being given a description.” This emphasis on “basic concepts of today’s diversity of organisms grade-level cluster nicely empha- medical geography”—exciting over more than 3.5 billion sizes patterns—essential to geog- applications indeed. years of evolution (Standard raphy’s spatial point of view. All 4SC-P9). content areas, including physical Math systems, rate highest scores, and Explain prominent scientific skills and applications receive The state supplied no evidence theories of the origin of the good attention. that its standards have been universe (Big Bang Theory), High school standards empha- revised since 1998. the solar system (formation size skills and applications (the from a nebular cloud of dust uses of geography) using a sophis- Science and gas), and life forms (evo- ticated level of geography learn- lution) (Standard 6SC-P1). ing. Students are asked to inter- Arizona’s standards, clear pret maps “using fundamental car- though relatively brief in 1997, Unfortunately, human evolution tographic principles to infer geo- earned an A in the previous is still not mentioned at all. graphic relationships, etc. …” and review. Although the changes in There have been a few other to analyze “the ways technology the 1999 version are not extensive, minor changes in the interest of has affected the definition of and they are very significant. The clarity. It is too bad, however, that access to and use of resources, principal shortcoming of the 1997 Standard 5SC-E3 PO1 (“Define etc.” While standards at this level version was the way in which evo- energy”) has been removed from tend to include too wide a variety lution was masked. Though the grades 4-5. “Define the law of of information and thus are almost content was treated in acceptable conservation of energy” is retained too comprehensive, they remain fashion, the word “evolution” was at grades 6-8; one hopes that the very rigorous. never mentioned, and the general student asked to do this knows by Separate standardshave been effect was to distance evolution then what energy is! Addition of developed for a“Distinction from its essential place at the cen- material concerning universal Level.” This appears to be an ter of the life sciences. This short- gravitation (5SC-P7) and the laws interesting and demanding honors coming has now been remedied by of thermodynamics (5SC-P8) at course that asks students, for the addition of a number of explicit grades 9-12 is laudable but proba- example, to analyze the relation- standards. These two are typical: bly inadequate to be very useful. ships among social, economic, and Modern astronomy is still short- political factors and agricultural Use scientific evidence to changed. All in all, however, a land use …” and to interpret pat- demonstrate that descent from good set of standards has been terns of population geography with common ancestors produced improved.

30 Arkansas Report Card 1998 2000 English - D History F F Geography F F F Math F D Science F F

Cum. GPA 0.00 0.4 Overall Grade F F

English of the more difficult expectations History occur in grades K-4 and are unre- This review encompassed a set alistic for those levels (e.g., “eval- The state supplied no evidence of documents put out in 1998: the uate the role media plays [sic] in that its standards have been state’s standards document, sample focusing attention and forming revised since 1998. K-4 grade-level benchmarks, and opinion”). sample curriculum models for Arkansas could strengthen con- Geography grades 1-4. These documents are siderably its academic expecta- written clearly, and the standards tions for all students by developing The state supplied no evidence are organized in a reasonably clear and measurable standards in that its standards have been coherent way. Further, they indi- all areas of English language arts revised since 1998. cate that phonics instruction will and reading (writing, literary be systematic and explicit. Yet study, and Standard English con- Math they contain many limitations. vention are all weak areas), and by One major deficiency is the quality incorporating literary and cultural The Curriculum Frameworks of the standards themselves. specifics, such as core authors, (1998) are accompanied by Many of them are not specific titles, literary periods, and literary Sample Curriculum Models, and enough to be useful, and many of traditions. Without reading and Sample Grade Level Benchmarks the benchmarks are not true literary expectations geared to spe- for grades K-4, all of them sub- benchmarks or standards; they are cific reading levels in the stan- stantial pamphlets that contribute too broad, too process- or strategy- dards themselves, Arkansas cannot bulk, but little of value, to the oriented, not completely intelligi- assure its citizens that its public Frameworkfor mathematics. ble, or they are simply statements schools have the potential to Even the Frameworkcontains a of broad philosophical goals (e.g., develop a new generation capable long and unnecessary Glossary. “students understand the goal of of maintaining this country’s civic There are some classroom reading is to construct meaning”). culture—its basic political princi- Scenariosas well, some unrealis- In addition, individual learning ples, institutions, and processes— tic. At the K-4 level (“Height of expectations do not consistently through knowledge of its literary Pyramids”), “... her students were show increasing intellectual diffi- and intellectual culture. to develop a method [an Egyptian] culty over the grades; there are might have used ...” and to test more of them from grade to grade, their strategies the teacher has but many are broad statements of them go outside and determine the expectations that could apply to all height of the flagpole. This at K- grade levels. Oddly enough, some 4, in a document that, at the 5-8

31 level, has students “develop strate- little traditional content, and no gies for comparing quantities genuine theorems (“informal” geo- using ratios and proportions (e.g., metric proofs are mentioned), but fractions, scales),” and at that only pays much attention to calculators “with use of manipulatives and and field trips. technology.” Scenariosfor grades 5-8 and 9- Science 12 are, on the other hand, very “real-life” but not very mathemati- The state supplied no evidence cal. The Frameworkas a whole that its standards have been asks for very little reasoning, very revised since 1998.

32 California Report Card 1998 2000 English - A History B A Geography D C Math A A A- Science A A

Cum. GPA 3.00 3.60 Overall Grade B A-

English reading levels at the secondary 1998. The absence of benchmarks grades would also be helpful. and the content area of physical California was one of the last geography lowered its score. In states to complete a standards doc- History addition, specificity is not strong. ument in the English language arts Students in California’s elemen- and reading, but the 1998 docu- The California History tary grades should have a firm ment was worth waiting for. It has Standardsexemplify “best in grounding in geography’s funda- clear, specific, and measurable nation” for history standards writ- mentals and in content areas standards, and addresses all areas ing, presentation, and content. regarding human systems and of the English language arts and The only problems left to resolve environment and society. Middle- reading well and comprehensively. are how to ensure that these exem- grade standards include substantial (Indeed, that becomes one of its plary standards are properly geography regarding location of weaknesses: it contains too many taught—and that student achieve- places and migration and settle- lower-level objectives in many ment is well assessed. The stan- ment of peoples. High school areas.) It has a strong reading dards are written with clarity and standards scored lower, however. strand, with detailed vocabulary easily measurable. Teachers and Ninth grade has no geography objectives at each grade level and parents will have no trouble identi- standards and the senior year’s a clear subsection on expository fying what should be taught and subjects, Principles of American criticism. It also has a well- learned in all grades. The content Democracy and Principles of developed literature strand, with is solid and the presentation coher- Economics, contain no geography. some literary specifics for ent and challenging in both U.S. A topic called Analysis Skills, American and world literature, as and World-European histories. which includes “reasoning, reflec- well as a clear subsection on liter- The critique of “watered-down” tion, and research skills” for geog- ary criticism. The chief limitation history certainly does not apply here. raphy, is presented separately from of this document, one shared by all content material for K-5, 6-8, and other states except Alabama and Geography 9-12 grade clusters. Massachusetts, is its failure to identify some core authors or titles California receives a C with a Math that would ensure that all score of 66, an increase of 15.5 California students graduate from points since 1998. The present California’s Standardswere the high school with a common core history/social science model subject of acrimonious debate in of knowledge about the country’s includes more serious geography late 1997, and the final version literary and civic history and cul- throughout most of the K-12 years was published in rather bare-bones ture. An indication of desired than did the edition reviewed in fashion to meet a legal deadline.

33 It was that version that was graded Science The physical sciences are dealt and commented on in Fordham I, with carefully and systematically. and while those of us who thought In 1998, our evaluation was In the upper grades, the fact that well of it understood its implied based on the California Science these sciences are essentially setting, much of the public and the Framework,the closest thing to a quantitative is made explicit. For mathematics-education community Standards document that then example, kinetic energy is defined took the terse listing of mathemati- existed. We now evaluate the as ½ mv2and the electric force as cal requirements as an invitation to 1998 Science Content Standards, qE. Chemical formulas are intro- mindless memorization of lists of Grades K-12,currently available duced early. In the earth sciences, formulas, and criticized it merci- in a pre-publication version. The plate tectonics is introduced as the lessly on that account. As pub- Frameworkis currently being central organizing principle of lished now, the Standardsthem- revised with a view to consistency geology in sixth grade. The life selves remain unchanged, but its with the new Standards. sciences are organized around evo- sections are interleaved with Overall, the document is lution as they must be, with ele- explanatory commentary that gives superbly done. It is scientifically ments introduced at grade 2 and a continuity to the text, and makes correct, written in clear language, formal treatment at grade 6. plainer the attitude that teachers and well organized. In particular, Laboratory work and numerical and textbook writers must bring to each subsection is introduced by a analysis are taken seriously; bar the subject to satisfy the one-sentence statement that ties graphs are introduced to first Standards’ authors, who—many of the following material together. (It graders, and microscopes are used them university math professors— would be better to have a short at the second-grade level. One have no stake in public mindless- paragraph, as in North Carolina’s may criticize the late introduction ness. Implementation of so ambi- standards, but a sentence is a step of extra-solar-system astronomy at tious a document will surely pre- in the right direction.) grades 9-12, but at least there is sent problems. Regarding this, a Ideas are introduced at proper adequate if somewhat brief treat- Frameworkfor mathematics has grade levels, and the grade-by- ment. also just been published by grade follow-through is excellent. All in all, California now boasts California, incorporating these There is enough to challenge stu- one of the best science standards Standardsand much else, but too dents but care has been taken to presently available. late for review at this time. avoid overwhelming them.

34 Colorado Report Card 1998 2000 English F F History D D Geography A A Math D D D+ Science D D

Cum. GPA 1.40 1.40 Overall Grade D+ D+

English Geography Math

The state supplied no evidence No score change. Colorado The state supplied no evidence that its standards have been retains its grade of A with a per- that its standards have been revised since 1997. fect score of 90. The state has revised since 1998. elaborated on its exemplary stan- History dards (reviewed in 1998) by Science adding two useful indices. One The state supplied no evidence outlines the standards’ major cate- The state supplied no evidence that its standards have been gories and one identifies important that its standards have been revised since 1998. geographic terms. revised since 1998.

35 Connecticut Report Card 1998 2000 English - D History C D Geography F D D+ Math D D Science B B

Cum. GPA 1.50 1.40 Overall Grade C- D+

English dards do not show adequate assumption that “historical think- increases in difficulty over the ing skills” will lead students to This review covers the follow- grades; only the examples of the “develop an understanding of the ing documents, all dated 1998: standards do. On the other hand, major historical periods, issues and Curriculum Framework; Read, Connecticut has a fine set of trends in United States history, Read, Read; Common Core of research standards in its Learning world history, and Connecticut and Learning; Improving Reading Resources document, and does local history.” Yet they mainly Competency; Learning Resources offer examples of its standards demonstrate that statewide stan- and Information Technology throughout. dards that hold teachers and stu- Framework; and Draft Design of Connecticut could strengthen its dents accountable for learning spe- the Third Generation of the standards document considerably cific historical knowledge and Connecticut Mastery Test. To get by reducing the emphasis it places skills have yet to be written in a good sense of what Connecticut on reader response and writing Connecticut. expects of its students, it is neces- process, by using a clearer and sary to read through all these doc- better organizing scheme, by com- Geography uments because the Curriculum ing up with more specific and Framework itself has many limita- measurable standards, and by Connecticut receives a D with a tions. Its standards contain few ensuring that the examples really score of 52, an increase of 3 points details about writing, language exemplify the standards they sup- since 1998’s review. The geogra- conventions, vocabulary study, and posedly do. It also needs to incor- phy standards remain lackluster listening/speaking objectives, and porate into its standards a core of even though they emphasize the many are either extremely broad authors, works, literary traditions, spatial perspective, the discipline’s (e.g., “students will explore and and literary periods—some cultur- unique point of view. respond to contemporary litera- al and literary specifics—in order Generally, the standards are too ture”), statements of dogma (e.g., to assure its citizens that its broad and too vague. And they’re students are to understand that “a schools can develop educated citi- presented in muddled and confus- single text may elicit a wide vari- zens capable of maintaining this ing fashion. Elements usually ety of responses”), or highly country’s civic culture. found in one category appear in process- or strategy-oriented (e.g., others for no apparent reason. The “students use word recognition History problem may lie in the compres- strategies to perfect reading fluen- sion of standards material. cy in ever more sophisticated The Connecticut “content stan- Categories properly dealt with works”), and thus not really mea- dards” in history are virtually con- alone are commingled, then dis- surable. In addition, many stan- tent-free. They seem to rest on the tributed under disparate but famil-

36 iar headings. This causes consid- Scores for middle- and high school Science erable confusion. grades are weak. One good fea- So little emphasis is placed on ture: the content area of Physical No significant change from geography’s fundamentals that the Systems, often neglected when Second Draft (August 1997) to present reviewer is hard pressed to geography is taught within the final version (March 1998). know how or when a student will social studies, is included in these be exposed to important primary standards. concepts and basic vocabulary. Some new elements have been Math added to round out information, increasing scores for elementary The state supplied no evidence standards, but not enough of the that its standards have been material has been reworked to revised since 1998. make the standards compelling.

37 Delaware Report Card 1998 2000 English D C History F D Geography F C Math C C Science B A C+ Cum. GPA 1.20 2.20 Overall Grade D+ C+

English depth and breadth of literary study that their “skills approach” is com- (e.g., no core titles, authors, liter- pletely divorced from content. The documents reviewed ary periods, or traditions—not There is nothing here that might include the “End of Cluster even a mention of American or assist teachers in building a “stan- Expectations and Performance British literature by name). And dards-based” curriculum. Indicators” for grades K-5 these documents retain the anti-lit- Although there is mention of (February 1999), 6-8 (May 1998), erary expectations of the 1995 assessment, parents cannot track a and 8-12 (March 1999), all moder- document. Students are dogmati- child’s progress (or lack thereof) ate revisions of Delaware’s 1995 cally expected in grade 8 to without specific knowledge of document. These documents have "acknowledge the possibility of a what that child is supposed to be many strengths. Delaware’s stan- variety of interpretations of the learning. If all content decisions dards, expectations, and perfor- same text" (which is not a standard are deferred to the local school, mance indicators overall are clear, but a moralistic injunction), and, why have state standards? specific, and measurable. For the to make matters worse, in grades Moreover, if content is deferred to most part, they show clear increas- 9-12 students are to "understand local schools, how is it possible es in intellectual difficulty through that a single text will elicit a wide (and fair) to have statewide assess- the grades, and most areas of the variety of responses, each of ments? English language arts and reading which is valid from a personal, are covered well, especially the subjective perspective." There is Geography strands for writing and research. no point teaching literature at all if Further, it seems that decoding anything a student says in Delaware receives a C with a skills are to be taught in the earli- response to a text is "valid" (an score of 64, an increase of 21.8 est grades; there are detailed inappropriate use of the word in points since 1998. Standards expectations for the use of written this context). There are irresponsi- remain the same but new grade- language conventions; and study ble interpretations of a text, and by-grade performance indicators of the history of the English lan- teachers have an obligation to help culminating in “end-of-cluster guage now appears in the high students understand that. expectations” for grades K-5, 6-8, school years. and 9-11 put needed teeth into the However, there are still impor- History material. Vague sample activities tant limitations in these docu- have been dropped. Glossaries at ments. The chief ones relate to lit- The Delaware Social Studies the end of each grade cluster con- erary study. There are no literary Standards place a laudable premi- tribute to coherence. or cultural specifics in the stan- um on teaching and learning solid The standards are still in flux. dards or indicators suggesting the historical skills. The problem is The state continues a process that

38 will increase the number of perfor- is disappointing after a solid will serve as the basis for mance indicators as well as beginning in the earlier levels, statewide assessment, a hopeful enhance specificity, leading to especially as to mathematical rea- sign that the exams, when devel- development of social-studies soning, where the K-5 standards oped, will emphasize large con- assessment instruments. imply a curriculum preparing stu- cepts as well as minuscule items. In the current version, elemen- dents for more than the “marking Some items appear repeatedly. tary material is particularly time” that seems to afflict so many For instance, Standard 4.315, improved. Fundamentals receive middle-school programs, this one which concerns the study of serious focus. Challenging materi- included. After that, the high human impact on water engineer- al regarding grid systems and school standards make but little ing in Delaware, appears under mental mapping is presented in recovery of lost ground, and Nature and Application of Science third grade. Middle school scores almost the only “inflation” in the and Technology, Earth’s Dynamic less well, however. No area ensemble is found at that level. Systems, and Ecology. This can receives a high score. While there The documents taken together, be a useful tool for exposition of is added specificity, performance however, are a distinct improve- interdisciplinary issues. Or it can indicators are not strong and tend ment on what Delaware offered in make for needless classroom repe- to be repetitive across the grades. 1997, even though the state’s tition. Performance Indicators for (improved) point score remains in Inevitably, there are some eleventh graders score better but the C range. errors. One of the most obvious are too broad. Despite the chal- stems directly from the common- lenging thinking reflected at this Science place failure to define energy ade- level, the indicators are too few, quately before using the concept. too overarching, and contain no Delaware’s Science It would be nice if the K-8 stan- benchmarks to be truly useful. Performance Indicators come in dards placed more emphasis on the The high school draft does provide three parts. The first two parts importance of calculation and of two “sample models” indicating cover grades K-5 (February 1998) oral and written presentation of when standards should be and 6-8 (May 1998). They super- results. Though there is consider- addressed within courses given in sede the documents reviewed in able discussion of measurement grades 9-11, a nice addition to this 1998 through grade 8. The grades and some of data analysis, these material. 9-11 materials are contained in a processes are of little use if their separate publication, comprising a outputs are not communicated. Math 14-page Science Curriculum The grade 9-11 standards are Framework: Content Standards presented in a complete and order- The authors of the two versions and a 28-page set of Performance ly way. They properly stress the of the high school standards, Indicators. No standards are spec- use of mathematics. The method- called Model 1 and Model 2, one ified for grade 12. ology and structure of science are of them “integrated” and the other The K-8 Performance Indicators set forth with particular clarity, presented by course name, are are very detailed, totaling 83 dense and the connections among the apparently quite different from pages (not counting repetitions). sciences are made clear. The evo- those who wrote the K-5 and 6-8 Fortunately, the organization is lution of the Earth and its bio- documents, and our grades are an good, making perusal of the docu- sphere are handled thoroughly and average that obscures some great ments less daunting than one well but the history of the universe differences among the three levels. might expect. In particular, for as a whole is shortchanged. There are separate Glossaries for each of the eight overall standards There are a few infelicities. each of the three, all unnecessary, there is a list of end-of-cluster Standard 3.41 speaks of “energy but the one for the high school expectations, which summarize waves,” but all traveling waves level is embarrassingly awkward what the student ought to have carry energy and there is no such as well as often technically mis- learned by that time. These expec- thing as a generic energy wave. taken, while the other two are tations sometimes serve as a wel- Stars do not “appear to go through good. The clarity of writing in K- come means of unifying the “laun- [life] cycles,” as Standard 4.11 5 and 6-8 is also superior to that in dry lists” of the preceding grades. would have it; they actually go the 9-12, though the content in 6-8 It is stated that these expectations through life cycles that are widely

39 observed and pretty thoroughly dents. In their emphasis on the strong grasp of the meaning and understood. essential theoretical structure of structure of the sciences as well as In summary, however, the the sciences, they rank among the their content. Delaware Science Performance very best among the states. The Indicators are clear, well orga- error rate is low. Students whose nized, and demanding but reason- science education is guided by able in their expectations of stu- these documents will acquire a

40 District Of Columbia Report Card 1998 2000 English - A History C F Geography C A Math D B B- Science - -

Cum. GPA 1.67 2.75 Overall Grade C- B-

English History Geography

Overall, the 1999 standards doc- As impressive as this thick vol- D.C. receives an A with a score ument for the District of Columbia ume of social-studies standards of 81, an increase of 19.5 points is one of the better ones in the may appear, the truth is that the since 1998’s review. The fact that country. Its standards are clear, children of Washington, D.C., will required geography courses are specific, and measurable; it is thor- only wonder at the innumerable taught in grades 4, 6, 7, and 9 is ough in its coverage of almost monuments of American history reflected in the thoroughness of every area in the English language that surround them rather than the standards material. arts and reading; it provides lists understand the many faces and Most geography lies within the of high-quality books or other words etched upon them. These social-studies topic “Social readings for each grade level; it standards only mimic history. The Diversity and Social Change.” spells out the study of American document is more than two inches Geography is also arranged in a and British literature; it expects thick, but the size is deceptive. subject-specific, grade-by-grade use of Standard English orally as Each “grade” consists of some 38 scope and sequence by content well as in writing; it expects sys- pages, yet many of the same mate- area based upon the National tematic teaching of phonics; its rials are repeated for every grade. Geography Standards. In addition, standards show regular increases The repetitive format is confusing we see categories covering perfor- in complexity over the grades; and and wasteful. Teachers and par- mance standards, essential skills, it is generally free of anti-literary ents will be hard-pressed to make and technology integration. and anti-intellectual expectations sense of this document, let alone Benchmarks are presented for or requirements. It is a completely discover exactly what is to be grades 3, 5, 8, and 11 under each different document from an earlier taught and learned in any particu- geography content area. draft of several years ago. The lar grade. There is also a signifi- Finally, proficiency levels are pre- writer(s) deserve kudos. If the cant amount of special-interest sented for pre-K to grade 3 and for D.C. schools can develop good meddling and group hyper-con- grades 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12. These assessments based on these stan- sciousness. It’s a pity that the provide general descriptions based dards, the District should be able D.C. standards writers have direct- on commercial assessments. to drive instruction upward so long ed children away from learning the Within this multi-layered super- as help is provided for those stu- basics of American history to capi- structure, one finds K-4 content, dents who need it. talize on what some factions claim skills, and applications that score are student needs. well. Middle grades receive highest scores in all areas except applications. And the high school stan-

41 dards (grade 9’s mandated world avowedly in accordance with that soning in general. Nor is it made geography course) score accept- of the National Council of clear what role calculators are to ably in fundamentals and places Teachers of Mathematics 1989 play in the teaching of fundemen- and regions, and high in all other standards, though with some tal operations of arithmetic. areas. exceptions the outlined program is Despite those faults, the program sound. (There are some curiosities, does outline the traditional con- Math though, such as “ethical behavior,” tent, which represents an ambi- and the teaching of word process- tious goal for the District. There is no resemblance ing and how to use the World between this very large Standards Wide Web at grades K-2. And, Science for Teaching and Learningand its under data processing, “measures predecessor reviewed for Fordham of central tendency” is a curricu- The District of Columbia has I. It is large and well organized, lum item repeated for grades 5, 6, not yet completed a draft of its sci- with sections for each grade level 7, 8, and 9.) ence standards. repeating enough of the overall Though “deductive reasoning” standards so that a teacher in pos- is mentioned in grade 10,with session of the part still has some “Pythagorean thereom” in the near apprehension of the whole. The sequel, there remains an almost philosophy of the document is total inattention to deductive rea-

42 Florida Report Card 1998 2000 English D B History C C Geography C B Math D D C- Science F F

Cum. GPA 1.20 1.80 Overall Grade D+ C-

English specifics, particularly at the high ence society).” Or try this one school level, and by removing the (also for the pre-K through grade 2 This review covers Florida’s injunction that students are to level): “[the student] knows signif- 1996 document and was supple- relate the literature they read to icant individuals in United States mented by a review of revisions their personal lives at ALL educa- history to 1880.” And at the made in 1998-99, which added tional levels—a serious anti-liter- grades 9-12 level, “[the student] grade-level expectations for each ary requirement. Florida needs to understands the significant politi- existing K-8 standard and bench- work out a core of authors, works, cal and economics transformations mark. The 1996 document has literary traditions, and literary and significant cultural and scien- many strengths: it is written in periods in its standards that will tific events in Europe during the clear prose for the general public, assure its citizens that its schools Renaissance.” For standards, such it is organized in coherent strands, can develop educated citizens items defy assessment. They offer and its standards are generally capable of maintaining this coun- only the most general hints as to clear, specific, and measurable. try’s civic culture. what the teacher should teach and Moreover, it tries to offer clear the student should learn. Which examples for each benchmark. Its History “major scientists and inventors” expectations for reading and writ- should be studied? What does ing increase from level to level, for TheFlorida Sunshine Standards “significant individuals” mean? the most part. The development of and Grade Level Expectationsin Does the 9-12 standard example a reading vocabulary through history remain either content-free, really prepare a 14-year-old to attention to word meanings and extremely general, or distant from “understand the significant politi- word study begins in grades 3-5 the capabilities of real teachers cal and economics transformations and continues through 6-8 and actual students. Most of the … during the Renaissance?” If a (although it is not clearly spelled standards from pre-K through student did understand such things, out at higher grade levels), and grade 2 and for the higher grades how would he demonstrate such there are details for Standard read like questions from a Ph.D. knowledge? These standards are English conventions for writing. student’s comprehensive exams. well intended but they have much The grade-level expectations that For example, the pre-K through room for improvement. have been added make the bench- grade 2 Standard 3, 1, reads, “[the marks much clearer and more spe- student] knows the accomplish- Geography cific in all areas. ments of major scientists and However, the standards and inventors (e.g., specific scientists Florida receives a B with a benchmarks would be strength- and inventors, what they created, score of 72.5, an increase of 7.5 ened by some cultural and literary and how their creations have influ- points since 1998. Its standards

43 would earn an A but for the whole, there is not much improve- list of grade-specific grade-level absence of the physical systems ment. “Real-world situations” are expectations. These explicit content area (which is taught in celebrated throughout, even when grade-by-grade expectations science). The pre-K through grade discussing irrational numbers, appear to supplant the less grade- 8 standards have done away with which have only a Platonic home. specific Sample Performance sample performance indicators that The strands and “standards” are Descriptions. (A similar list for emphasized “doing” in favor of repeated verbatim at different grades 9-12 is presumably in specific grade-by-grade expecta- grade levels, so that some are preparation.) tions that emphasize “knowing” forced onto inappropriate levels in All of the shortcomings of the and demonstrating that knowledge. the interest of making the docu- benchmarks are still present. And This makes the standards more ment uniform. For example, unfortunately, the grade-level easily assessable. geometry’s Standard 3, calling for expectations are no improvement These are generally excellent “coordinate geometry,” appears at over their predecessors in terms of standards. They receive highest the K-2 level as well as at the oth- clarity and scientific accuracy. As scores on General Characteristics. ers, with examples that really with the earlier document, there Elementary scores are lower than should call for a different rubric. are occasional lapses in grade- they might be as so much material The details differ at the different level appropriateness. Often, an concentrates on teaching the fun- levels, and indeed the “expecta- expectation is merely a verbatim damentals of geography that there tions” are too often very low copy or close paraphrase of the is little emphasis on other content indeed, contradicting the ambi- benchmark it is supposed to illus- areas. This is made up for in the tious headings even at the higher trate—sometimes over two or middle grades where standards grade levels. The 1999 documents more successive grades. Worse, scored one point less than perfect do not make clear to us the con- the expectations are sometimes because of a lower score in geog- nection between the general stan- irrelevant to the corresponding raphy applications. dards at the high school level and benchmarks. Coverage of the discipline, the the 1997 course descriptions Energy is discussed intelligently rigor of its requirements, and the (Algebra I, Trigonometry, Applied in a few places but no attention is thoughtful use of geography’s spa- Mathematics, etc.), which, since given to defining the term, even tial perspective including a strong we received no “expectations” for though such technical terms as emphasis on mental maps make this level, are perhaps still opera- kineticand potentialare used. these standards stand out. (High tive in that capacity, though the Modern astronomy, modern geolo- school sections remain unchanged state did not provide them for the gy, and molecular biology are still and reflect 1998’s score.) present evaluation. shortchanged. As in the earlier document, evo- Math Science lution is touched on very lightly— certainly not given its proper place The summary standards, divided The 1998 evaluation was based as the central organizing principle into grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9- on the 1996 Florida Curriculum of the life sciences—and the “E- 12, and then by strand (e.g., num- Framework - Science. This docu- word” is diligently avoided. The ber sense), standard (e.g., “the stu- ment contains a list of benchmarks only relevant grade-level expecta- dent understands number systems), together with Sample Performance tions that I have found are vague and benchmark (e.g., “understands Descriptions separated into four and inaccurate: “[The eighth grad- ... place value with whole numbers grade clusters. The benchmarks er] knows that the fossil record between 0 and 100”) remain the are unchanged but are now avail- provides evidence that changes in same as reported in Fordham I, but able in several formats. The one the kinds of plants and animals in at the K-8 levels there are now considered here, Grade Level the environment have been occur- Grade Level Expectationsreplac- Expectations for the Sunshine ring over time” (for Benchmark ing the earlier Sample State Standards,lists the bench- SC.F.2.3.4), and, “[The seventh Performance Descriptions, and marks by grade cluster (pre-K grader] knows that biological incorporating the standards and through grade 2, 3-5, and 6-8). adaptations include changes in benchmarks as headings. On the Each benchmark is followed by a structures, behavior, or physiology

44 that enhance reproductive success the evolutionary implications. quantitative methods in the higher in a particular environment” (for Nor, unfortunately, is any informa- grades. Both the benchmarks and Benchmark SC.G.1.3.2), of which tion other than the fossil record the grade-level expectations need the grade-level expectations are discussed in an evolutionary con- extensive revision before they can verbatim repetitions. There are a text. make a useful contribution to the few references to competition and Graphs are introduced at first educational process. adaptation at earlier grade levels, grade (!) but there is a paucity of but no direct reference is made to development of this and other

45 Georgia Report Card 1998 2000 English B B History D C Geography F D Math B B C- Science D F

Cum. GPA 1.60 1.80 Overall Grade C- C-

English al knowledge as well as level of history is painfully thin in the reading difficulty. This document upper grades and nonexistent in Written in clear prose, Georgia’s would be considerably strength- the lower. Skills, when presented, 1997 standards document has ened by making more specific its are separate from content. I found many strengths. Most of its stan- expectations for students’ reading no evidence that these standards dards are clear, specific, and mea- level at the grade levels assessed, work to inform students about the surable. It makes clear its expec- as well as for their knowledge of danger of politicizing and promot- tation that students are to use our literary and civic heritage. ing history as dogma. Standard English conventions in writing and formal speaking. It is History Geography one of the few documents to spell out some general cultural and liter- The Georgia “Core Curriculum” Georgia receives a D with a ary specifics, expecting students in presents a fully comprehensive score of 58, an increase of 22.5 grade 11 to study American litera- social-studies document, divided points since 1998’s review. ture (commendably described as into individual grades K-8 and Combining elements of the “representing diverse backgrounds clustered 9-12. There is a special Guidelines for Geographic and traditions”), its literary move- (and useful) emphasis on identify- Education as well as national ments, periods, and the major cul- ing and tracking standards by topic geography standards, Georgia tural, religious, philosophical, and and concept. Some standards are identifies standards for grades K-8 political influences on it at differ- very clear and measurable, others (except grade 5) and for a high ent periods. It expects grade 12 hopelessly vague and unmeasur- school course. Some standards students to do the same for British able. In the early grades, the con- include skills needed to achieve literature. It is also one of very cept of culture is featured, raising the standard, discussed under a few documents to expect students suspicion that the intention of pre- column called “Notes.” to study the history and nature of senting “historical” content is to Scores for General the English language. shape children’s attitudes rather Characteristics are high. Problems However, its objectives for than the correct (and justified) occur within the areas of compre- vocabulary development in the introduction of history/chronology hensiveness and rigor. Elementary high school grades are not as through notions of past, time, con- standards are strong in fundamen- clearly detailed as they could be. tinuity, and change. There is a tal map skills but decline in other And it fails to mention key literary strong application of United States content areas. Standards for mid- titles or authors for American and history, however, and, in general, dle grades fare slightly better. British literature in its standards to this history is complete and Fundamentals continue to receive indicate expected civic and cultur- doable. Still, world and European emphasis and regions receive more

46 attention but physical systems are ment is visible. At levels K-8, “fundamental particles of the ignored and environment and soci- plainly intended for all students, atom,” but leptons, not mentioned, ety get scant coverage. Human the standards are given grade-by- are (Physics Standard S.9-12.22). systems fare better but, generally, grade. Our evaluation (or perhaps And not all chordates are verte- the standards are thin. re-evaluation) produces a score brates, as Biology Standard S.9- Because of a world-regional slightly improved from that given 12.21 implies. course given in high school, geog- in Fordham I. A few items seem inappropriate raphy scores improve but this to the grade level at which they are course does not appear to be very Science presented. For example, the fifth demanding. As this course focuses grader “[d]escribes the relationship on regions, places and regions The document reviewed here, between movement [sic] and receive strong attention. Yet phys- Georgia’s Quality Core forces (e.g., inertia, acceleration, ical systems are not addressed and Curriculum: Science, dated and velocity) quantitatively as a material relating to the environ- December 1997, has been so function of change in distance ment is virtually nonexistent. extensively rewritten that compari- traveled over time” (Standard Skills and applications receive low son with the document of the same S.5.13). Is it really intended that a scores. title reviewed in 1998 is not use- fifth grader is to use and under- ful. The new document describes stand a quantitative definition of Math expectations by grade in grades K- acceleration and apply it in such 8 and by discipline in grades 9-12. expressions as x= x0 + v0t+ The edition of the Core It is a very lengthy, very detailed ½ at2for a= constant? Speed, Curriculum for Mathematics list of expectations, each associat- work, and power are defined at reviewed here is dated December ed with a Topic, a Concept, and grade 6 (Standards S.6.9, S.6.12) 1997, and is plainly the finished Notes. The content parts of the yet these definitions are needed to version of the Draft document curriculum total 69 pages of 9- carry out tasks expected of pupils (dated the preceding February) point type. The document is gen- in grade 5. which was evaluated in Fordham I. erally well organized and contains Beginning with grade 5, stu- The Georgia State Education relatively few errors of content dents are expected to gather and Department web site and/or relevancy. Laudably, stu- record data, make graphs, tables, (http://admin.doe.k12.ga.us) has dents perform simple experiments sketches, and diagrams, and per- been recording continually revised as early as the first grade, though form other semi-quantitative and versions since then, and does not some expectations are vague. quantitative tasks. However, no send out printed copies. Except There is a certain amount of reference is ever made to calcula- for some reorganization of the fashionable jargon where clear lan- tion or (at higher grade levels) to optional high school offerings, it guage would be better. As is far algebraic or trigonometric manipu- does not appear that the current too common, the term energy is lations. version differs materially from the extensively used without adequate Some good points deserve men- version we had then, though the definition. The seasons are attrib- tion. As early as grade 3, the stu- organization of the web-site ver- uted entirely to the angle at which dent “[i]dentifies the cell as an sion makes it hard to download the sun’s rays strike the Earth (i.e., important unit of structure in liv- and compare line by line. The the elevation of the sun). But the ing things.” As early as grade 6 the Core Curriculumis very detailed, length of the day is also important, student is asked to differentiate much more than an outline for a and high solar angle goes together between heat and temperature, to curriculum except that, at the high with long days—a point not men- know something about image for- school level, it is not made clear tioned. Gravitational force does mation by lenses and about elec- what the sequence of courses not depend on the difference in the tromagnetic phenomena. Disease should be, or for whom. There is, masses of two objects (Standard processes, too often relegated to as in a college catalogue, a varied S.5.15.). Alternating-current theo- health classes, are introduced for- menu, so that the high school con- ry, a difficult subject for high mally at grade 7. tent suggested for Georgians can school students, is jumbled Still, the Georgia document is be either sophisticated or remedial. (Physics Standard S.9-12.19 and grossly disfigured by its overall No minimal graduation require- elsewhere). Tachyons are not mistreatment of all of the sciences

47 that have essential historical com- acid sequences. Plate tectonics strength in the facts is futile if ponents—astronomy, geology, and appears once, at grade 5, and there paired with hopeless weakness in biology. It is not merely that the only by implication. As for bio- theory—a problem that gets worse word “evolution” is sedulously logical evolution itself, we have a as students mature and become hidden from the view of students. single catch-all item at grades 9- more and more capable of abstrac- The entire subject is shortchanged. 12 that covers all of cosmology tion and synthesis. Shorn of their All of cosmology is relegated to a and biological evolution (and “oth- central theories, no sciences make single eighth-grade item. Fossils ers”), and one-third of that item any sense at all to the scientist— are mentioned in a single grade 3 cottons to pseudoscientific preju- let alone the poor student! In spite earth-science item and never in the dices by stressing the difference of all the hard work the writers context of the life sciences. No between micro- and macro-evolu- have put into it, the Georgia mention at all is made of any other tion—a distinction that is scientifi- Quality Core Curriculum: Science lines of evidence that illuminate cally unimportant in this context. is an unsatisfactory way of teach- evolutionary processes, such as In the main, the Georgia stan- ing science. comparison of DNA and amino- dards are strong on lists. But

48 Hawaii Report Card 1998 2000 English F F History - F Geography - F Math F C Science A D

D- Cum. GPA 1.33 .60 Overall Grade D+ D-

English are no literary or cultural Geography specifics—suggested authors or This review addresses the titles, or suggested literary periods Hawaii receives an F with a August 1999 version of Hawaii’s or traditions, as there was in an score of 33. The standards and standards, a document that suffers earlier version of Hawaii’s stan- their accompanying benchmarks from many serious limitations. Its dards. In addition, the document are far too broad to indicate specifics standards tend to be vague, unde- encourages cultural stereotyping. of what students should know and manding, and unmeasurable. Hawaii’s standards could be con- be able to do in geography. There are not enough details to siderably improved if those writing The standards are based on the establish successively higher levels it were less focused on encourag- national model, Geography for of intellectual difficulty, especially ing a narrow range of specific ped- Life,and are written for the K-3, in the secondary grades, and the agogies and more dedicated to set- 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12 grade clusters. standards are unmeasurable for ting forth measurable academic The five content standards encom- many reasons: some are moralistic standards that are useful to teachers. pass the world in spatial terms, injunctions, some are process stan- places and regions, physical sys- dards, others are expressions of History tems, human systems, and environ- personal taste or reflect values, ment and society, like the national while others express lofty goals The Hawaiian Social Studies model, but ignore the model’s (e.g., “reveals insights about peo- Content Standardsclaim to “uses of geography” that encom- ple, events, knowledge, and expe- “rais[e] our expectations [by] liv- pass skills and applications. rience”). Some are uninterpretable ing up to them.” The crucial ques- Hawaii tries to pull those into the or undoable by normal students tion is, What expectations? These content standards as well. All this (e.g., “evaluate own interpretation standards do not contain any spe- information is folded into one so- within a range of plausible possi- cific content. A “suggested histor- called benchmark per content area bilities”). As a result, many areas ical framework” is offered, but per grade cluster; thus K-3 has five of the English language arts and none of it is of any use to teachers, benchmarks, grades 4-5, five reading are not well covered. parents, or students who might benchmarks, etc. These bench- There is nothing on the develop- want to know what should be marks are enormously broad and ment of vocabulary knowledge, taught and learned. consequently not measurable. For nothing to suggest that systematic example, students in grades 6-8 instruction in phonics will take are asked, within the content area place in the primary grades, few covering human systems, to “ana- details are given for language con- lyze how demographic patterns, ventions over the grades, and there cultural landscapes, cultural diffu-

49 sion, economic activities, territori- and the benchmarks for each of ence; the philosophy and values of ality, and urbanization affect the five strands are few enough to science; science, technology, and places.” use up precisely two facing pages, society; and safety. The latter Students in grades 9-12, within for a 10-page document in all, includes the history of science, the the environment-and-society con- with some introductory matter and usual disciplinary content of sci- tent area, are asked to “evaluate references, and no Glossary. The ence, and (somewhat unusually) a consequences of human activities prose is usually crisp though strand devoted to wellness (health) on Earth and implement a plan of sometimes vague in referring to and the social sciences, particular- action for the use and stewardship specific topics. Almost nothing is ly psychology and sociology. of local and global resources.” redundant, and what is left out In the main, the document What is not clear is what it is that sounds deliberately so. A major shows excellent, clear organiza- students must learn in order to be defect is that almost no mathemat- tion. The writers evidently under- able to do this. ical reasoning is called for. As to stand the “big picture” of science, Hawaii’s content standards content, the algorithms of arith- the functions of the sciences, and resemble broad curriculum models metic are to be “developed” or dis- the relations among them. rather than bite-size pieces of spe- covered, explored, and discussed However, there is a distinct paucity cific information that students among the students, but positing of specifics, which is evident in need to use to prove what they such pedagogy cannot be fully the large amount of white space know. The state does say that descriptive of the content results present in the content pages. For “performance standards that intended, for the document is example, the Content Standards answer questions like ‘What does silent on what algorithms, or mem- give a beautifully clear overview good performance look like?’ and orized learning, are to be the final of biological evolution, with a ‘How good is good enough?’ will result in most cases. We must clarification paragraph headed “In be described on a web site” during judge, on the basis of the content other words,” and a short para- the coming year. Perhaps the statements as printed, that the per- graph headed “For example”. But state’s educators will then break formances demanded will be rela- when it comes to describing what down the current content standards tively undemanding, especially in students are expected to know, into measurable chunks. Until that geometry and algebra. there are exactly four lines at is done, Hawaii’s standards are grades K-3, six at grades 4-5, 10 at virtually useless for students or Science grades 6-8, and 10 at grades 9-12. parents. This sketchiness may present no Hawaii’s standards also include Reviewed here is the August problem to the skilled teacher who a geography glossary in which 1999 draft of the Hawaii Science is compiling lesson plans, but it exactly two terms are listed and Content Standards,subtitled surely does not provide much defined. The terms are: “cultural Moving from the Blue Book to guidance for parents, exam devel- landscape” and “cultural mosaic.” HCPS II. (HCPS stands for opers, or other people concerned While less may be more in some “Hawai’i Content and with the standards. (Other sub- instances, for Hawaii’s geography Performance Standards.”) It is jects (notably Heredity) get even standards (and the state’s stu- organized quite differently from lighter coverage.) dents), this is not nearly enough. those reviewed in 1998. Though it One may also criticize the appears to be of medium length absence of specifics as to laborato- Math (50 pages), it is actually quite ry and field experiences, and as to brief. It treats grade clusters K-3, the use of mathematics and writing We review here theMathematics 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12. The organiza- in scientific activities. Content Standards dated August tion of the material is somewhat Nevertheless, were a competent 1999, which are to be followed by unusual, the two major divisions committee assigned to flesh out Performance Standardsnot yet being “Domain I: How Humans these Science Content Standards, available to us. The latter will, Think While Understanding the the result might well be one of the according to the state, clarify the Natural World,” and “Domain II: finest science standards in the former, but the intent is fairly clear What We Know Today about the nation. as it is. The grade levels K-3, 4-5, World Around Us.” The former 6-8, and 9-12 are distinguished, includes the methodology of sci-

50 Idaho Report Card 1998 2000 English F - History - - Geography C - Math F - Science - -

- Cum. GPA 0.67 - Overall Grade D- -

Idaho has rescinded its old “frameworks” and “scope and sequences” and is in the process of writing academic standards. The state has published drafts for grades 9-12; unfortunately we are unable to review partial sets of standards. Therefore, Idaho receives an incomplete for all subjects at this time.

