-
Title
-
Eng
Climate Change Education in the United States: An Analysis of Climate Science Inclusion in K-12 State Science Standards
-
Date
-
2016
-
Creator
-
Eng
Goodwin, Madeline Erica
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES:
AN ANALYSIS OF CLIMATE SCIENCE INCLUSION IN
K-12 STATE SCIENCE STANDARDS
by
Madeline Erica Goodwin
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
August 2016
©2016 by Madeline Erica Goodwin. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Madeline Erica Goodwin
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Kathleen M. Saul
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Climate Change Education in the United States: An analysis of climate science inclusion
in K-12 state science standards
Madeline Goodwin
“Climate change is the defining issue of our time.”
~Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations, 2015
Climate change represents perhaps the greatest global issue of the 21st century, but the
United States does not include this issue in its national science standards, leading to very
low climate literacy among teenagers. Given the 97% public school enrollment rate in the
U.S., incorporating climate change into state science standards could prove an effective
education mechanism. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) include climate
change, but only 18 states and the District of Columbia have adopted these optional
standards. My research used text analysis and surveys to determine the most important
climate change concepts for K-12 students to understand and the extent to which state
science standards include these concepts. I found that most non-NGSS standards do not
include climate change, and even fewer include the priority concepts identified in the
survey; these top concepts focused on the impacts of anthropogenic climate change, a
politically controversial topic, explaining why they are often absent. To address this gap
in students’ education, I recommend nation-wide adoption of the NGSS. For states which
prefer not to adopt NGSS, revision of state standards to incorporate climate change
should occur as quickly as possible.
Executive Summary
iv
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgements
1. Introduction
2. Problem Statement
3. Literature Review
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Climate Change
3.3 Action and Gridlock
3.4 Science Education Policy
3.5 Climate Change Education
3.6 Significance
4. Findings
4.1 Current Curriculum
4.2 Survey Results
4.3 Recommendations for Improvement
4.4 Recommendations for Future Research
5. Solutions
6. Conclusions
7. References
Appendix A. Methodology
A.1 Concept Identification and the Survey
A.2 Data Analysis
A.2.1 Ranking the Standards
A.2.2 Survey Data Analysis
A.3 Biases
Appendix B. Concepts Used
Appendix C. Links to the Standards
Appendix D. Survey
v
v
vi
1
4
6
6
6
9
13
16
18
19
19
21
27
29
29
32
34
48
48
50
50
51
51
53
54
57
v
List of Figures
Figure 4.2-1 Percentage of overall votes survey respondents allotted to each
concept.
23
Figure 4.2-2 Percentage of total points allocated to each concept by survey
respondents.
24
List of Tables
Table 4.1-1 States according to concept scoring category.
20
Table 4.1-2 States according to priority for review and revision.
21
Table 4.2-1 Average votes and raw number of votes for each concept in the
survey.
22
Table 4.2-2 Proportions of raw votes versus number of points awarded to each
concept, and the number of standards which include each concept.
26
v
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to thank all the MES core and adjunct faculty I had the pleasure
to take classes from: I have learned a lot in the past two years. I especially want to thank
my reader, Kathleen Saul, for supporting and guiding me through this project, and for
helping me make it everything I wanted it to be. I also owe thanks to GHF: Gifted
Homeschoolers Forum, who sponsored my research and provided two of their staff, J.
Marlow Schmauder and Sarah Wilson, who provided valuable feedback during the
writing and editing process. I am very grateful to the staff at the National Science
Teachers Association, who permitted me to perform my thesis survey at their national
conference this past April; and to all the people who participated in my survey, giving me
much-needed data. I also thank my classmate and Shut Up and Write partner, Danae
Presler, for the role she played in getting this thesis onto paper.
I want to thank my partner, who started dating me just as I was diving into my
thesis: it takes an unusually patient, understanding, and supportive partner to make a
relationship work at that stage, and I am incredibly fortunate to have found such a person.
I would also be remiss if I did not thank my entire household for keeping me fed and
doing my share of the chores while I worked, and express my gratitude for my cats,
especially Arya, for being there through the emotional roller coaster of this thesis.
Finally and most importantly, I thank my mom, Corin Barsily Goodwin, who has
fought long and hard for me to have this opportunity, and who has supported me through
thick and thin, tears of laughter and despair. I dedicate this thesis to her, the woman who
birthed and raised me, the woman who taught me all my most important life lessons, and
the woman who has shown me that I truly can do anything I set my mind to. She has
taught me how to make the impossible possible - including finishing this thesis!
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thesis. Your faith in me was
not in vain.
vi
1. Introduction
Native Alaskans relocate their entire tribes as the permafrost under their towns
melts and their buildings sink unevenly, breaking apart. Severe storms ravage the
Northeast, while the Southwest struggles to cope with droughts and wildfires. Coastal
communities nationwide watch oceanfront properties become ocean, and snow-meltdependent regions like the Pacific Northwest face problems relating to changing water
availability. The Great Plains and Southeast witness record-breaking heat waves that,
coupled with water shortages, create agricultural and health struggles.
These examples from a 2014 government report show us what climate change
looks like right now (GlobalChange.gov, 2014). They do not come from models
forecasting fifty years down the road—these examples come from reports of today. With
these effects already being felt, the need for action on climate change gains a new
perspective—and urgency.
Action on climate change could come about in two ways. A bottom-up approach
depends on individuals changing their actions and behaviors to more environmentally
friendly choices, such as changing light bulbs from fluorescents to LEDs, carpooling, or
investing in energy-efficient appliances. Either alternatively or concurrently, a top-down
approach would include governments regulating carbon emissions and promoting
renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, likely using a monetary incentive such
as a carbon tax or appliance rebates.
Both of these options, however, rely on a public that makes climate action taken
on their own or by their elected officials a top priority. Right now, individuals and
1
smaller groups work for changes too insufficient to make a long term difference, and in
order for politicians to push forward would require a more forceful impetus, one that can
win out over the myriad of other issues they must juggle. A Yale study from 2015
showed that while 63% of American adults believe that climate change is happening,
only 48% believe human activities are the primary driver, while 34% of Congress denies
the modern occurrence of climate change at all (Herzog, 2016; Leiserowitz et al, 2015).
These numbers pose real challenges for any sort of top-down change, and could
potentially impair the efforts of any sitting president to enter into international
cooperative agreements. The Paris Climate Accord, the international climate change
agreement resulting from the 2015 Conference of Parties, was written to be non-binding
to circumvent the possibility of the United States facing a Congressional override, and it
could prevent the implementation of regulations proposed in agreements with China and
Canada on joint carbon emissions reductions and methane regulations, respectively
(White House Press Secretary, 2014; White House Press Secretary, 2016). Given that
most of these actions have taken place in the past several years, their current or future
impact can only be estimated.
Although working in the short-term requires persuading voting adults of the
necessity of climate action, long-term action and future adaptation demands educating the
next generation as well. With these obstacles, education becomes a priority in order to
combat the inertia of ignorance (Kenyon, 2016). Approximately 97% of American
children receive their education in public school classrooms, making the public school
system a highly efficient mechanism for climate change science education (Public School
Enrollment, 2013).
