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 juxtapos- es 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 stan- dards; 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 sup- porting 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 evaluat- ed 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 informa- tion 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.