51 Illinois Report Card 1998 2000 English B B History F F Geography D D Math D D C Science B B

Cum. GPA 1.60 1.60 Overall Grade C C

English would be considerably strength- historical soundness are striking. ened by spelling out some cultural To be sure, these standardsare Written clearly and succinctly and literary specifics in its stan- peppered with specific names, but for the general public, Illinois’s dards: some key authors, works, none of it will be of any use to July 1997 standards document has literary periods, and literary tradi- teachers, students, and parents many strengths. Its standards are tions would make academic expec- who are seeking to determine what clear, specific, and measurable. Its tations clear for students’ knowl- every child should know and be strands are coherently organized, edge of the nature, substance, and able to do in history. with subcategories that articulate history of their literary and civic meaningful increases in academic culture. The next revision should Geography expectations through the grades. also consider eliminating the Benchmarks are included for implication that literary under- The state supplied no evidence vocabulary development from the standing is necessarily connected that its standards have been middle grades on, and reading, to students’ daily lives and (limit- revised since 1998. speaking, listening, writing, and ed) personal experiences. research skills are adequately Math addressed at all educational levels. History It also specifies the study of The state supplied no evidence American literature in high school. The Illinois Learning Standards that its standards have been Yet the standards contain no for Social Scienceattempt to pre- revised since 1998. cultural or literary specifics sent all of what should be taught beyond the bare mention of and learned in history in six pages. Science American literature at the high Such economy of historical con- The state supplied no evidence school level. There is no explicit tent should not be construed as that its standards have been expectation for knowledge about pedagogical thrift but rather as an revised since 1998. the history and nature of the educational travesty. The lack of English language. The document coherence and other matters of

52 Indiana Report Card 1998 2000 English F F History C C Geography A A C+ Math C C Science A A

Cum. GPA 2.40 2.40 Overall Grade C+ C+

English sorted out in the many items authors and works, or literary peri- placed in each “standard” itself. ods and literary traditions, to make The document reviewed here is Informational reading, writing, and clear its expectations for students’ a first draft of the revision of its literary study is poorly addressed; reading levels at different educa- 1992 document. It has a few this draft contains no literary and tional levels as well as for their strengths: students are now expect- cultural specifics at all, not even a knowledge of this country’s liter- ed to use Standard English in writ- requirement that students are to ary heritage if we are to maintain ing and in formal presentations, study American literature. The our civic culture and transmit it to and it seems as if they will be best strand in this document, ironi- a new generation of young people. taught to use decoding skills for cally, is the conventions strand “common words” in grade 1 and because its objectives are measur- History “less common words” in grade 2. able and teachable, and show Further, there is a “word recogni- increasing complexity. Otherwise, The state supplied no evidence tion” strand, although it never there are few progressions in intel- that its standards have been becomes a real vocabulary strand. lectual complexity over the grades, revised since 1998. And the draft does provide titles of and the academic demands of the literary works as examples for reading, literary, and writing stan- Geography each grade level. dards at the high school level are Unfortunately, this draft still generally pitiful. Surely, Indiana The state supplied no evidence exhibits almost all the other limita- has more demanding high school that its standards have been tions of the 1992 document, and English teachers than is reflected revised since 1998. those were voluminous. Most in this document. standards in this draft are unmea- Indiana needs to develop acade- Math surable, chiefly because the docu- mically oriented standards that are ment is still excessively process- specific, measurable, and demand- Content Standardsachieves its and strategy-oriented. There is no ing. The document needs to move relatively high score largely on the point in producing a standards beyond a writing-and-reading basis of its style, the clarity of its document if most of it cannot be process approach to a learning prose, and its lack of jargon. used by Indiana’s schools. The approach, and it must reduce dras- However, it does include “Process eight strands do not reflect coher- tically or eliminate standards that Standards,” of which, for example, ent bodies of scholarship or focus on processes, values, and Connections (at grade 8) asks: research, and a strand on the attitudes. It also needs to spell out “Use geometric ideas, such as sim- research processes is missing. some cultural and literary specifics ilarity, to describe things in nature, Higher and lower skills are not in its standards, such as some key art, construction, and other areas.

53 Example: Compare your school On the whole, the content is (10-12). While these additions are building with a plan of the build- thin, with even the curriculum for relatively minor, the former indi- ing. Look for your classroom on Algebra II insufficient for the cal- cates at least a sanctioning of the plan and see how it is the same culus course to follow, and the movement toward the integrated as the real classroom” (Standard 5: entire document is much con- approach common in Europe and Geometry). Nothing could be cerned with real-life and hardly at Japan but uncommon in the United clearer, to be sure, but it is more of all with reason. States. The quality of the addi- a diversion of time than a lesson in tions is consistent with the gener- mathematics. Science ally fine quality of the rest of the At grade 7, under Measurement, document. students must show they can mea- The K-8 document reviewed in sure the side of a regular hexagon, 1998 has not been changed. Two surely a primitive skill for grade 7, sections have been added to the and then the perimeter. Finally, Indiana High School Competen- the area is asked for. By measure- ciesdocument reviewed there, ment? (No Pythagorean theorem covering two sequences: Integrated or trigonometry has been intro- Chemistry/Physics (9-12) and duced yet.) Environmental Science, Advanced

54 Iowa Report Card 1998 2000 English - - History - - Geography - - - Math - - Science - -

Cum. GPA - - Overall Grade - -

As a matter of policy, Iowa has not adopted state standards.

55 Kansas Report Card 1998 2000 English F F History F B Geography D A Math D A C+ Science C F

Cum. GPA 0.80 2.20 Overall Grade D- C+

English Moreover, it is still not clear if Geography there will be systematic phonics This review addresses a 1998 instruction. This 1998 document Kansas receives an A with a revision of Kansas’s 1996 docu- is a start in revising a woefully score of 80, an increase of 24 ment, which was very weak. The inadequate predecessor, but it points since 1998’s review. These 1998 document contains standards needs much more work. straightforward draft standards, only for reading, literature, and refreshingly unambiguous, bring writing. Further, many standards History in geography’s spatial perspective are to be assessed only locally, and throughout their extensive cover- those that are left for state assess- The Kansas history standards age of challenging material. All ments do not constitute a full are clear, doable, content-rich, and content areas are well covered appraisal of reading and writing rigorous. The general approach to throughout and skills and applica- objectives, while those that are to historical studies is solid. tions receive good attention. Even be assessed locally tend to be Teachers, students, and parents the use of mental maps is included unmeasurable. Yet the 1998 docu- should be able to obtain a good by the end of grade 8. ment is an improvement in that understanding of what is expected. The standards, tightly honed and reading is covered well, the vocab- Additionally, assessment prepara- narrowly focused, are laid out for ulary benchmark is good, and the tion should pose no problem for grades 2, 4, 6, 8, and 11. They are writing indicators are adequate. state and local officials. Despite specific, using strong verbs that Many troubling limitations remain, the lack of grade-by-grade guides incorporate measurability. All however. In general, the standards (which affects the standards’ over- aspects of the standards are clearly do not increase in intellectual diffi- all score), Kansas has vaulted to defined and explained. culty over the grades, and what is one of the top spots in the nation “Standards” are admirably distin- found at the grade 8 or 11 levels is with these fine history standards. guished from “benchmarks” and not enough to expect of Kansas Greater attention to connecting from “indicators.” Moreover, the students. Literary study is not content with skills would help indicators are all marked so that handled well, with no literary and teachers and students even more, the reader knows if they are to be cultural specifics at all, not even a especially when dealing with polit- assessed by the state or locally. mention of American literature, ical and social dogmas and when And they are detailed enough to be and there are few details for lan- working to avoid manipulating helpful to both teachers and par- guage conventions over the grades. children’s feelings and attitudes. ents. Kansas must have better high Note: Not all Indicators appear school English teachers than is in the draft we reviewed. Some of reflected in this document. the “e.g.’s” appear in an appendix

56 not included in the material sent Standards, Fifth Working Draft species becomes extinct. for analysis. (June 1999) was the fruit of a As students investigate differ- year’s labor by a committee of ent types of organisms, teachers Math highly qualified scientists, teachers guide them toward thinking from both public and Catholic about similarities and differ- Curricular Standards(March schools, and expert consultants. ences. Students can compare 1999) is an enormous improve- The resulting document, about 100 similarities between organisms ment on its predecessor. It is very pages long, would have attained in different parts of the world, well organized, though the “appli- one of the highest ratings among such as tigers in Asia and cation indicators” that accompany the state standards reviewed here. mountain lions in North the content demands (“base indi- Its special strength lay in the way America.Instruction needs to cators”) are too often vague or it tied together individual stan- be designed to uncover and pre- repetitious. Still, they don’t deny dards with brief but clear explica- vent misconceptions about nat- the content implied by the base tions of the underlying theory and ural selection. Students tend to indicators. The document is methodology. think of all individuals in a pop- explicit about which skills are to As is now widely known, how- ulation responding to change be tested in statewide examina- ever, the State Board of Education quickly rather than over a long tions (and whether with or without gutted the document, removing period of time.Natural selec- calculators), and is not afraid to almost every reference to the theo- tion can maintain or deplete ask for knowledge, rather than retical backbones of the sciences genetic variation but does not “exploration,”’ where knowledge having historical content—astron- add new information to the is the question. Not that explo- omy, geology, and biology—and genetic code. Using examples ration or any other mode of think- replacing some of the material of microevolution,such as ing or teaching is forbidden. with nonsense of a pseudoscientif- Darwin’s finches or the pep- (Alas, the enthusiasm for calcula- ic bent. There is little point in pered moths of Manchester tors does appear excessive.) going into detail as to how this helps develop understanding of Genuine algebra and at least some was done; a single example will natural selection over time. deductive Euclidean geometry are suffice. In the following passage (Resource: The Beak of the introduced early and well, and the from Standard 5, Benchmark 5, Finch by Jonathon Weiner). analytic geometry demands sub- Eighth Grade, original material Providing students with stantial algebraic skill and under- removed by the Board is in strike- Examiningfossil evidence and standing. The progression of skill out typeand their additions in ital- allowing them time to construct and understanding in all threads is ics: their own explanations is impor- made very clear by the manner in Millions of species of ani- tant in developing middle level which year-by-year cumulative mals, plants, and microorgan- students’assists the student’s surveys are organized and printed. isms are alive today. Animals understanding of extinction as a The Standardsend with the tenth and plants vary in body plans natural process that has affected grade, apparently implying a and internal structures. Earth’s species over time. school-leaving level examination Biological evolution, gradual for all students. Even for tenth changes of characteristics of There is much more of this grade, however, the content could organisms over many genera- ignorant mischief. Worse, it is not be a bit richer, and it probably tions,Over time, genetic varia- limited to biological evolution, as would also be wise for the state to tion acted upon by natural is almost universally true in other write some guidelines for grades selectionhas brought variations state standards of this genre. 11 and 12 as well. in populations. Therefore, aA Rather, as noted above, there is a structural characteristic or sweeping excision of all refer- Science behavior that helps an organism ences to evolution in the universe to survive and reproducein its as a whole, in the solar system, The Kansas standards have been environment is called an adapta- and on Earth. By means of these much in the news of late, and with tion. When the environment cuts, the Kansas State Board of good reason. A very detailed changes and the adaptive char- Education has reduced biology to Kansas Science Education acteristics are insufficient, the natural history, geology to rock

57 collecting, and astronomy to ences lack a theoretical backbone ders and there found empty pseu- stargazing. denigrates the significance of the- doscience. She had the good The direct damage affects two- ory in physics and chemistry as sense to return to Kansas. Sadly, thirds of the standard physical sci- well. the State Board of Education ence-life science-Earth/space sci- The Kansas State Education seems to wish to issue a one-way ence curriculum. But the damage Standardsin science are a disser- ticket to all the state’s children. extends to the non-historical sci- vice and an insult to the young ences in a more subtle way. people of Kansas. Dorothy went Teaching students that most sci- from Kansas to Oz seeking won-

58 Kentucky Report Card 1998 2000 English - F History F D Geography F F Math D B D Science F D

Cum. GPA 0.25 1.00 Overall Grade F D

English and workplace/practical reading, ument tells readers that “there is and show increasingly demanding no ‘right’ curriculum design for This review addresses the 1998 reading skills for grades 4, 7, and social studies. Teachers, schools, “Grades Primary to 12,” and 10. They also have better litera- and district personnel must begin Proposed Revisions to the Core ture standards, much better writing by making decisions about what is Content for Reading and Writing standards, and very specific and best for all their students.” If this Assessments, probably issued in measurable standards that show is true, then statewide standards 1999. The 1998 document has increasing intellectual complexity for all teachers and students are many limitations, undoubtedly the in all areas through the three not possible. Nor are state assess- cause for the Proposed Revisions, grades to be assessed. ments likely to be fair. To its cred- which is a far better set of docu- Kentucky’s standards could be it, the next sentence says, ments. Although the 1998 docu- considerably strengthened by “[E]ducators must design curricu- ment has a well-done inquiry (or incorporating some literary and lum which helps develop the research) strand, it muddles liter- cultural specifics such as key informed, participating citizens ary study with reading skills, has authors or titles, or key literary required in a democracy.” This minimally adequate reading stan- periods or traditions, to assure par- statement outlines a justified ratio- dards through grade 8 and very ents and other citizens of what the nale for citizenship education and inadequate ones in the high school state’s academic expectations are. specific standards that can be grades, covers literary study poor- Incredibly, neither document spec- applied to every student. But the ly, has barely adequate standards ifies study of American literature, standards that follow don’t do that. in writing through grade 8 and not even the many fine authors inadequate ones in 9-12, shows lit- who hail from Kentucky itself. Geography tle increase in intellectual com- Future revisions should also elimi- plexity through the grades, is nate the present anti-literary Kentucky receives an F with a unclear about whether systematic emphasis on having students relate score of 40, an increase of 14 instruction in phonics will occur in what they read to their lived expe- points since 1998’s review. The the primary grades, and contains riences or read literature address- somewhat revised Core Content many nebulous standards (e.g., ing contemporary social issues. material is still weak, containing a “select and read materials for series of statements that let teach- enjoyment”). History ers know at what grade level mate- On the other hand, the Proposed rial should be learned. The Revisions nicely separate literary The Kentucky history standards Transformations material remains study from informational reading, are distributed across three docu- unchanged while the Program of persuasive reading, reading skills, ments. The “Transformation” doc- Studies document has been

59 revised, but again remains general- the most vacuous part of the mology, though with significant ly weak. American “inch-deep, mile-wide” omissions. Stellar evolution in The state scores poorly in sever- curriculum. Unfortunately, it still particular is well presented, as is al categories. And it’s disturbing does not pay sufficient attention to plate tectonics (though the term is to find that geography’s fundamen- the integration of mathematical never used). Biological evolution, tals receive so little emphasis in (deductive) reasoning into the to the extent that it is not damaged elementary or middle grades. threads of the subject matter. by euphemism and crucial omis- Elementary grades score poorly in Grade 8, “Discover and apply the sion, is well integrated into the all areas except content regarding Pythagorean Theorem,” is not fol- study of the life sciences (though the environment. Middle grades lowed by proof, even in the high human evolution is ignored), and score higher with places and school geometry outline. the grand historical pageant that regions, human systems, and envi- links cosmology with solar-system ronment and society scoring rela- Science evolution and then with geological tively well. High school material and biological evolution is reason- receives adequate scores in most Since 1998, Kentucky has gen- ably well presented. The tight content and skills areas because of erated new documents for science relationships among biological a new world geography course. education. The document consid- processes at various levels (e.g., Note: The Core Content docu- ered principally here is the Core molecules, cells, tissues, organs, ment states that “physical geogra- Content for Science Assessment, organisms, populations) are well phy is also assessed in the science version 3.0, dated August 1999. presented. section of CATS,” but the present Related documents also perused The structure of science and the reviewers found no information on are Program of Studies for relationship between science and physical systems within the sci- Kentucky Schools, Grades technology are also well presented. ence documents sent for examina- Primary-12 (1998), Kentucky’s There are almost no errors and tion. Learning Goals and Academic only a few ambiguous statements Expectations (1994), and of scientific principles, none of Math Transformations: Kentucky’s them serious enough to engender Curriculum Framework: Science difficulties. The Program of Studiesfor (1993). The latter documents pro- There is ample room for mathematics is dated 1998 and is a vide a structural basis for the first, improvement, however. great improvement over its prede- which is a typical list of expecta- Expectations of written student cessor, the Learning Goalsof tions. Although the Core Content presentations are limited. Aside 1994. A second document, document mainly sets those expec- from some mention of graphing, Transformations, is apparently tations forth in typical “laundry- there is almost no quantitative dis- intended to unify the school cur- list” format, it is well organized cussion, or expectation that more riculum by showing how various with respect to both subject matter advanced students should master a threads, such as numbers and mea- and grade-level appropriateness body of calculations and algebraic surement, can be applied “across and readily accessible to interested manipulations. No physical quan- the curriculum.” These activities persons. tities are defined quantitatively. do not run very deep, and are Because Kentucky has deter- Fundamental laws (Kepler’s laws, sometimes prescriptions for time- mined to test students at the ends Newton’s laws, the basic conserva- wasting projects. As a whole, they of Grades 4, 7, and 11, the some- tion laws of chemistry, Mendel’s do not contain enough additional what idiosyncratic division into laws) are hardly mentioned. More information to affect our evalua- levels elementary (pre-K through explicit mention of laboratory tion of the primary document, grade 4), middle (5-7), and high work and fieldwork is much to be which is one of the better ones. Its school (8-11) is used. desired. Parasitism and disease organization is crisp and clear Core Contentexcels in its cov- processes, which (aside from their (save for sometimes vague refer- erage of most modern topics, great practical importance) illus- ences) and it makes better than though biology is a notable and trate a number of important bio- average demands for content, regrettable exception. It deals at logical principles, are not men- especially at the middle-school length with some of the major top- tioned at all, and genetic engineer- level, which traditionally has been ics of modern astronomy and cos- ing is not given its due. As men-

60 tioned above, human evolution is have evolved through natural responses must be flexible enough ignored except by implication in selection to ensure reproductive to deal with uncertainty and two standards. success. Organisms often live in change. Behaviors often have an In September 1999, after we unpredictable environments, so adaptive logic.” What kind of had reviewed Core Content, the their behavioral responses must be logic? It is evolutionary theory Kentucky Department of flexible enough to deal with that provides the logical explana- Education made the decision to uncertainty and change. tion for what we observe in nature. avoid the term “evolution” alto- Behaviors often have an adaptive The explanatory power of evolu- gether. Whenever one expectsto logic when viewed in terms of tionary theory is here struck from find the word, one sees instead the evolutionary principles.” This has the view of the student, to his or euphemism “change over time,” or been distorted to read, “The broad her serious detriment. else the word disappears com- patterns of behavior exhibited by The Kentucky document pletely. Sometimes the result is organisms have changed over time remains an improvement over its just silly. More damaging changes through natural selection to ensure predecessor, but today suffers are typified by Standard SC-H- reproductive success. Organisms severely from the triumph of poli- 3.2.3: “The broad patterns of often live in unpredictable envi- tics over science. behavior exhibited by organisms ronments, so their behavioral

61 Louisiana Report Card 1998 2000 English - B History C C Geography C A C+ Math F F Science B C

Cum. GPA 1.75 2.20 Overall Grade C- C+

English increase in complexity. Much will what good standards should look depend on the appropriateness for like. Such a merger would raise This review covers Louisiana’s each grade level of the difficulty of scores considerably. Still, no clues May 1997 document, the the passages selected for statewide are provided to ensure that social Teachers’ Guide to Statewide assessments. Louisiana’s stan- and political dogma will not be Assessment, Grades 4, 8, and 10 dards would be considerably tolerated. (1997), and Released Test Items, strengthened by specifying in the Grades 4 and 8(1999). Overall, standards some literary and other Geography Louisiana’s standards, although reading specifics geared to particu- brief, have many strengths. lar reading levels and by working Louisiana receives an A with a Except for a strand on problem out increases in complexity in the score of 83, an increase of 15.5 solving and reasoning, they are standards in all strands; otherwise, points since 1998’s review. The organized in reasonable categories. it is not clear how these standards assessment document requires stu- For the most part, they are clear, can lead to a common core of high dents to prove their knowledge and specific, measurable, and compre- academic expectations and main- skills through in-depth testing at hensive. The standards themselves tain the basis for our civic culture grades 4, 8, and 11. The state’s address reading, research process- in a new generation of young people. one geography standard uses the es, and literary study adequately; content areas from the National in fact, they specify American, History Geography Standards, combining British, and other literature for Physical Systems and Human study in 9-12. Although they Without the Teachers’ Guide to Systems into a single category. cover writing and language con- Statewide Assessment, these stan- Skills and applications are found ventions very briefly, the assess- dards would be barely adequate. within the content areas them- ment materials spell out the details The enhanced scores reflect the selves. in these areas. quality information made available Expectations appear in bench- Yet some limitations should be to teachers and assessment special- marks that are nicely specific. addressed in future revisions. Few ists in the useful and thorough sec- Descriptions of test questions add details are given for vocabulary ondary document. With it in hand, excellent detail. Tests at all three development. Nor are there any however, one wishes the state had grade levels consist of 60 multiple- other literary or cultural specifics, combined its two documents so choice questions and four open- such as key titles or authors, or lit- that students and parents could ended questions. In fourth grade, erary periods or traditions. And receive the same benefits that about 35% of the multiple-choice the standards are fairly similar teachers and assessment specialists questions pertain to geography. across grade levels, showing little now have. The combination is Eighth graders receive 15 multi-

62 ple-choice questions regarding statewide test questions. Taken Science geography, giving it a weight of together, these documents provide about 25%. Emphasis is placed on a somewhat clearer picture of The Louisiana Science physical and human systems and Louisiana’s expectations than does Framework dated May 1997 and there is considerable stress on the Framework proper. In particu- evaluated in 1998 is still in use. geography’s physical processes. lar, the Teachers Guideincorpo- However, it has since been supple- By grade 11, geography is rates the texts of benchmarks from mented with a Teachers’ Guide to assigned only 15% of the multi- the Framework, each followed by Statewide Assessment, Grades 4, ple-choice questions. a list of student accomplishments 8, 11: Science. As this guide con- Nevertheless, high school students that the benchmark was intended tains considerable detail as to may be asked to fulfill tough, to imply. The gain in clarity is expectations for students, we con- open-ended geography assign- made evident by the improved sidered it as well. Most germane ments. The assessment document scores in that category, and this to the Frameworkare the sample is remarkably accessible despite additional clarity now permits a examination questions that exem- its technical nature. Sample ques- better estimate of the content plify the state’s learning objec- tions utilize numerous stimuli. expected in the primary- and mid- tives. Unfortunately, far too many dle-school programs, which have of these are either scientifically Math also been reconsidered. Still, the incorrect, ambiguous, or mislead- negative qualities of the original ing. I counted eight such out of The 1997 Louisiana document remain in place and are approximately two dozen in the Mathematics Framework, judged often reconfirmed by the new document. These errors and ambi- harshly in Fordham I, is still oper- information. In particular, the guities undermine the overall qual- ative. However, we now have content demanded by the test ity of the standards in a significant received in addition the Teachers’ items is very little, and many top- way. They should be rewritten by Guide to Statewide Assessment- ics that might have been (opti- people who possess deep scientific Mathematics, for grades 4, 8, and mistically) inferred from the rather knowledge and a talent for clarity. 10, as well as two packages of vague benchmarks are now more “Released Test Items” showing clearly seen to be excluded from student responses to a sampling of the testing syllabus. recent fourth- and eighth-grade

63 Maine Report Card 1998 2000 English - B History D D Geography F F Math F D D+ Science D D Cum. GPA 0.50 1.20 Overall Grade D- D+

English Maine’s standards are unlikely to on page 47 for the pre-K through create common and high academic grade 2 level. “Identify patterns in This review is based on the May expectations in the state. the world and express these pat- 1997 document. This is a docu- terns with rules” describes all of ment with many strengths. It has a History physics, but is here prescribed for reasonable organizational scheme middle schoolers. On the other and, for the most part, addresses The state supplied no evidence hand, the words “theorem” and all the areas of the English lan- that its standards have been “proof” are nowhere to be found, guage arts and reading satisfactori- revised since 1998. nor are any real examples of their ly. Most of its standards are clear, use. Must the students know long specific, and measurable. Further, Geography division? The multiplication all students are expected to use tables? When? Shall they prove Standard English orally and in The state supplied no evidence the quadratic formula, or is it to be writing, and the standards contains that its standards have been given to them? Not knowing no explicit anti-literary require- revised since 1998. whether such things are to be ments or expectations. taught renders problematic how far However, this document could Math a teacher or textbook will get in be strengthened in a number of satisfying, say, “Explain what ways. It could do so by making Maine’s Learning Results complex numbers (real and imagi- clearer expectations for systematic (Mathematics) of July 1997 is well nary) mean.…” What they mean? phonics instruction, by organizing organized, but its 11 categories are It is better to know what they are, the lists of objectives for each applied to each and every grade and what can be donewith them. grade cluster in informative sub- level, no matter how inappropriate- categories, by setting forth explicit ly. Thus we find “algebra” at Science objectives on vocabulary develop- grades K-2, for example, in pursuit ment over the grades, by making of some pedagogical theory that The Maine Science and better intellectual progressions does not really contribute to the Technology standards have been over the grades, and above all by purpose of standards. One conse- rewritten. The changes, though providing literary and cultural quence is vagueness throughout: extensive, are mainly minor in specifics, especially in the sec- “Explore the use of variables and effect, so that at bottom the current ondary grades. Without sample open sentences to describe rela- document is not very different reading passages, suggested or tionships” and “[r]epresent and from that reviewed in 1998. The required reading levels, or suggest- describe both geometric and changes have had a mixed effect. ed or required titles or authors, numeric relationships” are found In many cases, items have been

64 clarified or made more succinct. 5-8, and Secondary Grades are duced: Inquiry and Problem Vague terms such as “understand” now used. Solving, Scientific Reasoning, or “recognize” have been replaced A few important items have Communication, and Implications with more concrete ones such as been inexplicably dropped from of Science and Technology. These “illustrate,” “explain,” or the revision. Among them are are not intended to be taught as “describe.” On the other hand, the understanding how fossils are separate subjects but integrated short “essays” that followed the formed (Intermediate); classifying into subject-matter instruction. major content standards have been minerals on the basis of their This is to the good. Unfortunate- shortened, sometimes with a loss physical and chemical properties, ly, the first three never get around of the clarity they lent to the orga- their composition, and their crystal to explicitly requiring the use of nization of the lists that followed structure (Intermediate); and calculation, mathematical reason- them. A few items have been explaining how scientific evidence ing, or writing, which are essential moved to higher grade levels, pre- from organic molecules (especial- to every phase of scientific activity. sumably on the basis of experi- ly DNA), cells, fossils, compara- When all is said and done, the ence. The grade-level clusters tive anatomy, and comparative revisions, as extensive as they are, themselves have been made more embryology supports the idea that have not resulted in substantial explicit; instead of the perhaps all forms of modern life have change in the quality of the stan- ambiguous terms “Primary,” arisen from common ancestors dards document. “Intermediate,” “Middle,” and (Secondary). “Secondary,” the grade designa- At the same time, four new tions pre-K through grade 2, 3-4, major standards have been intro-

65 Maryland Report Card 1998 2000 English - B History F B C+ Geography F B Math F C Science - D

Cum. GPA 0.00 2.40 Overall Grade F C+

English standards should contain some lit- Geography erary and cultural specifics that in This review is based on the July some way suggest the level of Maryland receives a B with a 1999 standards document and the reading difficulty expected, partic- score of 70, an increase of 43 High School Core Learning Goals ularly in high school. There are points since 1998. The completely dated September 1996. Overall, very good literary specifics in the revised geography strand is chal- the 1999 document contains a 1996 document, but this document lenging and lively. It should thor- strong set of standards. This docu- does not show the exact level of oughly engage students, teachers, ment expects systematic phonics difficulty expected in high school. and parents. Standards are based instruction, addresses all areas of Although the 1996 document helps primarily on the national model, the English language arts and address what is missing in the Geography for Life, and are writ- reading satisfactorily, provides a 1999 standards document, it does ten for grades 3, 5, 8, and 12. The strong set of objectives on vocabu- not do so completely. draft states that material regarding lary development through the physical systems is found in the grades, has a sound organizational History state’s science standards (but that scheme, and contains, for the most presentation lacks geographic per- part, clear, specific, and measur- The Maryland Social Studies spective). able standards of increasing intel- Standardsis a serviceable docu- General characteristics receive lectual difficulty. ment that teachers, students, and high marks. While standards do However, the literature stan- assessment experts should find not have measurable benchmarks, dards in the 1999 document could very helpful. The history content per se, most provide a clear indica- be strengthened in several ways. is largely solid and doable despite tion of what is demanded of stu- They could be improved by a care- not being presented grade by dents. Standards score well in ful examination of the appropriate- grade–a problem if the standards comprehensiveness and rigor. Pre- ness of their demands on the aver- are going to be used to hold every K through grade 5 standards excel age student’s historical and cultur- teacher and child accountable each in fundamentals and in developing al knowledge, especially in the year. The history content is not skills of geographic analysis. early grades, by avoiding misuse overly detailed. On the other Coverage of the physical and of the concepts of “culture” and hand, the skill requirements are human characteristics of places, “representativeness,” and by repetitive and not directly connect- human systems, and the environ- refraining from implying that liter- ed to content, and there are signifi- ment, as well as applications of the ary works as a matter of course cant gaps in the European/world geographic perspective score well should engage readers in social history sections of the document. enough. Mental-mapping skills issues or events. Above all, these are not addressed.

66 Standards for eighth graders equation may be solved. What the abridgment. score one point lower overall than about its derivation and logical For the most part, the material for earlier grades. Emphasis is standing? The same could be is grade appropriate, and the pre- placed on human systems. asked about the Pythagorean theo- sentation of material for the four Students are asked to think analyt- rem mentioned in 2.8.2b (page 4) grade clusters makes cross-com- ically throughout. Standards for under Geometry, and the rather parison easy. There are, however, grade 12 continue to emphasize vague 2.12.5, “apply properties some exceptions. Standard 5.8.2 human systems. There is more and relationships from Euclidean requires grades 5-8 students to attention to environment and soci- geometry to problem situations.” “apply Newton’s laws of motion,” ety. And geographic applications Other features of the document are but this is not a reasonable expec- are thoroughly covered. An excel- similar to what most states pro- tation of students who have not yet lent social-science glossary with a duce, except that Maryland scored taken algebra. At this level, dis- good range of geographic terms is well on the negative qualities, cussion should be limited to quali- included. offering no important examples of tative (or at most semi-quantita- “inflation” (pretentious jargon, tive) relations. Standard 2.8.10 Math etc.). On the other hand, the glos- asks the student to “analyze the … sary is a terrible piece of badly tides as related to … gravity.” At As the score indicates, the stated mathematical prose, unnec- this level it is reasonable to expect Content Standardsmostly fail to essary besides. the student to know that the tides indicate throughout the content are associated with lunar and solar strands where mathematical rea- Science gravitation, but analysis is the soning is to be taught, empha- province of junior-level college sized, or used. To say that chil- The Maryland Science Content physics majors. dren should “follow and judge the Standards(7/99) cover Grades K- Several strong points deserve validity of arguments by applying 12, grouped in clusters K-3, 4-5, mention. The standards are clear inductive and deductive thinking” 6-8, and 9-12. Grades 9-12 are with respect to the need for labo- is too general; the standards also the subject of a separate doc- ratory work and fieldwork, for should have reference to this prin- ument, High School Core data analysis, and for critical eval- ciple in the earlier details of skills Learning Goals: Science uation. Although these items, too, demanded. For example, Standard (September 1996). The former have been abridged from the 6.12.3a asks students to “solve lin- (and newer) document is the one national models, the meaning has ear and quadratic equations.” The reviewed here. It is consciously been preserved reasonably well. headline of that page prefaces this modeled after the AAAS and Abridgment without loss of demand with “Students will … NSES models, which are cross- meaning is a respectable goal but solve mathematical … problems referenced throughout. The one not fully achieved here. The involving patterns and functional Maryland document has, however, standards ought to be rewritten relationships, while selecting and been substantially abridged from extensively, and expanded as nec- using tools and technology as the models and has lost something essary. Or, as an alternative, the appropriate.” The wording of all in the process. Statements that are state might simply adopt the docu- this permits a calculator to be the quite clear and/or contextualized ments of which an abridgment has “tool” by which the quadratic in the models become unclear in been attempted.