2
Additionally, beliefs developed as children and teenagers have staying power: if
teachers present climate change as fact to youth now, those youths will become adults
who continue to accept climate change as fact (Bloom and Weisberg, 2007). This holds
for children as young as late elementary school age: a 2014 study using a storybook
designed by the researchers on natural selection showed that second- and third-grade
students can comprehend much more complex concepts than expected (Kelemen, 2014).
Similarly, young children may also be able to comprehend climate change, allowing them
to engage and apply the concept throughout their education and lives.
Unfortunately, this classroom education on climate change—and the science
behind it—does not appear to be occurring. A recent survey of U.S. science teachers
showed that 70% of middle school science teachers and 87% of high school biology
teachers incorporate at least an hour of climate change education into their lesson plans
(Plutzer et al., 2016). However, 30% of teachers primarily teach the role of natural causes
in climate change. Of the teachers who do teach the science of human-driven climate
change, 31% teach both the consensus on the human drivers of climate change and the
claim that many scientists believe natural factors drive modern-day climate change.
While Plutzer et al. present several explanatory variables, they highlight misperception of
the scientific consensus as the primary factor: only 30% of middle school and 45% of
high school science teachers knew that more than 80% of climate scientists perceive
human activities as the primary driver of global warming. Encouragingly, the teachers
seemed to recognize their own ignorance: two-thirds of those surveyed indicated a desire
for continuing education on the subject, including half of those who believed climate
change was due to natural causes (Plutzer et al,, 2016).
3
Incorporating climate change into state science standards would be one highly
effective way to address the lack of climate change in classrooms. Already the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS), published in 2013, have been adopted by eighteen
states and the District of Columbia. However, the optional nature of NGSS, combined
with the politicized nature of climate change, has left many states with standards which
fail to adequately cover the subject, if they do so at all (Kliegman, 2015; NYT Editorial
Board, 2015).
In this thesis, I ask: To what extent do state science standards for United States K12 education include climate change? I assess this with three sub-xs: Which states
include climate science concepts in their science standards? What do science education
professionals consider the three to five most important concepts about climate change for
high school students to understand? And Are these concepts included in state science
standards? If so, in which states? In answering these questions, I seek to provide an
overview of the current state science standards and their inclusion or lack thereof of
climate change and related science concepts. I identify standards with room for
improvement, and suggest steps for improvement based on my research. I will conclude
with an exploration of the implications, potential applications, and areas for future
research that this research project provides.
2. Problem Statement
Climate change threatens the entire planet, but greenhouse gas emissions
predominantly come from industrialized countries, especially China and the United States
4
(Boden, Marland, & Andres, 2016). Implementing change means collective agreement to
move towards renewable energy sources, but at present, this momentum does not exist in
the United States. A large part of this inertia results from ignorance and contrarianism:
Only 52% of adults over 18 years of age in the United States accept anthropogenic
climate change; it logically follows that the remaining 48% would be disinclined to take
action to prevent a threat they do not acknowledge (Leiserowitz et al., 2015). Because
public schools teach 97% of school-aged children in the United States, including climate
change in the standards would mean educating millions of future voters (Public School
Enrollment, 2013). At present, however, most state science standards do not adequately
teach climate change (Table 1). Combined with the proclivity for teachers to “teach to the
test,” this results in most students not being taught climate change in their classrooms
(Goodwin & Gustavson, 2013).
Part of this problem comes from the state science standards and curricula adoption
decision-makers: groups which rarely include teachers, yet often include politicians or
special interests who may have ulterior motives or other agendas (NYT Editorial Board,
2015). The lack of understanding of climate change by teachers also poses a severe
challenge, since imparting knowledge requires having that knowledge in the first place
(Plutzer et al., 2016). Addressing the problem will require a multi-faceted approach and
demands the statistics and information provided in this research.
5
3. Literature Review
3.1 Introduction
Originally a purely scientific concept, climate change has moved into the policy
arena and is becoming a facet of everyday life. Social researchers have long recognized
science education as important for participation in modern society: “science, technology,
and society,” the term used for the interaction between these topics, has played a
prominent role in discussions regarding 21st century education. We build mental
frameworks based on our experiences, and science and technology have become essential
parts of these frames (Hodson, 2003). The next logical step would be to integrate climate
science in these mental frameworks, recognizing its importance to today’s younger
generations. Instead, resistance to policy change means climate change receives little
coverage within the curriculum unless the teacher makes the effort to include it (Sharma,
2012).
3.2 Climate Change
Since the industrial revolution, developed nations have pumped billions of tons of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, increasing atmospheric CO levels from 285 ppm in
2
1850 to approximately 400 ppm in 2015 (Tans & Keeling, 2015). Scientists have
identified a link between this increase and the 1°C increase in global average
temperatures that occurred in the past 125 years (Lewis, 2015). The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that, assuming “business as usual” emissions,
climate change impacts will only get worse, with temperatures continuing to increase and
6
weather events becoming more unusual and unpredictable, and a potential acceleration in
effects. Even with extreme mitigation efforts, IPCC scientists anticipate at least 2°C of
warming before 2100 (IPCC Core Writing Team, 2014). As these dangers move from
future to present, the threat to human life becomes an ever-greater concern (IPCC Press,
2014).
Scientists have established with a high degree of certainty a causal relationship
between anthropogenic carbon emissions and significant global climate change (IPCC,
2014). While scientists cannot establish direct links between a given weather event and
climate change, the increased frequency of extreme weather events suggests that many
locations worldwide already feel the effects of climate change (Geo. Soc. of Amer., 2015;
NOAA, 2015; U.C. Santa Barbara, 2015; Wuebbles et al., 2014). In the United States,
potential economic costs of a changing climate include, but are not limited to, damage to
communities and infrastructure from storms, sea level rise, and wildfires; reduced
agricultural production from drought and floods, changing precipitation patterns and
increased pest prevalence; more airplane delays due to visibility issues and severe
weather conditions; and increased need to transport water and other goods due to shifting
precipitation patterns (Karl, Melillo, & Peterson, eds., 2009). Environmental damages
include more extreme weather events, changing patterns of precipitation and rainfall,
destabilizing pollinator-plant and predator-prey relationships, and species extinctions
(IPCC, 2014). Wu et al. estimate that in the eastern United States, heat-wave-related
mortalities will increase by several thousand by the late 2050s; already, public health
records show an increase in asthma linked to climate change (D’Amato et. al., 2015; Wu
et al., 2014).
7
The United States emits a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions,
but despite overwhelming consensus among climate scientists regarding anthropogenic
global warming, only 52% of the American public accept the existence of anthropogenic
climate change, including just 21% of all Republicans, compared to 45% of selfdescribed “moderates” and 63% of those identifying as Democrats (Anderson, 2015;
Leiserowitz et al., 2015). Multi-faceted opposition to the implications of the science has
caused governmental gridlock at multiple levels, often preventing enactment of the type
of government reforms necessary to mitigate and adapt to climate change, such as placing
limits on power plant emissions (Anderson, 2015). These obstacles have been overcome
in some locations, including the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI,
pronounced “reggie”) on the East Coast and the various emissions reductions efforts in
California (California Air Resources Board, n.d.; RGGI, 2007). Nevertheless, many other
states have taken steps in the opposite direction, such in Florida, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where bans have been enacted on using climate change
vocabulary in state communications, papers, or websites (Lehmann, 2015; Williams,
2015).
