Table 1 Grades and general comments for treatment of evolution in state science standards
From: Why Science Standards are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up
State | Grade Lerner (2000) | Current Grade 2009 | Description and/or general comments. |
|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | F | F | General coverage of evolution is poor. Evolution disclaimer in the Preface |
Alaska | D | D | Treatment of biological evolution is adequate. Human evolution is not covered, nor is the connection between biological, geological and cosmological evolution |
Arizona | B | B | Direct treatment of evolution does not occur until high school and human evolution is not covered |
Arkansas | D | C | Improved treatment of biological evolution. No coverage of human evolution. No earth or space science at all at the high school level |
California | A | A | Comprehensive treatment of evolution. Human evolution is presented in 6th grade social studies |
Colorado | B | B | Discussion of evolution is good (but see Part II: Colorado for more details). No mention of Big Bang |
Connecticut | A | D | Human evolution has been dropped. Despite specific reference to evolution in PreK-8 framework, there is no mention of age of the earth, fossils, Big Bang theory, plate tectonics, etc. |
Delaware | A | B | Good treatment of evolution. No explicit reference to human evolution. Some language is vulnerable to exploitation or misinterpretation. (e.g., A recurring “Essential Question” in the “Earth in Space” standard is, “Is there an order to the Universe? Explain.”) |
Dist. Of Columbia | B | A | Treatment of evolution has improved; human evolution is explicit |
Florida | F | A | Greatly improved |
Georgia | F | C | Human evolution mentioned in the Anatomy and Physiology standards, but not in the life science standards |
Hawaii | A | C | Wording in the Earth and Space Science standards includes creationist jargon |
Idaho | B | B | Human evolution is not covered. “Understand the Theory of Biological Evolution” assessed as “Describe how natural selection explains species change over time” and does not include any reference to common ancestry |
Illinois | D | B | Review included evaluation of descriptors – which now include the word “Evolution”. No explicit reference to specific geological and cosmological evolution terms, although concepts covered |
Indiana | A | A | Good |
Iowa | C | Iowa Core Curriculum is new. 2008 legislation requires all school districts to implement Iowa Score Curriculum by 2012 for grades 9–12 and 2014–2015 for K-8 | |
Kansas | F- | A | After various battles with the state school board, standards have improved immensely |
Kentucky | D | D | E-word used minimally; some biological evolution covered; no human evolution. Cosmology very limited |
Louisiana | C | F | Louisiana Science Education Act includes creationist jargon and disclaimers which nullify much of the science standards in reference to evolution |
Maine | F | C | Adequate treatment of basic biological evolution; no human evolution; minimal treatment of geological, cosmological and historical interfaces—e.g. plate tectonics not mentioned until high school |
Maryland | C | C | No human evolution. Discussion of cosmology in earth and space standards lacking |
Massachusetts | B | B | Mention of human evolution is disguised. Discussion of cosmological evolution does not occur until high school |
Michigan | B | B | Cosmology and historical connection could be stronger |
Minnesota | B | B | Generally good, however, standards continue to contain passage originally intended to forestall creationist objections |
Mississippi | F | B | Evaluated 2010 Science Framework, revised 2008. Clear improvement over previous versions |
Missouri | B | C | No human evolution. Students are expected to be able to “identify and analyze theories that are currently being questioned, and compare them to new theories that have emerged to challenge the older ones.” The practice of exposing students to unresolved questions in modern science is a worthy one, but care must be taken that the topics covered do in fact represent legitimate areas of current scientific debate, and that this debate be at least somewhat comprehensible to students at the high school level |
Montana | B | C | No human evolution. Historical connection is lacking |
Nebraska | C | C | Weak on evolution; includes creationist jargon- the word “theory” is used only in relation to biological evolution |
Nevada | C | C | No human evolution |
New Hampshire | F | A | Improved treatment of evolution; human evolution included |
New Jersey | A | A | Thorough and explicit treatment of evolution |
New Mexico | C | A | Good across the board |
New York | C | C | No revision since 1996. Lerner 2000 indicated some unintentional creationist jargon |
North Carolina | A | B | Treatment of both biological and human evolution is good. Inadvertent use of evolution-weakening terminology (i.e. change over time) in middle school |
North Dakota | F | C | Improved. Discusses both geological and cosmological evolution explicitly in high school |
Ohio | F | B | Generally good |
Oklahoma | F | F | The word “evolution” is never used |
Oregon | B | B | No human evolution |
Pennsylvania | A | A | Good across the board |
Rhode Island | A | B | Generally good. Geological evolution and cosmology could be introduced earlier |
South Carolina | A | A | Very limited coverage of human evolution |
South Dakota | B | C | Adequate treatment of biological evolution. No human evolution |
Tennessee | F | D | Improved treatment of evolution. No human evolution |
Texas | C | F | Generally comprehensive except for creationist jargon |
Utah | B | B | No human evolution |
Vermont | B | B | Good treatment of biological evolution. No human evolution |
Virginia | D | C | No human evolution |
Washington | B | B | Explicit mention of cosmological evolution by high school |
West Virginia | F | F | Improvement on treatment of biological evolution. No human evolution. |
Wisconsin | D | D | Offer only performance standards for grades 4, 8, and 12 and clear standards are lacking |
Wyoming | F | D | Improved presentation of biological evolution. No human evolution |