67 Massachusetts Report Card 1998 2000 English A A History B B Geography D D B- Math F D Science C A

Cum. GPA 2.00 2.60 Overall Grade C B-

English choice questions. Nothing in the Learning Standard in the Assessment Guide, however, can Framework, the Guideprovides The state supplied no evidence cancel some of the inflation and Assessment Expectations and that its standards have been false doctrine found in the original Sample Questions. Although there revised since 1997. Framework. Indeed, it can and does is no change in the standards them- confirm some of them. At grade 10, selves, the new material provides History there is a long question concerning substantial clarification not present algebra tiles, which are a sort of toy in the rather fuzzy and sometimes The state supplied no evidence supposed to help teach the algebra irrelevant vignettes intended for that that its standards have been of solving certain equations. It purpose in the Frameworkitself. revised since 1998. would be better to have examination For example, the grade 10 standard, questions concern the equations, not “[R]epresent an understanding that Geography the toy. On page 77, “Find the next compounds form when atoms of number in this pattern” is a poor two or more elements bond,” is fol- The state supplied no evidence question unless it is announced in lowed by the assessment expecta- that its standards have been advance that the pattern is an arith- tion, “describe intramolecular and revised since 1998. metic sequence. However, many of intermolecular forces, e.g., hydrogen the problems are quite good and the bonding, polarity, Van der Waals Math assessment material does clarify the forces.” This is coupled to two sam- Framework. The (improved) grades ple questions that further clarify The 1997 Framework reviewed in we assign apply to the ensemble. what is expected of the student. In a Fordham I is still operative, and its few cases, the assessment expecta- Content strands are repeated in the Science tion merely reiterates the standard newer Guide to the Massachusetts but in most of those situations clari- Comprehensive Assessment System: The document reviewed in 1998, fication is provided by the sample Mathematics(January 1998), which the Science & Technology questions that follow. is now added to make a more com- Curriculum Framework,has been Since the Guidereiterates the prehensive package. The process supplemented by the January 1998 individual standards, it may be standards of the original Framework Guide to the Massachusetts regarded as a replacement for the (e.g., “Communication”) do not Comprehensive Assessment System: earlier document, minus the fluff. enter explicitly into the Assessment Science & Technology. The latter However, a rewrite intended both to Guidebut their prescriptions are pre- document, closely keyed to the for- clarify content and to provide over- sumably to be deduced from stu- mer, sets forth a skeleton for exams arching principles would be desir- dents’ answers to non-multiple- at grades 4, 8, and 10. For each able in the future.

68 Michigan Report Card 1998 2000 English F F History F F Geography B B Math F F Science - D

D- Cum. GPA 0.75 0.80 Overall Grade D- D-

English for classroom work, or clarification, only five pages long, puts all tions by example, but there is of the sciences in context in a gen- The state supplied no evidence nothing in the additional informa- eral way and explains very clearly that its standards have been tion to require revision of our esti- what each item means and how it revised since 1997. mate under the other three criteria: relates to the others. The rest of Content, Reason, and absence of the relatively brief (28 pages) doc- History Negative Qualities. Often the ument sets forth details of what putative clarifications and exempli- students are to learn at each of The state supplied no evidence fications don’t actually clarify or three levels: Elementary, Middle that its standards have been produce real examples, but reiter- School, and High School. (These revised since 1998. ate the benchmark in slightly dif- presumably correspond to grades ferent words; while at other times K-6, 7-9, and 10-12.) Geography the examples are trivial. For The coverage of most subjects is example, one suggested “activity” good in a general way. In particu- The state supplied no evidence relating to statistics reads, “… lar, biological evolution (including that its standards have been staging a class debate in which human evolution), disease process- revised since 1998. each side bases its arguments on es, plate tectonics, population data it has collected and present- dynamics, and the geology of the Math ed.” The essence of statistics as a Great Lakes region are well han- science is not found in debates dled. Extra-solar-system astrono- The Content Standardsembed- using data, but in using data in my is mentioned, but too briefly; ded in this Frameworkare the certain mathematical ways. The laboratory tools are mentioned but same as those reviewed in 1998, Framework demands very little there is no systematic discussion though omitting some of the intro- along these lines, and so it goes of lab work. There is essentially ductory material of the earlier doc- with the rest of the suggested con- no mention of writing, calculating, ument. Our present evaluation is tent of the K-12 program. or mathematical manipulation of unaffected by those omissions, but scientific concepts. Indeed, one the Frameworkalso contains mate- Science never gets the idea that quantita- rial clarifying the intent of the bare tive expression is essential to sci- Content Standards, and permits us The Michigan Content ence, nor that students cannot be to raise (slightly) the scores award- Standards and Draft Benchmarks said to understand a concept until ed within the rubric Clarity. Each are at their strongest in the organi- they can communicate it. benchmark is now accompanied by zation of large concepts, called In general, one has the feeling a number of related suggestions Strands and Standards. This sec- that the other shoe has not been

69 dropped; there is almost no detail. evolution, random genetic varia- use in guiding curriculum develop- Missing are Mendel’s laws, tion and natural selection. As is ment, textbook writing, or exam Newton’s laws, any mention of too often the case, energy is much construction. momentum, any solid discussion mentioned yet never defined. of chemical processes, and any As far as it goes, the Michigan real bringing together of the two document is clear and error-free. essential elements of biological But as it stands it will be of little

70 Minnesota Report Card 1998 2000 English F F History F F Geography F F D- Math - F Science - A

Cum. GPA 0.00 0.80 Overall Grade F D-

English and cultural specifics for the study selves. A few inflated quotations of American literature in particular from the Components should illus- This review covers about a that can assure all citizens that trate the reason for the low grades dozen pages, undated, containing their statewide assessments can the documents as a whole were Minnesota’s standards. They con- lead to a common core of high given. tain two excellent standards on the academic expectations for all Number sense, high school: use of public parliamentary proce- Minnesota students. “Understand the concept of imagi- dures and public speaking. nary numbers in the context of the Technical and practical reading History square root of a negative number.” and writing are also given ample Number sense, post-high school: attention in these materials. The state supplied no evidence “Develop an intuitive feel for the However, a large number of stan- that its standards have been location of a point in the plane dards are not specific, measurable, revised since 1998. represented by polar coordinates,” or demanding. Moreover, literary and “explore the development of study gets short shrift in these Geography the real number system from his- pages, and academic writing is torical and cultural perspectives.” skimpily described, especially in The state supplied no evidence Middle school: “Determine contrast to the details offered for that its standards have been whether a situation requires an technical writing; few aspects of a revised since 1998. overestimate or an underestimate.” good essay (such as thesis, coher- Beyond high school: “Understand ence, paragraphing, transitions, Math operations on complex numbers and vocabulary choice) are men- and transcendental expressions by tioned. There is nothing on the In 1998 we were not in posses- using numerical and visual esti- history and nature of the English sion of the present Framework, but mates (e.g., represent a+bi on the language. only of a draft from which it was complex plane, Mandelbrot set).” Minnesota needs to develop a impermissible to quote. Thus this Understanding a concept “in the real set of measurable standards is the first Fordham evaluation for context of …” adds nothing; one for the English language arts and Minnesota. The Framework is either understands it or not, and reading, with details showing elaborately produced and contains, indeed the words “the concept of” increasing complexity through the for each of five grade bands, much are superfluous. “Develop an intu- grades. By high school, the stan- instruction, philosophy, classroom itive feel for …” is here a windy dards should show appropriate vignettes, etc., besides the section way of asking for the definition. intellectual demands for academic (Components) containing the No situation requires an overesti- writing, and the kind of literary mathematical standards them- mate or underestimate, though

71 there are times when one should, multiplication tables, the algo- Minnesota had previously deter- e.g., order more carpeting than the rithms for the common arithmetic mined to follow the National estimate calls for. It would be operations, the quadratic formula, Science Education Standards more important to mention De anything at all about Euclidean (NSES), coordinated with the Moivre’s Theorem and its proof geometry (though several non- Minnesota Graduation Standards than to learn fractal appreciation Euclidean ones are mentioned), or (MGS). Both of these are set forth and the Mandelbrot set. about conditional probability. At in the Framework. At the high school level, the the post-high school level, where As it is not the intent of this heading “Students should under- some descriptions are quite ambi- report to review NSES per se, it stand the operations and apply tious, if interpreted so, the impli- need merely be noted that the them to solve problems” has, as its cation is that many of the standard material is scientifically compre- most “detailed” item, example, or things were indeed taught earlier, hensive and accurate, and clearly instruction, “justify the selection but the business of the standards sets forth the structure of the sci- of operations used to solve a prob- for earlier grades is to tell us ences. The coordination with lem.” This is typically indefinite, whether and when. MGSis straightforward, and the and adds absolutely nothing to the In all, too much subject-matter only difficulty a reader might have heading above it. choice ends up left to teachers, or in comprehending the content lies Another curious example: At the local districts, who should have in the great length of the docu- high school level for discrete more guidance, in plainer lan- ment. Like nearly all state stan- mathematics is found the instruc- guage, than is found here. dards, this one tends to short- tion, “Explore the combinatorial change extra-solar-system astrono- interpretation of Pascal’s Triangle Science my. There is emphasis on the (see Sample Problems HI-3).” But need for clear communication, but HI-3 says, “Use Pascal’s triangle The Minnesota K-12 Science explicit reference to the use of to explore the identity …” where Frameworkis a very long, com- mathematics is skimpy. the identity quoted is nothing but prehensive document that covers A distinction is made between the very definition of Pascal’s tri- not only content but pedagogical students whose formal education angle. In general, the illustrative practices, connections with other will terminate with high school material provided throughout is subject areas, vignettes, and over- graduation and those who will go primitive, even where relevant. all purpose and philosophy of the on to further studies. Yet both It is not possible to find in these education process. As far as the groups should be able to acquire a standards a plain statement of content standards that are the prin- solid grounding on the basis of the whether students are to learn the cipal concern of this report, Minnesota standards.

72 Mississippi Report Card 1998 2000 English D C History - C Geography F D Math B A C- Science F F

Cum. GPA 1.00 1.80 Overall Grade D C-

English intellectual complexity clearly vis- standards will actually prepare stu- ible in all areas and through the dents to (for example) “understand This review covers the 1996 high school years. Mississippi the democratic foundations, princi- standards document and the also needs to spell out some cul- ples, and people that have con- Reading Instructional Intervention tural and literary specifics in its tributed to United States history.” Supplements, grades K-3 (1998) standards, such as key authors, If Mississippi educators were seri- and 4-8 (1999). The Supplements works, literary periods, and liter- ous about that statement, only address most of the problems in ary traditions, to make clear its clear, specific, and measurable reading and literature in the 1996 academic expectations for stu- content standards could possibly document; their standards are well dents’ knowledge of the nature and deliver the desired result. organized and readable, indicate history of their own country’s liter- that phonics instruction will take ary and civic culture. The excel- Geography place (although it is not clear if lent list of writers born in instruction will be systematic), sort Mississippi, now found in an Mississippi receives a D with a higher- from lower-order skills, appendix, should be incorporated score of 53, an increase of 7 points address vocabulary study extreme- into the standards. since 1998. The adopted frame- ly well, cover literary elements work’s geography content material and techniques well, and are clear, History has changed somewhat for the bet- specific, and measurable. The ter. A higher score in general 1996 document had strengths of its The Mississippi Social Studies characteristics indicates improve- own: it clearly expects students to standards is a long document ment in teaching strategies. use Standard English for speaking (some 282 pages). It is organized But other changes, not really and writing, and it mentions titles thematically; hence chronological- subject to our criteria, bode ill for of well-known literary works at ly based history is not supported geography as a specific and identi- the high school level to suggest here. There is very little attention fiable subject. Its special tools reading levels expected. to historical specifics. United (maps, globes, compasses, etc.) are However, the high school stan- States history is largely absent now called “social-studies tools.” dards remain to be revised, as do from the earlier grades and And students are asked to create the other areas of the curriculum European/world history is poorly maps using “social-studies skills.” not addressed by the Supplements. covered in the upper grades. Finally, in the earlier draft, high A single, coherent organizational There are tough “benchmarks” school options listed two geogra- framework for all areas of the statements for grades 4, 8, and 12 phy elective possibilities for ninth- English language arts and reading (for assessment purposes), yet grade students and one for grade is badly needed, with increases in there are no assurances that these 11. In the new framework, geog-

73 raphy is not listed as an elective at courses are evidently of the tradi- prehensive and lucid, outlining an all, though “competencies” (broad tional variety, somewhat lacking in excellent grade-by-grade program content statements that must be deductive structure but better than of teaching, and written in taught) are included for many present-day outlines and straightforward no-nonsense prose. Introduction to World Geography texts. Good illustrative “word A good teacher will be given every and Advanced World Geography. problems” are asked for, which is opportunity, via the richness of the a great deal. Unfortunately, not references and illustrations, to Math much is made of deduction in the compose a model curriculum and geometry, either, so that Reason in teach it rigorously. The Mississippi Mathematics general is the weakest feature of Framework(draft for year 2000) is this Framework. Some unneces- Science a very large (250 pages) document sary advice concerning manipula- with very little inflation, though tives, even algebra tiles, and some The state supplied no evidence some straining for effect, as in the unnecessary reliance on calcula- that its standards have been Algebra I (page 129) classroom tors damage the score under revised since 1998. exercise, “Find the perimeter and Negative Qualities. Just the same, area of a rectangle with radical while less than ideal, this terms as dimensions.” The algebra Frameworkis extraordinarily com-

74 MissourIowai Report Card 1998 2000 English F F History F C Geography C B Math F F D+ Science C C

Cum. GPA 0.80 1.40 Overall Grade D- D+

English The document clearly promotes in specific content. There are no a very heavy-handed way a specifics for United States, This review encompassed the process approach to reading and European, or world history. There 1996 standards document and writing, as well as a problem-solv- is nothing here for parents to Assessment Annotations for ing approach to the organization of check whether or not their children Grades 3, 7, and 11 (1999). The academic study in the English lan- are learning important historical standards document has several guage arts and reading. A more information. What is here instead strengths; it makes very clear its inclusive pedagogical approach is is a lot of historical skill-making. expectation that one goal of the badly needed, together with a Simply put, without specifics, English language arts and reading more coherent organizational there are no standards for every curriculum is to prepare students scheme that cuts down on repeti- child in Missouri and there can be for informed participation in tion and scatter, improves cover- no standard assessment, either. American civic life. Speaking and age of areas inadequately covered, (The “Content Specifications” are listening skills are extremely well such as literature, and reduces the not nearly enough to bear this bur- addressed to support this goal. emphasis on problem-solving and den.) In the end, this well- The document also has strong group interaction that now over- designed and carefully presented standards on group interaction, whelms these standards. document will be unread and decision-making, and the use of unused for the simple reason that democratic principles. History it consigns the real “standards” However, large numbers of stan- decisions to the individual schools dards are not specific or measur- Given a first glance at this of Missouri: “We assume that such able; in fact, only about half seem framework, the reader would not decisions on specific history con- to have been judged measurable in be wrong to sense that Missouri tent can and should be made at the the Assessment Annotations. Nor has replaced history with some local level by faculties thinking do they show increasing complexi- sort of sociology called “historical reflectively and using a variety of ty through the grades. Standards perspective.” Despite the low resources” (page 109). While in reading are not strong, especial- point totals and grade, however, noble and supportive of local fac- ly with respect to the development these standards do have clarity; ulty (who it is assumed will do the of vocabulary. Nor are writing they’re well written; and it is clear right thing), the truth is this is a standards. Literary study is inade- to this reviewer that their authors total abdication of the obligation quately addressed, and there are no strove to create a document adapt- of creating state educational stan- literary or cultural specifics at all, able to the needs of Missouri’s dards for which every teacher and not even a requirement that stu- schools. Nonetheless, these “stan- child is held accountable. dents study American literature. dards” collapse from the lack of

75 Geography Students at every level must Science prove a solid understanding of Missouri receives a B with a location and place—basic geo- A new document, Assessment score of 70, an increase of 3 points graphical concepts—the first two Annotations for the Curriculum since 1998. The assessment guide of the “five themes of geography.” Frameworks: Science, Grades 3, is straightforward and concise. There is no mention of learning 7, and 10 (no date) has been pub- Geography has one “knowledge” the vocabulary of geography but lished. However, its main purpose standard with grades 4, 8, and 11 this is implied within the thematic is apparently not to modify the benchmarks (three for each grade approach. Grade 8 students must existing Missouri Science cluster) arrayed beneath. The know how to solve problems using Framework reviewed in 1998 but benchmarks themselves are rela- mental maps, a concept often to reconcile it with the statewide tively general but the performance ignored but very important to a examinations put in place by the recommendations that follow are thoroughgoing geography educa- Missouri Assessment Project. As more specific. tion. Grade 11 students are the grade-level clusters in the The material appears to be required to do considerable prob- Frameworkare K-4, 5-8, and 9-12 based upon Guidelines for lem-solving. while the exams are administered GeographicEducation, published at grades 3, 7, and 10, it is neces- in 1984, and does not emphasize Math sary to set forth which items are to the spatial perspective unique to be assessed and which are to be geography that is present in later The state supplied no evidence deferred. (Curiously, Assessment models. Oddly, geography in the that its standards have been Annotations cites grade clusters state’s Social Studies Framework revised since 1998. K-1, 3-4, 5-8, and 9-12 but the (reviewed in 1998) places consid- Framework lumps grades K-4 erable emphasis on the national together.) For our purposes, there standards model, rather than the has been no change. Guidelines.

76 Montana Report Card 1998 2000 English - F History - - Geography - - Math F D D- Science - D

Cum. GPA 0.00 0.66 Overall Grade F D-

English literary periods or literary tradi- particular, the “educationese” jar- tions in American and British liter- gon of its predecessor is now This review covers the standards ature. Montana’s standards do not gone, and the instructions are Montana set forth in October 1998 do these things. For a document brief, legible, and almost devoid of and June 1999. They are extreme- purporting to guide literary study “False Doctrine” and “Inflation.” ly limited, limiting, and underde- for children in all the state’s public As a result, some of its instruc- veloped. They need extensive schools to mention only Indian lit- tions are understandable and even revision if they are to serve as an erature, for example, with no testable, if interpreted by a sympa- academic guide to local school attention at all to American litera- thetic reader with care. But the districts, whether or not there are ture (or even Montana authors), is prose is very seldom definite ever to be state assessments. In professionally unconscionable. enough to tell us just what a stu- general, the state’s standards are The objectives laudably expect dent should know, and when, not specific, comprehensive, proficient students by grade 8 and about any given topic. “Solve demanding, or measurable. They 12 to demonstrate reading ability quadratic equations” is fine, but need to be rewritten to address all at those grade levels, but fail to whether by calculator, or for only of these problems and to eliminate suggest how they are to get there. equations with integral roots, or by all the authoritarian moralizing a formula understood and provable they now contain, e.g., by grade History by the student, is not said. Our 12, Montana expects students to assessment of Content therefore “develop and defend multiple ana- Montana receives an incom- represents a guess. There is no lytic and interpretive responses to plete. It did not submit history evidence that deductive reason is literary works.” Good standards standards for review. called for anywhere, though of documents, among other things, course an individual teacher or show intellectual progress through Geography school district is not prevented the grades, expect the systematic from teaching that, and much else, teaching of phonics in the primary Montana receives an incom- since the text does hint at almost grades, go beyond a process or plete. It did not submit geography everything in the standard curricu- strategy approach to writing to standards for review. lum. Sometimes it is clear that provide indices of quality in writ- content is wanting, however, as ing, give some details on written- Math when the normal curve of statistics language conventions through the is to be described “in general grades, and offer a reasonable This Standardsis an improve- terms” before being used. guide to literary study that ment on the document surveyed in includes key works or authors, and 1998, but mainly in language. In

77 Science share of the skimpy overall space, There is much to be said for though much of the important leaving curricular matters to local TheMontana Standards for material appears for the first time entities, but I fear they will find Science (June 1999) consists of at grade 12. little more in this document than one introductory page, six pages Quantitative matters are given vague encouragement in carrying of standards, and four pages little emphasis, though it is laud- out their tasks of curricular plan- describing four levels of perfor- able that a grade 12 standard ning and learning evaluation. mance indicators (Novice, Nearing expects the student to “select Certainly, it is too vague to be of Proficiency, Proficient, and appropriate means for represent- much use in accomplishing the Advanced) at Grades 4, 8, and 12. ing, communicating, and defend- task set forth in the covering letter Given the brevity of the docu- ing results of investigations and that accompanies the Standards: ment, the distribution of items is scientific and technological argu- “Over the past 10 years, Montana adequate; no large areas of science ments using appropriate mathe- had engaged in serious examina- are neglected. Indeed, in propor- matical analysis and graphical rep- tion of what we want our students tion to the overall length the often- resentation.” As good as this is in to know and be able to do.” neglected areas of evolution, plate the context of the entire document, tectonics, and extra-solar-system it asks for an awful lot within a astronomy are given their fair tight package.

78 Nebraska Report Card 1998 2000 English - A History F C Geography - F Math F C C+ Science D B

Cum. GPA 0.33 2.20 Overall Grade F C+

English 8 and 12 more literary and cultural the ample content surrenders much specifics such as core titles or of its effectiveness. Appropriate This review covers the standards authors, and specific literary peri- historical skills are offered, but set forth in February 1998. ods and traditions from American they are not directly connected to Overall, this is a fine professional literature in particular, as well as content. There is no evidence that document; for the most part, its from British and other world liter- political and social dogmas will standards are clear, specific, ature. Such specifics would help not be tolerated nor any assurances demanding, and measurable. They teachers and parents understand that student manipulations will not cover most areas in the English better how students are to be able be approved. language arts and reading well, to maintain our civic culture when and for the most part they show they graduate from high school. Geography increasing difficulty through the grades. Laudably, the document History Nebraska receives an F with a builds in no anti-literary require- score of 43. The state uses a con- ments or expectations; nor does it The Nebraska Social fusing social-studies thematic attempt to promote any particular Studies/History Standardsare approach that is inconsistent and pedagogies. Even more laudably, based on ten strands/themes, pre- messy. No national geography it requires achievement of a specif- sumably derived from the National models are credited. A “Suggested ic grade level for reading at each Council for the Social Studies. Course Outline” on page 39 proof the three levels to be assessed The standards are largely clear and vides a list of the National (4, 8, and 12), clearly expects sys- generally assessable. There is a Geography Standards’ content tematic teaching of decoding skills lot of first-rate history here, areas but does not say what to do in the early grades, contains clear including core content, but it is with it. Geography’s spatial per- vocabulary objectives through the muted by distribution in grade spective receives little attention grades, and makes specific men- clusters rather than grade by grade and, overall, coverage of the sub- tion of “the American culture” and (where teachers and students can ject is very thin. the study of British literature and be held accountable and where Specificity in these new social- “Nebraska authors.” parents can track their children’s studies standards (those that relate This document can be strength- progress or lack thereof). to geography at all) is spotty: a ened in future revisions by provid- Additionally, without a sound his- few standard statements include ing more details on written-lan- torical background where students “by” or “such as” clauses that pro- guage conventions through the learn the importance of chronolog- vide clarification, rigor, and mea- grades and especially by incorpo- ical presentation as a means to surement possibilities: “1.8: rating into its standards for grades understand and appreciate history, Students will compare and contrast

79 the relative location of people, get the state’s standards into the ography or any citations. places, and things by … using hands of the general public. Nevertheless, the Nebraska stan- objects to show near/far, up/down, dards are no slavish copy of the left/right, behind/in front.… Math national models. Though quite Locating land and water on a map brief, they are careful in setting using north, east, south, and west” This unpretentious document is out what is expected in science and “[c]onstructing a simple map printed in the format of a tabloid learning. For example, though the of a familiar area incorporating newspaper, along with the stan- inherently vague terms “investi- cardinal direction, scale, and map dards for science, English, and gate” and “understand” are used, symbols, such as classroom, social studies, and includes hints they are carefully defined in terms home, and playground.” for parents as well as content stan- of measurable activities, e.g., Others are too broad and open- dards and some philosophy of observing, measuring, inferring, ended to be useful. For example: mathematics education. Its brevity explaining, analyzing, judging. “4.5: Students will explain how detracts from its usefulness, The term evolution is used to historic and geographic factors despite its disclaimer that it does- describe what happens not only in affected the expansion and devel- n’t intend to be a “curriculum biological systems but in other opment of Nebraska” or “8.4.1: guide,” especially at the high natural systems as well. Students will describe early physi- school level, where most of its Coordination with mathematics is cal and cultural development of other failures (content as well as explicitly required, and such mankind from the Paleolithic Era clarity) are found. It is significant words as “functional relationship,” to the revolution of agriculture, that the definition of Mathematical “geometry,” and “trigonometry,” such as … the impact of geogra- Reasoning, given in the introduc- rarely seen in K-12 science stan- phy on hunter-gatherer societies.” tory remarks, portrays reasoning dards, are used. (Oddly, the word Standards are presented for as something “used to verify the “algebra” does not appear.) grades K-1, 2-4, 5-8, 9-12. For reasonableness of answers,” as if it The grade-level clusters used the most part, elementary stan- were a skill in mental arithmetic; are somewhat unconventional but dards limit students’ learning to and indeed there is no evidence entirely workable: grades K-1, 2- geography’s fundamentals. All anywhere that something like 4, 5-8, and 9-12. Students are other content areas receive very Euclidean geometry is to serve as expected to use scientific instru- low scores. Middle-school stan- anything but a utilitarian descrip- ments at the K-1 level and this dards are similarly weak, with tion of the world around us. At emphasis continues throughout. adequate scores seen only in the more elementary levels, how- Important physical phenomena human systems. Geography is ever, the indicated content is tradi- such as frames of reference, presented as it relates to American tional and sufficient, though the refraction, reflection, and electric and world history. preparation for algebra indicated circuits are introduced at the Scores improve in high school by grade 8 really deserves a richer grades 2-4 level. So is the rather because of a world geography continuation than the grade 12 abstract idea (under Science and course that stresses higher-order level calls for. Technology) that some natural thinking. Categories of skills and resources such as beauty, security, applications receive highest scores Science and quiet, are intangible but valu- for this course but reviewers are able. Quantitative and semi-quan- hard pressed to know when stu- The science standards reviewed titative physical and chemical con- dents will acquire the geography here are part of a compendium, cepts are introduced at the grades content necessary to exercise these Nebraska L.E.A.R.N.S., whose 5-8 level, as are most of the ele- skills. development was set in motion in ments essential to understanding Nebraska L.E.A.R.N.S., a docu- 1997. The science standards part is biological evolution. ment that includes standards for dated May 8, 1998. This new doc- Students at this level are expect- reading/writing, math, science, ument is a complete departure from ed to understand some important and social studies,is printed on the earlier one reviewed in 1998. but subtle matters. For instance, tabloid-size newsprint with a color The new science standards draw “State an example of when soci- cover and interior photographs heavily upon the NSES and AAAS etal priorities influenced research reflecting a conscientious effort to models, although there is no bibli- priorities,” or, “Distinguish

80 between scientific fact and scien- ments.” Other topics covered truckles to pseudoscience, and the tific theory.” Although it would be include the distinction between vague item (for twelfth graders) desirable to see more emphasis on kinetic and potential energy, the “Investigate and use the theory of extra-solar-system astronomy, mechanism of plate tectonics, the biological evolution to explain there is at least modest attention method of determining relative diversity of life” is an inadequate paid to this important subject area and absolute geological ages, and representation of the significance beginning in grades 5-8. the evolution of stars. of evolution in the life sciences. In high school, students are The level of scientific accuracy Although there is laudable empha- expected to understand the sci- is generally high, though there are sis on mathematics, the word ences at a sophisticated level, such a few instances of error and ambi- “writing” never appears anywhere as, “Use estimates of magnitude of guity. The insertion of two items in the document. error to analyze disparities distinguishing between macro- and For the most part, the Nebraska between estimates and calculated micro-evolution (of only six grade science standards provide the basis answers when making measure- 12 items pertaining to evolution) for a good education in science.

81 Nevada Report Card 1998 2000 English - B History - C Geography - C C+ Math - C Science - C

Cum. GPA - 2.20 Overall Grade - C+

English expectations for all its students mastery is beyond most children at and maintain the basis for our that age. This review is based on the civic culture in a new generation August 1998 document. Overall, of young people. Geography this is a good set of standards with many very positive features. For History Nevada receives a C with a the most part, the standards are score of 69. Using Geography for clear, specific, measurable, com- The Nevada Social Studies Life—the National Geography prehensive, and demanding. They Standards for history present a Standards—as a model, the state’s show increasing levels of difficulty clear design for introducing mater- new draft standards, while spotty over the grades. All areas of the ial and expanding it through the and uneven, look as if they could English language arts and reading grades. As is often the case, some turn out well. Currently, content are addressed quite well, especial- items are remarkably detailed coverage is lumpy. Some topics ly the strands on research and lan- while others are incredibly vague. within particular content areas guage conventions. In addition, The specifics of history improve in receive tremendous attention while the reading strand contains an the later grades; still, there is virtu- others do not. For example, the excellent vocabulary subsection ally no world or European history topic regarding natural hazards over the grades. The study of anywhere. Little attention is given (floods, volcanoes, hurricanes, and American literature is specified in to major figures of U.S. history the like) receives attention across a standard in the literature strand, (with the prominent exception of all grade levels within the content and the document makes clear its Martin Luther King, Jr.). And area of Environment and Society. expectation for systematic instruc- some commendable content is But when it comes to knowledge tion in phonics. There are no anti- unrealistic in its expectations for of Places and Regions, this huge literary or anti-academic require- young children. One of the exam- geographical content area is ments or expectations. The one ples of “performance level descrip- approached historically, eroding its extremely important limitation in tors” in grade 2 is to “recount geographic purpose and focus. In this document is its failure to spec- thoroughly and with accuracy a addition, economics and sociology, ify more literary and cultural story about slaves in the Civil rather than geography, dominate specifics—key authors or titles, or War.” Another says, “[G]ive rich some of the standards regarding literary traditions and periods, in details and illustrate two or more Human Systems. American and British literature. people who were important in the Standards are written primarily Without some of these specifics, it American Revolution.” Such for five grades—2, 3, 5, 8, and is not clear how Nevada can create expectations for grade 2 are cer- 12—two more than the typical common and high academic tainly admirable, but this level of three. But the layout is confusing

82 to read: “Geography Content designed to indicate increasingly equations both algebraically and Standard 1.0: the World in Spatial sophisticated levels of cognitive graphically; use graphing calcula- Terms” runs across the first page development, is not uncommon. tors as a primary tool in solving without any explanation. It is Unfortunately, the technique these problems.…” Given that underpinned by a list of some makes the standards appear boring single linear equations are to be standards for kindergarten and and heavy-handed, particularly as understood and solved by grade 8, grades 1, 4, 6, and 7. The remain- each column is topped with the this represents very little progress ing 14 pages of geography stan- phrase, “Students know and are over four years of school, and the dards list additional “World in able to do everything required in idea that graphing calculators are Spatial Terms” standards (sub- earlier grades and …” to be a “primary” tool for this pur- headed “Map Use”) and standards Finally, the standards are pose shows how little algebraic covering other content areas for uneven in rigor. While good reasoning enters into the expecta- grades 2, 3, 5, 8, and 12. This and emphasis is placed on skills and tion here. other confusing drafting inconsis- applications, some requirements The unnecessary glossary is tencies should be ironed out prior show up a little late. For example, lengthy and often incorrect. Not to final publication. being able to “locate and describe entirely incorrect but representa- Many of the standards are too ecosystems on Earth” is not neces- tive of a very unmathematical out- broad. They tell us what students sarily a demanding task for fifth look is the definition of “odd num- should know and be able to do graders, particularly as they have ber” as a number “that has 1, 3, 5, without telling us enough about been asked to “Locate various 7, or 9 in the ones place.” how students can prove their ecosystems on Earth” in grade 3. Numbers expressed in Roman knowledge. For example, numerals can also be odd. Under Geography Map Use 1.5.2 asks Math False Doctrine, we mention 6.14, students to “[i]dentify the charac- “Use technology, including calcu- teristics and purposes of maps and These Content Standards(1998) lators, to … define … quantitative globes.” Specificity would are given grade by grade in K-8, relationships such as patterns and enhance this standard if it contin- an unusual and commendable functions,” and under Inflation, ued “… by describing their basic practice, but with high school (“by “Compute with rational and irra- elements, e.g., title, legend, cardi- the end of grade 12”) treated as a tional numbers to solve a variety nal, and intermediate directions, whole. Fordham I did not evaluate of problems including rates … scale, grid, etc.” (quoted from the any previous version of Nevada commissions, taxes.” Taxes might National Geography Standards, standards, which were in the sometimes become irrational, but National Geographic, 1994). process of being written at that never the numbers that describe The standards grid employs time. The writing in them is gen- them. Such “real-life” applica- short descriptions at the ends of erally excellent, but the indicated tions are not serious. each row within a standard. For content falls off rapidly as the example, Content Standard 1.0’s standards for middle school and Science Map Analysis has the grade 2 stu- especially high school (through dent “identify the difference grade 12) appear. Inequalities are The Nevada Science Content between a map and a globe,” then not mentioned, nor the quadratic Standards for Grades 2, 3, 5, 8, in grade 3 “recognize different formula, nor any hint at geometric and 12 andIndicators of Progress types of maps,” then in grade 5 constructions in the classical man- for Kindergarten and Grades 1, 4, “identify the purpose and summa- ner: geometry is treated as an 6, and 7 (August 1998) have been rize the content of maps of similar empirical science, with lots of integrated into an extensive table areas,” then in grade 8 “compare nomenclature. Pages 22 and 23 that gives a clear idea as to how and contrast maps of similar areas treat reasoning rather abstractly, students ought to progress in their for purpose, accuracy, content and but the rest of the content doesn’t understanding of the various items design,” then in grade 12 “analyze show any places where these that constitute the standards. The maps for similarities and differ- ideals would be realized. An alge- standards are set grade by grade ences in purpose, accuracy, con- braic item on page 32, for grade through grade 8 and for grade 12. tent and design.” This presenta- 12, asks students to be able to However, very few standards are tion, a progressive reiteration “[s]olve systems of two linear listed for grades 6 and 7; this is

83 presumably a project for the fact that complex organisms In contrast, quantitative future. Although the items are always develop from a single cell Newtonian dynamics is given well organized at the level of is surely accessible at levels below short shrift. A precise treatment of smallest detail, the overall impres- grade 12, and surely items con- energy is absent. Extra-solar-sys- sion is of a laundry list. cerning the fossil record should tem astronomy and cosmology, There are some incongruities. appear earlier than that. and plate tectonics, are give far too For example, third graders are to Some items in this document little attention, and the student is “[d]escribe objects in terms of ought to be present in all state denied the opportunity to see how their observable properties (e.g., standards but are unfortunately cosmic history, Earth history and state of matter, size, shape, color, uncommon. Among these: the history of life merge seamless- texture)” under the rubric of “Explain that some diseases are ly into each other. The importance Physical Properties and to “[s]ort caused by germs and some are of classical scientific experiments and classify objects according to not; diseases caused by germs may is introduced in grade 5. Unfor- observable properties (e.g., size, be spread by people who have tunately, that is the end of it. weight, shape, color)” under them” (grade 3). The difference There are just a few errors. Chemical Analysis, while second between intrinsic and extrinsic Standard 1.8.5 states that “moving graders are to “[p]ut small objects properties of matter is introduced magnets produce electric forces in together to form bigger objects” at grade 12. So is the superposi- conductors” but in fact the forces under Chemical Bonding. Fourth tion principle for waves. are present in nonconductors as graders are to “[i]dentify the com- Some of the fundamental ideas well. Standard 3.8.1, “Investigate ponents of our solar system …” of evolution are introduced as and describe how heat moves from under Energy Transfer and early as grade 3 and then built one object to another at different Transformation in the Solar upon steadily as the student rates, depending on what the System. advances. There are some incon- objects are made of and whether Some items are postponed too sistencies, however. One item they are touching one another” is long. “Observe and describe the concerning the evolution of behav- garbled and contains several mis- sun, moon, planets, and stars” ior appears at grade 8 but an leading concepts. The principle appears at grade 2; in most state almost identical item appears stating that “systems tend to standards this is a kindergarten under a different rubric at grade 12. become less ordered over time” is item. Location of points on the Quantitative expectations incorrect unless the crucial word Earth by means of latitude and appear, laudably, at an early level. closedis included. Not all viruses longitude is introduced as grade 8 Third graders are expected to are composed of DNA. The items and grade 12 items; contour maps make graphs. They are expected relating to mutation, which appear appear at grade 12. Only at grade to “[g]ive rough estimates of at grades 7, 8, and 12, are vague 12 are students expected to know numerical answers to problems and confusing. that the carbon-carbon bond before calculating” and “[d]eter- Taken as a whole, the Nevada allows a rich variety of molecular mine whether measurements and standards are satisfactory but not structures including those essential descriptions are reasonably accu- remarkable. to life. Likewise, the term photo- rate”—indispensable scientific synthesis and its implications do skills that, sadly, few college not appear until high school. The freshmen have ever developed.