As the children of today become the adults of tomorrow, they will be faced with a
multitude of decisions which climate change will influence directly or indirectly,
including parenthood, health, housing, work, social services, economic investments, and
transportation (Barreca, Deschenes, & Guldi, 2015; CIEH, 2015; Martin et al, 2013;
NAIC & CIPR, 2015; SaferSmarter, 2015; Stern, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2015). Some of these
adults will run for public office, and make choices that affect both their communities and
people they may never meet. Even local actions can have a global impact (Jaeger, 2015).
8
The better the coming generation understands climate change—the causes, the
consequences, and how to mitigate the effects—the better they will be able to adapt in the
future (Narula, 2013).
3.3 Action and Gridlock
While everyone from the president to comic strip artists have called for action in
the name of current and future generations, there remain powerful and outspoken
naysayers (Lewis 2015; White House Press Secretary, 2013; Trudeau, 2015). Thus, a
great deal of controversy surrounds the issue, creating obstacles to educating today’s
youth about this critical threat to the planet and modern society (NCSE, 2012).
Whereas public opinion polls indicate a gradual increase in climate change
acceptance within the American public, those who deny climate change and oppose
climate action have the fortunes of fossil fuel barons on their side (Brulle, 2013;
Leiserowitz, 2015). Money from the fossil fuel industry and other deniers fund media
campaigns in an attempt to sway the public, which, when these campaigns succeed, then
elects government officials who will work against climate action and for the fossil fuel
industry (Oreskes & Conway, 2010). Psychological research shows that educating people
about scientific facts, using persuasive arguments, can be effective in refuting inaccurate
claims made in these media campaigns, particularly when these arguments play on a lack
of science education and critical thinking skills (Nussbaum, 2006).
Some positive actions have been taken despite both the opposition of those who
reject modern climate science, and the absence of climate change in most public
9
education. The implementation of carbon trading programs in the RGGI states and
California present two excellent examples of these positive actions. Although some
RGGI states have predominantly conservative voters, the market-based design of the
program appeals to this voting bloc; the historic background of inter-state cooperation on
environmental issues in this region also facilitates the bipartisan cooperation seen in the
RGGI program (Silverman, 2013). California has a liberal urban majority, a demographic
which tends to accept the science of climate change, and pollution problems that add
extra incentive to reduce emissions (Hamilton, 2010). While these circumstances do not
exist everywhere, the programs do offer models on which to base future bipartisan
legislation, if the impetus to act grows to a sufficient level.
It could be said that legislators in the states just discussed have taken action
without any formal public school education on the subject. However, that would assume
that education only happens in the classroom. These people may have been fortunate
enough to have learned about climate change in a classroom or an informal setting; they
may also have simply had the issue thrust upon them and been forced to self-educate.
While this may have been sufficient in the past, the increasing severity of climate change
means society can no longer take the chance that sufficient understanding will be gained
by the general public without some explicit instruction (Parker, Los Santos, & Anderson,
2015; Pidgeon & Fischhoff, 2011). Lawmakers also typically have aides who specialize
in more specific or complex topics, including energy and climate change (Sessoms, n.d.).
In the face of political, economic, and ideological opposition to climate change
mitigation efforts, several movements have formed around climate action advocating for
fossil fuel restrictions, greenhouse gas emission regulations, and increased use of
10
renewable energy and other non-polluting resources. While they often focus on systemic
change, these organizations also push for individual action on climate change, especially
in three areas of concern: energy use, transportation, and consumer behavior (e.g. CA Air
Resources Board, 2014; David Suzuki Foundation, 2014; EPA, 2015; Holzer,
2006; NRDC, 2015; Roser-Renouf, Maibach, & Leiserowitz, 2014; Union of Concerned
Scientists, n.d.).
Individual action on climate change has been the subject of some controversy, as
Elizabeth Cripps describes in her 2013 book, Climate Change and the Moral Agent:
Individual Duties in an Interdependent World. On one hand, if many people take the
same set of actions, the combined effort may have more visible results. The increasing
public support will also likely catalyze larger-scale action by groups, governments, and
community organizations, resulting in even more meaningful reductions in carbon
emissions and investment in mitigation technology. On the other hand, the actions of one
individual have little impact on the overall problem: an extra car ride here and there or a
complete switch to biking, walking, and public transit will not do much to affect the
global climate (Cripps, 2013).
Research on individual action has mostly focused on how to get more of it, rather
than the why of its importance (Whitmarsh, O’Neill, & Lorenzoni, 2013). Much of this
research has argued for individual change as a mechanism for systemic change, as
described above. In many cases, these calls-to-action overlook the need for voter
participation—for citizens to vote based on environmental policies in addition to other
issues. However, in a democratic republic such as the United States, taking action on
11
climate change must include electing officials who will pass adaptation policy and work
towards global cooperation in cutting carbon emissions (Nussbaum, 2006).
Environmental organizations, civil rights groups, and ordinary citizens who may
not otherwise see themselves as activists have come together to pressure governments
around the world into protecting climate stability. These activists often see themselves as
protecting the future—if not for themselves, then for their children and grandchildren
(Monstad, 2010; Pedersen, 2010). Rather than passively watching the climate action
movement grow in the name of protecting their future, many youth have taken action.
The legal organization Our Children’s Trust, working with teens from across the country,
has filed lawsuits and other legal actions in all fifty states; of these, five states have
pending lawsuits (OR, MA, CO, WA, and NC), and courts in six other states have issued
developmental decisions. In a significant move in November of 2015, King County (WA)
Superior Court Judge Hill ruled in favor of Our Children’s Trust and the youth
petitioners, ordering the Washington Department of Ecology to account for the effects of
climate change in all future environmental rule-making. The probable severity of climate
change makes the actions of these youth, and other climate activism, particularly
important. By taking these actions, they demonstrate to legislators and others the value
current generations place on a stable climate; with their victories, they signal the
inevitability of climate action through the legal legitimization of their argument (Our
Children’s Trust, 2015).
The current generation of children will almost certainly have need of this
information; unfortunately, the inclusion of climate science in the public school
curriculum has been a slow and contentious process (Beeler, 2015). Making change
12
requires building consensus among the more influential stakeholders as to what should be
taught to whom and at what age. The implementation of any new curriculum will likely
face challenges from any parties not included in the development process, especially
teachers (Jorgenson, 2006). Moreover, these changes must account for political, cultural,
religious, and ideological differences, which create different value systems among
parents, administrators, and teachers (Lewis, 2015).
