State of State Science Standards 2012

View Best in Class

Common Grading Metric

As explained above, once a state’s standards are evaluated against the science content criteria, the standards are judged against a grading metric (shown below). States can earn up to seven points for content and rigor, and up to three points for clarity and specificity.

Content and Rigor

7 points – Standards meet all of the following criteria:

• Standards are reasonably comprehensive in terms of content. Coverage for each of the three core scientific disciplines is adequate, and good decisions have been made about what topics to include under each heading.
• Not only is appropriate content covered by the standards, but it is also articulated in a readily understood way.
• Sound decisions have been made about what content can be left out. Excellent standards can neither cover everything in science nor include superfluous or distracting material.
• The standards distinguish between more important and less important content and skills, either directly (by stating which are more and less important) or via the number of standards and amount of discussion devoted to particular topics. The standards neither overemphasize topics of small importance nor underemphasize topics of great importance.
• The level of rigor is appropriate for targeted grade level(s). Students are expected to learn the content and skills in a rational order and at appropriately increasing levels of difficulty. The standards, taken as a whole, define science literacy for all students; at the same time, standards that run through twelfth grade are sufficiently challenging to ensure that students who do achieve proficiency by the final year will be ready for college or career.
• The standards do not overemphasize “life experiences” or “real world” problems. They do not embrace fads or display political or cultural biases. They do not imply that all interpretations of natural phenomena are equally valid. While these standards may not be uniformly perfect, any defects are marginal.

6 points – Standards fall short in one of the following ways:

• Some important content (as identified in our content criteria) is missing.
• Content is covered satisfactorily but the presentation is not of uniformly high quality.
• Some proposed content in the standards is unnecessary and distracting.
• Standards do not always differentiate between more and less important content (i.e., importance is neither articulated explicitly nor conveyed via the number of standards dedicated to a particular topic). In other words, these standards overemphasize a few topics of little importance or underemphasize a few topics of great importance.
• Some of the expectations at particular grade levels are set either unrealistically high or too low.
• There are small problems or errors in the presentation of important subjects, such as those listed among our content criteria.

5 points – Standards fall short in at least two of the following ways:

• Some important content (as identified in our content criteria) is missing.
• Content is covered satisfactorily but the presentation is not of uniformly high quality.
• Some proposed content in the standards is unnecessary and distracting.
• Standards do not always differentiate between more and less important content (i.e., importance is neither articulated explicitly nor conveyed via the number of standards dedicated to a particular topic). In other words, these standards overemphasize a few topics of little importance or underemphasize a few topics of great importance.
• Some of the expectations at particular grade levels are set either unrealistically high or too low.
• There are a few problems or errors in the presentation of important subjects, such as those listed among our content criteria.

4 points – Standards fall short in one or both of the following ways:

• Although there are no grossly misleading or mistaken standards, about half of the important content (as listed among our content criteria) is missing.
• There are errors or failures to set learning expectations high enough and appropriate to grade level.

3 points – Standards fall short in one or both of the following ways:

• Although there are no grossly misleading or mistaken standards, considerably more than half of the important content (as listed among our content criteria) is missing.
• There are frequent errors or failures to set learning expectations high enough and appropriate to grade level.

2 points – Standards fall short in one of the following ways:

• Most, but not necessarily all, of the important science content (as represented in our content criteria) is missing.
• Some of the content offered is superfluous or distracting; even if not in error, it often fails to reach levels of sophistication that are grade-appropriate.

1 point – Standards fall short in both of the following ways:

• Most, but not necessarily all, of the important science content (as represented in our content criteria) is missing.
• The content offered is frequently superfluous, distracting, or poorly chosen; even if not in error, it generally fails to reach levels of sophistication that are grade-appropriate.

0 points: Standards fall short in the following way:

• No effort has been made to represent the state and content of modern science; that is, the character and content of modern science are not recognizable in these standards.

Clarity and Specificity

3 points – Standards are clear, coherent, and well organized.

Both scope and sequencing of the material are apparent and reasonable. The standards provide practical guidance to users (students, parents, teachers, curriculum directors, test developers, textbook writers, etc.) on the science content knowledge and skills required. The level of detail is appropriate for expectations covering all K-12 science.

The document(s) is (are) written in prose that the general public can understand and that is free of jargon. (Necessary technical terms and mathematical notation may appear; they are not considered jargon.) The standards describe measurable achievements—performance levels comparable across students and schools. The standards as a whole make clear the intellectual growth expected through the grades.

2 points – The standards are somewhat lacking in clarity, coherence, or organization.

Scope and sequencing of the material are not completely apparent or are not always useful for curriculum planning. The standards do not quite provide a complete guide for users as to the content knowledge and skills required. (That is, as a guide for users, these standards have shortcomings not addressed directly in the content and rigor review.) The standards provide insufficient detail. The prose is generally comprehensible but there is some jargon or vague language. Some of the standards do not imply measurable expectations.

1 point – The standards fail frequently to be clear, coherent, or well organized.

The standards offer only limited guidance to users (students, parents, teachers, curriculum directors, textbook writers, etc.) on the content knowledge and skills required, and there are shortcomings (regarding guidance for users) that are not addressed directly in the content and rigor review. The standards are seriously lacking in detail, and the language is sometimes too vague to make clear what is really being asked of students and teachers.

0 points – The standards are incoherent and/or disorganized.

The standards will not be helpful to users. They are sorely lacking in detail. Scope and sequence are a mystery. 

• Tweet
• A A A RESIZE
• PRINT