84 New Hampshire Report Card 1998 2000 English D D History C C Geography B B Math C C C- Science F F Cum. GPA 1.60 1.60 Overall Grade C- C-

English dards’ organizational scheme so for elementary assessments in the that each strand is coherent, reduce 1998 Fordham study. This review covers New its emphasis on process standards, Hampshire’s final version of its and develop more specific and Geography standards, put out in June 1995, measurable standards. In addition, and a K-6 addendum, put out in it needs to spell out some key In July 1998, an Addendumto June 1997. The documents have a authors, works, literary periods, the New Hampshire standards was number of positive features. They and literary traditions in its stan- published. However, this docu- expect students to use Standard dards to make clear its academic ment does not address geography English in speaking and writing, expectations for students’ knowl- standards in any depth. Therefore, and New Hampshire is one of the edge of the nature and history of New Hampshire’s grade remains few states to expect students to their own country’s literary and unchanged from our 1998 review. study classical and contemporary civic culture. American and British literature, as Math well as literary works translated History into English. The documents also The three Addenda(1994, 1995, incorporate into objectives such In July 1998, an Addendumto 1996) for grades K-3, 4-6, and 7- literary specifics as Pulitzer and the New Hampshire standards was 10, respectively, partly supplant Nobel prize winners, writing by published. Given that it was not and partly duplicate the K-12 local and regional authors, as well available for the earlier review, it Curriculum Framework(1995). as books receiving Newbery and is now included and the points and The 1995 Framework alone was Caldecott awards. total score have been revised to graded in Fordham I without the However, a large number of reflect that change. While this Addenda, which were not at the objectives lack specificity and Addendumdocument adds more time supplied to us. (In the pub- measurability, the development of information on state assessments, lished report, Fordham I, there was a reading vocabulary, or systemat- particularly for tenth grade, it does also a regrettable misprinting of ic word study, is given no attention not add anything of substance to the state’s totals.) We now take all at all through the grades, and it’s the standards themselves. In fact, four documents together as repre- not clear that students will receive the addition of this document senting New Hampshire’s “stan- systematic instruction in phonics. (which makes clear that no assess- dards,” albeit with some ambiguity The addendum in K-6 does little if ments will be given in the elemen- owing to the overlap in coverage, anything to improve the deficien- tary grades) actually reduced the often exhibiting different language cies in the earlier document. New raw score and total points. The or emphases. Much of the vague- Hampshire needs to revise its stan- reviewer erroneously gave credit ness of the Frameworkis repaired

85 by the Addenda, though the gain Addendum and A 7-10 Science exercise, collect data, graph in clarity does not always improve Addendum. These documents, results, and discuss how pulse what is intended. For example (p. dated respectively August 1995 rate relates to exercise. 23 of Grades 7-10): “provide and August 1996, apparently exist- opportunities for students to solve ed at the time of the 1998 evalua- •[At grade 2] students will be linear, quadratic, polynomial, tion but were not made available able to describe what they feel exponential, and other equations to us. when riding in a car or school using graphing calculators to The Addendacontain a consid- bus when the vehicle explore the relationships between erable amount of material other starts/stops or goes around cor- the solution of the equations and than standards. However, we ners left/right, and suggest an the zeros of the function” (as if restrict our consideration here to explanation for what they feel in there were a difference), and a ref- the information bearing on science each case. Devise an experi- erence here points to an instruc- standards. In the Framework, ment with toy cars and objects tion to use “algebra tiles” or standards are set only for the ends on them to test their explana- “Algeblocks” in this connection, of grades 6 and 10. The Addenda tions. quite a bad idea. Occasional wise do not modify these standards but cautions concerning the use of cal- add intermediate standards at These additions, however, only culators are given abstractly but grades 2, 4, and 8. modestly ameliorate the general belied by the enthusiasm of advo- These additional standards are impression of spottiness and disor- cacy in particular connections. presumably aimed mainly at help- ganization. A thorough rewrite, The language throughout the ing teachers gauge student with a view to completeness and Addendais mostly plain and unaf- progress toward the grades 6 and especially to grounding the indi- fected, their best feature. 10 levels. However, they do speci- vidual standards in a solid theoret- fy knowledge expected of students ical framework, is much to be Science that could not have been inferred desired. from the grades 6 and 10 stan- The rather thin 1995 New dards, thin as they are. For HampshireK-12 Science instance: Curriculum Frameworkhas been supplemented (though not super- •[At grade 4] students will be seded) by two considerably more able to measure their own pulse detailed booklets: A K-6 Science rates after different amounts of

86 New Jersey Report Card 1998 2000 English F F History F F Geography F D Math C C Science A A

D+ Cum. GPA 1.20 1.40 Overall Grade D+ D+

English comprehensive in scope and appear prominently in the text, but demanding in depth. readers should not be deceived; as This review of the 1997 version However, there are still no liter- history standards go, we’ve seen of New Jersey’s standards was ary and cultural specifics in either none worse. They’re full of supplemented by a review of the document. There is not even an dogma, politics, and ideology and “Directory” of test specifications explicit expectation that students are all but devoid of balanced con- and sample items for statewide will study American literature, tent. They and their illustrative assessments put out in February however conceived. Moreover, lessons exemplify all that is bad in 1998. Although the standards doc- reading skills are interspersed with historical research. ument is studded with educational literary study in both documents. Consider Christopher and “constructivist” jargon, and is New Jersey still needs to work out Columbus. On page 247, young overwhelmed by many serious a core of authors, works, literary children (5-8 years old) are told, limitations, the Directory is a fine, traditions, and literary periods— “In the interest of diversity, stu- professionally written document that is, some cultural and literary dents must learn to examine differ- that addresses most of the defi- specifics—in order to assure its ent versions of the same event.…” ciencies in the standards docu- citizens that its schools can devel- A few lines later readers are ment. The Directory addresses the op educated citizens capable of instructed to research “how is elements of good writing, lists maintaining this country’s civic [Columbus’s arrival in America] clear rubrics, or criteria, for culture—its basic political princi- perceived today by reputable histo- assessing reading, speaking, listen- ples, institutions, and processes— rians?” Given the far from disin- ing, viewing, and writing, makes through knowledge of the history terested “resources” provided, clear that the conventions of of its literary and intellectual cul- teachers, young children, parents, English will be expected in writing ture. and the good citizens of New as well as in speaking, and pro- Jersey have little doubt what was vides details on these conventions. History intended by “reputable historians.” In general, the Directory contains In sum, while the standards writers the kinds of details in its evalua- The New Jersey Social Studies suggest that “different versions” tion rubrics, skills specifications, Curriculum Frameworkis a mas- should be explored, children are and content domain outlines that sive document, the largest such in provided with a single highly should be in a standards document. the nation, and thereby provides a politicized treatment of the It also offers an array of sample grand example of confusing quali- Columbus story. While the explo- reading passages, questions, and ty with quantity. To be sure, the ration of various interpretations or writing prompts for elementary, words “United States/New Jersey perspectives on past events may be middle, and high schools that are History” and “World History” a useful task for mature students

87 who have grasped the fundamen- activities that should help teachers reviewed in 1998are still in effect. tals of historical study and have explain concepts in the standards. They have been supplemented mastered relevant factual informa- The framework also contains a with two documents, Directory of tion, the New Jersey model is to “connections” heading for each Test Specifications and Sample skip teaching objective historical indicator where concepts are Items for the Grade Eight research and go straight for partic- linked to standards in other sub- Proficiency Assessment (GEPA) ular interpretations (usually politi- jects. A list of resources accompa- and the High School Proficiency cally charged). Students, particu- nies each indicator. While well Assessment (HSPA) in Scienceand larly young students, cannot possi- intentioned, the document is a similarly titled document per- bly understand the complexity of arranged in a most cumbersome taining to a grade 4 assessment. “Columbus as monster” (as an manner that will prove difficult for Since one of the purposes of a empirical position worthy of laypersons to utilize. set of standards is to furnish a examination) without understand- The standards themselves are basis for uniform examinations, it ing the historical context of basically unchanged except for is interesting to note that the Columbus and his time. The one jarring instance: the standard Specificationsare crystal clear, Columbus example is typical of that encompasses geography’s fun- well conceived, and appropriate, the use of history content here. damentals both in New Jersey and yet challenging for the grade lev- This model amounts to little more national standards is called “World els to which they are addressed. than indoctrination. in Spatial Terms.” Everything The Specifications are themselves It should be noted that New stays the same as in the 1996 ver- well organized, proceeding from Jersey officials are quick to claim sion in that content area except general Macro Statements, based that the New Jersey standards are that it has a new heading— on the standards and refined for not standardsrequired for all chil- Physical Geography (a content the grade level of the students con- dren. Rather, the idea is that while area unmentioned in the 1996 cerned, to Knowledge Statements, the state standards may be used, standards). But calling it physical detailing what the students ought local schools will determine their geography does not make it so. to know, and finally to Skill own standards. Such revelations This heading oversees neither Statements, which explain how only drive the point home: state physical processes, nor physical students can demonstrate what history standards for New Jersey systems, nor physical features— they know. Meticulous attention remain to be written. the content of physical geography. has been paid to distribution of the But it does contain the map, termi- questions across the subject matter Geography nology learning, and applications so as to achieve breadth of cover- that were included in 1996 under age. New Jersey receives a D with a the original heading. The sample test questions are score of 50, an increase of 13 generally well conceived, although points since 1998. This lengthy Math several have incorrect answers and frameworkis designed to help a few open-ended questions sug- schools realign the social-studies The state supplied no evidence gest incomplete answers. A stu- curriculum with state standards that its standards have been dent who does well on exams published in 1996. The frame- revised since 1998. modeled after the correct ques- work underscores its original tions will likely have a good Cumulative Progress Indicators Science understanding of science at the (essentially benchmarks that we appropriate grade level. described in 1998 as “extremely The fine New Jersey Core general”) with extensive learning Curriculum Content Standards

88 New Mexico Report Card 1998 2000 English - D History F F Geography F F Math F F F Science F F

Cum. GPA 0.00 0.20 Overall Grade F F

English tives such as “identify the origin New Mexico should revise its and evolution of language, vocabu- standards for the English language This review covers a document lary, and communication for arts and reading by scrapping the containing New Mexico’s Content diverse cultures,” or “explore how original organizing scheme of ten Standards and Benchmarks, adopt- language is used to present differ- categories and their benchmarks, ed in 1996, and the Performance ing perspectives,” or “analyze why developing a scheme based on rec- Standards, adopted in 1998. The cultural interactions have evolved ognized bodies of scholarship or document has many positive fea- over generations.” Therefore, research, and using only measur- tures: it expects systematic instruc- when benchmarks seem to able and meaningful performance tion in decoding skills in the pri- increase in complexity, often what indicators, with examples keyed to mary grades, and its benchmarks is expected of students is unbeliev- each one to make their meaning seem to address all areas of able as well as unmeasurable (e.g., clear to teachers and the public. It English language arts and reading “use print and non-print sources to also needs to incorporate into its adequately, if not well. However, apply and evaluate options to solve standards, benchmarks, or perfor- the document as a whole is con- problems and to help meet the mance indicators some literary and fusing to read: the standards and challenges of life”). Second, they cultural specifics, such as core benchmarks were evidently written appear in ten categories, many of authors, titles, literary periods, and by one group of people, and the which contain repetitious material, literary traditions, with reading performance indicators by another, or are not based on any body of and literary expectations geared to and the latter do not map clearly knowledge, or are all over the specific reading levels, in order to onto the benchmarks. One is place in their effort to combine assure its citizens that its public tempted to infer that the second reading and listening, or speaking schools have the potential to committee was stuck with the and writing. Several categories develop a new generation capable organizing framework of ten cate- (e.g., “students will appreciate and of maintaining this country’s civic gories created by the first commit- respect their own language, cul- culture—its basic political princi- tee as well as with the benchmarks ture, and literature, and will learn ples, institutions, and processes— it created and tried its best to sur- about the languages, cultures, and through knowledge of the history mount their limitations with clear literature of others”) are highly of its literary and intellectual culture. and reasonable performance indicators. pretentious in an attempt to The benchmarks suffer from address matters of language and History two major limitations. First, a culture. Several other categories large number are unmeasurable are not meaningful (e.g., “students The state supplied no evidence because they are process-oriented will understand and use language that its standards have been or broad and/or pretentious objec- arts for communication”). revised since 1998.

89 Geography Math Science

The state supplied no evidence The state supplied no evidence The state supplied no evidence that its standards have been that its standards have been that its standards have been revised since 1998. revised since 1998. revised since 1998.

90 New York Report Card 1998 2000 English C C History F D Geography F D C- Math B B Science C C

Cum. GPA 1.40 1.80 Overall Grade D+ C-

English literary response “should be con- History nected to the individual’s prior This review covers the July knowledge and experience”). This is a combined review of 1998 document, which is a great More serious, it still lacks literary New York’s standards and its improvement in several respects and cultural specifics to indicate Resource Guide. Without the lat- over earlier versions. The present expected levels of reading difficul- ter document providing quite a bit document lists standards in grade ty or expected literary knowledge; of information on content spans of two grades from pre-K to the present standards could be set specifics, the standards would drop grade 8, and a single grade span in any English-speaking country in some 10 to 15 points. If parents from 9 to 12, thus providing more the world. There is no mention do not have both documents they detail in the early grades. Even that students are even to study may be confused as to what is though it has retained its original American literature. The docu- expected of their children. There framework of four general lan- ment would be considerably is evidence that the standards were guage function/language process- strengthened by an organizational drawn from the much-criticized oriented standards, it lists separate scheme based on coherent bodies National History Standards. The objectives for each language of research or scholarship, more Resource Guide, however, seems process in subsections so that they specificity for vocabulary objec- almost oblivious to the existence are not all muddled together as tives at various grade levels, a of the national document. Linking they were in the earlier versions. delineation of standards for grades the content presented in the Nevertheless, it is still a somewhat 9 and 10 as well as 11 and 12 (a Resource Guideto the standards confusing document to read in that single set for 9-12 covers too document would have been one must look under all four gen- much intellectual territory), and extremely useful for parents and eral standards to find all the objec- such literary and cultural specifics teachers, but neither document tives for each language process. as key authors, works, literary tra- alone satisfies the need for high- The present document retains ditions, and literary periods to quality, user-friendly, and solid the strengths of the earlier docu- make clear its academic expecta- history standards. Technically, a ments; for the most part, its stan- tions for students’ reading level at careful and knowledgeable reader dards are clear, specific, measur- different educational levels as well can piece the basic content for a able, and comprehensive in almost as their knowledge of the nature first-rate history program together. all areas. It also expects students and history of this country’s liter- However, criteria for this review to speak and write in Standard ary and civic culture. are not only focused on sufficient English. However, it still suffers content; the document(s) must also from some anti-literary require- be clear, understandable, well ments or expectations (e.g., that organized, and ultimately helpful

91 for all users. The information here Hemisphere material is often too “Reason” at the Exam B level, is simply too scattered and inco- broad. Grade 7-8’s chronological- there are exactly two Indicators, herent in many places. ly based course appears to be both about deductive reasoning There is also some evidence of highly detailed, with superior (including “direct proofs” and manipulation of children through- geography content making the “indirect proofs” in Euclidean out the standards, but much less so middle-school scores on our evalu- geometry), but the associated in the Resource Guide. For exam- ation much higher than in 1998. “Classroom Ideas” indicate that ple, reliance on the “Three Worlds The Resource Guide loses its these Indicators sound more ambi- Meet” theory as the only explana- specificity in high school and goes tious than the State intends them tion for the beginnings of America to an outline form. Further detail in practice. is problematic. While some 20th is offered in the Connections century sensibilities may wish it columns that suggests student Science so, the historical record does not activities and poses open-ended sustain the notion that Europeans, questions. But there are no bench- New York presents a puzzling Indians, and Africans shared marks and the material is very picture to the reviewer. In the doc- equally in the beginnings of vague. ument reviewed in 1998,entitled America. Additionally, rather than Learning Standards for objectively exploring events, stu- Math Mathematics, Science, and dents are directed to potentially Technology, the science standards political conclusions regarding the The Mathematics Resource were generally satisfactory (bar- “forced relocation of Native Guide With Core Curriculum ring some errors) within the limits American Indians and the intern- (1999) contains the same Core imposed by their brevity. Unfortu- ment of Japanese Americans dur- Curriculum text as the 1996 origi- nately, they were seriously marred ing World War II” (Standard 1, nal, which was reviewed in 1998, by a set of examples, attached to Intermediate, 2). but with some differences. The the individual standards, that were 1996 standards were combined far too often irrelevant, mislead- Geography into a pamphlet with standards for ing, or simply incorrect. science and for technology, not The same standards have now New York receives a D with a included in the present edition. been incorporated into a new score of 58, an increase of 18 On the other hand, the present Mathematics, Science & points since 1998’s review. The Resource Guiderepackages the Technology Resource Guide.The draft resource guide adds some “Key Ideas” and “Performance standards are little changed but the welcome detail to the standards Indicators” according to the more format is different and the exam- but it turns into a list at the high refined grade levels K-2, 3-4, 5-6, ples are entirely new. Unfor- school level. Even so, emphasis 7-8, and two levels for the high tunately, the new examples suffer on a new two-year geography school, labeled A and B because of from all the faults of the old ones. course in high school helps the names “Math A” and “Math On account of the brevity of the increase scores. General charac- B” for certain new statewide standards document, a lot is left teristics score well except in the examinations on the material. The out. Evolution is mentioned just area of benchmarks. largest part of the present edition once, at the Commencement level; Comprehensiveness and rigor is devoted to examples and peda- the history of life on Earth is regarding K-4 is uneven. While gogical material, not much of essentially ignored and the word the standards are not particularly which appeared in the earlier edi- fossilis never mentioned. comprehensive (even while being tion. Though the “Core Molecular genetics gets only the overly broad), they are often very Curriculum” text has not changed, slightest passing mention, energy rigorous. Middle school (grades the new material adds to clarity, is never defined, 20th century 5-8) scores are better than in earli- compared with the 1996 version, astronomy is nearly ignored, plate er grades. Considerable geogra- but by the same token detracts tectonics is merely hinted at, and phy learning is required in grade from Content and Reason, because most of classical physics is pretty 5’s United States, Canada, and it is now clearer how thin the well finessed. Latin America course. implied curriculum is in these The New York State Education Unfortunately, grade 6’s Eastern regards. For example, under Department is apparently aware of

92 these shortcomings and is prepar- Science, are quite detailed, quite reasonable to hope that the end ing a series of Core Curriculum well written, and go a long way to result will be a set of usable stan- addenda that flesh out the stan- ameliorate the shortcomings of the dards. Ultimately, the whole dards. The two I have seen, one earlier documents. However, it is should be rewritten as a single concerned with Intermediate Level not possible to tell much on the document so as to make clear Science and the other with Earth basis of just these two addenda. It is what is expected of students.

93 North Carolina Report Card 1998 2000 English - B History F D Geography C C B- Math A A Science - A

Cum. GPA 2.00 2.80 Overall Grade C B-

English ture standards by avoiding misuse students should be learning. of the concepts of “culture” and Without specifics, viable assess- This review is based on the “representativeness,” by eliminat- ments (ensuring accountability) standards set forth in the January ing anti-literary expectations or are not possible. and February 1999 document. requirements such as asking stu- Overall, these are good standards; dents throughout the grades to Geography for the most part, they are clear, connect literature to their personal specific, and measurable, showing experiences or to use literary study The state supplied no evidence increasing difficulty over the to appreciate the “complexity of that its standards have been grades, and they satisfactorily world issues,” and by making revised since 1998. address all areas of the English clearer what level of reading diffi- language arts and reading. In par- culty is expected in the high Math ticular, the research, conventions, school years. and reading strands are strong, The new edition of North with clear objectives throughout History Carolina’s standards is much like for vocabulary and reading com- its predecessor, which was one of prehension skills. Further, the North Carolina’s standards are the best, and though now slightly document expects students to use directly tied to standards produced degraded it is still one of the best. Standard English orally and in by the National Council for the The main demerits concern, under writing, and seems to expect sys- Social Studies. (NCSS’s “10 the- False Doctrine, a new enthusiasm tematic phonics instruction. matic strands” are not history- for calculators—e.g., in teaching Finally, North Carolina’s docu- based and subsequently not con- matrix inversion by machine only, ment is one of the few that expects tent-specific.) While other state solving linear systems with an the study of “world, American, standards have managed to add inverse button. Better to omit the and British literature,” specifying and embellish this model for histo- whole subject of matrix algebra, literary periods as well. ry applications, North Carolina’s and prepare the way for a proper Still, North Carolina’s standards standards do not advance history treatment with a detailed analysis could be strengthened in several in any meaningful way. Missing of equations in two and three vari- ways. It could do so by using a are such essential requirements as ables. Algebra II asks that the more coherent and consistent orga- studying important events and binomial theorem be taught “via nizing scheme throughout the dates, significant individuals, and Pascal’s triangle,” which also can grade levels, with fewer but better central turning points. As such, be a mechanical device of no intel- integrated subsets in each strand. these standards do not specify lectual value. A proper attention It could further improve its litera- what teachers must teach or what to Reason would teach Pascal’s tri-

94 angle “via the binomial theorem.” California Science Framework. At may be personally useful and The high school geometry is more each grade level, these generalities socially relevant, but they are deductive than asked by most are focused on the abilities and not scientific. other states but still slights “ruler needs of the students at that level Laboratory work is stressed, and compass” construction. There in a set of short introductory particularly in the middle and is some vagueness in the language. essays that do much to tie the upper grades. Modern astronomy, “Find the probability of indepen- small items that follow into a though a bit thin, is given a more dent and dependent events” with cogent logical and pedagogical thorough treatment than in most no further detail is insufficient structure. state standards—at least at the guidance. There are new high The individual standards are rel- grades 9-12 level. The Physical school courses described—e.g., atively few in number, carefully Science and Physics strands are “discrete math” and “advanced organized, and tersely worded. unusually accurate and complete. math”—but the standards do not Most important, they were obvi- Although there is no explicit use indicate how much of all this is ously written by people who really of mathematics (as there well standard, how much for the “col- understood the sciences with might be!), the basic areas of kine- lege-intending,” and how much is which they were concerned. For matics and dynamics are carefully at the “honors” level. the most part, concepts are intro- covered, including the oft-neglect- duced at levels where they are ed concepts of impulse and Science appropriate though challenging. momentum. Rare among Southern states, All in all, the North Carolina The document reviewed here is North Carolina introduces evolu- Science Standard Course of Study Science: Standard Course of Study tion unabashedly as a seamless stands as a model for other states. and Grade Level Competencies, K- history beginning with the origin Students whose learning proceeds 12(final draft, 1999). It super- of the universe and progressing according to these standards will sedes a 1994 version that was not through the formation of the solar graduate from high school with a available for review in 1998. In system, the Earth, and the bio- fine understanding of science. any case, the new document is sphere. Some of the elements of completely different. this discourse are introduced earli- The standards are specified er, but the “big picture” is present- grade by grade from kindergarten ed beginning at grade 8 and con- through grade 8 and then by broad tinuing thereafter. In the grades disciplines (“strands”) for grades 9-12 Biology strand, the scientific 9-12. Grades K-5 and 6-8 are con- terms theory and laware carefully sidered as clusters as well. The defined, and the following passage introduction is a fine overview of is quoted from NSES: the nature of science, the role of science in relation to technology Explanations of how the nat- and to society as a whole, and to ural world changes based on other kinds of knowledge. It is myths, personal beliefs, reli- comparable in aim and quality to gious values, mystical inspira- the fine exposition in the tion, superstition, or authority

95 North Dakota Report Card 1998 2000 English - F History - F Geography F F F Math D D Science F F

Cum. GPA 0.33 0.20 Overall Grade F F

English Dakota students in the English lan- Geography guage arts and reading. This review is based on the North Dakota receives an F with 1996 standards document. This History a score of 36, an increase of 21 document has many useful exam- points since 1998. The higher ples or details to illustrate what The North Dakota expectations score reflects an increase in cover- might be intended by a bench- are based on nine broad standards age. The standards do not yet mark, but the benchmarks them- that are further explained by have a voice, however. That is, selves are intellectually impover- “benchmarks,” “examples of spe- they lack the coherence of design ished. As a result, the standards cific knowledge,” and “examples necessary to inform students, do not adequately address any of of activities.” These standards use teachers, and parents of what the areas of study in the English the terms “understand” and needs to be learned when, and language arts and reading. Their “know” as central features. While why. organization is also deficient; the the introduction explains and The state has one geography organizing scheme is not coherent attempts to justify the use of these standard among nine social-studies and the strands are not all labeled ambiguous and inherently unmea- standards. Six so-called bench- in an informative manner. The surable terms, the fact remains that marks for grades K-4, five for most serious deficiency lies in the these standards are vague, non- grades 5-8, and three for grades 9- quality of the standards them- specific, and not amenable to 12 are taken, for the most part, selves; they tend to be vague or assessment. The claim of “flexi- from the content areas found in the broad, process-oriented, or expres- bility” does not wash here. If the National Geography Standards. sions of dogma. They are mostly definition of “to understand” or Yet their presentation is neither unmeasurable and show little pro- “to know” is left to teachers and measurable nor specific. There is gression in difficulty through the students to decipher, these “stan- little effort made to identify what grades. The document also suffers dards” cannot possibly function as it is students should know; thus, from anti-literary expectations or a basis for holding teachers and the benchmarks look like catch-all requirements. Although this docu- students accountable. There is a lists. None of this material is pre- ment may not have been intended single book noted here; it is sug- sented in a measurable way. to serve as the basis for statewide gested that children “read and dis- Indeed, the document states that assessments, it could have served cuss Knot on a Ropeby Bill “the decision about how to assess as a guide for local school districts Martin, Jr.” No slight to Mr. the knowledge described in these to what academic standards are Martin, but the listing of this soli- standards and benchmarks is left and what content local school dis- tary book sums the North Dakota to teachers and districts.” Nor are tricts should aim to teach all North effort; it just doesn’t go very far! the standards demanding. Much

96 of the material covered by grade 5- benchmarks, might represent a lot rare. The treatment of evolution 8’s benchmarks should be learned or very little. Mentioned are begun at K-4 under Life Science in grades K-4. “chaos,” “fractals,” “convergence mysteriously shrinks thereafter. of sequences,” but not the quadrat- In grades 9-12, for instance, evolu- Math ic formula. The “examples and tion does not appear at all in the activities” accompanying the Benchmarks, and appears in the This “Third draft in progress” of benchmarks are sometimes helpful Specific Knowledge section in a the Mathematics Standards and clarifications. The glossary, the nearly useless condensation: Benchmarksis notable for its use of which is unclear, should be vagueness and repetitiveness, e.g., edited by a mathematician. DNA, RNA, mutations, DNA “4.4.3: Apply a variety of tech- analysis, mitosis, meiosis, niques, tools, and formulas to Science Mendelian genetics, genetic determine measurements” (page engineering, cloning, mutation 19, K-4) is also repeated verbatim The North Dakota Science [again!], adaptation, theories for high school (12.4.2, page 41). Standards (Draft In Progress, [sic] of evolution. Fortunately, “… states and local Spring 1999) employs grade clus- districts must make their own ters K-4, 5-8, and 9-12. Each What can anyone make of this? interpretations of local needs for standard is followed by three lists: Curiously, evolution is stressed high-quality mathematics educa- Benchmarks, Examples of Specific under the heading Earth and Space tion,” and it might be that local Knowledge that Supports the Science. districts will in fact make good Benchmarks, and Examples of The basic concepts of physics curricula out of some of the more Activities that Support the and chemistry are treated only in a ambitious words of this document, Standards and Benchmarks. vague and general way; one pass- while ignoring the questionable The Standardshave some strong ing mention is made of balancing enthusiasm for manipulatives at all points. The individual standards chemical equations and there is no levels, “algebra” in the first few are generally clear if not very spe- genuine treatment of dynamics. grades, and other curiosities dictat- cific. Stress is placed on health The greatest shortcoming, howev- ed by the rigid system of rubrics issues seen from a scientific point er, is the very low level of expecta- used throughout. “Computational of view. Some of the basic ideas tion of what students can do, espe- algorithms for … fractions and of evolution are introduced as cially at the 9-12 level. For exam- decimals” at grades K-4 is another early as the K-4 level. Some men- ple, high school students are to ambitious generality, probably tion is made of extra-solar-system study isotopes by putting beans in implying more than is really astronomy, though not as much as bags; their understanding of elec- intended at that level, especially as is warranted by the importance of tric circuits is limited to a study of to decimal fractions. the subject. The use of mathemat- strings of Christmas lights—activi- Mathematical Reason is rarely ics for analysis and writing for ties better suited to fourth and found; the words “proof” and “the- communication is specified in sixth grades respectively. orem” are unmentioned, except grades 5-8 and 9-12. Those who expect little of stu- sometimes inferentially, as in But there are serious flaws. dents will realize their expecta- (page 38, 12.2.8), “Generate geo- Many of the Examples of tions. The North Dakota Science metric conjectures inductively and Activities are irrelevant, vapid, Standardsdo little to help the validate them deductively,” which, confusing, or simply misleading. child in his or her quest to become like so much in the high school Syntactical monstrosities are not an educated adult.

97 Ohio Report Card 1998 2000 English F D History D D Geography D D Math A A C Science - B

Cum. GPA 1.50 2.00 Overall Grade C- C

English needs to eliminate the anti-literary arranged in tabular form, grade by and anti-academic thrust of many grade, from pre-K through grade Overall, the performance objec- objectives, comments, or activities, 12. For each grade level, there are tives in Ohio’s 1996 standards which serves to counter the four columns: Scientific Inquiry, document are fairly strong, espe- strength of its positive learning Scientific Knowledge, Conditions cially for writing and for language objectives. for Learning Science, and conventions in writing and speak- Applications for Science Learning. ing. But a large number of stan- History These are followed by a set of dards are neither clear nor measur- Performance Objectives. able. The document needs The state supplied no evidence Explicitly stated is the principle, strengthening in a number of that its standards have been “[T]he nature of instruction is gen- ways. It should eliminate jargon revised since 1998. erally conceptual below grade 9 and cryptic statements. It also and more quantitative and abstract needs to end its suggestion that Geography in grades 9-12.” students bring other languages to Impressively, quantitative study the English language arts class- The state supplied no evidence of science is introduced at grade 3. room as well as its narrow, dog- that its standards have been As students progress, the themes matic approach to beginning read- revised since 1998. initiated at the lower grades are ing. Details need to be spelled out steadily elaborated. At grade 6, for systematic word study at all Math for example, “[T]he learner will grade levels, as well as for the apply appropriate mathematical study of the history and nature of The state supplied no evidence operations to make mental esti- the English language. Above all, that its standards have been mates of the reasonableness of the document needs to spell out revised since 1998. measures of everyday observations some cultural and literary specifics and events” and will maintain a in its standards, such as key Science journal. As these general princi- authors, works, literary periods, ples are elaborated, there is and literary traditions, to make Science: Ohio’s Model increasing attention to specifics of clear its academic expectations for Competency-Based Program the various sciences. At grade 8, students’ reading levels at different (revised 1996) is an extensive 138- the student is introduced to large- educational levels as well as their page book, of which about 30 scale systems and processes: the knowledge of the nature and histo- pages are devoted explicitly to periodic table, the Linnaean sys- ry of this country’s literary and standards and performance objec- tem, and the Hertzsprung-Russell civic culture. At the same time, it tives. The latter material is diagram, and to natural selection

98 and speciation, stellar evolution, quakes, orogenesis, and continen- analysis and written communica- and plate tectonics. Particularly tal drift. This may be intentional; tion is excellent, but never made strong (and accurate) is the devel- given a corps of skilled teachers specific. opment of historical studies of sci- armed with good textbooks, such On the whole, Science: Ohio’s ence. details may readily follow from Model Competency-Based All these favorable things hav- the generalities in which the stan- Programis a fine basis for learning been said, the Ohio standards dards are so strong. However, it ing but could well use a compan- are thin on specifics such as may not be easy for interested per- ion document devoted to detail, Newton’s laws, Mendel’s laws, the sons who are not experts to know especially with respect to evalua- details of the solar system, or the just what is being set forth. Simi- tion of competency. role of plate tectonics in earth- larly, the stress on mathematical

99 Oklahoma Report Card 1998 2000 English C D History D B Geography F C C- Math F B Science - F

Cum. GPA 0.75 1.80 Overall Grade D- C-

English clear, specific, and measurable, History and in “program skills” there are This review is based on a new good examples of progressive The Oklahoma“core curricu- draft of Oklahoma’s standards, expectations from one educational lum” applies the “ten instructional dated April 1999. This is appar- level to another. The document is themes” approach as promoted by ently not a finished document. It also reasonably free from anti-lit- the National Council for the Social contains a new section on reading erary expectations or requirements. Studies. While this approach for grades K-12, but other strands When completed, one hopes the demotes history instruction to a haven’t been worked out in similar document will provide a single single theme, there is nonetheless fashion. There are short descrip- coherent set of strands and subcat- a lot of history contained in this tive sections for the other strands, egories, with objectives or stan- suggested curriculum. There is and then material entitled “pro- dards explicitly connected to the even some history instruction for gram skills” from the 1993 docu- program skills, if these are to be grades K-4, though it is not orga- ment. It is a confusing document retained. The document also nized in any coherent fashion, nor to evaluate in its present state of needs to provide some literary and is it used later in the higher grades. development because “program cultural specifics, such as literary There is no evidence that political skills” also address grades K-12 periods, traditions, authors, or and social dogma will not be toler- and cover in broad statements titles. Without any required ated, nor are there any specific much of what is in the new section authors or titles, or specified read- skills to reduce manipulation of on reading. Moreover, the five ing levels expected at different student feelings and attitudes. major “program skills” have no grade levels, or sample reading Historical skills in general are not clear and explicit connection to the passages, especially at the high tied to specific content. The histo- objectives/standards listed below school level, it is not clear that ry presented in the “core curricu- them for each grade or grade span. Oklahoma’s standards can lead to lum” is scattered and, as such, dif- This draft does have some a common and high set of academ- ficult to follow. strong features. The Overview ic expectations for all its students makes the use of “decodable sto- and assure its citizens that its Geography ries” explicit, suggesting that there schools can develop educated citi- will be systematic phonics instruc- zens capable of maintaining this Oklahoma receives a C with a tion. The reading strand contains country’s civic culture. score of 62, an increase of 26 a good set of vocabulary objec- points since 1998. These com- tives, and research processes are pletely revised standards, while covered well. For the most part, acknowledging core content areas, the standards or objectives are have a social-studies thematic feel

100 to them in early grades. Standards uniform across our four criteria. scientific purposes is introduced in are presented grade by grade for Most of the unimportant jargon grades 9-12. At that level, physics grades 1-5, for grades 6-8 World has now disappeared, the writing and chemistry are treated with a Geography, and for grades 9-12 is tighter, more controlled, and less superficiality that will not support World Geography. No obvious ambiguous in most places. The real learning. For instance, noth- geography model was used to glossary is also much better than ing is said about chemical equa- develop the standards. most, though it remains a mystery tions or quantitative analysis of Generally, these standards why any state would wish to pub- motion, and energy (as is too often employ strong verbs, giving the lish a two-page glossary at all. the case) is never really defined. material an appearance of measur- The really serious disappointment Plate tectonics and the evolution of ability. But there are no bench- is that Oklahoma has done nothing stars are mentioned briefly. There marks, so actual measurement to improve its less-than-mediocre is little or no discussion of tech- would be difficult. Content demands at the high nology or of its relation to science. Elementary standards are school level and little to increase Oklahoma seems to have a strongest when focused on geogra- its attention to Reason at any level. “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with phy’s fundamentals. Mental maps Though the content demands at regard to evolution. That is, all of are included and the old-fashioned the elementary levels are tradition- the elements of evolution theory idea of knowing state capitals is al and well stated, the three exit- are presented individually, but they emphasized. Longitude and lati- level courses, misnamed Algebra I are never pulled together and the tude are introduced in third grade. and II and Geometry (they actually naughty word evolutionis never In middle grades, scores rise represent stages in an “integrated” used. Given the essential role of because geography is actually program) are very thin stuff honesty in science, this type of taught as geography. There is new indeed. Geometry is without theo- hypocrisy does damage to the emphasis on human systems. rems or proofs; algebra is without process of teaching young people Physical systems receive relatively quotients or polynomials; and what science is all about. good attention, unusual in a social- most elementary functions are to In November 1999, the studies environment. High school be studied via “technology” only. Oklahoma State Textbook standards score ever better. The high grade of B earned by Committee directed that a state- Human systems, environment and this document is itself a good ment be printed in all science text- society, and applications score par- example of the dangers of using an books, copying the ignorant ticularly well, followed by skills, average as the sole measure of the Alabama disclaimer, which physical systems, places and data. What’s good in these stan- (among other gaffes) falsely calls regions, and fundamentals. dards is good but what’s weak is evolution “a controversial theory,” A nice touch is the inclusion of very, very weak. misuses the term theory itself in its a list of suggested materials for nonscientific sense of speculation, classroom use in the elementary Science and states incorrectly that science grades. A short glossary, in which can be done only on objects that almost all the words are geograph- The Oklahoma Priority are directly observable. ic terms, is found at the end of the Academic Student Skills: Science, A mediocre and marginally use- material. Grades 1-12(Draft of April 1999) ful set of standards is thus ren- is supplemented by a similar docu- dered worse than useless for the Math ment that covers expectations for scientific development of kindergarten. The main document Oklahoma’s young people. The current April 1999 draft of addresses the grade clusters 1-3, Oklahoma’s Priority Academic 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Student Skills(“PASS”) is a great The standards are relatively improvement over the 1997 ver- brief and straightforward. Explicit sion, but the improvement is not use of mathematics and writing for