3.4 Science Education Policy
A 2015 study shows that most high schoolers fall short of the state and national
science literacy expectations, as expressed in the National Science Education Standards
(Eberhardt, 2012; Parker, Los Santos, & Anderson, 2015). This lack of scientific
understanding translates to an inability to comprehend the urgency posed by the very real
threat of climate change (Eberhardt, 2012). Research on climate activists shows that if we
want individuals to become engaged and involved in climate action, they must be taught
critical thinking and the scientific process, and be exposed to the facts of the subject
(Nussbaum, 2006). Persuasive texts and other educational materials have been shown to
be effective in providing young people with the information they need to become
engaged with climate change, offering a promising approach in encouraging individual
action (Sinatra et al, 2011).
U.S. public schools educate approximately 97% of Americans under age 18;
almost 50 million children enrolled in the nation’s schools in the 2012-2013 school year,
the most recent year for which data has been made available (NCES, 2013). To ensure a
common educational background for students throughout the nation, the United States
13
federal government first implemented the National Science Education Standards in 1996,
which “offer[ed] a coherent vision of what it means to be scientifically literate,” although
some states have had standards for even longer (National Research Council, 1996). These
standards set educational goals for each grade level in these schools (kindergarten
through 12th grade, abbreviated as K-12).
Milner et al. note that since the passing of the federal No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) in 2001, teachers typically spend less time on science, focusing instead on
reading and math (Milner et al., 2012). The NCLB legislation raised the stakes on
standardized test scores, penalizing schools and teachers if students did not get high
enough scores (Swarat, Ortony, & Revelle, 2012). Without climate change concepts in
the standards, then, teachers lack incentive to teach them. Alternative approaches to
science education, such as environmental education classes and project-based lessons,
have been offered, but only a minority of schools have adopted these methods (Goodwin
& Gustavson, 2013).
Since NCLB gives students’ test scores disproportionate influence in teachers’ job
evaluations, many have adopted the practice of teaching to the test—teaching specifically
the tests’ contents, and frequently excluding anything students will not be tested on
(Popham, 2001). When teachers teach to the test, their lessons lose content, and students
can lose understanding—and thus interest—in the material (Goodwin & Gustavson,
2013; Swarat, Ortony, & Revelle, 2012). Swarat et al. link this loss of interest to a
nationwide decline in science literacy, which falls well below the levels set out in the
Next Generation Science Standards (Swarat, Ortony, & Revelle, 2012; Parker, Los
Santos, & Anderson, 2015). In a 2014 report, the National Science Foundation used
14
National Assessment of Educational Progress scores to evaluate science literacy in 4th
and 8th grade students, and found that while scores did go up, less than a third of all
students reached their grade-specific proficiency level. When another test, the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study, was given in several other countries and
jurisdictions, the United States showed no improvement relative to other countries and
jurisdictions (NSF, 2014).
With so many U.S. citizens educated in public schools, the education system
could act as an effective mechanism for educating a large portion of the public on climate
change. Representatives of 26 states and the District of Columbia collaborated with nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and education professionals to produce the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which they released in April, 2013, and intend as
a gold standard for science education in schools (Achieve, 2013). Unlike previous
national standards, the NGSS cover everything from physics and astronomy to chemistry
and biology, and emphasize understanding the principles of science rather than
memorization of factual knowledge (Poppleton, Carley, & Niepold, 2014; Witte, 2015).
In addition, the NGSS include climate change science starting in middle school, the first
nationally recommended standards to do so in any significant detail (Poppleton, Carley,
& Niepold, 2014).
State implementation of NGSS has only just begun, and thus researchers cannot
yet discern outcomes. Additionally, unlike the National Science Education Standards,
states have the option to not use NGSS, which could result in limited adoption. In fact,
only 18 states and D.C. have adopted NGSS in its entirety since its release, as well as
some individual school districts in various parts of the country (Heitin, 2015;
15
Koronowski, 2015). Given the option, some states, including Oklahoma, South Carolina,
and Wyoming, have already rejected NGSS, citing concerns about how the standards
handle climate change science (Klein, 2014; Klein, 2015; Strauss, 2014).
3.5 Climate Change Education
Looking back at surveys from previous years, Shepardson et al. found that
understanding of climate change among Midwestern secondary students showed that,
while comprehension had improved in some ways since previous studies—students no
longer confused the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion as much—students made few
connections between climate change and their everyday activities (Shepardson et al.,
2011). When comparing the climate change knowledge of American teens versus adults,
teens scored lower than the adults on the questions about the climate systems and the
drivers and results of climate change. However, teens demonstrated a stronger
understanding of the key concepts, such as the relationship between anthropogenic
burning of fossil fuels and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (Leiserowitz, Smith, &
Marlon, 2011). Combined, these studies show the impact of leaving climate change out of
the core curriculum. Some researchers also argue that not only do students not receive an
education in these subjects, but they also may not reach the level of scientific thinking
necessary to understand the complexity involved (Parker, Los Santos, & Anderson,
2015). Without this comprehension, students may leave school incapable of grasping the
impacts of climate change, and without the problem-solving skills to address scientific
challenges (Goodwin & Gustavson, 2013).
16
In looking at climate change in the classroom, Lambert et al. argued that in order
to effectively communicate the relevant concepts of climate change, teachers need to
better understand the subject themselves. The researchers did a study of pre-service and
in-service teachers’ understanding of climate change before and after an “instructional
intervention,” which educated them on subjects relating to climate change. They found
that the intervention improved teacher comprehension and teaching of climate change, as
measured by their students’ scores on a quiz administered by the researchers (Lambert,
Lindgren, & Bleicher, 2012). With the introduction of the NGSS, earth sciences teachers
will have an even bigger part to play in climate change education. This will require more
extensive training for new teachers, along with expanded professional development
opportunities and in-service education for current educators. In particular, as more
becomes known about how best to teach climate science, this information and the tools to
apply it will need to be disseminated (Hestness, 2014).
Fortunately, in light of the dearth of formal climate change curriculum in schools,
organizations as diverse as The New York Times, the National Center for Science
Education, GHF: Gifted Homeschoolers Forum, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency offer curricula, online resources for students and for teachers, and training for
teachers to use in their classrooms. These opportunities have been designed to help
students to better understand earth science, sustainability, and critical thinking skills,
which in turn build a foundation for the better understanding of complex climate science
issues (Parker, Los Santos, & Anderson, 2015). When students have this understanding,
they demonstrate an increased likelihood to take action on climate change (Rickard et al,
2014).
17
Humanity faces an unprecedented challenge in fighting climate change (United
Nations, 2014). By educating the youth of today, we begin to prepare the adults of
tomorrow for the world they will live in and the challenges they will face, and empower
them to make choices that will help mitigate and adapt to the damage caused by climate
change (Holzer, 2006). With 97% of American schoolchildren attending public schools,
ensuring their curriculum includes climate change would be an important step in the right
direction (Public School Enrollment, 2015).
3.6 Significance
I will be doing a comparative analysis of state science standards across all fifty
U.S. states, specifically looking for the inclusion of climate change and related concepts.
