澳门跑狗论坛

State science tests differ greatly in what they expect students to know about evolution, with some asking no questions about the theory and others including more than a dozen items related to it, an 澳门跑狗论坛 review has found.

Responses from more than 20 states to a survey on high school science assessments show that the vast majority of those states include at least one question that specifically refers to the term 鈥渆volution.鈥� Just three states responding鈥擜labama, Ohio, and South Dakota鈥攊ndicated that their exams offered no questions using that word.

The theory of evolution, pioneered most famously by Charles Darwin, posits that humans and other living creatures have descended from common ancestors over time through a process of random mutation and natural selection. It is widely considered to be a pillar of modern biology. Over the past year, however, public education has been roiled by high-profile disputes over whether schools should subject evolution to greater criticism or promote purported alternative explanations for life鈥檚 development, such as 鈥渋ntelligent design.鈥�

What is tested is typically what is taught, research shows. And all states will have to give science tests to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind Act beginning in the 2007-08 school year.

No states surveyed by 澳门跑狗论坛 said their high school science assessments include questions about intelligent design, the idea that an unnamed force may have guided life鈥檚 development, or the biblically based belief known as creationism. The vast majority of scientists maintain that those concepts should not be considered science.

Similarly, none of the states surveyed said its statewide exams asked students about alleged weaknesses in evolution, or criticism of the theory, an approach that has been pushed by elected officials and interest groups around the country.

鈥淚 would have been very disappointed鈥� if alternatives had shown up on tests, said Senta Raizen, the director of the National Center for Improving Science Education, in Arlington, Va. 鈥淪cience is based on observations concerning natural phenomena. Belief systems do not. They may be legitimate for people who hold those beliefs, but they鈥檙e not science.鈥�

Ms. Raizen recently co-chaired a committee that directed the revision of the blueprint for the science portion of the National Assessment of Education Progress, perhaps the most closely scrutinized exam in the country, which influences many state assessments.

For its review, 澳门跑狗论坛 sent a list of questions to 29 states that, as of last school year, reported that they had science tests at the elementary, middle, and high school levels that were aligned with their state standards. The review focused on high school exams, the level at which evolution is typically taught in the greatest depth.

Of the 22 states that responded to the survey, 17 indicated they had at least one question that specifically mentioned evolution on the most recent exam, three states said they had none; one state, Kentucky, declined to answer the question; and another, Tennessee, said it was unlikely the term showed up in a question.

States tend to be protective of testing materials, mostly to ensure that the process remains tamper-proof. Thus, some states declined to say how many test items were connected to evolution.

Of those states that provided specifics, the number of questions on their high school science assessments that cited 鈥渆volution鈥� as it pertains to biological changes in species ranged from zero to seven.

When asked how many questions related to evolution generally, without mentioning the word, some state officials said their tests included no such items, while others, such as New York and Utah, said they had as many as a dozen questions on the topic.

Test Deadlines Coming

In some ways, the contrasting approaches on evolution reflect different approaches in science testing overall.

Some of the states with the greatest number of evolution-related items give subject-specific tests in biology. Likewise, states with fewer of those questions test students across a broad range of scientific fields, such as physics and chemistry.

In addition, the total number of test questions varies from a low of 30 to a high of 180. Half the states surveyed said they use only multiple-choice items.

States are facing new pressure to test students in science. The No Child Left Behind law requires states to have science assessments in place at three grade levels鈥�3-5, 6-9, and 10-12鈥攂y the end of the 2007-08 academic year, and to have standards in those subjects in place by this school year. According to a recent survey by the Council of Chief State School Officers, 42 states have science tests in place at the three levels, though not all are aligned with their standards.

Experts on science testing were not surprised by the broad differences in how states treat evolution. Those disparities could be attributed not only to the different ways in which exams are structured, they said, but also to the dissimilar ways in which state standards cover the theory.

鈥淚t鈥檚 impossible to put an absolute number on what is the right number of questions to include about evolution,鈥� said Meryl Bertenthal, a former program officer at the congressionally chartered National Research Council, who has studied state science testing. 鈥淭he emphasis and the depth [will be] similar to the state standards. 鈥� You鈥檙e not likely to see questions that are not aligned with the standards.鈥�

A related 澳门跑狗论坛 analysis, published last month, showed that state standards documents vary greatly in their coverage of evolution, with many ignoring core concepts and evidence connected to the theory. (鈥淭reatment of Evolution Inconsistent,鈥� Nov. 9, 2005.)

