2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.pisc.2016.08.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Science standards: The foundation of evolution education in the United States

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…New standards movements such as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, ) are a plus for reinvigorating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in general, and evolution education more specifically. And yet, states such as Texas have resisted adoption of both sets of standards and instead rely on state‐determined science standards which may be inadequate in terms of evolution coverage, or, as with the Texas Educational Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), may even allow for the presentation of creationist claims (Branch, ; Mead & Mates, ; Watts, Levit, & Hoßfeld, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…New standards movements such as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, ) are a plus for reinvigorating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in general, and evolution education more specifically. And yet, states such as Texas have resisted adoption of both sets of standards and instead rely on state‐determined science standards which may be inadequate in terms of evolution coverage, or, as with the Texas Educational Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), may even allow for the presentation of creationist claims (Branch, ; Mead & Mates, ; Watts, Levit, & Hoßfeld, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While Common Core, NGSS, and TEKS contain certain positive elements within their frameworks, they in many ways remain mechanistic, lack relevancy, and are minimally inclusive of statements surrounding multicultural science education content (Atwater, 2010;Rodriguez, 2015). Many state standards remain sub-par in their mention of topics surrounding climate, evolution, sex education, and race, being deemed too controversial for the classroom (Wiley and Barr, 2007;Watts et al, 2016).…”
Section: Standards and Textbooks As Official (Hidden) Science Curriculummentioning
confidence: 99%
“…( 2) Textbook content may be shaped by the values of the state and reduce the quality of content. For example, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) has approved biology standards that eliminate climate change, scientific consensus regarding evolutionary theory, and important topics related to sexual and physical health (Valentine et al, 2013;Hall et al, 2016;Watts et al, 2016;Foss and Ko, 2019;Hall et al, 2019). (3) While current national standards have undergone revisions with sections on diversity, equity, and inclusion, standards have failed to adequately address factors such as socioeconomic status, gender, and race (Rodriguez, 1997;Rodriguez, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%