Despite the extensive literature previously discussed, no comprehensive reviews of state
science standards and their incorporation of climate change in science standards have
been performed. This research will fill that gap. In addition to adding to the literature, this
research will also serve broader uses. This research project will provide states with data
regarding climate change content in their science standards, and the impact of adopting
the NGSS on student climate change education outcomes. Primary research will identify
the most important climate change concepts students should know by the time they
graduate high school, and compare the content of each state’s science standards to those
concepts. Organizations advocating for climate change education may also use the
findings to target their efforts towards states which do not adequately include the subject
in their standards.
18
4. Findings
The findings discussed below suggest the demonstrated lack of knowledge about climate
change among high school students stems from a systemic absence of climate science in
K-12 classrooms. Teachers would like to teach more about the subject, but given their
propensity for teaching to the test, the state science standards must be changed and the
tests updated to incorporate their feedback. I present this feedback, along with my other
findings, in the sections below. Details on my methodology can be found in Appendix A.
4.1 Current Curriculum
At present, 18 states and Washington, D.C., have adopted the Next Generation
Science Standards in full (Heitin, 2016). These standards cover all of the 15 climate
science concepts I identified in my research, and can thus be considered, for the purposes
of this thesis, the “gold standard” for science standards. Of the other 32 states, three
included 13 or 14 of the concepts, falling into the “High Performance” category. Four
states scored 11 or 12, categorized as “Acceptable,” and another four scored 9-10,
“Inadequate.” The remaining 21 scored between 1 and 8, “Poor Performance” (Table 4.11). Note that these numbers have changed even since this research began, with three
states adopting NGSS since December 2015 (Heitin, 2016).
19
Table 4.1-1 States according to concept scoring category.
Category
Number of
Concepts
Gold Standard 15
High
Performance
Acceptable
Inadequate
Poor
Performance
States
AR, CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, MD, MI, NV,
NJ, OR, RI, VT, WA, WV, D.C.
13-14
ID, MA, SC
11-12
9-10
AL, CO, GA, OH
AZ, MN, OK, UT
AK, FL, IN, LA, ME, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM,
NY, NC, ND, PA, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WY
1-8
In a survey of science education professionals, discussed in more detail in the next
section, participants voted on which five concepts out of the fifteen studied they believed
most important for students to learn by the time they graduated high school. The three
highest-ranking concepts, winning across age, gender, political orientation, and
educational background categories, were “Impact of human activities on the global
climate,” “Impact of climate change on earth systems,” and “Impact of climate change on
living organisms.”
By awarding extra points to state standards with these top concepts, some
standards with fewer concepts scored higher. Using these revised scores, states also fell
into high, medium, and low priority groups for revision. NGSS “Gold Standard” states
were excluded from this grouping; they could also be considered “lowest priority.” Of the
32 other standards, 11 scored between 1 and 7, and should be considered high priority.
The 13 medium priority standards scored 8-14 points; apart from the NGSS standards,
only 8 scored 15 or higher, indicating low priority (Table 4.1-2). This indicates that most
standards need revision to include climate science concepts.
20
Table 4.1-2 States according to priority for review and revision.
Priority Group Scores States
Low priority
15+ AL, CO, GA, ID, MA, OH, OK, SC
Medium priority 8-14 AK, AZ, FL, LA, MN, MS, MT, NC, NM, TN, TX, UT, VA
High priority
1-7
IN, ME, MO, NE, NH, NY, ND, PA, SD, WI, WY
4.2 Survey Results
Average votes for each of the 15 concepts ranged from 2.2 to 3.8. Four concepts
received average votes above 3 points: “Impact of human activity on the global climate”
(3.8 points), “Impact of climate change on living organisms” (3.5 pts), “Impact of climate
change on earth systems” (3.3 pts), and “Relationship between energy flows and the
global climate” (3.2 pts). Interestingly, this last concept received relatively few votes,
indicating that the votes it did receive gave it high priority (Table 4.2-1).
21
Table 4.2-1 Average votes and raw number of votes for each concept in the survey.
Concept
Climate consequences of burning fossil fuels
Difference between weather and climate
Effect of oceans on the global climate
Geographical distribution of climate zones
Greenhouse gas effect
Impact of climate change on earth systems
Impact of climate change on living organisms
Impact of climate change on risk from natural
hazards and disasters
Impact of human activity on the global climate
Interpretation of climate models
Natural causes of climate change
Ocean acidification
Relationship between energy flows and the
global climate
The carbon cycle
The history of Earth's climate
Average
Vote
Number of Votes
(unweighted)
2.6
2.8
2.2
2.7
2.5
3.3
3.5
36
30
10
13
24
54
52
2.9
3.8
2.2
2.2
2.3
22
63
13
25
11
3.2
2.6
2.9
29
23
23
The top-scoring concept was “Impact of human activity on the global climate”
(a.k.a. “anthropogenic global warming” or AGW), with 14.5% of the total votes and
18.4% of the points. “Impact of climate change on earth systems” (CCES) received
12.6% of the total votes and 13.9% of the points, tying with “Impact of climate change on
living organisms” (CCLF), which received 12.1% of the total votes and 14.2% of the
points (Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2).
22
Figure 4.2-1 Percentage of overall votes survey respondents allotted to each concept.
23
Figure 4.2-2 Percentage of total points allocated to each concept by survey respondents.
Despite the high scores on importance, however, CCLF only appeared in 17 state
standards (out of 33, including NGSS), AGW appeared in 16, and CCES was found in a
mere 14, out of the same 33 (Table 4.2-2). Eight states did not have any of these three,
and only five had all three. While exact percentages varied, these three concepts achieved
double-digit vote percentages throughout every subcategory, including age, certification
status, political orientation, type of school where they taught, and belief regarding the
causes of modern-day climate change. This indicates universal consensus surrounding the
need for these three concepts to be taught, irrespective of sociopolitical, educational, and
other factors.
24
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the carbon cycle (CC) received only 5.4% of
the votes and 4.7% of the points, but was found in 28 standards—more than any other
concept. The effect of oceans on the global climate (EOC) and the relationship between
energy flows and the global climate (CEF) received similarly low scores (2.3% and 6.8%
of votes and 1.7% and 7.2% of points, respectively), but were included by 22 standards
(see Table 4.2-2). A chi-squared test of the relationship between a) the presence of a
concept in a standard, and b) the number of votes that concept received from educators
subject to that standard, had a p-value of <0.01 and a test statistic of 41.53, well above
the 14 df critical value of 23.68. This indicates a correlation between the respondent
being required to teach a concept and the respondent voting for the concept.
25
Table 4.2-2 Proportions of raw votes versus number of points awarded to each concept,
and the number of standards which include each concept.