Alabama鈥檚 high school science assessment, which covers many science topics, does not include the term evolution, according to state officials鈥� survey responses. Yet references to the theory are found in underlying language throughout the state鈥檚 standards. The exam, however, is based on specific items in the standards that are highlighted as central concepts, said Gloria Turner, the state鈥檚 director of assessment, and evolution is not one of them.

鈥淲e assess the content standards as they are written,鈥� she said.

鈥楥an鈥檛 Cover Everything鈥�

In the past year, efforts to promote alternatives to evolution, or raise questions about its teaching, have played out in more than 30 states, according to the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Science Education, which monitors those fights.

One of the most visible battles has played out in the 3,600-student Dover, Pa., district, where the school board in 2004 approved a policy requiring that students be introduced to intelligent design. A federal lawsuit on the policy awaits a judge鈥檚 ruling. (鈥淓volution Loses and Wins, All in One Day,鈥� Nov. 16, 2005.)

Another equally visible fight occurred in Kansas, where state school board members last month included more criticism of evolution in state science standards.

The effect of those changes is unclear. Kansas鈥� high school science test usually has four to six questions on evolution, out of 60 overall, and only those items would likely be affected, if state board members decided to revise their exam to reflect the new standards, said Alexa Posny, the state鈥檚 deputy education commissioner for learning services.

All questions on Kansas鈥� test, next administered in 2008, are multiple-choice. Ms. Posny was not sure how state officials might structure a multiple-choice question about criticism of evolution. 鈥淚t would be a challenge,鈥� she said.

South Dakota also does not mention evolution specifically on its high school test, though officials said two questions related to the concept more generally. That state, however, is in the process of developing a new test to meet requirements of the NCLB law, said Gay Pickner, South Dakota鈥檚 director of assessment. She did not know if the new test would include questions on evolution.

No questions on Ohio鈥檚 38-question science assessment, administered this past spring, referred to biological evolution, state officials said. That test is based on Ohio鈥檚 state standards, which were revised in 2002 after an extended debate, to encourage critical analysis of evolution and broad coverage of the theory overall.

Deborah Owens Fink, an Ohio state school board member who supported those standards, was surprised that the concept did not appear on the state test. But she and other state officials noted that an original bank of potential questions included several evolution items. Those queries were eventually pared down to include randomly selected questions at various difficulty levels.

鈥淚f you only have 38 questions,鈥� Ms. Fink said, 鈥測ou can鈥檛 cover everything.鈥�

Treatment in NAEP

While most states included only a few test items about evolution, that treatment is similar to the approach used on one of the most heavily scrutinized precollegiate tests in the country, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. On the 2005 version of the science NAEP, 12th graders were quizzed about four items that referred specifically to evolution and five others that covered related concepts, making up 4 percent of the 209 total questions.

NAEP also provides a glimpse of how well students performed when questioned about evolution. Fifty-one percent of the 12th graders picked the correct answer on a multiple-choice question from 2000 about different aspects of the concept.

By comparison, 61 percent correctly answered a question about sexual and asexual reproduction in animals.

In Utah, a state that reported having about 15 evolution-related items on its high school exam, 61 percent and 66 percent of students reached the 鈥減roficient鈥� level on two different parts of the state biology test most directly related to evolution, while 67 percent who scored proficient on the overall exam. Students there are required to take at least two high school science tests; the biology exam is one option.

Utah officials have no inclination to include questions about intelligent design or other alternative views on their exam. 鈥淭hose things don鈥檛 belong in science,鈥� said Brett Moulding, the state鈥檚 director of curriculum.

Top-Down Mandates

Several experts on science education and testing said they fully expected that states were not testing students on views critical of evolution. They noted that precollegiate science teachers, who generally want evolution taught, often play a major role in shaping the content of tests.

鈥淔or the vast majority of biology teachers out there, there鈥檚 no controversy here. There鈥檚 no close call,鈥� said Bruce A. Fuchs, the director of the office of education at the National Institutes of Health, an arm of the federal government. He speculated that any future efforts to promote alternatives to evolution in science testing were 鈥渓ikely to be forced in from the top,鈥� if at all, 鈥渞ather than coming from teachers.鈥