After providing the current rationale and historical background for educational standards, this article discusses various meanings and interpretations attached to this term. It then provides a comparative analysis of three sets of publications that are seen as providing national standards for science education, developed by the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Research Council. Next, the role of assessment in setting standards is discussed; in particular, the science frameworks used by the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, the work of the New Standards Project; and the expectations built into rigorous university entrance exams, as represented by the Advanced Placement examinations. The article also addresses the current status of state science curriculum frameworks, including commonalities and variations among them. It concludes with a brief discussion of standards and framework documents, whether nationally or state developed, as policy levers for reforming science education in elementary and secondary school.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldridgeB. G. (1989). Essential changes in secondary science: Scope, sequence, and coordination. NSTA Reports, 1, 4–5.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans.Washington, DC: Author.
3.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1992). Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Unpublished manuscript.
4.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.New York: Oxford.
5.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1995). Project 2061: Science literacy for a changing future, a decade of reform.Washington, DC: Author.
6.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1996). Science Education News, 14(2), 1 and insert.
7.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform.New York: Oxford.
8.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (In press). Designs for science literacy.New York: Oxford.
9.
American Federation of Teachers. (1997). Making standards matter: An annual fifty-state progress report on efforts to raise academic standards.Washington, DC: Author.
10.
AppleM. (1992). Do the standards go far enough? Power, policy, and practice in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 5, 412–431.
11.
AtkinJ. M. (1994). Developing world-class education standards: Some conceptual and political dilemmas. In CobbN. (Ed.), The future of education: Perspectives on national standards in America (pp. 61–84). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
12.
AtkinJ. M., HelmsJ., RosickG. S., & SinerS. (1996). Building on Strength: Science teaching in California public schools. In RaizenS. A., & BrittonE. D. (Eds.), Bold ventures: Case studies of United Slates innovations in science education (Vol. 2) ((pp. 13–29). Boston: Kluwer.
13.
BlankR. K., & EspenshadeP. (1988). 50-state analysis of education policies on science and mathematics. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10 (4), 315–324.
14.
BlankR. K., LangesenD., BushM., SardinaS., PechmanE. M., & GoldsteinD. (1997). Mathematics and science content standards and curriculum frameworks: Slates progress on development and implementation.Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
15.
BlankR. K., & PechmanE. M. (1995). State curriculum frameworks in mathematics and science: How are they changing across the states?Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
16.
BourqueM. L., ChampagneA. B., & CrissmanS. (1997). 1996 Science performance standards: Achievement results for the nation and the states.Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
17.
BraceyG. (1993). The third Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75 (2), 104–117.
18.
BrittonE. D., & RaizenS. A. (Eds)., (1996). Examining the examinations: An international comparison of science and mathematics examinations for college-bound students.Boston: Kluwer.
19.
California Department of Education. (1985). Mathematics framework for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve.Sacramento, CA: Author.
20.
California Department of Education. (1990). Science framework for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve.Sacramento, CA: Author.
21.
CallahanR. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
CatlinS. (1986). New kids in class: Minorities pace growth in public schools. California Journal, 17 (4), 189–192.
23.
CollinsA. (1995). National science education standards in the United States: A process and a product. Studies in Science Education, 26, 7–37.
24.
CrosswhiteF. J., DosseyJ. A., & FryeS. M. (1989). NCTM standards for school mathematics: Visions for implementation. Arithmetic Teacher, 37 (3), 55–60.
25.
DonmoyerR. (1995). The rhetoric and reality of systemic reform: A critique of the proposed National Science Education Standards. COCNOSOS-The National Center for Science Teaching and Learning Research Quarterly, 4 (1), 1–8.
26.
DriverR., GuesneE., & TiberghienA. (Eds.). (1985). Children's ideas in science.Philadelphia: Open University Press.
27.
EisnerE. (1992). Curriculum ideologies. In JacksonP. W. (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 302–324). New York: Macmillan.
28.
Findings of the California study of elementary mathematics [Special issue]. (1990). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3).
29.
GagnéR. M. (1970). The condition of learning (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
30.
HarlenW. (1985). Teaching and learning primary science.New York: Teachers College Press.
31.
HarlenW. (1992). Standards of practice for learner centered schools.New York: National Center for Restructuring Schools and Learning.