% of % of Number of standards
votes points including concept
8.4% 7.3% 11
7.0% 6.6% 20
2.3% 1.7% 23
3.0% 2.7% 20
5.6% 4.7% 13
12.6% 13.9% 13
12.1% 14.2% 18
Concept
Climate consequences of burning fossil fuels
Difference between weather and climate
Effect of oceans on the global climate
Geographical distribution of climate zones
Greenhouse gas effect
Impact of climate change on earth systems
Impact of climate change on living organisms
Impact of climate change on risk from natural
hazards and disasters
5.1% 4.9% 4
Impact of human activity on the global climate
14.7% 18.4% 17
Interpretation of climate models
3.0% 2.2% 10
Natural causes of climate change
5.8% 4.3% 19
Ocean acidification
2.6% 1.9% 7
Relationship between energy flows and the global
23
climate
6.8% 7.2%
The carbon cycle
5.4% 4.7% 28
The history of Earth's climate
5.4% 5.1% 13
These results can be interpreted in two ways. First, the respondents could be
voting for things they would like to see added, and felt no need to vote for concepts
already included. Conversely, they could be voting for concepts they would like to see
replace current requirements, and did not vote for currently included concepts because
the the respondents do not feel they should be taught. The first interpretation both seems
more likely than teachers not wanting a subject taught, and provides a more effective
starting point for future research; therefore, I will adopt it for the purposes of this thesis.
26
Interestingly, 76% of teachers said they taught climate change, when only 28%
said they were required to. Indeed, more than half (64%) said they were not required to
teach climate change to their students. Since 63% of respondents were public school
teachers and thus subject to state science standards, these statistics reflect teachers’ desire
for climate change education in the classroom. It should be noted that, while I use the
phrase “climate science” when discussing the concepts, the survey and its questions were,
with the exception of the rankings, about climate change specifically.
To recap: “Impact of human activity on the global climate,” “Impact of climate
change on living organisms,” and “Impact of climate change on earth systems” received
the most votes across all sociopolitical, educational, and demographic categories,
contrary to expectation and previous surveys of the general public (Leiserowitz et al,
2015). However, these concepts appeared in relatively few standards. Conversely, some
of the lowest-voted concepts appeared most frequently. A chi-squared test revealed a
correlation between an educator being required to teach a concept and the educator voting
for that concept. Although these results can be explained in two ways, it seems most
likely that teachers preferred to vote for concepts they would like to see added instead of
choosing concepts they already have to teach. These results should be considered a
starting point for future research, and particularly for a repeat survey with a larger, more
randomized sample.
4.3 Recommendations for Improvement
Based on the Literature Review performed for this thesis and the results of this
research just presented, I recommend that when making changes, lawmakers take into
27
account the preferences of the teachers. Since part of this means ensuring the inclusion of
teachers in the revision committees, this would require a change in long-standing
structures that may not be politically feasible. My survey presents an intermediary step:
current committees implementing teachers’ climate science priorities. Ideally, this would
involve each state performing its own survey; however, as this would mean spending
time and money that may not be available, my survey results can be used instead.
Of the 15 climate science concepts listed in the survey, the top three were all
related to climate change. This survey included a cross-section of the U.S. political
spectrum, including conservatives, moderates, and liberals; the strong conservatives and
liberals were insufficiently represented to be analyzed individually. Interestingly,
although studies have shown political identification to be one of the strongest indicators
for whether a person believes in climate change, this study showed that some agreement
exists on which concepts should be prioritized in the classroom.
The data from section 4.2.1 show the need to increase climate science concepts in
science standards. However, when considering the most important aspect of climate
science, teachers prioritize climate change above other, more scientifically fundamental
concepts such as the relationship between energy flows and the global climate. My results
show that three concepts scored highest across every measurement and every
demographic subset: “Impact of human activity on climate change,” “Impact of climate
change on earth systems,” and “Impact of climate change on life forms.”
28
4.4 Recommendations for Future Research
An area of suggested further research would be the presence of teachers on
committees that review science standards. In particular, I suggest exploring the
relationship between teacher representation on the committees and climate science
inclusion in the standards. My research demonstrates a large gap between the most
prevalent concepts in state science standards, and the most highly prioritized concepts by
my survey respondents. While many factors could account for this discrepancy, including
the political pathways to standards adoption, I hypothesize that the level of teacher
representation has the greatest effect.
5. Solutions
My findings indicate that state science standards often leave out many climate
science concepts, resulting in very poor scores on my assessment. Additionally, most
state science standards do not include the concepts educators say should receive priority.
The results summarized here clarify the problem and provide some potential solutions
focused on adding climate science to state science standards.
As argued in the Problem Statement and Literature Review, climate change
should be taught to all students to prepare them for their future. The Findings showed that
state science standards often leave out priority climate science concepts, and climate
change in particular gets excluded frequently. At the same time, survey respondents
expressed a desire to teach climate change, above and beyond their interest in more
foundational climate science, a desire reflected by the 76% of survey respondents who
29
said they taught climate change compared to the 64% who said they were not required to.
The percentage of respondents who said they did teach climate change exceeded the 63%
of the United States population that does believe in climate change (Leiserowitz et al,
2015). These results, along with the concepts rankings, indicate that including teachers to
a greater extent in the standards development process would result in climate science
standards that look vastly different to the ones we have today.
My findings reinforce previous assessments, which recognize the Next Generation
Science Standards as a ground-breaking gold standard for climate science education
(Poppleton, Carley, & Niepold, 2014; Branch, 2013). One solution to the absence of
climate science in state science standards would be to require the adoption of the NGSS
nationwide. Although many people, members of Congress included, have problems with
various parts of these standards, national adoption of NGSS would ensure uniform
baseline science education within the United States, including addressing the lack of
climate science (Branch, 2013).
Political forces make achieving universal climate change education a challenge.
Much of the problem stems from the state legislatures which pass state science standards:
if politicians do not accept the reality of climate change, then they frequently will not
pass standards that include anything to do with climate change or climate science
(Bidwell, 2014). Requiring standards to be passed by the legislature politicizes the
adoption process, arguably to an unnecessary extent. Changing the process for adoption
to give the veto power to state offices, such as Washington state’s Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, or to teacher’s unions, could go a long way to
depoliticizing standards content.
30
Such procedural changes could also accelerate the process. Updates and
modifications every 5-10 years simply cannot keep up when new information becomes
available on a daily basis. By depoliticizing the standards, revision committees may be
able to achieve agreement on the outcomes far more quickly, potentially enabling them to
perform updates on a semi-annual or annual basis.
National adoption of the NGSS cannot happen without effort. Other intermediate
steps must also be taken. First, states should do their part by adopting the NGSS
themselves, or developing alternatives that incorporate my research results (Bagley,
2014). School districts can also individually adopt the standards, if permitted by their
state’s education laws; this has already been done in several districts in states that have
not adopted the NGSS (Heitin, 2015). If enough school districts in a state adopt the
NGSS, this could also put pressure on the state legislatures to adopt the standards
statewide.
Additionally, professional development opportunities must be made available to
teachers. A February 2016 Science article showed that teachers feel woefully unprepared
to teach climate science to their students. It does no good to require the teaching of
climate science if teachers do not have the ability to comply. Mandating that schools,
districts, or states fund professional development training, including time off, registration
and travel, and hosting local workshops, would help many more teachers be more
effective at their jobs (Plutzer et al, 2016). In a similar vein, curriculum and test
development with the primary climate science concepts would help teachers better
advocate for inclusion of these concepts in their classrooms.