101 Oregon Report Card 1998 2000 English F F History - B Geography - F D+ Math D D Science C B

Cum. GPA 1.00 1.40 Overall Grade D D+

English and sample tests for writing in par- the chronology advancing as chil- ticular. They supply expectations dren get older. While this pattern This review covers Oregon’s for grammar and writing that appears sensible (to avoid repeti- standards document, put out in could be incorporated into the tion), it would seem that the real January 1997, and a large number standards document itself. value of studying history would of documents containing test spec- However, although test specifica- not be well learned by students. ifications and sample tests for its tions for reading and literature That is, history at its best (for state assessments in reading, litera- indicate the general categories they young people) is a story. It has ture, and writing. The standards will cover, there is no way to know beginnings, middles, and ends. document itself is quite confusing how rigorous these tests are What is assumed in Oregon is that, to read, despite a coherent set of because of the paucity of details through instruction (in grades 5- organizing strands. It has curricu- indicating increases in complexity 12), students will retain the knowl- lum goals and content standards, through the grades. Much depends edge necessary to continue “build- as well as benchmarks; all it needs on the level of difficulty of the ing understandings” about the his- are standards and benchmarks. passages selected. Rubrics set tory. This model, however, is seri- The document is also quite under- forth in state assessments, as good ously flawed when applied to developed; there are no bench- as they may be, do not compensate young evolving minds. For exam- marks for many standards, and for lack of details in real stan- ple, a 10-year-old’s understanding even when there are, they often dards; teachers need a better guide of the Declaration of Indepen- show little increase in complexity for their K-12 curricula in the dence cannot be matched by a 17- over the grades (as in the reading English language arts. year-old’s maturity and greater strand). Disciplinary coverage is depth of understanding and knowl- extremely weak in several areas. History edge. In effect, this one-shot-at- In addition to nothing on the histo- history approach defeats any ry and nature of the English lan- The Oregon Standardsare quite notion of greater understanding guage, there are no literary and unique. Rather than repeating his- and appreciation of the past, the cultural specifics to suggest what tory in cycles, which has long complexity of history, and the country these standards are set been the successful pattern of U.S. required discipline to study the in—not even a requirement that schools, theStandardsspread past. Despite this approach (which students study American literature. American and world history across does not actually result in points Oregon’s state assessments may the grades from fifth grade lost or gained), the Oregon well address many of the limita- through high school. The younger Standardsdo pass muster on most tions in its standards document, to kids get the beginnings of U.S. criteria. judge from its test specifications history (and ancient history) with

102 Geography Standards for elementary grades the same time.) The Content are weak throughout. Learning of Standardsare vague and repeti- Oregon receives an F with a basic vocabulary is not evident tious, and where the vagueness can score of 42. This draft needs con- until fifth grade. Middle grades be penetrated they ask very little siderable attention before it will be score better: we find relative loca- substantive knowledge from the useful to parents, teachers, and tion addressed as an assessment student. “Repetitious” is more students. It uses unexplained jar- possibility, for instance. High than just a matter of prose style. gon and its layout is confounding. school standards are mediocre, For example, on page 4, under Geography standards and bench- however. They ask students to “number theory,” in grade 5 we marks are few and very general. employ critical thinking without have “recognize primes less than Standards for grades 5, 8, and 10 evidence of having exposed stu- 100”; at grade 8 “identify prime are elaborated upon in another sec- dents to many facts. The content numbers less than 100”; and at tion called “Eligible Content,” area regarding physical systems is grade 10 “multiples and least com- which has to do with assessment, not addressed at all in the stan- mon multiple,” and “prime num- but the version presented in the dards. bers and prime factorization.” standards section itself is weak Following the standards, the Little progress here. High school and abbreviated. document contains a hodge-podge geometry asks no deduction, alge- The standards document intro- of material. In a chapter called bra is thin, and by grade 8 the only duces geography by asking stu- Curriculum and Instruction, multi- fractions to be added are those dents to “understand and use geo- ple resources are listed for teach- whose denominators are 2, 4, 8, or graphic skills and concepts to ers to call upon for help in K-12 16. These standards cannot be interpret contemporary and histori- history, civics, and economics but used to construct meaningful cal issues.” This statement is fol- only one, for grades K-3, is listed statewide examinations, or to lowed by 14 (unnumbered) for geography. This chapter is fol- select textbooks with any consis- Common Curriculum Goals that, lowed by the Eligible Content tency. while broad, generally follow the chapter mentioned earlier, which outline of the National Geography describes “areas from which state Science Standards’ content areas. assessment items may be drawn.” These curriculum goals are fol- Another chapter singles out Teaching & Learning to lowed by four content standards some twelfth-grade benchmarks to Standards: Science(September with benchmarks indicated for be “taught through contextual 1999) is a teacher’s resource guide grade 3, 5, 8, “CIM/Grade10,” study.” And some K-12 social- that incorporates content stan- “CAM/12,” and “PASS Criteria.” studies curriculum models are sug- dards. These standards are a mod- (Explanations for these last three gested. est rewrite of those reviewed in items were not found.) It is here, 1998. A few standards have been within the benchmarks, that speci- Math shifted to higher or lower grade ficity is needed but is unfortunate- levels, a considerable number have ly absent on the standards pages. The only strength in the Content been expanded, and some new The grain of specificity is essen- Standards(March 1998) is its ones have been added. The overall tially the same throughout all the overall lack of jargon. It does not result is a modest improvement in material, meaning that benchmarks attempt to dictate pedagogy, or to the quality and utility of the are no more measurable than the say that students should “explore” whole. curriculum goals. Almost all the something, but instead tries to say goals, standards and benchmarks straight out what the student is have the same weight. supposed to be able to perform at Furthermore, some benchmarks each of the numbered grade-levels lack flow and coherence. In addi- (3, 5, 8, 10, and 12). However, it tion, the standards have a repeti- fails to do so. (Nor does a second tive quality that tends to limit the document, called Performance subject matter. Standards, which was sent to us at

103 Pennsylvania Report Card 1998 2000 English - C History F F Geography - - D+ Math D C Science - -

Cum. GPA 0.50 1.33 Overall Grade D- D+

English of American literature at all as a include some demanding items, body of literary works, never mind but is also diluted by too many The January 1999 document is some major themes, core authors, rubrics (the “mile-wide curricu- the final version approved by the or works in American literary his- lum”), too much statistics and data Pennsylvania State Board of tory. As a result, without any sug- handling in the early grades, Education. It is vastly superior to gested or required reading levels, excessive instruction in calculators the first version (which I had cri- or suggested or required titles or and manipulatives, and demands tiqued earlier at the Department of authors, or sample reading pas- for student “exploration.” Such Education’s request); almost all of sages in the standards themselves, things are not “standards.” The the current standards are clear, it is not clear how these standards section on Mathematical specific, and measurable, organiz- can lead to common and high aca- Reasoning shows little attachment ing strands reflect coherent bodies demic expectations for Pennsyl- to the curriculum, though good of research or scholarship, and the vania students. intentions. There is some inflation document addresses almost all of (or vagueness) in such instructions the different areas in the English History as, “Use patterns, sequences and language arts and reading well, series to solve routine and non- especially in the research strand, The state supplied no evidence routine problems.” The demand and in most areas there are regular that its standards have been for matrix algebra by grade 11 increases through the years in revised since 1998. and, “Use equations to represent intellectual difficulty. curves (e.g., lines, circles, ellipses, However, there are some impor- Geography parabolas, hyperbolas)” also by tant limitations in this document. Grade 11, might be overly ambi- It is not at all clear that phonics Pennsylvania receives an incom- tious or might represent the trivial; will be taught explicitly and sys- plete. It did not submit geography detail is missing. Where definite tematically, and an analytical standards for review. enough to be judged, the document approach to the structure or gram- as a whole indicates too little con- mar of English language conven- Math tent, and too late. The glossary, tions is missing. Most serious is which takes up about 10 of the 29 an underdeveloped literature This document is essentially the pages in this document, is unnec- strand. There are no literary or same as the 1997 draft evaluated essary and not well written, though cultural specifics at all; i.e., no in 1998, with some correction of it has corrected some errors of the mention of specific literary tradi- error and slight improvement. It previous version. tions or periods in American and scores well on good prose, but is British literary history, no mention vague. The implied content does

104 Science

Pennsylvania is revising its science standards. Hence no official version was suitable for review at this time.

105 Rhode Island Report Card 1998 2000 English - F History - - Geography - - D+ Math F F Science A A

Cum. GPA 2.00 1.33 Overall Grade C D+

English ment in no way specifies this body Geography of knowledge in the English class. This review addresses the stan- It is not even clear that much liter- Rhode Island is not developing dards document released in 1996. ature is to be read; the focus of the geography standards and is This document suffers from many standards seems to be the “content encouraging school districts to limitations, chiefly because those areas,” not literature. Indeed, the consult Geography for Life, the writing it were apparently heavily word “literature” does not seem to national geography standards. committed to a process-oriented appear once in these standards. and peer- and self-centered mode Rhode Island’s schools, teach- Math of learning. In many places, the ers, and students deserve a docu- document borders on solipsism. ment that contains real standards The state supplied no evidence Except for the research strand, and reasonable coverage of the that its standards have been most standards are not standards major subdisciplines in the English revised since 1998. but vague, unmeasurable goals. In language arts. The state needs to addition, most areas are poorly reconceptualize and completely Science addressed by what the document revise this document if it is to have does offer as standards; there is a meaningful set of English lan- The state supplied no evidence barely a difference between what guage arts/reading standards. that its standards have been is expected in the primary grades revised since 1998. and what is expected by gradua- History tion from high school. Although the introduction refers to a “com- Rhode Island receives an incom- mon body of knowledge shared by plete. It did not submit history all literate Americans,” the docu- standards for review.

106 South Carolina Report Card 1998 2000 English - B History - C Geography - A B Math D B Science D B

Cum. GPA 1.00 3.00 Overall Grade D B

English dards could be strengthened in tain specific knowledge. The several ways. There should be attempt to teach history without This review is based on the specific vocabulary objectives in such specifics does not translate 1998 document, overall a strong grades 9-12 and the excessive into useful standards for teachers, one with many commendable fea- number of objectives should be students, or parents. For example, tures. It has a coherent organiza- reduced, especially the unmeasur- from 8.1.16, “Identify the major tional scheme and for the most able ones. Above all, the stan- issues of the early presidential part its standards are clear, specif- dards should contain some sample administrations.” To teach this ic, and measurable. The standards reading passages, suggested or standard, the instructor would cer- address almost all areas of the required reading levels, or suggest- tainly have to have knowledge of English language arts and reading ed or required titles or authors (or or be able to direct students to quite satisfactorily; indeed, its all three) in the high school grades resources where the “major issues” research strand is one of the best. in particular, if South Carolina could be found. But then why no The document expects all students seeks to ensure common and high simple list of “major events”? to demonstrate Standard English academic expectations for all its This is no minor quibble. If not orally and in writing, and it seems young people. mentioned, how are assessment to expect systematic phonics experts (preparing the state history instruction (although this is not as History exams) to know which events will clear as it might be). The reading be taught and for which events to strand contains strong vocabulary The South Carolina standards hold students accountable? The objectives through grade 8, and the are based on the much-criticized South Carolina Standards simply literature strand commendably National History Standards and the do not supply the specifics needed expects students to learn key liter- Standards of the National Council to prepare a standardcurriculum ary periods, themes, and archetyp- for the Social Studies. Adoption for which every child and teacher al characters in American and of NCSS theme-based studies rele- will be held accountable. British literature, in addition to gates history to a diminished role; selected texts from classical, con- still, these standards do include Geography temporary, and world literature. quite a bit of history. What is Literary elements and techniques remarkable about the history that South Carolina receives an A are extremely well laid out, with is included, however, is that spe- with a score of 83. Its geography well-developed poetry and drama cific figures, dates, and important standards have been well adapted objectives in the high school events are missing. At the root of from the national standards, grades. “standards” is the notion that every Geography for Life. However, South Carolina’s stan- child will be responsible for cer-

107 This happens within a “social In addition to content standards, the Algebra II course would have studies” format that has four the- the state includes a chapter on students solve linear systems, and matic strands. Geography’s strand process standards. There is noth- almost everything else, by calcula- is number III: “People, Places and ing new here, as it follows the tor only. Nor is explicit mention Environments: Geography.” The national geography standards’ made of the quadratic formula strands are followed by relatively skills materials that focus on ask- when discussing quadratic equa- general content standards, then an ing and answering geographic tions; here as elsewhere it is array of grade-specific standards. questions and acquiring, organiz- unclear how much of reasoning is “Instead of grade span benchmarks ing, and analyzing geographic intended. like those in other frameworks,” information. We reject as False Doctrine the the document states, “this one con- The Framework is organized statement, “Calculators are to be tains standards for the following into nine chapters, including infor- used as a primary tool,” an admo- grades: Kindergarten, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, mation on teaching and learning, nition that is repeated throughout 6, 7, 8, 9-10, and 11-12.” electives, professional develop- the document. Just the same, the The material is nicely specific ment, assessment, instructional standards contain very concrete even though the standards are not materials and resources, and sys- and unambiguous examples of elaborated upon by benchmarks, temic support as well as standards. what the authors have in mind, per se. The addition of bench- We learn that classroom assess- which is usually solid mathemat- marks (the “e.g.” or “by …” that ments are to be standards-based. ics. could narrow the grain of a grade- An appendix contains an excellent specific standard even further) glossary. The entire document has Science would make this excellent material been thoughtfully compiled so that even more useful. But it is good parents and other persons will find The South Carolina standards even without benchmarks because accessibility easy. are arranged by grade through the grade-specific standards are grade 8 and by broad subject mat- clearly and precisely articulated. Math ter for grades 9-12. The standards Standards throughout are com- for the primary grades are prehensive and rigorous. The 1998 Curriculum Standards notable—and laudable—for the Cumulative learning builds nicely is a great improvement upon its detailed expectations they set for with emphasis on map and loca- predecessors, the 1993 Framework students. tion skills in the elementary and the 1995 Standards. The writ- The concepts of area and grades. Latitude and longitude, ing is much clearer, more definite perimeter are introduced at grade usually introduced in middle and less ambiguous. Thus these 2, and so are quantitative graphs. school, appear in grade 3. Strong Standardscan hardly fail to be Fairly precise measurements (e.g., emphasis on all content and skills more testable also. Unnecessary volume to the nearest milliliter) areas continues into the middle jargon, too, is infrequent. The appear at grade 3. Volume (called grades, where the use of sophisti- content demanded in elementary “capacity”) is added at grade 4, as cated technologies to solve geo- school and in junior high school, is, somewhat incongruously, graphic problems is stressed. while good before, is now out- “velocity (speed).” Some substan- High school standards appear standing. Alas, the content tial mathematical issues appear at only in grades 9-10, when students demanded of the high schoolers grade 4 as well: rounding and con- are enrolled in global studies. But remains spotty, though ambitious version among fractions, decimals, they are both sophisticated and in spots, especially the “pre-calcu- percentages, and ratios. The key demanding. The standards accent lus” course. evolutionary concepts of ecologi- doing geography throughout, with South Carolina now earns a cal niche and the use of fossils to learning often accomplished via point for Reason, but one point interpret Earth history also appear skills and applications rather than represents inadequate emphasis. at this level—the latter under rote memorization. Physical sys- The process of deductive reason- “Earth and Space Systems” rather tems, so often ignored in social- ing is laid out, albeit briefly, on than “Living Things.” (Fossils as studies education, receive good page 48. Page 53 asks for evidence of past life are first dis- attention in early grades and seri- straight-edge and compass con- cussed explicitly at grade 7.) ous attention in grades 8-10. structions, clearly deductive, but Grade 4 students also get their first

108 looks at electric circuits, at volume Also at grade 8, momentum, so A certain degree of disorganiza- and shape as characteristics useful often neglected, is introduced on a tion crops up on occasion, as do in distinguishing among the states par with energy. Explicit refer- some minor oversights. At grade of matter, at magnetic fields, and, ence is made to the use of mathe- 8, “voltage, ampere, and resis- perhaps most laudably of all, at matical equations in dealing with tance” should read “voltage the distinction between kinetic and physical and chemical problems. (potential), current, and resis- potential energy. This use of mathematics is sub- tance.” At grades 9-12, Charles’s The subject of energy is gener- stantially expanded at grades 9-12 Law and Gay-Lussac’s law, which ally handled well. The term to include not only the use of lin- are simply two names for the same “heat” is never used loosely, and ear equations but also such essen- thing, are presented as separate thus does not encourage the intu- tial tools as the proper use of sig- laws. itive tendency to think of “heat” as nificant digits and dimensional As already mentioned, the “stuff” (e.g., caloric). Students analysis. In general, the treatment importance of mathematical meth- will find this advantageous when, of physics and chemistry at grades ods is made explicit. It would at a later stage, they study the con- 9-12 is very thorough and system- have been even better if similar version of heat energy into atic, and the modern component of attention had been paid to the mechanical energy in heat engines both is quite strong. importance of expression in writ- (first introduced at grade 7). Some key concepts of evolution ten and oral English. Care is taken also to avoid the having been introduced at lower Without underestimating the misconception that industrial grade levels, at grades 9-12 this is shortchanging of the sciences of activities affect the environment expanded into more thorough cosmology, geology, and biology but agricultural activities do not. study. It is remarkable how thor- on account of their essential his- This is especially important in a ough a job can be done without torical content, the South Carolina state such as South Carolina, with ever using the word “evolution” Science Curriculum Standardsdo its intensive and extensive agricul- itself, though it cannot be said that a satisfactory job of preparing the tural enterprises. the student is likely to acquire student for a life in which under- Extra-solar-system astronomy insight into the way that evolution standing of the sciences will be and large-scale geological process- functions as the central organizing important. es associated with plate tectonics principle of biology, nor into the Note: The author of these are introduced seriously at grade central role of plate tectonics in reviews served as a consultant at 8, together with inquiry into the geology. And certainly the seam- one point in the development of age of the Earth and the means less history whose chapters are the South Carolina Science used to ascertain it. The strong cosmology, Earth history, and bio- Curriculum Standards. interaction between early life and logical evolution is never pulled the character of the atmosphere is together. also introduced at this level.

109 South Dakota Report Card 1998 2000 English - C History - C Geography - C B- Math F A Science - B

Cum. GPA 0.00 2.60 Overall Grade F B-

English erature, literary periods, and tradi- though, is that rather than the his- tions, or key authors or titles that tory content improvingin the later This review addresses the citizens might expect students grades (as is the case with the best December 1998 document, a docu- graduating from a U.S. high history standards), the better and ment with many strengths. South school to have studied). Further- more specific history (especially Dakota’s standards are based on a more, without any suggested or state and United States history) is coherent organizing scheme; are required titles or authors, suggest- found in the upper-elementary and for the most part clear, specific, ed or required reading levels, or middle-school grades. European and measurable; in general sample reading passages in the and world history is painfully thin increase in difficulty over the standards (or all three), especially and what is offered is not material grades; and satisfactorily address in the high school grades, it is not that helps children to understand almost all areas of the English lan- clear how South Dakota’s stan- the past, but merely “stuff” about guage arts and reading. The read- dards can lead to common and sundry ancient cultures and their ing and writing strands in particu- high academic expectations for all contributions. There is absolutely lar are spelled out well. Yet the students in its schools, especially no recognition of the major anima- document has some limitations if there are no statewide assess- tor of European, world, and U.S. (and a few that are puzzling) that ments. history, vis-à-vis Christianity, par- should be addressed in further ticularly the pre-Revolutionary revisions. It avoids mention of the History movements that were antecedent to name of the language that students and critical for the foundation of should be learning in their regular The South Dakota Social the United States of America. On classes in the title of the docu- Studies Standardsare grounded in another issue, the standards require ment, it never specifies the con- state law that requires specific students to honor Martin Luther ventions that students should use content in the subject areas of his- King, Jr. While it is important to orally or in writing, and it has a tory, civics, geography, and eco- honor national heroes such as Dr. very narrow educational goal—to nomics. While there are refer- King, to honor him and others prepare students to become “suc- ences to the broader non-content without providing a context and cessful communicators.” One areas and themes of the National understanding of why we hold Dr. would hope that South Dakota’s Council for the Social Studies, King and others to be heroes is not educators and parents expect far there is a lot of solid history here acceptable. With King, for exam- more intellectual substance. that, if applied, would provide a ple, children must know who he Above all, the document lacks lit- sufficient historical experience for was and what he accomplished erary and cultural specifics (for children in certain grades. One within the context of the civil- example, the specific bodies of lit- oddity with these standards, rights movement. To grasp this

110 importance, children must also well enough in the early elemen- school grades and requires stu- understand our nation’s struggle tary grades when “benchmarks” dents to acquire considerable with slavery and race relations. are clear and fall within a category knowledge and skills. Knowledge Good standards provide the covering fundamental knowledge. regarding physical systems is com- required background and informa- But confusion begins in fourth plete in middle and upper grades. tion for children to understand grade and builds from there as such things. geography becomes subsumed in Math history. (Either there are no spe- Geography cific geography standards in The opening pages of the grades 6 or 8 at all or benchmarks Content Standardsare filled with South Dakota receives a C with are listed without any categoriza- generalities and platitudes: a score of 62. The state should tion other than the word: “Geo- “Students will discover, analyze, have put its new standards through graphy.”) extend, and create patterns, rela- one moreanalysis and a thorough A layperson looking at these tions, or functions to model mathe- edit before adoption. This would standards might wonder what had matical ideas in a variety of have enhanced their organization influenced such a collection of dis- forms” is writing at its most and clarity and diminished the parate requests of students. Why, vague, but such things occur only repetitiveness that makes them for example, must a seventh grad- in the eight introductory pages awkward and cumbersome. er, when studying the “Western (“Goals and Indicators”), while the Geography standards are specified Hemisphere and Europe,” identify following 29 pages (“Mathematics in grades K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and “… factors that influence climate Standards”) make very clear what for 9-12. One social studies goal …” and then “compare and con- mathematics is expected of all applies to geography: “Students trast the distribution, growth rates, South Dakota students, grade by will understand the interrelation- and characteristics of human popu- grade. Our scores take no account ships of people, places, and the lations.…” How do these relate to of the (irrelevant) failures of these environment” followed by a ratio- one another? While we are told in eight pages, for on the whole this nale on page 7. The goal is reiter- the opening paragraph regarding is the most improved set of stan- ated and followed by three indica- grade 7 that “knowledge, skills, dards we have encountered since tors: (1) “Analyze information and perspectives are centered on 1998. from geographic representation, … population and cultural charac- Deductive geometry is not tools, and technology to define teristics, landforms and climates strong, but deduction isdemanded, location, place, and region,” (2) … migration and settlement pat- and reasoning is threaded through- “Analyze the relationships among terns”; that “Standards 1-7 provide out: The distributive law, “the natural environments, the move- the foundation for understanding logic of algebraic operations,” ment of peoples, and the develop- the Earth’s physical and human “derive formulas for … area, vol- ment of societies,” and (3) systems”; and that “the five ume, lateral area,” and so on— “Analyze the impact of the Earth’s themes of geography provide the indeed, many such things. Proofs natural processes, patterns, and framework for studying these of the quadratic formula and the cycles on various regions of the regions/countries,” these are words Pythagorean theorem are not United States and the world.” that, strung together, say little demanded explicitly, but can easily The goals, rationale, and indica- more than “this is a seventh-grade be inferred. tors do not appear again. Instead geography course.” (An explana- The document is flawed here of using the indicators as organiz- tion of geography’s five themes and there by what seems obligato- ers, the remaining material comes does not appear anywhere in the ry obeisance to current trends, and in the form of grade-specific lists. document.) sometimes by careless writing: Thus the kindergarten standards The flawed presentation under- “Use inductive reasoning to test (actually more like benchmarks as mines the standards’ overall value. and prove that a formula is cor- they are relatively specific) are Elementary standards score low. rect” is certainly not possible, presented with an opening para- They are not particularly rigorous unless the authors meant “by graph followed by subject-specific nor do they move beyond basic mathematical induction.” But its lists prefaced by the directive, map skills. Coverage is more basic strength shines through in “Students will.…” This works thorough in middle- and high- spite of the occasional lapse.

111 Science in their explicit attention to the at grade 6, as is the innate tenta- strong interaction between biologi- tiveness of scientific knowledge. South Dakota has published the cal and geological evolution: Eighth graders learn about the Science Content Standards (June “Investigate how interactions meaning and interrelations among 1999) and the companion among Earth’s crust, oceans, scientific theory, hypothesis gener- Technical Guide for Implementing atmosphere, and organisms have ation, and experimentation. Content Standards: Science (Draft resulted in the ongoing change of Although the details are some- III, March 1999). The only signif- the Earth system” (grades 9-12). what vague, the wording of the icant difference between them Simple machines are introduced grades 9-12 standards suggests appears to be organization; the at grade 3 and the concept of that the high school student is former document sets forth the mechanical work builds on this at expected to learn about mechanics standards grade by grade in K-8 grade 4. Fourth graders learn in considerable detail. It would be and by discipline for grades 9-12. about series and parallel circuits better if some of the statements The latter presents the same stan- and distinguish between static and were expressed mathematically to dards in tabular form so as to current electricity. Building on make this clear. South Dakota is facilitate cross-comparison within these electrical ideas, fifth graders unique in introducing high school the grade clusters K-2, 3-5, 6-8, learn about electric potential, cur- students to the concept of scientif- and 9-12. In addition, the rent, and resistance. A clear dis- ic paradigms and scientific revolu- Technical Guideclassifies the tinction between kinetic and tions. benchmarks into rational groups. potential energy is also introduced Paradoxically, a few key scien- As the Technical Guide is easier to at grade 4. The concept of ele- tific ideas are introduced unusual- analyze, it is the document we ment and compound is introduced ly late. Among these are the peri- consider here. And, in general, it’s at grade 5, as are the concepts of odic table (grade 7), the cell as a a solid piece of work. It has no density and of the constancy of building block (grade 6), and the significant scientific errors. It melting and boiling points and cause of the seasons (grade 6). generally provides for steady (remarkably!) of universal gravita- Some significant shortcomings deepening of the student’s under- tion. Sixth graders “analyze the also permeate these standards. standing as he or she progresses. relationship among mass, weight, There is little explicit attention to A significant number of important volume, and density.” At grade 7, laboratory work, to the use of items are introduced at early grade students learn about mass and mathematical techniques, and to levels, with due consideration for energy conservation and experi- the importance of writing in scien- the student’s level of development, ence their first exposure to tific communication. In spite of and then built upon in successive Newton’s laws; at grade 8, they these shortcomings, however, the grades. For instance, the basic are to use those laws explicitly. South Dakota Science Content ideas of biological evolution are The basic ideas of large-scale Standards and the Technical Guide introduced at grades 3 and 4. earth structure and plate tectonics furnish a solid basis for building Although there could be more are introduced at grade 5. They and evaluating a science curricu- detail in the expansion of these are subsequently expanded steadi- lum. ideas at higher grade levels, the ly through grades 9-12. Measure- South Dakota standards are unique ment error is introduced explicitly

112 Tennessee Report Card 1998 2000 English F F History D D Geography F F F Math C F Science F F

Cum. GPA 0.60 0.20 Overall Grade D- F

English Tennessee needs to rewrite its Math standards document in clear prose, This review covered the April with higher and lower objectives The K-8 Mathematics 1999 edition of Tennessee’s stan- sorted out, and specific and mea- Frameworkwas commented on in dards document; it is no different in surable standards. Details for sys- 1998 and remains in effect, while content from the 1996 document tematic vocabulary study need to the Content Standards and reviewed previously. With this be spelled out. Last but not least, Learning Expectationsfor grades 1999 edition, Tennessee’s some literary and cultural specifics 9-12 is new, replacing a 1991 doc- Department of Education included should be incorporated into the ument with something more in CTB/McGraw-Hill’s TerraNova standards at all educational levels, accordance with the spirit of the Performance Levels Handbook and such as key authors, works, liter- K-8 standards. (About half of the Instructional Objectives for Levels ary periods, and literary traditions committee for grades 9-12 had 10-21/22. One may therefore (especially in American literature). also served on the K-8 committee.) assume that Tennessee has decided By gearing reading and literary The descriptions of the content for to rely on available commercial expectations to specific reading all these programs are very vague; standardized tests to provide clear levels, Tennessee could assure its they would permit courses of testing objectives for reading and citizens that its public schools every imaginable degree of seri- written language skills, instead of have the potential to develop a ousness, though the general addressing the many deficiencies in new generation capable of main- impression is that they would not the reading-and-language conven- taining this country’s civic culture. be very demanding and would fea- tions strands of its standards docu- ture machine calculation even at ment. However, these standardized History the cost of comprehension. tests do not address writing or liter- Algebra I asks for systems of lin- ary study, and there are also other The state supplied no evidence ear equations to be solved by problematic areas in the standards that its standards have been inverting matrices using a calcula- document. Many standards are nei- revised since 1998. tor, and there is little indication ther clear, nor specific, nor measur- that any real linear algebra is con- able. The document is also unclear Geography templated. Except for the phrase as to whether phonics instruction “use the concept of variable …” will be systematic. We also The state supplied no evidence there is little about the logic of reviewed Tennessee’s new English that its standards have been solving equations. The Geometry II gateway test standards and found revised since 1998. course features no deduction or that they do not add much to the constructions, and instead of the primary standards document. particular we are offered the

113 grandiose. For example (still Tennessee’s new Algebra I gate- grade biology exam to its Science under Geometry!): “Solve prob- way test standards and found them Framework, the outline did not lems in number theory, geometry, to be consistent with the 9-12 stan- add enough content or specificity probability, and statistics, and dards (i.e., they too are poor in to warrant a change of grade. measurement and estimation using quality). algebraic thinking and symbol- ism.” False Doctrine is less evi- Science dent than such Inflation in these standards, possibly because they Though Tennessee added a very are so vague. We also reviewed brief and general outline for a 10th

114 Texas Report Card 1998 2000 English B B History B B Geography A A B Math B B Science C C

Cum. GPA 3.00 3.00 Overall Grade B B

English standards for English as a Second English language arts section of Language classes. As a result, the this document, put the Spanish The final version of Texas’s document cannot legitimately be language arts standards in a docu- standards in the English language entitled “English Language Arts ment that deals with Spanish K-12 arts and reading, released in 1997, and Reading” and ordinary parents (where they belong), and remove are very strong. Most standards have to go through a bulk almost all the repeated material in the are clear, specific, and measurable, two inches thick to find out what ESL section (putting the little that and they cover most areas in the the state’s academic expectations will be left in an appendix). This English language arts and reading are for English for grades K-12. would reduce this elephantine doc- extremely well. The document At present, the bulk, contents, and ument to a reasonable and read- also expects students to be given layout of this document defeat the able number of pages for both systematic instruction in decoding major purpose for which it was teachers and the general public. skills and to use Standard English intended—to inform the public of orally and in writing by high what the state’s academic expecta- History school. tions are for its students in the However, there are several English language arts. The Texas Essential Knowledge major limitations in this document. The document can be strength- and Skillsstandards provide a lot First, there are no literary or cul- ened in several ways. First, Texas of historical content, especially for tural specifics to speak of, save for should remove from all grade-level Texas and United States history. one mention of American literature introductions its suggestion that However, the content for world in grade 11 and one mention of other languages may be used in and European history is extremely British literature in grade 12. the English language arts class. weak. To judge or “analyze” an Second, the document hints in Second, some literary and cultural historical event requires much introductory material at each grade specifics should be incorporated more than “lists of skills.” Those level that other languages besides into its standards at all educational standards that include detailed English may be used in the levels, such as key authors, works, content, as Texas does, must then English language arts class. Third, literary periods, and literary tradi- take the standards to the next level the document is almost unreadable tions, to signal clear expectations by connecting specific skills to and unusable by the general pub- for students’ reading level as well specific content. These standards lic. The final version contains, in as their knowledge of the nature have a lot of admirable content, three columns on each page for and history of this country’s liter- and much skill development, too. grades K-6, standards for English ary and civic culture. Finally, But they fail to bridge the intellec- language arts classes, standards for Texas should eliminate all the tual gap in between. Spanish language arts classes, and repeated material that is in the Texas’s history scores have

115 changed since 1998 in three areas. feelings and attitudes and that they Science First, in the early grades, there is tolerate political and social dogma. an extensive use of biographies. The state supplied no evidence This is generally praiseworthy, but Geography that its standards have been biographies withoutthe structure revised since 1998. of chronology do not translate into The state supplied no evidence children learning that chronology that its standards have been is a fundamental building block of revised since 1998. history. Moreover, political cor- rectness seems to have influenced Math the selection of biographies. Second (and third), there is evi- The state supplied no evidence dence that these new standards that its standards have been attempt to manipulate children’s revised since 1998.

116 Utah Report Card 1998 2000 English C C History C C Geography C C Math B B C+ Science B B

Cum. GPA 2.40 2.40 Overall Grade C+ C+

English through the high school grades. History Moreover, there are no literary and This review covers a 1996 docu- cultural specifics at all, not even a The state supplied no evidence ment containing standards for requirement for students to study that its standards have been grades K-6, and a 1999 document American literature. Further, the revised since 1998. containing standards for grades 7- secondary-school document too 12. These documents are written strongly favors a constructivist Geography clearly; most standards are clear, approach to literary reading. specific, and measurable; and most The documents would benefit The state supplied no evidence areas of the English language arts greatly from having some literary that its standards have been and reading are covered well. specifics incorporated into their revised since 1998. Among the strong features of the standards at all levels, such as key elementary-grade document is the authors, works, literary periods, Math attention paid to vocabulary devel- and literary traditions, to signal opment in speaking, reading, and academic expectations for stu- The state supplied no evidence writing. The elementary-grade dents’ reading levels as well as that its standards have been document also has an innovative their knowledge of the nature and revised since 1998. section on developing a spelling history of this country’s literary vocabulary. However, the sec- and civic culture. It would also be Science ondary-school standards are not as useful if the elementary-grade doc- good as those for the elementary ument made clear the teaching of The state supplied no evidence grades. They are highly repetitive, systematic phonics in the primary that its standards have been with little increases in complexity grades. revised since 1998.

117 Vermont Report Card 1998 2000 English - D History F F D+ Geography F F Math C C Science B B

Cum. GPA 1.25 1.20 Overall Grade D+ D+

English because many of these standards selves, however, these standards cover so wide a span of schooling, and objectives leave so much lati- This review is based on the it’s not clear what’s intended for tude for interpretation that their standards in the 1996 document lower grade levels in particular demands are not at all clear. and the additional objectives pro- (e.g., it would be instructive to vided in a May 1999 supplement. learn how K-8 students are to History It is not clear what the English demonstrate “understanding of the language arts and reading stan- historical eras, styles, and evolving All of Vermont’s history standards actually are. “Communi- technologies that have helped dards fit neatly into three pages. cations standards” include “artistic define forms and structures in the This economy of educational dimensions” in the arts. Moreover, arts, language, and literature”). In direction goes a long way to the “arts, language, and literature sharp contrast, the objectives in describe the quality of these stan- standards” group all the arts the 1999 document are almost all dards. The stated purposes of together under a subheading called measurable. these standards are to “provid[e] a “critical response” and “artistic Vermont needs to provide a doc- structure from which standards- process,” even though there is a ument for English language arts based district, school, and class- distinct subsection called “litera- and reading that is based on a room curriculum can be devel- ture and media” that seems to per- clear organizing scheme, with oped, organized, implemented, and tain only to literature. This is a measurable and meaningful stan- assessed.” With due consideration very confusing document as it dards for grades K-12 that show to Vermont’s strong Yankee tradi- does not make clear the province increasing intellectual expectations, I shall simply note that this of the English language arts or tions. It also needs to provide statement is not merely naively reading teacher or what is to take some clear literary and cultural optimistic, it is totally unrealistic. place in the English class. In addi- specifics to follow up on its com- tion to an unclear organizing mendable mention of “contempo- Geography scheme, many standards span the rary and enduring works of entire K-12 range. Only the American literature,” “important Vermont receives an F with a research-and-writing objectives themes of American experience score of 28, an increase of 6 points seem to be adequately addressed. …. through time,” and “diverse lit- since 1998. The state has revised More difficulties lie in the quality erary traditions.” Vermont could its standards but has made negligi- of the standards themselves; the end up with high expectations in a ble improvements. The two geog- 1996 document contains a large statewide assessment if it inter- raphy-standards areas (Geograph- number of vague, pretentious, and prets its current standards at a uni- ical Knowledge and Movement unmeasurable standards. And formly high level. In and of them- and Settlements) are too broad.

118 The material arrayed below them, Math combinatorial skill (nCr), the use purporting to show ways that stu- (though not proof) of the dents can prove what they have The body of the Framework is Pythagorean Theorem, attention to learned, while mostly new, is unfo- still that of the 1996 version rates and their interpretation as cused and random, revealing no reviewed in 1998. The part of the ratios and slopes of graphs, and intent to cover geography either Framework devoted to mathemat- the whole subject of right-triangle rigorously or comprehensively. ics was quite small: Only three, trigonometry. These amendments History has been de-emphasized. though crowded and crisp, pages take only a few lines, but make an No apparent national model was are given to “Mathematical appreciable addition to the content. used in the revision. Understanding” in a document that Grades pre-K through grade 4 includes not only English, science, Science cover some fundamental learning and technology, etc., but also long but there is no mention of vocabu- appendices on the theoretical The state supplied no evidence lary. Human systems, which underpinnings of “standards- that its standards have been encompasses movement and settle- based” curricula and their assess- revised since 1998. ment, receives a middling score. ment, and allied commentary, But other areas receive low or no some of which we have counted as scores. This is true through mid- “Inflation.” The principal failing dle grades as well. In high school of the implied curriculum is else- (where, in the earlier iteration, where: in its lack of attention to there was no material at all), cate- Reason, and its lack of clarity in gories regarding skills and applica- some of the content prescriptions. tions receive some emphasis. A Now the State has added some content area called Interrelation- paragraphs, all of which either ships has been dropped. help clarify the demands (especial- On the whole, this rewrite is ly at the lower levels) or add to the disappointing. content. In particular, the high school level now calls for some

119 Virginia Report Card 1998 2000 English B B History A A Geography D D Math B B C+ Science D D

Cum. GPA 2.40 2.40 Overall Grade C+ C+

The state supplied no evidence that its standards have been revised since 1998.

