[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-592401-105":59,"doc-detail-592401-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","world-class-ambitions-weak-standards-an-excerpt-from-the-state-of-state-science-standards-2012-foreword-and-discussion","World-Class Ambitions, Weak Standards - an excerpt from The State of State Science Standards 2012 - foreword and discussion","","A discussion excerpt from The State of State Science Standards 2012 examines the persistent national concern about U.S. science education quality since Sputnik. It contrasts widespread public belief in STEM importance with low NAEP science proficiency results across grades. The text argues that clear standards are necessary but not sufficient, describing how states often produce mediocre standards. It highlights recurring problems, especially undermining evolution, vague content, weak integration of inquiry skills, and avoidance of mathematical frameworks, along with continued anti-evolution pressures and policy impacts.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/world-class-ambitions-weak-standards-an-excerpt-from-the-state-of-state-science-standards-2012-foreword-and-discussion/592401/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/world-class-ambitions-weak-standards-an-excerpt-from-the-state-of-state-science-standards-2012-foreword-and-discussion/592401.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"McGucket","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What major contradiction does the excerpt highlight about U.S. science education?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It notes strong public conviction that STEM is very important, yet student science achievement remains low on NAEP proficiency measures.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why does the excerpt argue that standards cannot fully drive improvement?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It states that standards are a necessary starting point, but they do not automatically produce outstanding achievement without effective curriculum, instruction, and materials.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What problems are frequently found in mediocre to poor state science standards?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The excerpt lists undermining evolution, vague standards, failing to integrate inquiry skills with content, and avoiding mathematical formulae and equations.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},592401,1792074507,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":81,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":39,"preview_page_count":4},1236954412713,"https://us-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","World-Class Ambitions, Weak Standards  \nan excerpt from The State of State Science Standards 2012  \nSince Sputnik shot into orbit in 1957, Americans have considered science education tobe vital to our national security and economic competitiveness. The impact of the Soviet satellite launch on American science classrooms was almost immediate. Shirley Malcom, a leader in the field of science education (and presently head of education programs for the American Association for the Advancement of Science), was a young student in Alabama at the time. She described the swift and palpable shift in the way science was taught:1  \nWe stopped having throwaway science and started having real science.… All of a sudden everybody was talking about it, and science was above the fold in the newspaper, and my teachers went to institutes and really got us all engaged.  \nit was just a time of incredible intensity and attention to  \nThe State of State Science Standards  \n2012  \nState reviews by Lawrence S. Lerner, Ursula Goodenough, John Lynch, Martha Schwartz, and Richard Schwartz NAEP review by Paul R. Gross  \nFOREWORD BY CHESTER E. FINN, JR. , AND KATHLEEN PORTER-MAGEE  \nscience.  \nThe impact on public opinion was just as  \nThe State of State Science Standards 2012, published by the  \nThomas B. Fordham Institute, is available at [www.edexcellence.net/](www.edexcellence.net/)[ ](www.edexcellence.net/)[publications/the-state-](publications/the-state-)[of-state-science-](of-state-science-)standards-2012 . html.  \nprofound—and national concern over the quality of American science, and science education, has continued for the past half century. According to a 2011 survey, 74 percent of Americans think STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education is “very important.” Only 2 percent say it’s “not too important.”2  \nYet this strong conviction has not translated into strong science achievement. The 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found barely  \none-third of fourth-graders in the United States at or above the “proficient” level in science, with those proportions slipping to 30 percent in eighth grade and a woeful 21 percent in twelfth grade.3  \nWhy is this? how can it be that, for more than five decades, Americans have voiced so much concern about science education yet made so little progress in delivering it? There are, of course, multiple explanations, starting with the blunt fact that few states and communities have taken concrete action to build world-class science programs into their primary and secondary schools. Without such programs in place to deliver the goods, our Sputnik-induced anxieties remain fully justified some 55 years later.  \nA solid science education program begins by clearly establishing what well-educated youngsters need to learn about this multifaceted domain of human knowledge.  \nhere, the first crucial step is setting clear academic standards for the schools—standards that not only articulate the critical science content students need to learn, but that also properly sequence and prioritize that content. in the light of such standards, teachers at each grade level can clearly see where they should focus their time and attention to ensure that their pupils are on track toward college and career readiness. That doesn’t mean it will happen, of course. As we at the Thomas B. Fordham institute have repeatedly noted, standards alone cannot drive outstanding achievement. But they are a necessary starting point. They are the score for conductors, musicians, instrument makers, and more. They are the foundation upon which rigorous curricula and instructional materials and assessments are built. They are the template for preparing science teachers for our classrooms.  \nFordham has a long-standing interest in science standards and a history of reviewing them with care and rigor. We published our first analysis of state science standards in 1998 and a follow-up review in 2005. Unfortunately, the f","cbCaihH1kQlDt3sd","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihH1kQlDt3sd","pdf",131606,"English","# Introduction: Ambitions vs. Standards\n# Impact of Public Opinion and NAEP Findings\n# The Role and Limits of Academic Standards\n# How State Standards Go Wrong\n## Undermining Evolution","[{\"question\":\"What major contradiction does the excerpt highlight about U.S. science education?\",\"answer\":\"It notes strong public conviction that STEM is very important, yet student science achievement remains low on NAEP proficiency measures.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the excerpt argue that standards cannot fully drive improvement?\",\"answer\":\"It states that standards are a necessary starting point, but they do not automatically produce outstanding achievement without effective curriculum, instruction, and materials.\"},{\"question\":\"What problems are frequently found in mediocre to poor state science standards?\",\"answer\":\"The excerpt lists undermining evolution, vague standards, failing to integrate inquiry skills with content, and avoiding mathematical formulae and equations.\"}]","World-Class Ambitions, Weak Standards - an excerpt from The State of State Science Standards 2012 - foreword and discussion | PDF"]