31
Other solutions exist. At the state level, groups such as the National Center for
Science Education can make the results of my survey and others that follow from it a
central part of their climate change lobbying platform, pushing for the top concepts to be
included (Branch, 2013). Education committee chairs in state legislatures can set the tone
by laying out the importance of climate science for weather forecasting and air and ocean
travel. Locally, parents can also get together to lobby for climate change education in
their school districts.
Finally, this assessment process should be repeated in 3-5 years’ time to evaluate
what progress has occurred and where improvements can still be made. While the
standards probably will not all be perfect in five years’ time, substantial changes to better
educate our next generation can and should happen—and sooner rather than later.
6. Conclusion
At the start of this research, I articulated a problem: K-12 students do not receive
adequate climate change education. Given the severity of the problem climate change
itself presents, I set out to find out why. Through an exploration of climate science
content in state science standards, especially the concepts relating to climate change, I
found that the standards did not require climate change education. By performing a
survey, I discovered that teachers would like to teach climate change in their classrooms,
but my literature review showed that teachers often teach to the test. While political
forces make climate change education difficult to mandate, I offer several solutions.
Finally, I recommend that the Next Generation Science Standards be adopted nationwide
32
immediately. No solution will fix the problem completely, and changes take time, but
improvements are possible and should be made sooner rather than later.
33
7. References
Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.nextgenscience.org.
Anderson, M. (2015, August 3). Partisans differ sharply on power plant emissions limits,
climate change (Issue brief). Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2015/08/03/partisans-differ-sharply-on-power-plant-emissions-limitsclimate-change/.
Bagley, K. (2013, March 4). Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's
Classrooms [InsideClimate News]. Retrieved from
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130304/next-generation-science-standardsman-made-climate-change-consensus-global-warming-skeptics-heartlandinstitute.
Barreca, A., Deschenes, O., & Guldi, M. (2015, October). Maybe next month?
Temperature shocks, climate change, and dynamic adjustments in birth rates
[Working Paper]. In National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers.
Retrieved November 20, 2015, http://economics.gsu.edu/files/2014/08/BarrecaTemperature-Fertility-2015.pdf.
Beeler, C. (2015, November 11). Public debate muddies the waters in climate change
education. NewsWorks. Retrieved November 20, 2015, from
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/the-pulse/88056-public-debatemuddies-the-waters-in-climate-change-education-.
Bloom, P., & Weisberg, D. S. (2007). Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science.
Science, 316(5827), 996-997. doi:10.1126/science.1133398.
34
Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2016. Global, Regional, and National FossilFuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
doi:10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2016.
Borch, C. (2015, April). Survey Research Checklist and Best Practices. Retrieved from
http://www.ithaca.edu/ir/icsrc/docs/bestprac.pdf.
Branch, G. (2013, April 9). Evolution and climate change in the NGSS. Retrieved from
https://ncse.com/news/2013/04/evolution-climate-change-ngss-0014800.
Brulle, R. J. (2013, December 21). Institutionalizing delay: Foundation funding and the
creation of U.S. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7
CA EPA Air Resources Board. (2014, October 3). Personal Actions for Climate Change.
Retrieved from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/public/public.htm.
CA EPA Air Resources Board. (n.d.). Cap-and-Trade Program. Retrieved from
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm.
CIEH. (2015). Climate change. Retrieved from
http://www.cieh.org/policy/climate_change.html.
Cripps, E. (2013). Climate change and the moral agent: Individual duties in an
interdependent world. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?id=qk9oAgAAQBAJ.
D’Amato, G., Holgate, S. T., Pawankar, R., Ledford, D. K., Cecchi, L., Al-Ahmad, M.,
Annesi-Maesano, I. (2015). Meteorological conditions, climate change, new
emerging factors, and asthma and related allergic disorders. A statement of the
35
World Allergy Organization. World Allergy Organization Journal, 8(1).
doi:10.1186/s40413-015-0073-0
David Suzuki Foundation. (n.d.). Top 10 ways you can stop climate change. Retrieved
from http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stopclimate-change.
Eberhardt, T. (2012, January 31). The state of state science standards 2012. Retrieved
from http://edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadflydaily/flypaper/2012/the-state-of-state-science-standards-2012.html.
Geological Society of America. (2015, November 3). Wildfires may double erosion
across a quarter of western US watersheds by 2050. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151103151112.htm.
Goodwin, Corin and Gustavson, Mika.”Science, Creativity and the Real World: Lessons
Learned from the U.S. Homeschool Community.” GHF: Gifted Homeschoolers
Forum, 2013. http://giftedhomeschoolers.org/resources/parent-and-professionalresources/articles/science-creativity-real-world/.
Hamilton, L. C. (2010). Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence
for interaction effects. Climatic Change, 104(2), 231-242. doi:10.1007/s10584010-9957-8.
Hay, I. (2000). Qualitative research methods in human geography (3rd ed.). South
Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press.
Heitin, L. (2015, May 5). Districts Out Ahead of States in Adopting Science Standards.
Education Week. Retrieved from
36
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/05/06/districts-out-ahead-of-states-inadopting.html.
Heitin, L. (2016, February 17). Hawaii Adopts the Next Generation Science Standards
[Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2016/02/hawaii_adopts_the_next_gen
eration_science_standards.html.
Herring, S. C., Hoerling, M. P., Kossin, J. P., Peterson, T. C., & Stott, P. A. (Eds.).
(2015). Explaining Extreme Events of 2014 from a Climate Perspective. Bulletin
of the American Meteorological Society,96(12). doi:10.1175/bamsexplainingextremeevents2014.1.
Herzog, K. (2016, March 08). Surprise! A third of Congress members are climate change
deniers. Grist. Retrieved from http://grist.org/climate-energy/surprise-a-third-ofcongress-members-are-climate-change-deniers/.
Hestness, E., McDonald, R. C., Breslyn, W., McGinnis, J. R., & Mouza, C. (2014).
Science Teacher Professional Development in Climate Change Education
Informed by the Next Generation Science Standards.Journal of Geoscience
Education, 62(3), 319-329. doi:10.5408/13-049.1.
Holzer, B. (2006). Political consumerism between individual choice and collective
action: Social movements, role mobilization and signalling. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 30(5), 405-415. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00538.x.
IPCC Core Writing Team, Rajendra K. Pachauri, and Leo Meyer, eds. Climate Change
2014 Synthesis Report. Rep. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014.
Web. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
37
IPCC Press. (2015, November 2). Climate change threatens irreversible and dangerous
impacts, but options exist to limit its effects - UN and Climate Change. Retrieved
from http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2014/11/climate-change-threatensirreversible-dangerous-impacts-options-exist-limit-effects/.
Jaeger, A. (2015, January 6). Five reasons why local government should influence
climate change plans. The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jan/06/localgovernment-climate-change-plans.
Jorgenson, O. (2006, Summer). Why Curriculum Change Is Difficult and Necessary.
Independent School Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nais.org/MagazinesNewsletters/ISMagazine/Pages/Why-Curriculum-Change-Is-Difficult-andNecessary.aspx.
Karl, Thomas, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds. Global Climate Change
Impacts in the United States. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2009. U.S. Global
Change Research Program, 24 Aug. 2009. Web.
https://books.google.com/books?id=UCg7inAHksC&lpg=PA13&ots=uYecGhZJZK&dq=Global%20Climate%20Change%20I
mpacts%20in%20the%20United%20States&lr&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=fals
e.