120 Washington Report Card 1998 2000 English D D History F F Geography F F D- Math F F Science B B

Cum. GPA 0.80 0.80 Overall Grade D- D-

English Math the case of mathematics this aim has not yet really been addressed, The state supplied no evidence The Washington math standards since this Commission has ap- that its standards have been reviewed in Fordham I have now proved the republication, albeit revised since 1997. been republished, verbatimas it with a new introduction (“Essen- appears though re-formatted, under tial Academic Learning Require- History the title Learning Requirements. ments Technical Manual”) and Since there has been no real new formatting, of the same inade- The Washington Essential change here, our currently quate standards it has inherited Academic Learning Requirements, announced scores and grades are from 1997. by name, infers that “essential” identical with those reported at and “academic learning require- that time. However, it should be Science ments” would be found in the doc- mentioned that the state has now ument. However, in the six pages sent us other documents of an The state supplied no evidence devoted to “history content,” I introductory or explanatory sort that its standards have been failed to find a single item that which, with the changed appear- revised since 1998. reflects such promise. There is no ance of the old standards, made it history material here that would be difficult at first to see that the pre- useful either for teachers to present central document is the same pare an “essentials-based” curricu- as its predecessor. lum or for parents to know what In particular, there has now been their children are supposed to be appointed a State Commission on learning at school. Student Learning, which announced (August 1998) as part Geography of its “mission statement” an intention “...to update and elevate The material was reformatted in the standards of academic achieve- June of 1998 but no other changes ment and improve student perfor- have been observed. mance in Washington State....” In

121 West Virginia Report Card 1998 2000 English - B History C C Geography B B Math B B C+ Science F F

Cum. GPA 2.00 2.20 Overall Grade C C+

English always listed in an order going strand on research processes from broader to more specific. would strengthen West Virginia’s This review is based on West Some of the details for literary standards. Virginia’s 1996 document, a docu- study are commendable. West ment with many strong features. It Virginia is one of the few states History has a reasonable organizing that expect students to study scheme and contains clear, specif- authors from their own states. It The state supplied no evidence ic, and measurable standards. It also includes titles from American that its standards have been expects all students to demonstrate literature as examples for some of revised since 1998. use of Standard English orally and its literary standards in grade 11, in writing, and it seems to expect spells out study of major periods Geography systematic phonics instruction in of British literature in grade 12, the primary grades. For the most and provides titles as examples of The state supplied no evidence part, its standards address all areas some of the literary standards in that its standards have been of the English language arts and grade 12. However, it does not revised since 1998. reading satisfactorily, although in refer to a core list of authors or large part this is because the docu- titles, nor does it suggest in its Math ment contains an enormous num- standards what reading levels it ber of objectives (not all of which expects at the different high school The state supplied no evidence are to be assessed on statewide grades, either by specifying that its standards have been assessments). This is, in fact, a required titles or authors, or by revised since 1998. serious limitation: too many objec- requiring specific reading levels at tives and too many lower-level or various grade levels, or by provid- Science discrete skills. By the end of ing sample reading passages to grade 5, for example, 188 discrete suggest what level of reading it The state supplied no evidence items have been mentioned. wants at specific grade levels. that its standards have been Moreover, they are not always Addressing these deficits, reducing revised since 1998. grouped in meaningful ways with- drastically the number of objec- in a category, and the items are not tives, and developing a better

122 Wisconsin Report Card 1998 2000 English C A History F F Geography F F Math C C C- Science C C

Cum. GPA 1.20 1.60 Overall Grade D+ C-

English knowledge of the nature and histo- Geography ry of this country’s literary and Wisconsin’s final version of its civic culture. Without reading lev- A few of the standards have standards document, released in els, or a few key titles or authors been reworded or renumbered in 1998, is generally excellent. It is spelled out at the grade levels the state’s new social-studies stan- organized in coherent strands, it assessed, assessments based on the dards booklet, but nothing has clearly expects students to use present standards may not create changed enough to alter the score. Standard English in writing and high academic expectations for all speaking, and it addresses most Wisconsin students. Math areas of the English language arts and reading adequately. Indeed, History The state supplied no evidence its strand on research is extremely that its standards have been well done. The document is also The Wisconsin Social Studies revised since 1998. one of the few to clearly address Standardsprovide four pages for the history and nature of the teachers, students, and parents to Science English language. And most of its determine what shall be expected standards are clear, specific, and of Wisconsin’s children in history. Wisconsin’s Model Academic measurable. It is one of the better Rather than decisive answers, we Standards(1998) is based on the sets of state standards. find vague, unmeasurable state- draft document reviewed in 1998. Still, the standards contain no ments that are virtually content- Like its predecessor, it is brief and literary or cultural specifics at all. free. A promise is made that “stu- sketchy. It sets standards for the Although the document mentions dents in Wisconsin will learn ends of grades 4, 8, and 12. In the study of “classical” and “contem- about the history of Wisconsin, the final document, subheadings have porary” literature, and texts from United States, and the world, been added to improve the organi- “the United States and cultures examining change and continuity zation of the whole. A number of worldwide,” there are no literary over time in order to develop his- individual items have been added priorities for this country. Some torical perspective, explain histori- and a number removed. Many literary specifics should be incor- cal relationships, and analyze items have been rephrased, often porated into its standards at all issues that affect the present and with a modest improvement of educational levels, such as key future.” But the standards fail to clarity and consistency. authors, works, literary periods, or deliver the specific guidance that The new document still lacks literary traditions, to signal acade- might make it possible to keep this sufficient detail to be more than mic expectations for students’ lofty promise. minimally useful. Some of the reading levels as well as their additions are puzzling and some

123 obviously are intended to appease ments in other domains of science. only infer that the phrase “Increase young-Earth creationists. For Also at grade 12, there is a sub- in Disorder” is intended to intro- example, at grade 12: “Using the heading, “Conservation of Energy duce these distortions into the cur- science themes, understand that and Increase in Disorder.” Under riculum. the origin of the universe is not it, we find a single item relating By and large, however, there has completely understood, but that only to energy conservation and been little change in the marginal there are current ideas in science nothing about entropy. As a false quality of the Wisconsin standards. that attempt to explain its origin.” exposition of the second law of While this statement is not incor- thermodynamics is a staple of rect, we do not see parallel state- young-Earth creationism, we can

124 Wyoming Report Card 1998 2000 English - D History - F Geography - F F Math - D Science - F

Cum. GPA - 0.40 Overall Grade - F

English offered on research processes, lan- documents of the National Council guage conventions, and literary for the Social Studies. Unfortu- Wyoming’s standards document study. Indeed, literary study is an nately, even the best of that model was completed in 1998. Although area with serious deficiencies. does not seem to have been it is not clear that it is meant to There are no literary or cultural applied. The standards are devoid serve as the basis for statewide specifics at all, not even an expec- of meaningful historical content. assessments, it has several strong tation that students are to study While a claim is made that these features. For the most part it has a American literature, never mind standards“were referenced [to useful organizing scheme, its stan- specific literary periods in other national standards docu- dards are specific, and three levels American history. Without any lit- ments] to establish the rigor of the of performance criteria are provid- erary and cultural specifics, or Wyoming Social Studies Content ed for the benchmarks offered at suggested or required titles or and Performance Standards,” there grades 4, 8, and 11. Moreover, authors for the secondary grades, it is no evidence that these standards Wyoming is among the few states is not clear how these standards contain academic rigor. There is to specify the reading levels it can lead to common and high aca- also evidence that children are expects at those grade levels. demic expectations for all being manipulated. The best that However, the document has a Wyoming students. Nor can the can be said is that Wyoming edu- number of limitations in its efforts state assure its citizens that its cators have begun the task of to guide local school districts on schools can develop educated citi- exploring the world of standards important matters of content and zens capable of maintaining this writing. pedagogy. country’s civic culture—its basic The increases in complexity political principles, institutions, Geography over the grades are not clearly and processes—through knowl- worked out and visible. It is edge of the history of its literary Wyoming receives an F with a unclear whether Wyoming students and intellectual culture. score of 26. These new draft stan- are expected to use Standard dards, the first reviewed from this English conventions orally and in History state, need considerable improve- writing and if there is to be sys- ment. Geography material tematic phonics instruction in the The Wyoming Social Studies (People, Places, and Environ- early grades. Further, there are no Content and Performance ments: Students demonstrate an details on vocabulary develop- Standardsoffer very little that’s understanding of interrelationships ment, although other reading com- useful for teachers, students, and among people, places, economies, prehension skills are addressed parents. The standards apply and environments) is located as the satisfactorily. Few details are seven strands, drawn directly from fifth of seven social-studies stan-

125 dards. The standard itself is mis- tions to select and use appropriate classify objects and numbers to leading. People are never men- tools to identify given locations.” demonstrate logical connections.” tioned in the material. Places and Unfortunately, that’s pretty much it The third column, typically half Environments are barely refer- for geography learning in fourth the page, then defines “Perfor- enced. And the use of the word grade. mance Standards” as Advanced, “economies” is mysterious, partic- The material in grades 8 and 11 Proficient, or Partially Proficient in ularly as economics is (somewhat) is similarly weak, vague, and paragraphs as vague as the stan- explored in the separate standard oddly expressed. And at the bot- dards and benchmarks preceding titled “Production, Distribution, tom of each of the three grade- them. For example: “Advanced: and Consumption.” level-cluster standards pages When presented with real-world The document references some regarding geography, room is and content problems, fourth-grade excellent state geography stan- taken up by reiteration of a ratio- students performing at an dards, particularly those of nale from the National Council for advanced level demonstrate the Colorado, Indiana, and Texas, in the Social Studies that elaborates ability to identify the problems to its introductory information, but on the need for the study of “peo- be solved, select relevant data, and evidently no national models were ple, places and human-environ- identify and apply a variety of used. Geography for Life, the ment interactions”because of appropriate strategies and methods national geography standards pub- advances made by technology. of calculation to solve the prob- lished in 1994, is not mentioned. Given the brevity and mediocre lem.” Interestingly, eighth graders are quality of these standards, this In consequence, even though not asked to “identify the five themes ennobling rhetoric seems particu- every entry is quite as vacuous as of geography” that are found in larly out of place. the ones just quoted, the document the Guidelines for Geographic as a whole is almost totally useless Education. This isnot credited Math for determining what is to be either. taught or when it is to be taught or Scores on General Character- Apart from introductory materi- how well it has been learned. Our istics are acceptable, for the most al, the Content and Performance scores for Content, then, are based part, as the standards fulfill the cri- Standardsis 28 pages long, each on guesswork to some degree, and teria. But scores on Comprehen- page in three columns. The first the one point for Reason is based siveness and Rigor are weak. The column, headed Content Standard, on some hinted mentions concern- material is neither thorough nor is quite vague (for example, under ing early arithmetic, and some demanding. The presentation has Standard 7: Problem-Solving and geometry in high school (page 2): standards designed for grades 4, 8, Mathematical Reasoning, “Students formulate conjectures and 11. The format includes con- “Students apply a variety of prob- through inductive reasoning, verify tent within the broad, general stan- lem-solving strategies to investi- conjectures through deductive rea- dard, a few “benchmarks,” and gate and solve problems from soning, construct and present a NAEP-like “performance stan- across the curriculum as well as valid argument, and use counter dards descriptors” at advanced, from practical applications.” This examples to invalidate arguments.” proficient, and partially proficient statement, along with similar ones But the indefiniteness here, as levels. For example, fourth for each of the other six standards elsewhere, is troubling. graders must respond to three (Number Operations and False Doctrine abounds: benchmarks that basically relate to Concepts, Geometry, etc.), is iden- “Further proficiency in mathemat- fundamental map skills and the tically stated at each of the three ics requires … employment of location of “landmarks and land- grade levels (grades 4, 8, and 11) technology” is certainly false, and forms.” Possible responses: for which benchmarks are then the enthusiastic advocacy of the advanced performers must use given. The second column, which use of calculators, algebra tiles, “appropriate tools to produce a should be more definite, consists etc., is overdrawn throughout. representation” while proficient of the “benchmarks” (for example, Under Inflation we must note the performers must utilize “given for the grade 4 level of the same many repetitions as well as such tools to identify locations” and Standard 7: “Students select strate- things as, “Students determine partially proficient performers gies appropriate for solving the whether to use theoretical or must respond to “specific instruc- problems” and, “Students sort and experimental probability to repre-

126 sent and solve a problem involving standards documents of seven content of science; the others, uncertainty,” though it is some- other states, including four that although interesting, are entirely times hard to distinguish between were highly rated in SSS. In general: Unifying Concepts and being vague and being pointless. accord with several other states Processes, Science As Inquiry, The present document is the that set three or four levels of per- Habits of Mind, Communication, first we have seen from Wyoming. formance at each grade or grade- Science in Personal and Social The introduction credits the stan- cluster level, Wyoming establishes Perspectives, History and Nature dards published by Virginia, the levels Partially Proficient, of Science, Science and Techno- Colorado, and the NCTM as its Proficient, and Advanced. Each logy, and Safety. As a conse- models, but of these three the pre- Benchmark is accompanied by quence, all of the specific scientif- sent authors think well only of statements that establish the ic knowledge at all three levels is Virginia’s. None of the present requirements for each of the three crammed into less than six half- criticism is to say that Wyoming levels. In addition, “Snapshots in pages. Adding to this deficiency, students are not getting a good Action” presents examples for the Performance Standards are mathematical education; only that classroom implementation of the hopelessly vague. For instance, at these standards are insufficient for standards. grade 8 students demonstrate the purpose of creating a strong Curiously, the standards are pre- Proficient Performance in all of mathematical curriculum, or even sented in reverse order: grade 11 the content areas by demonstrating point of view. The Wyoming first, followed by grade 8, and “a broad-based knowledge and Standardsalso has the misfortune then grade 4. Although the grade understanding of integrated sci- of including an unnecessary and 11 standards are intended to apply ence concepts as established in the often confused glossary. to the grade span 9-12, there benchmarks.” appear to be no explicit standards In sum, the Wyoming Science Science for grade 12. One may infer that a Content and Performance graduation-level exam is planned Standardsare useless for either The Wyoming Science Content for administration at grade 11 with curriculum planning or evaluation and Performance Standardsis cur- a second chance at grade 12. of performance. rently available in draft form (no Unfortunately, the standards are date but presumably early 1999). skimpy and exceedingly vague. Specific acknowledgment is given Of the nine broad strands, only the to the AAAS, NAS, and NSTA first, “Basic Concepts and model documents, as well as to the Knowledge,” is concerned with the

127 128 Appendix A: English Language Arts/Reading Criteria and Detailed Grades

The English Language Arts/Reading standards well as the use of meaningful reading materi- appraisal employed 34 criteria in 5 categories. To read als. an explanation of the criteria and other supporting 7) It expects students to do regular independent materials, see Sandra Stotsky, State English reading through the grades, suggesting how Standards: An Appraisal of English Language-Arts/ much reading students should do per year as a Reading Standards in 28 States,July 1997, on-line at minimum, with some guidance about its quality. www.edexcellence.net. 8) It expects the standards to serve as the basis A 5-point rating scale was used, consisting of for clear and reliable statewide assessments. “no,” “to some extent,” “unclear,” “for the most part,” and “yes.” A rating usually reflects a dominant B. Organization of the standards impression of how a particular feature of the docu- 1) They are presented grade by grade or in clus- ment meets the criterion for that feature. For only a ters of no more than three to four grade levels. few criteria can the answer be a clear yes or no (for 2) They are grouped in categories reflecting example, the document either does or does not coherent bodies of scholarship or research in acknowledge the existence of a body of literature the English language arts. called American literature). For most of the others (for 3) They distinguish higher-order knowledge and example, the specificity of its standards), a document skills from lower-order skills, if lower-level can vary in the extent to which it meets the criterion skills are mentioned. (for example, it may have a large number that are specific but some that aren’t). C. Disciplinary coverage of the standards To show how the standards documents compare 1) The standards clearly address listening and with each other, the ratings for the 34 criteria were speaking. They include use of various discus- converted into numerical scores. 0=no; 1=to some sion purposes and roles, how to participate in extent; 2=unclear; 3=for the most part; and 4=yes. I discussion, desirable qualities in formal gave “unclear” a 2, a point midway in the scale, in speaking, and use of established as well as order not to penalize excessively what I thought to be peer-generated or personal criteria for evaluat- unclear language in a document. This rating was used ing formal and informal speech. sparingly; I made a judgment whenever possible. 2) The standards clearly address reading (and Therefore, a rating tells the reader how well that fea- viewing) to understand and use information ture of a particular document meets the criterion. through the grades. They include progressive development of reading skills and a reading A. Purpose, audience, expectations, and assump- vocabulary, and knowledge and use of a vari- tions of the standards document(s) ety of textual features, genres, and reading 1) The document is written in clear English strategies for academic, occupational, and prose, for the general public as well as for civic purposes. educators. 3) The standards clearly address the reading (or 2) It assumes that English is the language to be viewing), interpretation, and critical evalua- used in English language-arts classes, and the tion of literature. They include knowledge of only language to be used. diverse literary elements and genres, different 3) It expects all students to demonstrate use of kinds of literary responses, and use of a vari- standard English, orally and in writing. ety of interpretive and critical lenses. They 4) It acknowledges the existence of a corpus of also specify those key authors, works, and lit- literary works called American literature, erary traditions in American literature and in however diverse its origins and the social the literary and civic heritage of English- groups it portrays. speaking people that all students should study 5) It expects students to become literate because of their literary quality and cultural American citizens. significance. 6) It expects explicit and systematic instruction 4) The standards clearly address writing for com- in decoding skills in the primary grades as munication and personal expression. They

129 require familiarity with writing processes, c. They illustrate growth through the grades established as well as peer-generated or perfor writing with writing samples. sonal evaluation criteria, and various rhetori- d. For other subdisciplines, they provide cal elements, strategies, genres, and modes of examples of specific reading, writing, or oral organization. language features, activities, or assignments 5) The standards clearly address oral and written that clarify what is expected for each standard language conventions. They require the use of or benchmark. standard English conventions for sentence 6) Their overall content is sufficiently specific, structure, spelling, usage, penmanship, capi- comprehensive, and demanding to lead to a talization, and punctuation. common core of high academic expectations 6) The standards clearly address the nature, for all students in the state, no matter what dynamics, and history of the English lan- school they attend. guage. They cover the nature of its vocabulary, its structure (grammar), the evolution of E. Anti-Literary or Anti-Academic Requirements its oral and written forms, and the distinction or Expectations: Negative Criteria between the variability of its oral forms and 1) The document implies that the literary or pop- the relative permanence of its written form ular culture of our or any other country is today. monolithic in nature. 7) The standards clearly address research 2) The reading/literature standards require stu- processes, including developing questions and dents to relate what they read to their lived locating, understanding, evaluating, synthesiz- experiences. ing, and using various sources of information 3) The reading/literature standards want reading for reading, writing, and speaking assign- materials to address contemporary social ments. These sources include dictionaries, the- issues. sauruses, other reference materials, observa- 4) The document implies that all literary and tions of empirical phenomena, interviews with nonliterary texts are susceptible of an infinite informants, and computer data bases. number of interpretations and that all points of view or interpretations are equally valid D. Quality of the standards regardless of the logic, accuracy, or adequacy 1) They are clear. of the supporting evidence. 2) They are specific. 5) The examples of classroom activities or stu- 3) They are measurable (i.e., they can lead to dent writing offered are politically slanted or observable, comparable results across students reflect an attempt to manipulate students’ feel- and schools). ings, thinking, or behavior. 4) They are comprehensive. 6) The standards teach moral or social dogma. 5) They are demanding: 7) The document explicitly or implicitly recom- a. They are of increasing intellectual difficulty mends one instructional approach for all at each higher educational level and cover all teachers to follow. important indices of learning in the areas they address. b. They index or illustrate growth through the grades for reading by referring to specific reading levels or to titles of specific literary or academic works as examples of a reading level.

130 Table A1. Ratings for Section A: Purposes, Audience, Expectations, and Assumptions

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Written in a Consistent use Use of standard American Civic goals Decoding skills Independent To be used readable prose of English English literature of schools to be taught reading for statewide Total (out of 32) style for the expected in conventions mentioned acknowledged systematically expected assessments public the classroom expected Alabama 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 31 Alaska 4 4 2 0 0 2 0 4 16 Arizona 4 2 1 4 0 4 0 4 19 Arkansas 4 4 4 0 0 4 1 4 21 California 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32 Colorado 4 0 3 3 0 2 0 4 16 Connecticut 4 4 4 1 3 3 1 4 24 Delaware 4 4 3 1 0 4 0 4 20 District of Columbia 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32 Florida 4 4 4 1 1 2 1 4 21 Georgia 4 4 4 4 0 4 1 4 25 Hawaii 4 4 4 0 0 2 1 0 15 Idaho ------Illinois 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 28 Indiana 4 4 4 0 0 4 1 4 21 Iowa ------Kansas 4 2 4 0 0 2 0 4 16 Kentucky 4 4 3 0 0 2 0 4 17 Louisiana 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 4 27 Maine 4 4 4 1 3 2 0 4 22 Maryland 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 30 Massachusetts 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 29 Michigan 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 4 13 Minnesota 4 4 4 0 0 4 0 2 18 Mississippi 3 4 4 1 0 3 1 4 20 Missouri 4 1 4 4 4 2 0 4 23 Montana 3 4 3 0 0 2 0 0 12 Nebraska 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 29 Nevada 4 4 4 4 0 4 0 0 20 New Hampshire 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 29 New Jersey 3 2 4 0 0 0 1 4 14 New Mexico 4 2 4 0 0 4 0 2 16 New York 4 4 4 0 0 3 4 4 23 North Carolina 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 29 North Dakota 4 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 16 Ohio 1 0 4 0 0 0 4 4 13 Oklahoma 1 4 2 0 0 4 1 4 16 Oregon 3 4 3 0 0 2 0 3 15 Pennsylvania 4 4 1 0 0 2 1 4 16 Rhode Island 1 2 4 0 3 2 0 4 16 South Carolina 4 4 4 4 0 4 0 4 24 South Dakota 4 4 4 4 0 1 0 0 17 Tennessee 1 4 3 0 1 2 1 4 16 Texas 1 0 4 4 4 4 3 4 24 Utah 3 2 3 0 0 3 4 0 15 Vermont 3 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 28 Virginia 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 29 Washington 4 2 3 0 0 3 1 4 17 West Virginia 4 4 4 4 3 4 0 4 27 Wisconsin 4 4 4 1 4 3 0 4 24 Wyoming 4 4 2 0 0 2 0 2 14

131 Table A2. Ratings for Section B: Organization of the Standards

1. 2. 3. Total State Organized grade by grade Based on categories Higher- and lower-level (out of 12) or in clusters from research skills sorted Alabama 4 4 4 12 Alaska 4 1 1 6 Arizona 4 4 4 12 Arkansas 4 4 0 8 California 4 4 4 12 Colorado 4 3 4 11 Connecticut 4 3 4 11 Delaware 4 3 4 11 District of Columbia 4 3 4 11 Florida 4 4 4 12 Georgia 4 4 1 9 Hawaii 4 3 4 11 Idaho - - - - Illinois 4 4 4 12 Indiana 4 1 0 5 Iowa - - - - Kansas 4 3 3 10 Kentucky 4 4 0 8 Louisiana 4 3 4 11 Maine 4 4 1 9 Maryland 4 4 4 12 Massachusetts 4 3 4 11 Michigan 4 1 1 6 Minnesota 4 3 4 11 Mississippi 4 3 3 10 Missouri 4 1 1 6 Montana 4 4 3 11 Nebraska 4 4 4 12 Nevada 4 4 4 12 New Hampshire 4 3 0 7 New Jersey 4 3 1 8 New Mexico 4 0 4 8 New York 4 1 4 9 North Carolina 4 1 3 8 North Dakota 4 3 4 11 Ohio 4 3 4 11 Oklahoma 4 3 1 8 Oregon 4 4 4 12 Pennsylvania 4 4 4 12 Rhode Island 4 0 0 4 South Carolina 4 4 4 12 South Dakota 4 4 3 11 Tennessee 4 4 0 8 Texas 4 4 4 12 Utah 4 3 4 11 Vermont 1 1 1 3 Virginia 4 4 4 12 Washington 4 4 4 12 West Virginia 4 3 0 7 Wisconsin 4 4 4 12 Wyoming 4 3 3 10 To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1997, at which time they were reviewed and graded by Dr. Stotsky. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

132 Table A3. Ratings for Section C: Disciplinary Coverage

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Total State Listening and Reading Literature Writing Language Language Research speaking conventions (out of 28) Alabama 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 26 Alaska 1 3 1 4 1 0 3 13 Arizona 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 22 Arkansas 3 3 1 1 1 0 3 12 California 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 27 Colorado 1 3 1 3 4 0 3 15 Connecticut 1 3 3 1 1 0 4 13 Delaware 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 24 District of Columbia 4 4 3 4 4 0 4 23 Florida 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 25 Georgia 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 25 Hawaii 3 1 3 4 1 0 3 15 Idaho ------Illinois 4 4 3 4 4 1 4 24 Indiana 4 1 0 0 1 0 1 7 Iowa ------Kansas 0 3 1 4 1 0 0 9 Kentucky 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 11 Louisiana 1 3 3 4 4 0 4 19 Maine 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 25 Maryland 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 27 Massachusetts 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 25 Michigan 0 3 3 3 3 1 1 14 Minnesota 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 7 Mississippi 4 4 3 1 4 1 3 20 Missouri 4 3 1 1 1 0 3 13 Montana 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 7 Nebraska 4 4 3 4 1 0 4 20 Nevada 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 26 New Hampshire 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 18 New Jersey 1 1 1 3 3 0 1 10 New Mexico 4 3 3 4 4 1 4 23 New York 4 3 3 4 4 0 4 22 North Carolina 1 4 3 4 4 3 4 23 North Dakota 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 Ohio 3 3 3 4 4 1 3 21 Oklahoma 1 4 3 3 0 1 4 16 Oregon 1 1 1 3 3 0 1 10 Pennsylvania 4 4 1 4 1 3 4 21 Rhode Island 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 6 South Carolina 4 3 3 4 4 1 4 23 South Dakota 4 4 3 4 4 1 4 24 Tennessee 3 3 0 3 3 0 1 13 Texas 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 24 Utah 4 3 3 4 4 0 3 21 Vermont 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 12 Virginia 4 4 3 4 1 1 3 20 Washington 4 3 1 4 4 0 3 19 West Virginia 4 4 3 4 4 1 1 21 Wisconsin 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 27 Wyoming 3 3 1 4 1 0 1 13 To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1997, at which time they were reviewed and graded by Dr. Stotsky. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

133 Table A4. Ratings for Section D: Quality of the Standards

1. 2. 3. 4. 5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 6. Total State Clear Specific Measurable Comprehensive Complexity Reading Writing Other Common Level level examples core (out of 36) Alabama 4 3 3 4 3 3 0 1 3 24 Alaska 4 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 14 Arizona 4 4 4 3 3 0 0 4 3 25 Arkansas 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 10 California 4 4 4 3 4 1 0 0 3 23 Colorado 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 14 Connecticut 4 1 1 1 1 4 0 4 1 17 Delaware 4 4 3 3 3 4 0 1 3 25 District of Columbia 4 4 4 3 4 4 0 1 4 28 Florida 4 4 3 3 3 0 0 4 3 24 Georgia 4 4 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 20 Hawaii 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 8 Idaho ------Illinois 4 4 4 3 3 0 0 1 3 22 Indiana 4 1 1 0 0 4 0 4 0 14 Iowa ------Kansas 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 9 Kentucky 4 3 4 0 1 0 0 1 3 16 Louisiana 4 3 4 3 1 1 4 4 3 27 Maine 4 4 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 20 Maryland 3 4 4 3 4 0 0 0 3 21 Massachusetts 4 4 4 3 3 4 0 4 3 29 Michigan 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 Minnesota 4 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 Mississippi 3 3 3 1 1 4 0 4 1 20 Missouri 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 10 Montana 3 1 1 1 1 4 0 1 1 13 Nebraska 4 4 4 3 3 4 0 0 3 25 Nevada 4 4 4 3 3 0 0 1 3 22 New Hampshire 4 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 11 New Jersey 3 3 3 1 1 4 0 1 3 19 New Mexico 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 4 1 14 New York 4 4 4 3 3 1 1 3 3 26 North Carolina 4 4 4 3 3 0 0 1 1 20 North Dakota 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 Ohio 1 3 1 3 3 0 0 1 3 15 Oklahoma 4 3 3 3 3 0 0 1 3 20 Oregon 4 4 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 14 Pennsylvania 4 4 4 3 3 0 0 1 3 22 Rhode Island 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 South Carolina 4 3 3 3 3 0 0 1 3 20 South Dakota 4 4 3 3 3 0 0 1 1 19 Tennessee 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 Texas 4 4 4 3 3 0 0 0 3 21 Utah 4 4 3 3 3 0 0 3 1 21 Vermont 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 10 Virginia 4 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 19 Washington 4 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 15 West Virginia 4 4 4 3 3 1 0 1 3 23 Wisconsin 4 4 4 3 3 0 1 1 3 23 Wyoming 4 4 4 1 1 4 0 0 1 19 To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1997, at which time they were reviewed and graded by Dr. Stotsky. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

134 Table A5. Ratings for Section E: Anti-Literary or Anti-Academic Requirements or Expectations*

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Total State Culture considered One's life to Literature to Texts seen as Bias present Dogma and Specific to have single be read into be chosen for having no limits in the examples generalizations pedagogy man- (out of 28) "perspective" literary texts social issues to interpretations offered taught dated Alabama 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 Alaska 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 Arizona 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 California 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colorado 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 12 Connecticut 0 0 1 4 0 1 3 9 Delaware 1 4 4 4 0 1 0 14 District of Columbia 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Florida 1 4 0 1 0 1 1 8 Georgia 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Hawaii 4 0 0 1 0 4 4 13 Idaho 0 4 4 0 0 1 4 13 Illinois 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Indiana 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 Iowa ------Kansas 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 Kentucky 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 8 Louisiana 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Maine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maryland 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 6 Massachusetts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Michigan 4 4 4 1 0 0 0 13 Minnesota 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Mississippi 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 Missouri 4 4 0 1 0 0 3 12 Montana 1 4 3 1 0 3 3 15 Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Hampshire 0 4 0 3 0 1 1 9 New Jersey 1 4 0 0 0 1 4 10 New Mexico 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 New York 4 4 1 0 1 0 0 10 North Carolina 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 6 North Dakota 1 4 0 1 0 1 0 7 Ohio 1 4 1 1 0 1 4 12 Oklahoma 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Oregon 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhode Island 0 4 4 1 0 0 4 13 South Carolina 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Tennessee 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 Texas 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 7 Utah 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 7 Vermont 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 5 Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington 4 4 4 0 1 0 0 13 West Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wisconsin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* These negative criteria are rated in the same way as the other criteria are rated: "no," "to some extent," "for the most part," or "yes." But the totals are interpreted in the opposite way. Those states receiving the highest totals are the "worst": Their standards documents contain the most anti-literary or anti-academic requirements or expectations. Those states receiving the lowest totals are the "best": Their standards documents contain few or no anti-literary or anti-academic requirements or expectations.

135 Table A6: English Language Arts Summary Table*

Totals for Totals for Totals for Totals for Totals for Totals for Adjusted Final State Section A: Section B:Sections C:Section D:A, B, C & D Section E: Final Sum Score Percentage Purposes and Organization Disciplinary Quality of the Negative (Sum plus 10 (Out of 108) Grade Expectations of the Coverage Standards Criteria points for having Standards standards) Alabama 31 12 26 24 93 2 91 101 93.5% A Alaska 16 6 13 14 49 5 44 54 50.0% F Arizona 19 12 22 25 78 1 77 87 80.6% B Arkansas 21 8 12 10 51 0 51 61 56.5% D California 32 12 27 23 94 0 94 104 96.3% A Colorado 16 11 15 14 56 12 44 54 50.0% F Connecticut 24 11 13 17 65 9 56 66 61.1% D Delaware 20 11 24 25 80 14 66 76 70.4% C District of Columbia 32 11 23 28 94 4 90 100 92.6% A Florida 21 12 25 24 82 8 74 84 77.8% B Georgia 25 9 25 20 79 1 78 88 81.5% B Hawaii 15 11 15 8 49 13 36 46 42.6% F Idaho ------Illinois 28 12 24 22 86 4 82 92 85.2% B Indiana 21 5 7 14 47 4 43 53 49.1% F Iowa ------.- - Kansas 16 10 9 9 44 5 39 49 45.4% F Kentucky 17 8 11 16 52 8 44 54 50.0% F Louisiana 27 11 19 27 84 4 80 90 83.3% B Maine 22 9 25 20 76 0 76 86 79.6% B Maryland 30 12 27 21 90 6 84 94 87.0% B Massachusetts 29 11 25 29 94 0 94 104 96.3% A Michigan 13 6 14 7 40 13 27 37 34.3% F Minnesota 18 11 7 10 46 1 45 55 50.9% F Mississippi 20 10 20 20 70 5 65 75 69.4% C Missouri 23 6 13 10 52 12 40 50 46.3% F Montana 12 11 7 13 43 15 28 38 35.2% F Nebraska 29 12 20 25 86 0 86 96 88.9% A Nevada 20 12 26 22 80 0 80 90 83.3% B New Hampshire 29 7 18 11 65 9 56 66 61.1% D New Jersey 14 8 10 19 51 10 41 51 47.2% F New Mexico 16 8 23 14 61 3 58 68 63.0% D New York 23 9 22 26 80 10 70 80 74.1% C North Carolina 29 8 23 20 80 6 74 84 77.8% B North Dakota 16 11 6 9 42 7 35 45 41.7% F Ohio 13 11 21 15 60 12 48 58 53.7% D Oklahoma 16 8 16 20 60 4 56 66 61.1% D Oregon 15 12 10 14 51 5 46 56 51.9% F Pennsylvania 16 12 21 22 71 0 71 81 75.0% C Rhode Island 16 4 6 2 28 13 15 25 23.1% F South Carolina 24 12 23 20 79 1 78 88 81.5% B South Dakota 17 11 24 19 71 1 70 80 74.1% C Tennessee 16 8 13 3 40 2 38 48 44.4% F Texas 24 12 24 21 81 7 74 84 77.8% B Utah 15 11 21 21 68 7 61 71 65.7% C Vermont 28 3 12 10 53 5 48 58 53.7% D Virginia 29 12 20 19 80 0 80 90 83.3% B Washington 17 12 19 15 63 13 50 60 55.6% D West Virginia 27 7 21 23 78 0 78 88 81.5% B Wisconsin 24 12 27 23 86 0 86 96 88.9% A Wyoming 14 10 13 19 56 0 56 66 61.1% D * The final sum for a state reflects its totals for sections A,B,C, and D, minus the total for section E. The maximum any state could earn for sections A,B,C, and D together was 108. The maximum negative points a state could earn for section E was 28. Thus, a "perfect" state, earning all possible points for A,B,C and D and none for E, would have a sum of 108. (The points for the negative criteria are subtracted because they represent negative tendencies or features in a standards document and by their nature detract from or counter the positive features in that document.) States with standards were then given 10 additional points simply for having standards, and those adjusted scores (still out of 108 possible points) were converted first to percentages and then to letter grades, using this scale: A: 88-100%; B: 76-87.9%; C: 64-75.9%; D: 52-63.9%; F: 0-51.9%. (We recognize that giving states extra points for having standards may seem strange in 2000 when nearly every state has some. It was justified, however, in 1997 when fewer states had standards. In the interests of consistency and comparability, we chose to use the same grading scale both times.)

136 Appendix B: History Criteria and Detailed Grades

The History standards appraisal employed 15 cri- B. Organization: How are standards organized teria in five categories. To read an explanation of the and linked to state assessments? criteria and other supporting materials, see David 5. Standards are presented on a grade-by-grade Warren Saxe, State History Standards: An Appraisal basis. of History Standards in 37 States and the District of 6. State history tests are (or could be) based on Columbia,February 1998, on-line at www.edexcel- the standards. lence.net. Standards were analyzed by Dr. Saxe. A four- C. Historical Soundness: What is the nature and point rating scale was used: quality of history found in the standards? 7. History is based on chronology. 3 = criterion fully met at each level (elementary, 8. Standards reflect solid, warranted historical middle, high school) knowledge. 2 = criterion met in at least two of three levels 9. History is kept in context and standards avoid 1 = criterion met at only one level presentism. 0 = criterion not met 10. Students are encouraged to develop and apply ? = impossible to tell whether a criterion was met historical skills. (for purposes of scoring, a “?” was the same 11. Students are encouraged to understand and as a zero) use primary and secondary sources.

After raw scores and frequency scores were D. Historical Content: Are specific studies of added, a total of 60 points was available. Raw scores United States, European, and world history are the actual points earned against the 15 criteria. found in the standards? Frequency scores are used to judge how often a state 12. Standards include specific studies in United met or partially met each of the 15 criteria. These States history. were converted to letter grades, which also carry 13. Standards include specific studies in European descriptive values indicating the utility of a state’s and world history. standards. E. Absence of Manipulation: Do standards avoid A = “exemplary” manipulation, bias, indoctrination, and/or B = “notable” inappropriate applications of history? C = “useful” 14. Standards avoid promoting political or social D = “marginally useful” dogma. F = “useless” 15. Standards avoid manipulating student feelings or attitudes. A. Clarity: How well are the standards written? 1. Standards are clear and measurable. 2. Standards describe what is to be taught and learned. 3. Standards are coherent and demanding. 4. Students are expected to learn important and specific facts, events, individuals, and issues.