32.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (1988). Science achievement in seventeen countries: A preliminary report.Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
33.
LapointeA. E., MeadN. A., & PillipsG. W. (1989). A world of differences.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
34.
LapointeA. E., AskewJ. M., & MeadN. A. (1992). Learning science.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
35.
MarshD. D., & OddenA. R. (1991). Implementation of the California mathematics and science frameworks. In OddenR. A. (Ed.), Educational policy implementation (pp. 219–240). Albany: State University of New York Press.
36.
McLeodD. B., StakeR. E., SchappelleB. P., MellissinasM., & GierlM.J. (1996). Setting the standards: NCTM's role in the reform of mathematics education. In RaizenS. A., & BrittonE. D. (Eds.), Bold ventures: Case studies of United States innovations in mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 13–132). Boston: Kluwer.
37.
MullisI. V. S., DosseyJ. A., FoertschM. A., JonesL. R., & GentileC. A. (1991). Trends in academic progress: Achievement of United States students in science 1969–70 to 1990; mathematics, 1973–1990; reading, 1971–1990; and writing, 1984–1990.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
38.
MyersM. (1994). Problems and issues facing the National Standards Project in English. In CobbN. (Ed.), The future of education (pp. 259–276). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
39.
National Assessment Governing Board. (1996). Science framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress. A report of the Council of Chief State School Officers with the National Center for Improving Science Education and the American Institutes for Research.Washington, DC: Author.
40.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). Digest of education statistics: 1992 (NCES 92–097). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
41.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Pursuing excellence: A study of United States eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in international context.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
42.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). NAEP 1996 science.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
43.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (1995a). Performance standards: Volume 1, elementary school (Consultation draft). Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
44.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (1995b). Performance standards: Volume 2, middle school (Consultation draft). Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
45.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (1995c). Performance standards: Volume 3, high school (Consultation draft). Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
46.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action: Recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s.Reston, VA: Author.
47.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
48.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
49.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
50.
National Governors’ Association. (1990). National education goals.Washington, DC: Author.
51.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
52.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
53.
National Science Foundation, Division of Educational System Reform Programs. (1995). The systemic reform “report card’ (draft).Arlington, VA: Author.
54.
National Science Foundation, Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication, Directorate for Education and Human Resources. (1996). Indicators of science and mathematics education 1995 (NSF 96–52). Arlington, VA: Author.
55.
National Science Teachers Association. (1992). Volume 1: The content core, a guide for curriculum designers.Washington, DC: Author.
56.
National Science Teachers Association. (1996). NSTA pathways to the science standards: Guidelines for moving the vision into practice.Arlington, VA: Author.
57.
O'DayJ., & SmithM. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 313–322). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
58.
RaizenS. A. (1991). The reform of science education in the USA: Déjà vu or de novo?Studies in Science Education, 19, 1–41.
59.
RavitchD. (1995). National standards in American education: A citizen's guide.Washington, DC: Brookings.
60.
RobitailleD., SchmidtW., RaizenS., McKnightC., BrittonE., & NicolC. (1993). Curriculum frameworks for mathematics and science.Vancouver, Canada: Pacific Educational Press.
61.
SchmidtW. H., McKnightC. C., & RaizenS. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education.Boston: Kluwer.
62.
SchmidtW. H., RaizenS. A., BrittonE. D., BianchiL. J., & WolfeR. G. (1997). Many visions, Many aims, volume 2: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school science.Boston: Kluwer.
63.
ShavelsonR. J., BaxterG. P., PineJ., YureJ., GoldmanS. R., & SmithB. (1991). Alternative technologies for large scale science assessment: Instrument of education reform. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2 (2), 97–114.
64.
ShymanskyJ. A., HedgesL. V., & WoodworthG. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60s on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (2), 127–144.
65.
SmithM., & O'DayJ. (1991). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS., & MalenB. (Eds.), Politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the politics of education association (pp. 233–267). London: Falmer.
66.
SRI International. (1996). Evaluation of the Dwight D. Eisenhower mathematics and science education state curriculum frameworks projects: Second interim report.Menlo Park, CA: Author.
67.
TobinK., CapieW., & BettencourtA. (1988). Active teaching for higher cognitive learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10 (1), 17–27.
68.
WelchW. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. In BerlinerD. C. (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 282–306). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