137 Table B1. Raw Scores for All Criteria

State 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Total Alabama 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 ? ? 34 Alaska 0 1 0 0 1 ? ? 0 ? 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Arizona 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 42 Arkansas 0 1 0 0 0 ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 ? ? 1 California 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 Colorado 0 1 0 1 2 ? 1 0 ? 0 3 1 1 1 1 12 Connecticut 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 ? 3 3 1 1 ? ? 12 Delaware 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 ? ? 3 3 0 0 3 ? 16 District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 Florida 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 ? 3 3 3 3 ? ? 19 Georgia 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 ? 3 ? 3 1 ? ? 20 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Idaho ------Illinois 1 1 1 1 0 ? ? 0 0 3 0 1 1 ? ? 9 Indiana 1 1 1 2 3 ? 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 18 Iowa ------Kansas 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 ? 37 Kentucky 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 ? 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 13 Louisiana 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 ? 3 3 1 1 ? ? 21 Maine 0 2 0 1 3 ? 0 1 ? 2 2 1 0 ? ? 12 Maryland 3 3 3 1 0 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 35 Massachusetts 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 34 Michigan 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 ? 2 2 0 0 ? ? 10 Minnesota 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 ? 1 1 0 0 ? ? 2 Mississippi 2 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 ? 2 2 2 1 1 ? 16 Missouri 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 ? 3 3 2 3 ? ? 23 Montana ------Nebraska 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 ? 3 3 3 2 ? ? 26 Nevada 2 2 3 1 0 3 2 3 2 3 0 2 0 ? ? 23 New Hampshire 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 2 ? 3 1 1 1 ? ? 16 New Jersey 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 New Mexico 0 1 0 0 0 ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 ? ? 1 New York 1 0 ? 1 3 1 1 1 ? 2 1 1 1 0 0 13 North Carolina 0 1 0 0 3 ? 1 1 ? 1 1 1 1 ? ? 10 North Dakota 0 0 1 0 3 0 ? 0 0 3 3 0 0 ? ? 10 Ohio 1 1 1 1 3 ? 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 Oklahoma 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 1 2 2 2 ? ? 31 Oregon 2 3 3 3 0 3 1 1 0 3 1 2 2 2 ? 26 Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhode Island ------South Carolina 0 1 2 1 3 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? ? 16 South Dakota 2 2 3 2 2 0 ? 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 20 Tennessee 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 1 ? 1 2 1 1 ? ? 12 Texas 3 3 3 2 2 3 ? 2 2 3 3 2 1 ? ? 29 Utah 1 1 1 1 3 ? 1 ? 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 14 Vermont 0 0 0 1 0 3 ? ? ? 1 ? 1 0 0 0 6 Virginia 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 44 Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 West Virginia 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? ? 17 Wisconsin 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 ? ? 3 3 0 0 ? ? 8 Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

138 Table B2. Raw Scores Grouped by Cluster

Clarity Organization History US/World Absence of Total Points State (Max=12) (Max=6) (Max=15) Content Manipulation (Max=6) (Max=6) (Max=45) Alabama 10 6 13 5 0 34 Alaska 1 2 0 0 0 3 Arizona 12 3 15 6 6 42 Arkansas 1 0 0 0 0 1 California 12 6 15 6 6 45 Colorado 2 2 4 2 2 12 Connecticut 4 0 6 2 0 12 Delaware 2 3 8 0 3 16 District of Columbia 0 0 6 0 0 6 Florida 5 2 6 6 0 19 Georgia 7 3 6 4 0 20 Hawaii 0 1 0 0 0 1 Idaho ------Illinois 1 0 3 2 0 9 Indiana 5 3 5 3 2 18 Iowa ------Kansas 12 5 12 6 2 37 Kentucky 1 4 6 2 0 13 Louisiana 4 4 11 2 0 21 Maine 3 3 5 1 0 12 Maryland 10 2 14 5 4 35 Massachusetts 8 4 12 6 4 34 Michigan 3 3 4 0 0 10 Minnesota 0 0 2 0 0 2 Mississippi 4 4 4 3 1 16 Missouri 9 3 6 5 0 23 Montana ------Nebraska 12 3 6 5 0 26 Nevada 8 3 10 2 0 23 New Hampshire 4 2 8 2 0 16 New Jersey 0 2 2 2 0 6 New Mexico 1 0 0 0 0 1 New York 4 4 7 5 0 20 North Carolina 1 3 6 0 0 10 North Dakota 1 3 6 0 0 10 Ohio 4 3 1 0 2 10 Oklahoma 12 6 9 4 0 31 Oregon 11 3 6 4 2 26 Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhode Island ------South Carolina 4 6 4 2 0 16 South Dakota 9 2 4 3 2 20 Tennessee 1 4 5 2 0 12 Texas 11 5 10 3 0 29 Utah 4 3 4 2 1 14 Vermont 1 3 1 1 0 6 Virginia 12 6 14 6 6 44 Washington 0 0 4 0 0 4 West Virginia 5 5 5 2 0 17 Wisconsin 1 1 6 0 0 8 Wyoming 0 0 1 0 0 1

139 Table B3. State Frequency Scores

STATE (alphetical) (Maximum Score = 15) Alabama 13 Alaska 3 Arizona 15 Arkansas 1 California 15 Colorado 9 Connecticut 6 Delaware 7 District of Columbia 2 Florida 7 Georgia 11 Hawaii 1 Idaho - Illinois 7 Indiana 14 Iowa - Kansas 14 Kentucky 7 Louisiana 12 Maine 7 Maryland 14 Massachusetts 15 Michigan 5 Minnesota 2 Mississippi 10 Missouri 8 Montana - Nebraska 9 Nevada 10 New Hampshire 10 New Jersey 5 New Mexico 1 New York 12 North Carolina 8 North Dakota 4 Ohio 8 Oklahoma 12 Oregon 12 Pennsylvania 0 Rhode Island - South Carolina 11 South Dakota 11 Tennessee 9 Texas 12 Utah 12 Vermont 4 Virginia 15 Washington 3 West Virginia 13 Wisconsin 3 Wyoming 1

140 Table B4: Rank Order of States by Final Grade

State (in rank order) Raw + Frequency = Total Score Final Grade*Final Sum Utility

California 45 + 15 = 60 A Exemplary Virginia 44 + 15 = 59 A Exemplary Arizona 42 + 15 = 57 A Exemplary Kansas 37 + 14 = 51 B Notable Maryland 35 + 14 = 49 B Notable Massachusetts 34 + 15 = 49 B Notable Alabama 34 + 13 = 47 B Notable Oklahoma 31 + 12 = 43 B Notable Texas 29 + 12 = 41 B Notable Oregon 26 + 12 = 38 B Notable Nebraska 26 + 9 = 35 C Useful Louisiana 21 + 12 = 33 C Useful Nevada 23 + 10 = 33 C Useful Indiana 18 +14 = 32 C Useful Georgia 20 + 11 = 31 C Useful Missouri 23 + 8 = 31 C Useful South Dakota 20 + 11 = 31 C Useful West Virginia 17 +13 = 30 C Useful South Carolina 16 + 11 = 27 C Useful Florida 19 + 7 = 26 C Useful Mississippi 16 + 10 = 26 C Useful New Hampshire 16 + 10 = 26 C Useful Utah 14 + 12 = 26 C Useful New York 13 + 12 = 25 D Marginally Useful Delaware 16 + 7 = 23 D Marginally Useful Colorado 12 + 9 = 21 D Marginally Useful Tennessee 12 + 9 = 21 D Marginally Useful Kentucky 13 + 7 = 20 D Marginally Useful Maine 12 + 7 = 19 D Marginally Useful Connecticut 12 + 6 = 18 D Marginally Useful North Carolina 10 + 8 = 18 D Marginally Useful Ohio 10 + 8 = 18 D Marginally Useful Illinois 9 + 7 = 16 F Useless North Dakota 10 + 4 = 14 F Useless Michigan 10 + 5 = 15 F Useless New Jersey 6 + 5 = 11 F Useless Wisconsin 8 + 3 = 11 F Useless Vermont 6 + 4 = 10 F Useless District of Columbia 6 + 2 = 8 F Useless Washington 4 + 3 = 7 F Useless Alaska 3 + 3 = 6 F Useless Minnesota 2 + 2 = 4 F Useless Arkansas 1 + 1 = 2 F Useless Hawaii 1 + 1 = 2 F Useless New Mexico 1 + 1 = 2 F Useless Wyoming 1 + 1 = 2 F Useless Pennsylvania 0 + 0 = 0 F Useless Idaho - - - Iowa - - - Montana - - - Rhode Island - - -

* Total scores are converted to letter grades using this scale: A: 56-60; B: 36-55; C: 26-34; D: 17-25; F: 0-16. To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1998, at which time they were reviewed and graded by the Foundation and its reviewers. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

141 142 Appendix C: Geography Criteria and Detailed Grades

The geography standards appraisal gave scores for Comprehensiveness and Rigor two categories: 1) general characteristics, and 2) com- Standards were judged in each of three grade clusters prehensiveness and rigor. To read an explanation of (Pre-K-4, 5-8, and 9-12) for the comprehensiveness the criteria and other supporting materials, see Susan and rigor with which they present the essential con- Munroe and Terry Smith, State Geography Standards: tent, skills, and applications of geography and for their An Appraisal of Geography Standards in 38 States overall organization. Evaluators used the same criteria and the District of Columbia,February 1998, on-line for each grade cluster but looked for increasingly at www.edexcellence.net. advanced material as they progressed to higher grades.

General Characteristics Geography Content (Five Criteria) Standards were first judged against six general 1. The World in Spatial Terms (fundamentals of criteria that are not specific to geography but con- geography): characteristics and uses of maps tribute to the likelihood that standards will be under- (including mental maps) and other geographic stood and used. representations, tools, and technologies; knowledge of Earth to locate people, places, and envi- 1. Standards are clearly written and jargon-free. ronments; knowledge of geographic vocabulary 2. Standards are specific regarding the knowl- and concepts necessary for analysis of spatial edge and skills students must learn and use. organization of people, places, and environments 3. Standards are balanced such that they do not on Earth’s surface. attempt to sway students towards any particu- 2. Places and Regions:the physical and human char- lar moral or social point of view. acteristics of places; the fact that people create 4. Standards employ strong verbs such as ana- regions to interpret Earth’s complexity; the way lyze, compare, demonstrate, describe, evalu- culture and experience influence people’s percep- ate, explain, identify, illustrate, locate, make, tions of places and regions. trace, utilize, etc. 3. Physical Systems:the physical processes that 5. Standards incorporate benchmarks—specific shape the patterns of Earth’s surface; the charac- activities by which students may demonstrate teristics and distribution of ecosystems on Earth’s their mastery of the standard. surface. 6. Standards offer guidance to teachers in devel- 4. Human Systems:the characteristics, distribution, oping curriculum activities, classroom materi- and migration of human populations; the charac- als, and instructional methods. teristics, distribution, and complexity of Earth’s cultures; the patterns and networks of economic Scoring Rubric for General Characteristics interdependence; the processes, patterns, and We developed a four-point scale to appraise these six functions of human settlement; the way forces of general characteristics within each state’s standards. A cooperation and conflict among people influence scale of 0-3 measured the frequency of occurrence of the division and control of Earth’s surface. each desired characteristic: 5. Environment and Society:the way human actions 0 = the standards virtually neverembody the modify the physical environment; the way physi- desired characteristic cal systems affect human systems; the changes 1 = the standards sometimes embody the desired that occur in the meaning, use, distribution, and characteristic importance of resources. 2 = the standards often embody the desired characteristic Geography Skills (One Criterion) 3 = the standards nearly alwaysembody the 1. Skills of Geographic Analysis (higher order use of desired characteristic basic geography knowledge):asking and answer- (18 = maximum score) ing geographic questions; acquiring, organizing, analyzing, and presenting geographic information; developing and testing geographic generalizations.

143 Geography Applications (One Criterion) Scoring Rubric for Comprehensiveness and Rigor 1. Applications of Geography: applying geographic These eight criteria were scored on a scale of 0-3 that perspectives to interpret the past and the present, gives a general estimate of the quantity and quality of and to plan for the future. geography content, skills, applications, and organization. Overall Organization (One Criterion) 0 = Essential material is not covered 1. Overall Organization:presentation of a continu- 1 = Essential material is partially covered um of content knowledge, skills, and applications 2 = Essential material is mostly covered within the grade cluster. 3 = Essential material is very wellcovered (24 = maximum score for each grade cluster; 72 = maximum score for comprehensiveness and rigor.)

144 Table C1. Scoring Summary

State COMPREHENSIVENESS & RIGOR General Grade Characteristics Grades K-4 Grades 5-8 Grades 9-12 Total Score Final Score* Alabama 16.0 22.0 21.0 11.0 54.0 70.0 B Alaska 15.0 21.0 14.0 14.0 49.0 64.0 C Arizona 16.0 18.0 22.0 22.0 62.0 78.0 B Arkansas 9.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 14.0 23.0 F California 13.0 18.0 19.0 16.0 53.0 66.0 C Colorado 18.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 72.0 90.0 A Connecticut 11.0 17.0 14.0 10.0 41.0 52.0 D Delaware 17.0 18.0 12.0 17.0 47.0 64.0 C District of Columbia 17.0 20.0 22.0 22.0 64.0 81.0 A Florida 18.0 17.0 20.0 17.5 54.5 72.5 B Georgia 18.0 12.0 15.0 13.0 40.0 58.0 D Hawaii 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 24.0 33.0 F Idaho ------Illinois 11.0 15.5 11.5 13.5 40.5 51.5 D Indiana 17.5 22.5 22.0 23.0 67.5 85.0 A Iowa ------Kansas 18.0 21.0 20.0 21.0 62.0 80.0 A Kentucky 10.0 8.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 40.0 F Louisiana 18.0 21.0 24.0 20.0 65.0 83.0 A Maine 14.0 7.0 5.0 4.5 16.5 30.5 F Maryland 17.0 18.0 17.0 18.0 53.0 70.0 B Massachusetts 14.0 12.0 12.5 11.5 36.0 50.0 D Michigan 17.5 21.0 21.0 19.5 61.5 79.0 B Minnesota 9.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 13.0 22.0 F Mississippi 14.0 10.0 13.0 16.0 39.0 53.0 D Missouri 15.0 18.0 18.0 19.0 55.0 70.0 B Montana ------Nebraska 12.0 9.0 9.0 13.0 31.0 43.0 F Nevada 14.0 18.0 21.0 16.0 55.0 69.0 C New Hampshire 14.5 21.5 20.5 19.5 61.5 76.0 B New Jersey 16.0 13.0 11.0 10.0 34.0 50.0 D New Mexico 13.0 10.0 8.5 9.5 28.0 41.0 F New York 15.0 13.0 15.0 15.0 43.0 58.0 D North Carolina 16.0 16.5 15.0 17.5 49.0 65.0 C North Dakota 7.0 8.0 11.0 10.0 29.0 36.0 F Ohio 14.0 14.0 14.5 11.5 40.0 54.0 D Oklahoma 13.0 11.0 18.0 20.0 49.0 62.0 C Oregon 11.0 6.0 13.0 12.0 31.0 42.0 F Pennsylvania ------Rhode Island ------South Carolina 16.0 20.0 24.0 23.0 67.0 83.0 A South Dakota 14.0 9.0 19.0 20.0 48.0 62.0 C Tennessee 9.5 10.5 9.5 10.5 30.5 40.0 F Texas 16.0 18.5 22.0 24.0 64.5 80.5 A Utah 15.5 13.0 15.0 23.0 51.0 66.5 C Vermont 8.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 20.0 28.0 F Virginia 15.5 15.0 12.0 16.5 43.5 59.0 D Washington 8.5 9.0 7.5 9.0 25.5 34.0 F West Virginia 16.5 16.5 21.5 17.5 55.5 72.0 B Wisconsin 5.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 26.0 31.0 F Wyoming 13.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 13.0 26.0 F Max. Possible =18 Max. Possible =24 Max. Possible =24 Max. Possible =24 Max. Possible =72 Max. Possible =90 * Final scores are converted to letter grades using this scale: A: 80-90; B: 70-79; C: 60-69; D: 50-59; F: 0-49. To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1998, at which time they were reviewed and graded by the Foundation and its reviewers. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

145 Table C2. General Characteristics of Standards (Maximum Possible = 18)

State Clearly Written Specificity Balanced Strong Verbs Benchmarks Guidance State Totals Alabama 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 16.0 Alaska 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 15.0 Arizona 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 16.0 Arkansas 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 9.0 California 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 13.0 Colorado 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 18.0 Connecticut 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 11.0 Delaware 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 17.0 District of Columbia 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 17.0 Florida 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 18.0 Georgia 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 18.0 Hawaii 3.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 9.0 Idaho ------Illinois 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 11.0 Indiana 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 17.5 Iowa ------Kansas 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 18.0 Kentucky 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 Louisiana 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 18.0 Maine 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 0.5 14.0 Maryland 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 17.0 Massachusetts 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 14.0 Michigan 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 17.5 Minnesota 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 Mississippi 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 14.0 Missouri 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 15.0 Montana ------Nebraska 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 Nevada 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 14.0 New Hampshire 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 3.0 14.5 New Jersey 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 16.0 New Mexico 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 13.0 New York 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 15.0 North Carolina 2.5 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 16.0 North Dakota 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 7.0 Ohio 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 14.0 Oklahoma 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 13.0 Oregon 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 11.0 Pennsylvania ------Rhode Island ------South Carolina 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 16.0 South Dakota 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 14.0 Tennessee 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 9.5 Texas 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 16.0 Utah 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 15.5 Vermont 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 8.0 Virginia 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 15.5 Washington 2.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 8.5 West Virginia 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 16.5 Wisconsin 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 Wyoming 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 13.0 Average 2.61 2.02 2.68 2.65 1.85 1.99 13.80

146 Table C3: Comprehensiveness and Rigor, Grades K-4 (Maximum Possible = 24)

Spatial Places Physical Human Env. & Skills ApplicationsOrganization State Total Terms & Regions Ststems Systems Society Alabama 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 22.0 Alaska 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 21.0 Arizona 3.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 18.0 Arkansas 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 California 3.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 18.0 Colorado 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 24.0 Connecticut 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 17.0 Delaware 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 18.0 District of Columbia 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 20.0 Florida 3.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 17.0 Georgia 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 12.0 Hawaii 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 8.0 Idaho ------Illinois 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 0.5 1.0 3.0 15.5 Indiana 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 22.5 Iowa ------Kansas 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 21.0 Kentucky 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 Louisiana 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 21.0 Maine 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 7.0 Maryland 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 18.0 Massachusetts 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 12.0 Michigan 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 21.0 Minnesota 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Mississippi 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 10.0 Missouri 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 18.0 Montana ------Nebraska 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 9.0 Nevada 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 18.0 New Hampshire 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 21.5 New Jersey 3.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 13.0 New Mexico 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 New York 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 13.0 North Carolina 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 16.5 North Dakota 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 Ohio 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 3.0 14.0 Oklahoma 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 11.0 Oregon 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 6.0 Pennsylvania ------Rhode Island ------South Carolina 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 20.0 South Dakota 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 9.0 Tennessee 2.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 2.5 .5 .5 1.5 10.5 Texas 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 3.0 18.5 Utah 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 13.0 Vermont 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Virginia 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 15.0 Washington 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 9.0 West Virginia 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 3.0 1.0 3.0 16.5 Wisconsin 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 Wyoming 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 AAverage 2.37 1.78 1.20 1.78 1.79 1.83 1.22 2.15 14.12 Average 2.44 1.78 0.96 1.81 1.7 1.93 1.11 2.07 13.81 To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1998, at which time they were reviewed and graded by the Foundation and its reviewers. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

147 Table C4: Comprehensiveness and Rigor, Grades 5-8 (Maximum Possible = 24)

Spatial Places Physical Human Env. & Skills ApplicationsOrganization State Total Terms & Regions Ststems Systems Society Alabama 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 21.00 Alaska 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.0 14.00 Arizona 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 22.00 Arkansas 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 5.00 California 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 19.00 Colorado 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 24.00 Connecticut 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 14.00 Delaware 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 12.00 District of Columbia 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 22.00 Florida 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 20.00 Georgia 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 15.00 Hawaii 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.00 Idaho ------Illinois 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 11.50 Indiana 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 22.00 Iowa ------Kansas 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 20.00 Kentucky 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.00 Louisiana 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 24.00 Maine 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.00 Maryland 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 17.00 Massachusetts 2.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 12.50 Michigan 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 21.00 Minnesota 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 5.00 Mississippi 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 13.00 Missouri 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 18.00 Montana ------Nebraska 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 9.00 Nevada 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 21.00 New Hampshire 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 20.50 New Jersey 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 11.00 New Mexico 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 8.50 New York 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 15.00 North Carolina 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 15.00 North Dakota 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 11.00 Ohio 3.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 3.0 14.50 Oklahoma 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 18.00 Oregon 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 13.00 Pennsylvania ------Rhode Island ------South Carolina 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 24.00 South Dakota 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 19.00 Tennessee 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 9.50 Texas 2.5 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 22.00 Utah 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 3.0 15.00 Vermont 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 7.00 Virginia 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.5 1.0 3.0 12.00 Washington 1.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 7.50 West Virginia 3.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 21.50 Wisconsin 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.00 Wyoming 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.00 Average 1.98 1.87 1.48 2.11 1.84 1.86 1.64 2.04 14.86

148 Table C5: Comprehensiveness and Rigor, Grades 9-12 (Maximum Possible = 24)

Spatial Places Physical Human Env. & Skills ApplicationsOrganization State Total Terms & Regions Ststems Systems Society Alabama 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 11.0 Alaska 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.0 14.0 Arizona 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 22.0 Arkansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 California 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 16.0 Colorado 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 24.0 Connecticut 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 10.0 Delaware 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 17.0 District of Columbia 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 22.0 Florida 2.5 3.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 17.5 Georgia 1.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 13.0 Hawaii 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 Idaho ------Illinois 1.5 0.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 13.5 Indiana 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 23.0 Iowa ------Kansas 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 21.0 Kentucky 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 12.0 Louisiana 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 20.0 Maine 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 4.5 Maryland 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 18.0 Massachusetts 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 11.5 Michigan 1.0 3.0 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 19.5 Minnesota 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Mississippi 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 16.0 Missouri 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 19.0 Montana ------Nebraska 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 13.0 Nevada 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 16.0 New Hampshire 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 19.5 New Jersey 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 10.0 New Mexico 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 9.5 New York 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 15.0 North Carolina 1.5 2.5 0.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 17.5 North Dakota 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 Ohio 1.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 3.0 11.5 Oklahoma 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 20.0 Oregon 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 12.0 Pennsylvania ------Rhode Island ------South Carolina 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 23.0 South Dakota 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 20.0 Tennessee 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 10.5 Texas 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 24.0 Utah 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 23.0 Vermont 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 7.0 Virginia 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 16.5 Washington 0.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 9.0 West Virginia 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 17.5 Wisconsin 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 9.0 Wyoming 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 Average 1.51 1.91 1.34 1.98 1.77 2.10 2.07 2.07 14.74

149 150 Appendix D: Mathematics Criteria and Detailed Grades

The math standards appraisal employed nine indi- II. Content:is the state asking K-12 instruction in cators in four groups. To read an explanation of the mathematics to contain the right things, and in the criteria and other supporting materials, see Ralph A. right amount and pacing? Raimi and Lawrence S. Braden, State Mathematics A.Adequacy of primary school content (K-6, Standards: An Appraisal of Math Standards in 46 approximately) States, the District of Columbia, and Japan,March B.Adequacy of middle school content (grades 7- 1998, on-line at www.edexcellence.net. 9, approximately) There are nine scores (of 0 to 4) for each state, but C.Adequacy of secondary school content (grades for evaluation purposes there are but four Categories, 10-12, approximately) I, II, III, and IV (as described below), for each of which an average is struck before the four averages III. Mathematical Reasoning:do the standards as a are added for a total score for the state. That is, we are whole and throughout demand attention to the weighting equally each of the criteria—Clarity, structural organization by which the parts of Content, Reason, and Negative Qualities—even mathematics are connected to each other? though some are split into more subheads than others. Thus, 16 is the highest possible total score. IV. Negative Qualities:the presence of unfortunate The grading for Negative Qualities might seem a features of the document that injure its intent or bit curious, grades of 4 being awarded for the absence alienate the reader to no good purpose or, if taken of False Doctrine, or of Inflation, and 0 for those seriously, will tend to cause that reader to deviate states having the most; but, since a total score was from what otherwise good, clear advice the docu- needed for computing the final grade of A, B, C, D, or ment contains. F, it seemed convenient to scale negations positively, A.False Doctrine: Demands in the standards that in order to be able to use additions only to arrive at a are injurious to the correct transmission of total. Otherwise some states would have ended with mathematical information, including: exces- negative scores. sive reliance on calculators, excessive emphases on “real-world problems,” the fash- I. Clarity: the success the document has in achiev- ionable notion that a mathematical question ing its own purpose. may have a multitude of different valid A.The words and sentences themselves must be answers, as well as the occurrence of plain understandable, syntactically unambiguous, mathematical error. and without needless jargon. B.Inflation: Bloated or pretentious prose, repeti- B.What the language says should be mathemati- tiousness, evidence of mathematical igno- cally and pedagogically definite, leaving no rance, bureaucratic jargon, empty pronounce- doubt of what the inner and outer boundaries ments, and other irrelevancies. are, of what is being asked of the student or teacher. C.Testability of the lessons as described.

151 Table D1. Numerical Ratings for the States

STATE CLARITY CONTENT REASON NEG. QUALITIES TOTAL GRADE*

Language Reference Testability Elem. Middle Second. Reasoning Abs. of False Doctrine Abs. of Inflation Out of 16 I (A) I (B) I (C) II(A) II (B) II (C) III IV (A) IV (B) Alabama 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 3 4 AL (avg.) 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.5 11.5 B Alaska 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 3 2 AK (avg.) 1.7 0.7 1.0 2.5 5.9 D Arizona 2 3 3 4 4 4 2 4 3 AZ (avg.) 2.7 4.0 2.0 3.5 12.2 B Arkansas 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 3 AR (avg.) 1.3 1.7 1.0 1.5 5.5 D California 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 CA (avg.) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 A Colorado 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 CO (avg.) 0.7 1.7 1.0 2.0 5.4 D Connecticut 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 CT (avg.) 0.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.7 D Delaware 4 3 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 DE (avg.) 3.3 2.3 1.0 2.5 9.1 C District of Columbia 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 2 2 DC (avg.) 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 B Florida 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 FL (avg.) 1.3 1.7 1.0 1.5 5.5 D Georgia 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 GA (avg.) 3.7 3.0 2.0 3.5 12.2 B Hawaii 3 1 2 2 3 1 0 3 4 HI (avg.) 2.0 2.0 0.0 3.5 7.5 C Idaho ------ID (avg.) ------Illinois 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 IL (avg.) 1.3 2.0 1.0 2.5 6.8 D Indiana 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 4 IN (avg.) 3.3 2.0 1.0 3.0 9.3 C Iowa ------IA (avg.) ------Kansas 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 KS (avg.) 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.5 14.9 A Kentucky 3 2 3 4 4 2 2 3 3 KY (avg.) 2.7 3.3 2.0 3.0 11.0 B Louisiana 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 LA (avg.) 2.0 0.7 0.0 1.0 3.7 F Maine 1 0 2 1 2 2 0 2 3 ME (avg.) 1.0 1.7 0.0 2.5 5.2 D Maryland 4 1 3 3 3 2 1 2 4 MD (avg.) 2.7 2.7 1.0 3.0 9.4 C Massachusetts 3 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 MA (avg.) 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 5.5 D Michigan 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 MI (avg.) 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 F Minnesota 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 0 MN (avg.) 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.5 3.2 F Mississippi 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 MS (avg.) 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 13.0 A Missouri 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 MO (avg.) 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 F

* Final scores are converted to letter grades using this scale: A: 13-16; B: 10-12.9; C: 7-9.9; D: 4-6.9; F: 0-3.9. To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1998, at which time they were reviewed and graded by the Foundation and its reviewers. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

152 Numerical Ratings for the States (continued)

STATE CLARITY CONTENT REASON NEG. QUALITIES TOTAL GRADE*

Language Reference Testability Elem. Middle Second. Reasoning Abs. of False Doctrine Abs. of Inflation Out of 16 I (A) I (B) I (C) II(A) II (B) II (C) III IV (A) IV (B) Montana 2 0 2 2 2 1 0 4 3 MT (avg.) 1.3 1.7 0.0 3.5 6.5 D Nebraska 2 2 2 4 4 0 0 3 3 NE (avg.) 2.0 2.7 0.0 3.0 7.7 C Nevada 4 4 4 4 2 1 1 2 2 NV (avg.) 4.0 2.3 1.0 2.0 9.3 C New Hampshire 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 4 NH (avg.) 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 8.0 C New Jersey 2 1 3 3 4 1 2 2 3 NJ (avg.) 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.5 9.2 C New Mexico 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 NM (avg.) 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 2.5 F New York 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 4 4 NY (avg.) 1.7 2.7 2.0 4.0 10.4 B North Carolina 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 NC (avg.) 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.5 13.9 A North Dakota 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 3 3 ND (avg.) 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 D Ohio 4 2 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 OH (avg.) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 13.5 A Oklahoma 4 3 3 4 4 1 1 2 4 OK (avg.) 3.3 3.0 1.0 3.0 10.3 B Oregon 2 1 1 3 2 1 0 3 2 OR (avg.) 1.3 2.0 0.0 2.5 5.8 D Pennsylvania 3 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 PA (avg.) 1.7 2.3 1.0 2.0 7.0 C Rhode Island 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 RI (avg.) 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 F South Carolina 4 3 2 4 4 2 1 2 4 SC (avg.) 3.0 3.3 1.0 3.0 10.3 B South Dakota 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 SD (avg.) 3.7 4.0 3.0 3.5 14.2 A Tennessee 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 TN (avg.) 0.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 3.3 F Texas 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 4 3 TX (avg.) 3.3 3.0 1.0 3.5 10.8 B Utah 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 UT (avg.) 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 11.7 B Vermont 2 2 1 4 4 2 1 4 3 VT (avg.) 1.7 3.3 1.0 3.5 9.5 C Virginia 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 3 4 VA (avg.) 4.0 2.3 2.0 3.5 11.8 B Washington 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 WA (avg.) 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 2.5 F West Virginia 4 3 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 WV (avg.) 3.3 3.7 2.0 3.5 12.5 B Wisconsin 2 1 2 3 4 1 0 3 3 WI (avg.) 1.7 2.7 0.0 3.0 7.4 C Wyoming 1 0 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 WY (avg.) 1.0 1.7 1.0 2.5 6.2 D

153 154 Appendix E: Science Criteria and Detailed Grades

The science standards appraisal employed 25 cri- 2. They are grouped in categories reflecting the teria in 5 categories. To read an explanation of the cri- fundamental theoretical structures underlying teria and other supporting materials, see Lawrence S. the various sciences. Lerner, State Science Standards: An Appraisal of 3. They pay proper attention to the elementary Science Standards in 36 States,March 1998, on-line skills of simple observation and data gather- at www.edexcellence.net. ing, the interpretation of systematic observa- While numbers can never yield a complete assess- tions, and the design of experiments on the ment of academic standards, the degree to which a basis of a theoretical framework. standard measures up to each criterion is roughly evaluated by means of a four-point scale: C. Coverage and Content 1. The standards address the experimental and 0: The criterion is addressed not at all or in an observational basis of the sciences, and pro- unsatisfactory manner vide for substantial laboratory and/or field 1: The criterion is met spottily or inconsistently experience in the sciences. Replication of 2: The criterion is often or usually met important classical experiments is encouraged. 3: The criterion is met almost always or always, The primacy of evidence over preconception and in a perceptive and thoughtful manner is made clear. 2. The standards stress the importance of clear, Because numbers cannot reflect subtler aspects of unambiguous terminology and rigorous defini- a complex document, we adopted the following sys- tion. Such terms as energy, mass, valence, pH, tem: To each standards document we assigned an ini- genotype, natural selection, cell, metabolism, tial letter grade based entirely on the total numerical continental drift, magnetic reversal, and cos- score. We then considered additional factors that mic background radiation are defined as rigor- might change the letter grade, and altered the grade by ously as possible at the grade level concerned. a maximum of one letter up or down in light of these 3. The standards address such issues as data factors. This alteration affected only three states. analysis, experimental error, reliability of data, and the procedures used to optimize the A. Purpose, expectations, and audience quality of raw information. The stringent cri- 1. The standards document expects students to teria for acceptance of data are made clear. become scientifically literate, at depths appro- 4. The standards expect students to master the priate to their grade levels. techniques of presentation and interpretation 2. The document can serve as the basis for clear of tabular and graphical data at increasingly and reliable statewide assessments of student sophisticated levels. learning and skills acquisition, both theoreti- 5. The standards address the need for systematic, cal and practical. critical interpretation of experimental/observa- 3. The document is clear, complete, and compre- tional data within the framework of accepted hensible to all interested audiences: educators, theory. The continual interplay between data subject experts, policy makers, and the gener- and theory, and the rejection or remeasure- al public. ment of data and modification of theory where 4. The document expects student written work to necessary, are stressed at all grade levels, be presented clearly in Standard English and, commensurate with the students’ degrees of where called for, in acceptable mathematical maturity. The nature and role of scientific rev- language. It expects student oral presentations olutions, and how or when they occur (or do to be clear, well organized, logical, and to the not occur), are part of the curriculum for stu- point. dents sufficiently advanced to appreciate the issues involved. B. Organization 6. The basic underlying principles of all the sci- 1. The standards are presented grade-by-grade or in ences are stressed. Examples include clusters of no more than three to four grade levels. Newton’s laws, conservation laws, and the

155 microscopic/macroscopic connection in 3. They comprehensively cover basic knowledge, physics; the evolution of the universe and the the importance of which is generally agreed structure of its parts (including the solar sys- upon by the scientific community; they are tem) in astronomy; plate tectonics in geology; not, however, encyclopedic. the roles of mass and energy conservation and 4. Standards are demanding: the nature of the chemical bond in chemistry; a. They expect increasing intellectual sophisti- and evolution and the molecular basis of life cation and higher levels of abstraction, as well in biology. At the elementary levels, these as the skills required to deal with increasingly principles may be exemplified by such obser- complex arrays of information, at successively vations as buoyancy, plant tropisms, and the higher educational levels. In light of the tight gross structure of cells. logical structure of the sciences, it is especial- 7. The increasing ability of students to grasp ly important that the standards also expect the abstractions and generalizations is taken into knowledge gained by students to be cumula- account. The broad, less structured knowledge tive, each level building on what has been base laid in the early grades is consistently mastered earlier. and methodically built up on the basis of pro- b. Their overall contents are sufficiently spe- gressively more sophisticated theoretical treat- cific and comprehensive to underlie a com- ment as the students mature. mon core of understanding of science for all 8. The standards emphasize the need to set forth students in all the schools of the state. They the general methodologies of the sciences, but are sufficiently demanding to ensure that this do not oversimplify this need into an artificial common core comprises understanding of the package called “thescientific method.” The basic principles of all the sciences, and of underlying commonalities of the sciences, as their methodologies. well as the distinctions among them, are made clear. E. Negatives 9. The standards consider the two-way relation- 1. The standards must not accept as scientific, or ships between science and technology, and encourage, pseudoscientific or scientifically between science and broader worldviews, and discredited constructs such as quack medical the way that science has helped to shape soci- doctrines (e.g., homeopathy, foot reflexology), ety. The standards stress the fact that science vaguely defined “energy fields” or “auras,” is intellectually satisfying as well as socially creationism and other nonscientific cosmolo- useful. A common interest in science can act gies, UFO visits, astrology, or mysterious “life as a strong unifying force among people who forces.” differ widely in other ways. 2. The standards must not imply that scientific principles are race-, ethnic-, or gender-specif- D. Quality ic, or distort the history of science to promote 1. The standards are unambiguous and appropri- racial-, ethnic-, or gender-based positions. ate; that is, their meaning is straightforward 3. The standards must not confuse science with and to the point. technology. 2. They are specific but flexible; that is, they are 4. The standards must not encourage an antisci- neither so broad as to be vague nor so narrow entific or antitechnological world-view. as to be trivial.

156 Table E1. Summary of Results (Maximum Score = 75)

A. B. C. D. E. Purposes. Organization Coverage Quality Negatives Additional Raw Score Percentage State Expectations & Content factors Grade* & Audience Alabama 8 6 18 10 9 - 51 68% D Alaska ------Arizona 12 9 24 14 12 - 71 95% A Arkansas 6 6 17 8 9 - 46 61% F California 12 9 27 15 12 - 75 100% A Colorado 8 9 18 12 12 - 59 79% D Connecticut 11 9 23 15 12 - 70 93% B Delaware 11 9 27 15 12 - 74 99% A District of Columbia ------Florida 2 5 14 6 10 - 37 49% F Georgia 3 6 13 9 9 - 40 53% F Hawaii 6 8 18 11 12 - 55 73% D Idaho ------Illinois 10 9 22 15 12 - 68 91% B Indiana 12 9 26 15 12 - 74 99% A Iowa ------Kansas 0 3 2 1 1 - 7 9% F Kentucky 10 6 18 14 10 - 58 77% D Louisiana 11 8 19 14 12 - 64 85% C Maine 8 9 16 11 12 - 56 75% D Maryland 8 9 20 7 12 - 56 75% D Massachusetts 12 9 24 15 12 - 72 96% A Michigan 5 7 16 11 12 - 51 68% D Minnesota 11 9 24 15 12 - 71 95% A Mississippi 5 4 7 5 8 - 29 39% F Missouri 9 8 21 14 12 - 64 85% C Montana 6 9 17 7 10 - 49 65% D Nebraska 11 8 26 14 11 - 70 93% B Nevada 9 7 23 14 12 - 65 87% C New Hampshire 7 5 13 6 12 - 43 57% F New Jersey 12 9 23 15 12 - 71 95% A New Mexico 4 5 6 4 12 - 31 41% F New York 8 6 16 9 12 9 60 80% C North Carolina 11 9 26 15 12 - 73 97% A North Dakota 5 5 13 7 11 - 41 55% F Ohio 10 8 25 13 12 - 68 91% B Oklahoma 4 4 9 7 5 - 29 39% F Oregon 12 8 22 15 12 - 69 92% B Pennsylvania ------Rhode Island 12 9 23 15 12 - 71 95% A South Carolina 11 7 26 14 12 - 70 93% B South Dakota 10 8 23 15 12 - 68 91% B 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 Wisconsin 8 7 16 9 12 8 60 80% C Wyoming 3 5 10 1 12 - 31 41% F *Percentages are converted to letter grades using this scale: A: 95-100%; B: 90-94%; C: 80-89%; D: 65-79%; F: 0-65%. To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1998, at which time they were reviewed and graded by the Foundation and its reviewers. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

157 Table E2. Purpose, Expectations, and Audience (Category A: Maximum Score = 12)

Expectations of Basis for Clarity, Completeness, Expectations for State Subtotal Scientific Literacy Assessment Comprehensibility Written & Oral Work Alabama 2 3 1 2 8 Alaska - - - - - Arizona 3 3 3 3 12 Arkansas 2 1 1 2 6 California 3 3 3 3 12 Colorado 3 2 2 1 8 Connecticut 3 3 3 2 11 Delaware 3 3 3 2 11 District of Columbia - - - - - Florida 1 0 1 0 2 Georgia 1 0 1 1 3 Hawaii 3 1 1 1 6 Idaho - - - - - Illinois 3 3 3 1 10 Indiana 3 3 3 3 12 Iowa - - - - - Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 Kentucky 3 3 2 2 10 Louisiana 3 2 3 3 11 Maine 3 2 2 1 8 Maryland 3 1 1 3 8 Massachusetts 3 3 3 3 12 Michigan 1 1 3 0 5 Minnesota 3 3 3 2 11 Mississippi 1 1 1 2 5 Missouri 3 2 3 1 9 Montana 2 1 1 2 6 Nebraska 3 3 3 2 11 Nevada 2 2 3 2 9 New Hampshire 2 2 2 1 7 New Jersey 3 3 3 3 12 New Mexico 1 0 0 3 4 New York 3 2 1 2 8 North Carolina 3 3 3 2 11 North Dakota 1 1 1 2 5 Ohio 3 2 2 3 10 Oklahoma 1 1 0 2 4 Oregon 3 3 3 3 12 Pennsylvania - - - - - Rhode Island 3 3 3 3 12 South Carolina 3 3 3 2 11 South Dakota 3 3 3 1 10 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 1 0 0 2 3 To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1998, at which time they were reviewed and graded by the Foundation and its reviewers. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

158 Table E3. Organization (Category B: Maximum Score = 9)

Clusters of 4 Grades Consistency with Sound Theoretical State Subtotal or Fewer Scientific Theory Basis Alabama 3 1 2 6 Alaska - - - - Arizona 3 3 3 9 Arkansas 3 1 2 6 California 3 3 3 9 Colorado 3 3 3 9 Connecticut 3 3 3 9 Delaware 3 3 3 9 District of Columbia - - - - Florida 3 1 1 5 Georgia 3 1 2 6 Hawaii 3 3 2 8 Idaho - - - - Illinois 3 3 3 9 Indiana 3 3 3 9 Iowa - - - - Kansas 3 0 0 3 Kentucky 3 1 2 6 Louisiana 3 3 2 8 Maine 3 3 3 9 Maryland 3 3 3 9 Massachusetts 3 3 3 9 Michigan 3 3 1 7 Minnesota 3 3 3 9 Mississippi 3 0 1 4 Missouri 3 3 2 8 Montana 3 3 3 9 Nebraska 3 2 3 8 Nevada 3 2 2 7 New Hampshire 3 1 1 5 New Jersey 3 3 3 9 New Mexico 3 1 1 5 New York 3 1 2 6 North Carolina 3 3 3 9 North Dakota 3 1 1 5 Ohio 3 2 3 8 Oklahoma 3 0 1 4 Oregon 3 2 3 8 Pennsylvania - - - - Rhode Island 3 3 3 9 South Carolina 3 2 2 7 South Dakota 3 3 2 8 Tennessee 3 1 2 6 Texas 3 3 3 9 Utah 3 3 3 9 Vermont 3 3 3 9 Virginia 3 2 1 6 Washington 2 3 3 8 West Virginia 3 0 1 4 Wisconsin 3 2 2 7 Wyoming 3 1 1 5 To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1998, at which time they were reviewed and graded by the Foundation and its reviewers. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

159 Table E4. Coverage and Content (Category C: Maximum Score = 27)

Experimental Clear Stringent Progressive Theory & Basic Ability to Methodology Science & Evidence, Terminology, Criteria for Mastery of Experiment Principles Grasp Technology Subtotal Classical Rigorous Data Graphs Abstractions Experiments Definition Alabama 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 18 Alaska ------Arizona 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 24 Arkansas 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 17 California 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 27 Colorado 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 18 Connecticut 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 23 Delaware 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 27 District of Columbia ------Florida 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 14 Georgia 2 1 3 2 0 0 1 2 2 13 Hawaii 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 18 Idaho ------Illinois 2 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 22 Indiana 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 26 Iowa ------Kansas 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 Kentucky 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 18 Louisiana 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 19 Maine 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 16 Maryland 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 20 Massachusetts 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 24 Michigan 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 16 Minnesota 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 24 Mississippi 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 7 Missouri 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 21 Montana 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 17 Nebraska 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 26 Nevada 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 23 New Hampshire 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 13 New Jersey 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 23 New Mexico 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 6 New York 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 16 North Carolina 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 26 North Dakota 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 13 Ohio 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 25 Oklahoma 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 9 Oregon 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 22 Pennsylvania ------Rhode Island 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 23 South Carolina 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 26 South Dakota 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 23 Tennessee 1 3 0 1 1 0 2 3 3 14 Texas 3 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 20 Utah 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 22 Vermont 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 24 Virginia 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 9 Washington 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 22 West Virginia 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 12 Wisconsin 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 16 Wyoming 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 10 To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1998, at which time they were reviewed and graded by the Foundation and its reviewers. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

160 Table E5. Quality (Category D: Maximum Score = 15)

Unambiguous & Specific but Flexible Comprehensive but Demanding, Demanding, Subtotal Subtotal Appropriate Not Encyclopedic Cumulative Specific Alabama 1 3 1 3 2 10 Alaska ------Arizona 3 3 2 3 3 14 Arkansas 1 2 1 2 2 8 California 3 3 3 3 3 15 Colorado 2 3 2 3 2 12 Connecticut 3 3 3 3 3 15 Delaware 3 3 3 3 3 15 District of Columbia ------Florida 0 1 2 2 1 6 Georgia 3 3 0 2 1 9 Hawaii 3 1 3 3 1 11 Idaho ------Illinois 3 3 3 3 3 15 Indiana 3 3 3 3 3 15 Iowa ------Kansas 1 0 0 0 0 1 Kentucky 3 3 2 3 3 14 Louisiana 2 3 3 3 3 14 Maine 2 2 2 2 3 11 Maryland 1 1 2 2 1 7 Massachusetts 3 3 3 3 3 15 Michigan 2 2 3 2 2 11 Minnesota 3 3 3 3 3 15 Mississippi 2 0 0 2 1 5 Missouri 2 3 3 3 3 14 Montana 1 1 2 2 1 7 Nebraska 3 3 2 3 3 14 Nevada 3 3 2 3 3 14 New Hampshire 1 1 1 2 1 6 New Jersey 3 3 3 3 3 15 New Mexico 1 1 1 1 0 4 New York 1 3 1 2 2 9 North Carolina 3 3 3 3 3 15 North Dakota 2 2 1 1 1 7 Ohio 2 3 3 3 2 13 Oklahoma 2 2 0 2 1 7 Oregon 3 3 3 3 3 15 Pennsylvania ------Rhode Island 3 3 3 3 3 15 South Carolina 3 3 2 3 3 14 South Dakota 3 3 3 3 3 15 Tennessee 0 2 0 2 2 6 Texas 3 3 3 3 3 15 Utah 3 3 3 3 3 15 Vermont 3 2 3 3 3 14 Virginia 3 3 3 2 1 12 Washington 3 3 3 3 3 15 West Virginia 0 2 1 2 1 6 Wisconsin 2 1 2 2 2 9 Wyoming 0 0 0 1 0 1 To the best of our knowledge, states that appear in italics have standards documents that have not been revised since 1998, at which time they were reviewed and graded by the Foundation and its reviewers. They were not reviewed a second time for this report.

161 Table E6. Negatives (Category E: Maximum Score = 12)

Eschew Pseudo-Science, Not Race-, Gender-, Science Not Confused Reject Anti-Science, Subtotal Subtotal Quackery Ethnic-Specific with Technology Anti-Technology Alabama 1 3 3 2 9 Alaska - - - - - Arizona 3 3 3 3 12 Arkansas 0 3 3 3 9 California 3 3 3 3 12 Colorado 3 3 3 3 12 Connecticut 3 3 3 3 12 Delaware 3 3 3 3 12 District of Columbia - - - - - Florida 1 3 3 3 10 Georgia 1 3 3 2 9 Hawaii 3 3 3 3 12 Idaho - - - - - Illinois 3 3 3 3 12 Indiana 3 3 3 3 12 Iowa - - - - - Kansas 0 0 1 0 1 Kentucky 2 3 3 2 10 Louisiana 3 3 3 3 12 Maine 3 3 3 3 12 Maryland 3 3 3 3 12 Massachusetts 3 3 3 3 12 Michigan 3 3 3 3 12 Minnesota 3 3 3 3 12 Mississippi 2 1 3 2 8 Missouri 3 3 3 3 12 Montana 3 1 3 3 10 Nebraska 2 3 3 3 11 Nevada 3 3 3 3 12 New Hampshire 3 3 3 3 12 New Jersey 3 3 3 3 12 New Mexico 3 3 3 3 12 New York 3 3 3 3 12 North Carolina 3 3 3 3 12 North Dakota 3 3 3 2 11 Ohio 3 3 3 3 12 Oklahoma 0 3 2 0 5 Oregon 3 3 3 3 12 Pennsylvania - - - - - Rhode Island 3 3 3 3 12 South Carolina 3 3 3 3 12 South Dakota 3 3 3 3 12 Tennessee 1 3 3 3 10 Texas 3 3 3 3 12 Utah 3 3 3 3 12 Vermont 3 3 3 3 12 Virginia 3 3 3 3 12 Washington 3 3 3 3 12 West Virginia 3 3 1 3 10 Wisconsin 3 3 3 3 12 Wyoming 3 3 3 3 12

162 Appendix F: State Documents Examined

Note: This appendix includes all state documents Arizona newly examined in this report anddocuments unchanged since our last review. Therefore, all grades English/Language Arts reported in this report are based on the following doc- 1) The Language Arts Essential Skills, February 1989 uments. 2) Language Arts Standards (Reading and Writing), August 1996 Alabama History English/Language Arts Arizona Academic Standards in History, Civics, Geography, Alabama Course of Study: English Language Arts,1999 and Economics, Draft, August 1999

History Geography Alabama Course of Study: Social Studies, Alabama State Ibid. Department of Education, Bulletin 1998, No. 18 Math Geography Mathematics Performance Objectives, August 1996 Ibid. Science Math Arizona Academic Standards: Science, August 1998 Alabama Course of Study: MATHEMATICS, Mathematical Power K-12, Alabama State Department of Education, Arkansas Bulletin 1997, No. 4 English/Language Arts Science English Language Arts Curriculum Framework, Revised Alabama Course of Study: Scientific Literacy, Alabama 1998 State Department of Education, Bulletin 1995, No. 4 History Alaska Curriculum Frameworks: Social Studies, Draft, May 1997

English/Language Arts Geography Alaska Content Standards, undated Curriculum Frameworks: Social Studies,Draft, 1996

History Math Alaska Content Standards, undated 1) Curriculum Frameworks: Mathematics, 1998 2)Sample Curriculum Models, 1-4, 1998 Geography 3)Sample Grade Level Benchmarks,1-4, 1998 Alaska Content Standards—Geography, pages 21 – 23, undated Science Science Curriculum Framework,1996 Math 1)Alaska Content Standards, undated California 2) Alaska Performance Standards, undated English/Language Arts Science English-Language Arts Standards for California Public Alaska Content Standards, undated Schools, 1998

History History/Social Science Content Standards Grades K-12, Pre-publication version, March 1999

163 Geography Science Ibid. Science Curriculum Framework, Second Draft, August 1997 Math The California MATHEMATICS Academic Content Delaware Standards for Grades K-12,1999 English/Language Arts Science English Language Arts—End of Cluster Expectations and Science Content Standards, Grades K-12,Prepublication Performance Indicators for Grades K-5(February 1998), Version, 1998 6-8 (May 1998), and 8-12 (February 1999)

Colorado History Delaware Social Studies Standards, Undated,Received for English/Language Arts review, August 1999 Model Content Standards: Reading and Writing, Summer 1996 Geography Delaware Social Studies Standards—Geography History Performance Indicators, Undated, Received for review, Model Content Standards for History, September 1995 August 1999

Geography Math Mapping Out a Standards-Based Framework for GEOGRA- 1) Mathematics Performance Indicators for Grades K-8, PHY—The Colorado Geography Curriculum Framework, Undated (downloaded 1999) Amended November 1995 2) High School Performance Indicators Models 1 and 2, Undated (downloaded 1999) Math Model Content Standards, June 1995 Science 1) Science Performance Indicators for Grades K-5 Science (February 1998), 6-8 (May 1998) Ibid. 2) Science Curriculum Framework: Content Standards for Grades 9-11 Connecticut District of Columbia English/Language Arts 1) Curriculum Framework, 1998 English/Language Arts 2) Read, Read, Read, 1998 Reading/English Language Arts Standards, PreK-12, 1999 3) Common Core of Learning, 1998 4) Improving Reading Competency, 1998 History 5) Learning Resources and Information Technology Standards for Teaching and Learning Social Studies, Framework, 1998 Undated, Received for review, September 1999 6) Draft Design of the Third Generation of the Connecticut Mastery Test, 1998 Geography Ibid. History 1) Social Studies Curriculum Framework, May 1998 Math 2) Connecticut’s Common Core of Learning, 1998 Standards for Teaching and Learning, undated (but apparently 1999) Geography Social Studies Curriculum Framework, May 1998 Science No standards were available for review. Math Mathematics Curriculum Framework, March 1998

164 Florida Geography Ibid. English/Language Arts 1) Sunshine State Standards, PreK-12 Language Arts, 1996 Math 2) Grade Level Expectations for the Sunshine State Mathematics Content Standards, Downloaded 1999 Standards: Grades K-8 Science History Science Content Standards, August 1999 1) Sunshine State Standards, Florida, Social Studies, April 1999 Idaho 2) Grade Level Expectations for the Sunshine State Idaho’s standards were incomplete and not reviewed. Standards: Social Studies Grades 6-8, Grades 3-5, Grades PreK-2, April 1999 Illinois

Geography English/Language Arts Grade Level Expectations for the Sunshine State Standards: Illinois Learning Standards for English Language Arts, July Social Studies Grades PreK-2, Grades 3-5, Grades 6-8, 1997 April 1999 History Math Illinois Learning Standards for Social Science, July 1997 1) Florida Course Descriptions Grades 6-12, 1997 2) Grade Level Expectations for the Sunshine State Geography Standards, June 1999 Ibid.

Science Math Florida Curriculum Framework—Science, 1998 Illinois Learning Standards, July 1997

Georgia Science Ibid. English/Language Arts Quality Core Curriculum, December 1997 Indiana

History English/Language Arts Quality Core Curriculum: Social Studies, December 1997 English Language Arts Proficiency Guide, Draft, May 1999

Geography History Ibid. Social Studies Proficiency Guide: An Aid to Curriculum Development, 1996 Math Quality Core Curriculum: Mathematics,Draft Revision, Geography Edition 2, December 1997 Ibid.

Science Math Georgia’s Quality Core Curriculum: Science, December Indiana Mathematics Standards, Undated (downloaded 1999) 1997 Science Hawaii 1)Science Proficiency Guide 2) Indiana High School Competencies English/Language Arts Language Arts Content Standards, August 1999 Iowa

History Iowa does not intend to write state standards. Social Studies Content Standards,August 1999

165 Kansas 4) Transformations: Kentucky’s Curriculum Framework: Science, 1993 English/Language Arts Curricular Standards for Reading and Writing, 1998 Louisiana

History English/Language Arts Curricular Standards for Civics-Government, Economics, 1) English Language Arts Content Standards Geography, and History, Third Draft, March 1999 2) Teachers’ Guide to Statewide Assessment, Grades 4, 8, and 10, May 1997 Geography 3) Released Test Items, Grades 4 and 8, 1999 Ibid. History Math 1) Louisiana Social Studies Content Standards, May 22, Curricular Standards, March 1999 1997 2) Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP) for Science the 21stCentury: Teachers’ Guide to Statewide Science Education Standards, Fifth Working Draft, June Assessment Grades 4, 8 and 11: Social Studies, October 1999 1998

Kentucky Geography Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP) for the English/Language Arts 21stCentury: Teachers’ Guide to Statewide Assessment 1) Grades Primary to 12, 1998 Grades 4, 8 and 11: Social Studies, October 1998 2) Proposed Revisions to the Core Content for Reading and Writing Assessments, undated Math 1) Louisiana Mathematics Framework, 1997 History 2) Teachers’ Guide to Statewide Assessment-Mathematics, 1) Program of Studies for Kentucky Schools: Grades Grades 4, 8, and 10 Primary—12: Social Studies, 1998 3) Released Test Items 2) Transformations: Kentucky’s Curriculum Framework, Volume I, 1993 Science 3) Core Content for Social Studies Assessment Version 1.0, 1) Louisiana Science Framework, May 22, 1997 1996 2) LEAP for the 21stCentury: Teachers’ Guide to Statewide Assessment, Grades 4,8,11: Science, Preliminary Draft, Geography October 1998 1)Core Content for Social Studies Assessment Version 3.0, Internet Draft, August 31, 1999 Maine 2)Transformations: Goal 2 Social Studies, undated 3) Program of Studies for Kentucky Schools—Grades English/Language Arts Primary-12,1998 English Language Arts Standards, 1997

Math History 1) Program of Studies, 1998 Learning Results (Social Studies), May 1997 2) Transformations: Kentucky’s Curriculum Framework: Mathematics, undated Geography Learning Results (Social Studies), July 1997 Science 1) Core Content for Science Assessment, Version 3.0, Math August 9, 1999 Learning Results, July 1997 2) Program of Studies for Kentucky Schools, Grades Primary-12, 1998 Science 3) Kentucky’s Learning Goals and Academic Expectations, Maine Science and Technology Standards, 1997 1994

166 Maryland Geography Curriculum Framework,1996 English/Language Arts 1) English Language Arts Content Standards, July 1999 Math 2) High School Core Learning Goals, September 1996 1) Model Content Standards for Curriculum, including Academic Core Curriculum Content Standards, July1996 History 2) Curriculum Framework, January 1996 Social Studies Standards, July 1999 Science Geography Content Standards and Draft Benchmarks Ibid. Minnesota Math Mathematics Content Standards, Draft, July 1999 English/Language Arts Learning Areas One, Two, and Three, undated Science Science Content Standards, July 1999 History The Profile of Learning Preparatory Standards (Primary, Massachusetts Intermediate, Middle, High School Levels),April 1997

English/Language Arts Geography English Language Arts Curriculum Framework, January Ibid. 1997 Math History K-12 Mathematics Framework, 1998 History and Social Science Curriculum Framework, July 1997 Science K-12 Science Framework, September 1997 Geography Ibid. Mississippi

Math English/Language Arts 1) Mathematics Curriculum Framework, 1997 1) Language Arts Framework, 1996 2) Guide to the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment 2) Reading Instructional Intervention Supplement, Grades System: Mathematics, January 1998 K-3, 1998 3) Reading Instructional Intervention Supplement, Grades Science 4-8, 1999 1) Science & Technology Curriculum Framework: Owning the Questions Through Science & Technology, 1997 History 2) Guide to the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment Social Studies Framework, 1998 System: Science & Technology, January 1998 Geography Michigan Ibid.

English/Language Arts Math Model Content Standards for Curriculum: English Mathematics Framework Draft 2000 Language Arts, October 1996 Science History Science Framework,1996 Model Content Standards for Curriculum: Social Studies, Draft, Undated, Received May 1997

167 Missouri Geography Nebraska L.E.A.R.N.S., May 1998 English/Language Arts 1) Framework for Curriculum Development in Math Communication Arts, K-12, 1996 Ibid. 2) Assessment Annotations for Grades 3, 7, and 11, 1999 Science History Ibid. 1) Missouri’s Framework for Curriculum Development in Social Studies K-12, 1996 Nevada 2) Content Specifications for Statewide Assessment by Standards - Social Studies - Grades 4, 8, & 11, April English/Language Arts 1998 English Language Arts Standards, August 1998

Geography History Content Specifications for Statewide Assessment by Social Studies Standards, Draft, April 1999 Standards - Social Studies - Grades 4, 8, & 11, April 1998 Geography Math Ibid. Framework for Curriculum Development in Mathematics, K-12, 1996 Math Content Standards, 1998 Science 1) Framework for Curriculum Development in Science, Science K-12, 1996 1) Nevada Science Content Standards for Grades 2, 3, 5, 8, 2) Assessment Annotations for the Curriculum Frameworks: and 12, August 20, 1998 Science, Grades 3, 7, and 10, undated 2) Indicators of Progress for Kindergarten and Grades 1, 4, 6, and 7, August 20, 1998 Montana New Hampshire English/Language Arts School Improvement Initiative: Standards Revision, October English/Language Arts 1998 and June 1999 1) K-12 English Language Arts Curriculum Framework, June 1995 History 2) K-6 Addendum, June 1997 No standards were available for review. History Geography 1) K-12 Social Studies Curriculum Framework, May 1996 No standards were available for review. 2) 7-10 Social Studies Addendum for the K-12 Social Studies Curriculum Framework, July 1998 Math Standards for Mathematics, October 1998 Geography 1) K-12 Social Studies Curriculum Framework, August\ Science 1995 Standards for Science, June 1999 2)7-10 Social Studies Addendum for the K-12 Social Studies Curriculum Framework, July 1998 Nebraska Math English/Language Arts 1) K-12 Mathematics Curriculum Framework, February Reading/Writing Standards, February 1998 1995 2) Addenda, Grades K-3, 4-6, and 7-10; 1994, 1995, 1996 History Social Studies/History Standards, May 1998

168 Science New York 1) K-12 Science Curriculum Framework, 1995 2) K-6 Science Addendum for the K-12 Science Curriculum English/Language Arts Framework, August 1995 English Language Arts: Resource Guide with Core 3) 7-10 Science Addendum for the K-12 Science Curriculum Curriculum, July 1998 Framework, August 1996 History New Jersey 1) Social Studies Resource Guide with Core Curriculum, Draft, June 1999 English/Language Arts 2) Social Studies Revised Standards, undated 1) Core Curriculum Content Standards for Language Arts Literacy, Downloaded April 1997 Geography 2) Directory of Test Specifications and Sample Items for Social Studies Resource Guide with Core Curriculum, statewide assessments, February 1998 Draft, June 1999

History Math New Jersey Social Studies Curriculum Framework, Final Mathematics Resource Guide with Core Curriculum, Draft, Draft, March 1999 June 1999

Geography Science Ibid. Mathematics, Science & Technology Guide

Math North Carolina 1) Core Curriculum Content Standards for Mathematics, 1995 (revised 1996) English/Language Arts 2) Mathematics Curriculum Framework, 1996 English Language Arts Working Draft K-12, January 1999

Science History 1) Core Curriculum Content Standards for Science, 1996 Social Studies Standard Course of Study, Revised 1997 2) Directory of Test Specifications and Sample Items for the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA) in Science Geography 3) High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) in Science Social Studies Standard Course of Study: Framework and Teacher Handbook, 1997 New Mexico Math English/Language Arts 1) Standard Course of Study and Grade Level 1) Content Standards and Benchmarks, 1996 Competencies K-12, Revised 1998 2) Performance Standards, 1998 2) High School Mathematics Courses, Revised 1998

History Science Social Studies K-12 Content Standards with Benchmarks, Science: Standard Course of Study and Grade Level August 1996 Competencies, K-12, Final Draft, 1999

Geography North Dakota Social Studies K-12 Content Standards with Benchmarks, Winter 1997 English/Language Arts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework: Standards Math and Benchmarks, 1996 Content Standards with Benchmarks, Fall 1996 History Science North Dakota Social Studies Standards, Draft, June 1998 Ibid.

169 Geography 2) Reading Assessment: Grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 Sample North Dakota Social Studies Standards, Draft, Spring 1999 Tests, January 1997 3) Test Specifications and Sample Assessments for Reading, Math Literature, and Writing, 1997 Mathematics Standards and Benchmarks, Third Draft “In Progress,” February 1999 History Social Sciences: Teaching & Learning to Standards, Science Teacher Resources 1999-2000, September 1999 Science Standards, Draft In Progress, Spring 1999 Geography Ohio Ibid.

English/Language Arts Math Model Competency-Based Language Arts Program, 1996 Content Standards, 1998

History Science Model Competency-Based Social Studies Program, Teaching & Learning Standards: Science, September 1999 November 1993 Pennsylvania Geography Model Competency-Based Social Studies Program, 1994 English/Language Arts Academic Standards for Reading, Writing, Speaking, and Math Listening, January 1999 Model Competency-Based Mathematics Program, November 1990 History Chapter Five Learning Outcomes, 1994 Science Model Competency-Based Science Program, 1996 Geography No standards were available for review. Oklahoma Math English/Language Arts Academic Standards for Mathematics, January 1999 Priority Academic Student Skills, April 1999 Science History No standards were available for review. Priority Academic Student Skills: Social Studies, Revised, April 1999 Rhode Island

Geography English/Language Arts Ibid. Literacy for ALL Students: The Rhode Island English Language Arts Framework, 1996 Math Priority Academic Student Skills: Mathematics, April 1999 History No standards were available for review. Science Priority Academic Student Skills: Science, April 1999 Geography No standards were available for review. Oregon Math English/Language Arts Mathematics Framework K-12, October 1995 1) Teacher Support – Oregon Standards: English, January 1997

170 Science Geography Science Literacy for ALL Students: The Rhode Island K-12 Social Studies Curriculum Framework, May 1996 Science Framework, Revised Edition, 1995 Math South Carolina 1) K-8 Mathematics Framework, October 1996 2) Content Standards and Learning Expectations, Grades 9- English/Language Arts 12, 1998 Reading/English Language Arts: Curriculum Standards, 3) Algebra I Gateway Test Standards, 1999 1998 Science History 1) K-12 Science Framework, 1995 Social Studies Framework and Standards, March 1999 2) Biology Gateway Test Standards, 1999

Geography Texas Ibid. English/Language Arts Math Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for English Language Mathematics Curriculum Standards, 1998 Arts and Reading,July 1997

Science History Science Curriculum Standards, 1998 Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, Social Studies and Economics,September 1997 South Dakota Geography English/Language Arts Ibid. English Language Arts Content Standards, 1998 Math History 1) Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Mathematics, Social Studies Content Standards, June 1999 Chapter 111, September 1998 2) Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Mathematics, Geography Chapter C, 9-12, September 1996 Ibid. Science Math Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science,1997 Mathematics Content Standards, December 1998 Utah Science 1) Science Content Standards, June 1999 English/Language Arts 2) Technical Guide for Implementing Content Standards: 1) Core Curriculum: Language Arts, Grades K-6, Revised Science, Draft III, March 1999 1996 2) Core Curriculum: Language Arts, Grades 7-12, Revised Tennessee 1999

English/Language Arts History 1) Language Arts/Reading K-12,1999 Core Curriculum: Social Studies, Revised, Undated, 2) CTB/McGraw-Hill’s TerraNova Performance Levels Received May 1997 Handbookand Instructional Objectives for Levels 10-12/22, Form A Geography 3) English II Gateway Test Standards, 1999 Core Curriculum: Social Studies, 1993 and 1996

History Math K-12 Social Studies Framework, April 1999 Core Curriculum: Mathematics Units, September 1996

171 Science Geography Elementary Science Core; Secondary Science Core, 1994 Essential Academic Learning Requirements: Social Studies, February 1997 Vermont Math English/Language Arts Essential Academic Learning Requirements Technical 1) Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities, Manual, 1997 1996 2) English Language Arts Revisions, May 1999 Science Ibid. History Framework of History and Social Sciences Standards and West Virginia Learning Opportunities, Revised April 1999 English/Language Arts Geography Instructional Goals and Objectives for West Virginia Ibid. Schools, 1996

Math History Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities: Instructional Goals and Objectives for West Virginia Science, Mathematics and Technology Standards, 1996; Schools, 1997 additional content items received by reviewers in 1999 Geography Science Ibid. Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities: Science, Mathematics and Technology Standards, 1996 Math Instructional Goals and Objectives for West Virginia Virginia Schools, September 1996

English/Language Arts Science English Standards of Learning, June 1995 Documents (no title, no date) downloaded from http://access.k12.wv.us/~dschafer History History and Social Science Standards of Learning, June Wisconsin 1995 English/Language Arts Geography Academic Content and Performance Standards for the Ibid. English Language Arts, 1998

Math History Mathematics Standards of Learning, June 1995 Model Academic Standards for Social Studies, 1998

Science Geography Science Standards of Learning, June 1995 Ibid.

Washington Math Model Academic Standards for Mathematics,1998 English/Language Arts Essential Academic Learning Requirements: Reading, Science Writing, and Communication, February 1997 Model Academic Standards, 1998

History Essential Academic Learning Requirements: Social Studies, July 1998

172 Wyoming

English/Language Arts Language Arts Content and Performance Standards, 1998

History Wyoming Social Studies Content and Performance Standards, Draft, Received for Review, August 1999

Geography Wyoming Social Studies Content and Performance Standards, Draft, August 1999

Math Mathematics Content and Performance Standards, June 1998

Science Wyoming Science Content and Performance Standards, April 1999

173 174 Appendix G: School-Based Accountability Table G1. School-Based Accountability in the 50 States

Report Cards Rewards for School Ratings Threat of Sanctions Use of Sanctions State issues report cards on Successful Schools State evaluates and rates all State has the authority to State actually exercises the individual schools; report State identifies successful of its public schools on the reconstitute–or otherwise authority to reconstitute–or cards include test scores.1 schools and offers them all basis of their academic make major changes in– otherwise make major recognition and/or rewards.2 performance.3 failing schools.4 changes in–failing schools.5 Alabama yes no yes yes no Alaska no6 no no no no Arizona yes no no no no Arkansas no no no no no California yes yes yes7 no no Colorado no no no no no Connecticut yes no no no no Delaware yes no no yes no Florida yes yes yes yes8 no Georgia yes yes no no no Hawaii yes yes9 no no no Idaho no no no no no Illinois yes yes no yes no Indiana yes yes yes yes no Iowa no no no no no Kansas yes no10 yes yes no Kentucky yes yes yes yes no Louisiana yes no no11 yes no Maine no no no no no Maryland yes yes no yes no Massachusetts yes no no no no Michigan yes no12 no13 yes no Minnesota yes no no no no Mississippi no no no no no Missouri yes no no no no Montana no no no no no Nebraska no no no no no Nevada yes yes yes yes no New Hampshire no no no no no New Jersey yes yes no no no New Mexico yes yes no yes no New York yes no14 no yes yes North Carolina yes yes yes yes yes15 North Dakota no no no no no Ohio yes no no no no Oklahoma yes no no yes yes Oregon no yes no no no Pennsylvania yes yes no no no Rhode Island yes no no no16 no South Carolina no yes no yes yes17 South Dakota yes no no no no Tennessee no yes no no no Texas yes yes yes yes yes Utah no yes no no no Vermont yes no no yes no Virginia yes no yes yes no Washington yes no no no no West Virginia yes no yes yes no Wisconsin yes no no no no Wyoming yes no no no no

States in boldmeet at least three of the five school-based accountability criteria, and are therefore considered to have "strong" accountability systems. Unless otherwise noted, all data come from Quality Counts '99: Rewarding Results, Punishing Failure, published by Education Week, January 11, 1999. More recent--and sometime contradictory--information was obtained, and verified, through direct communication with the states.

175 Notes to Table G1

1 State measures pupil achievement and issues school-spe- 5 State actually exercises the authority to reconstitute—or cific report cards that include pupil achievement. Data otherwise make major changes in—failing schools. Data Source: Education Week's Quality Counts '99, page 87 Source: Education Week's Quality Counts '99, page 96 (column one, "Does the state have an annual report card (last column, "Has the state ever closed, taken over, or on each of its schools?") and page 88 ("What Information reconstituted a low-performing school?"); information Do States Include on Report Cards?" column one, "Test verified in follow-up phone calls to states. scores"); whether districts are required to issue report cards was verified in follow-up phone calls to states. This 6 District-based report cards only, contrary to Quality must be a true report card. It should be very user-friendly. Counts '99data If a state merely publishes test scores, it does not receive credit. States do not receive credit for report cards on 7 Contrary to Quality Counts ‘99data, schools are current- school districts, only for report cards on individual ly rated in percentile bands (based on test scores) schools. 8 Students in consistently failing schools may transfer to 2 State identifies successful schools and offers them recog- other public schools or receive voucher towards tuition at nition and/or rewards (including financial rewards). Data a private school (new law since Quality Counts '99) Source: Education Week's Quality Counts '99, page 93 (column one, "Does the state reward or recognize suc- 9 Blue Ribbon Schools Program (not reported in Quality cessful schools?"); information verified in follow-up Counts '99) phone calls to states. 10 Kansas does not reward successful schools, in contradic- 3 State evaluates and rates its schools on the basis of their tion to Quality Counts '99 academic performance. Data Source: Education Week's Quality Counts '99, page 90 (column one, "Does the state 11 Louisiana will not rate high schools until 2001 evaluate and assign ratings to its schools?"); information verified in follow-up phone calls to states. All regular 12 Michigan does not reward successful schools, contrary public schools must be evaluated for state to receive cred- to Quality Counts '99 it; it is understood that some states exempt alternative schools and other specialized schools. 13 Currently, Michigan only identifies low-performing K-8 schools, not high schools. 4 State has the authority to reconstitute-or otherwise make major changes in-failing schools. Data Source: 14 New York does not reward successful schools, contrary Education Week's Quality Counts '99, page 96 (We to Quality Counts '99 looked at the first six sub-columns of the first two overarching columns, "What are the state's strongest sanctions 15 North Carolina has closed at least one school (not for dealing with failing schools?" and "What other sanc- reported in Quality Counts '99) tions can the state impose on failing schools?" The sub- columns indicate six different sanctions that states may 16 Rhode Island does not have the authority to reconstitute impose: closure, takeover, reconstitution, replacing prin- or otherwise make major changes in failing schools, cipals, open enrollment, loss of accreditation); informa- contrary to Quality Counts '99 tion verified in follow-up phone calls to states. For states to receive credit, the threat of sanctions must apply to all 17 South Carolina has replaced at least one principal (not public schools. reported in Quality Counts '99)

176 Appendix H: Contributors

Lawrence S. Bradenhas taught elementary, junior Michael J. Petrilliwas program director at the Thomas high and high school mathematics and science in B. Fordham Foundation and research associate at the Hawaii, Russia and currently at St. Paul’s School in Manhattan Institute until January 2000. He is now a New Hampshire. In 1987, he received the Presidential world traveler and can be reached at michael_petril- Award for Excellence in Mathematics Teaching. Last [email protected]. summer, he earned Mongolian parachute wings while jumping with the Mongolian Army in Ulaanbaatar. Ralph A. Raimiis Professor Emeritus of Mathematics He can be reached at [email protected]. at the University of Rochester. He can be reached at [email protected]. Some of his commentary Chester E. Finn, Jr.is president of the Thomas B. on education (and other subjects) can be found at Fordham Foundation and John M. Olin Fellow at the www.math.rochester.edu/u/rarm/. Manhattan Institute. He can be reached at [email protected]. David Warren Saxeis Associate Professor of Education at The Pennsylvania State University and a Lawrence S. Lerneris Professor Emeritus in the member of the Pennsylvania State Board of College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at Education. He can be reached at [email protected]. California State University, Long Beach. He has published extensively in condensed-matter physics, histo- Terry Smithis a principal in the Casados Group and a ry of science, science and religion, and science educa- former vice president of the National Geographic tion, and is the author of two physics textbooks. He Society. He can be reached at [email protected]. can be reached at [email protected]. Sandra Stotskyis Deputy Commissioner for Academic Susan Munroeis president of The Casados Group, a Affairs and Planning at the Massachusetts Department consulting firm in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Developer of Education and Research Associate at the Harvard of the National Geographic Society’s Geography Graduate School of Education. She can be reached at Education Program, she was a project director for the [email protected]. National Geography Standards and for the 1994 National Assessment for Educational Progress Geography Consensus Project. She can be reached at [email protected].

177