Kelemen, D., Emmons, N. A., Schillaci, R. S., & Ganea, P. A. (2014). Young Children
Can Be Taught Basic Natural Selection Using a Picture-Storybook Intervention.
Psychological Science, 25(4), 893-902. doi:10.1177/0956797613516009.
38
Kenyon, G. (2016, January 6). The man who studies the spread of ignorance. BBC
Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-manwho-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance.
Klein, R. (2014, May 15). Oklahoma Committee Apparently Doesn't Want Kids To
Think Climate Change Is A Thing. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/oklahoma-rejects-sciencestandards_n_5333578.html.
Klein, R. (2015, April 10). Activists Slam West Virginia Board Of Education For
Watering Down Climate Change Guidelines. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/west-virginia-science-climatechange_n_7043680.html.
Kliegman, J. (2014, May 18). Jerry Brown says 'virtually no Republican' in Washington
accepts climate change science. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2014/may/18/jerry-brown/jerry-brown-says-virtually-norepublican-believes-/.
Koronowski, R. (2015, August 06). Iowa’s Kids Will Now Be Taught Accurate Climate
Science In School. ThinkProgress. Retrieved from
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/06/3688914/iowa-ngss-climateeducation/.
Lambert, J. L., Lindgren, J., & Bleicher, R. (2012). Assessing elementary science
methods students' understanding about global climate change. International
Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1167-1187.
doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.633938.
39
Lehmann, E. (2015, April 10). Wisconsin Agency Bans Talk of Climate Change.
Scientific American. Retrieved from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wisconsin-agency-bans-talk-ofclimate-change
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Rosenthal, S. (2015).
Climate change in the American mind. Yale University and George Mason
University. Retrieved from http://environment.yale.edu/climatecommunication/files/Global-Warming-CCAM-March-2015.pdf
Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N. & Marlon, J.R. (2011) American Teens’ Knowledge of
Climate Change. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate
Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/american-teensknowledge-of-climate-change.pdf.
Lewis, R. (2015, November 9). World is 1 degree C hotter – halfway to threshold,
researchers say. AlJazeera America. Retrieved from
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/9/world-halfway-to-2-degrees-cwarming-limit.html.
Martin, C., Campillo, G., Meirovich, H., & Navarette, J. (2013, September). Climate
change mitigation & adaptation through publically-assisted housing (Rep. No.
IDB-TN-593). Retrieved from
https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/6026/IDB-TN-593_en.pdf.
Milner, A. R., Sondergeld, T. A., Demir, A., Johnson, C. C., & Czerniak, C. M. (2011).
Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Science and Classroom Practice:
40
An Examination of Pre/Post NCLB Testing in Science. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 23(2), 111-132. doi:10.1007/s10972-011-9230-7.
Monstad, S. J. (2010). Grandparents: Advocating for a Livable Planet for Today’s and
Tomorrow’s Grandchildren. Ageing and the Environment, 6(2), 29-34.
NAIC & CIPR. (2015, October 7). Climate change and risk disclosure. Retrieved
November 20, 2015, from
http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_climate_risk_disclosure.htm.
Narula, S. K. (2013, September 19). The many small ways Americans are adapting to
climate change. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/the-many-small-waysamericans-are-adapting-to-climate-change/279800/.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015, November 7). Human-caused
climate change increased the severity of many extreme events in 2014.
ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 12, 2015, from
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151107202528.htm.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington,
D.C.: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/4962.
NCSE. (2012). Climate change education. Retrieved from http://ncse.com/climate.
NRDC. (2016). Energy Efficiency. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/issues/energyefficiency.
NSF. (2014, February). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 (Rep.). Retrieved
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/overview.
41
Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Education and Democratic Citizenship: Capabilities and
Quality Education. Journal of Human Development, 7(3), 385-395. Retrieved
from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649880600815974.
NYT Editorial Board. (2015, October 10). Teaching the Truth About Climate Change.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/teachingthe-truth-about-climate-change.html.
Our Children's Trust. Legal Action. Retrieved from http://ourchildrenstrust.org/Legal.
Parker, J., Los Santos, E., & Anderson, C. (2015). Learning Progressions & Climate
Change. The American Biology Teacher, 77(4), 232-238.
doi:10.1525/abt.2015.77.4.2.
Pedersen, J. (2010). The Raging Grannies: Activist Grandmothering for Peace. Journal of
the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement., 1(1), 64-74.
Retrieved from
http://jarm.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jarm/article/view/30921/28350.
Pidgeon, N., & Fischhoff, B. (2011). The role of social and decision sciences in
communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Climate Change, 1(1), 35-41.
doi:10.1038/nclimate1080.
Plutzer, E., Mccaffrey, M., Hannah, A. L., Rosenau, J., Berbeco, M., & Reid, A. H.
(2016). Climate confusion among U.S. teachers. Science, 351(6274), 664-665.
doi:10.1126/science.aab3907.
Popham, W. J. (2001, March). Teaching to the test? Helping All Students Achieve, 58(6),
16-20. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/mar01/vol58/num06/Teaching-to-the-Test¢.aspx.
42
Poppleton, K., Carley, S., & Niepold, F. (2014). The National Climate Assessment and
the Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from
https://www.climate.gov/teaching/national-climate-assessment-and-nextgeneration-science-standards.
Public School Enrollment. (May 2015). NCES. Retrieved October 2015, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cga.asp.
RGGI, Inc. (n.d.). Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Retrieved from
http://www.rggi.org/.
Rickard, L. N., Yang, Z. J., Seo, M., & Harrison, T. M. (2014). The “I” in climate: The
role of individual responsibility in systematic processing of climate change
information. Global Environmental Change,26, 39-52.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.010.
Roser-Renouf, C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014, November 15). Climate
Change Consumer Activists: Objectives, Beliefs and Behaviors. In ICA PostConference Climate and Sustainability Campaigns. Retrieved from
http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/Roser-Renouf.pdf.
SaferSmarter. (2015, April). Bracing for the storm: How to reform U.S. disaster policy to
prepare for a riskier future (Rep.). Retrieved from
http://www.smartersafer.org/wp-content/uploads/Bracing-for-the-Storm.pdf.
Sessoms, G. (2016). Job Duties of a Legislative Aide. Retrieved from
http://work.chron.com/job-duties-legislative-aide-14108.html.
43
Shepardson, D. P., Niyogi, D., Choi, S., & Charusombat, U. (2010). Students’
conceptions about the greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change.
Climatic Change, 104(3-4), 481-507. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9786-9.
Silverman, G. B. (2013, September 16). RGGI Holds Bipartisan Support in Northeast As
Climate Change Issues Debated Nationally. Bloomberg BNA. Retrieved from
http://www.bna.com/rggi-holds-bipartisan-n17179877193/
Sinatra, G. M., Kardash, C. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2011). Promoting
attitude change and expressed willingness to take action toward climate change in
college students. Instructional Science,40(1), 1-17. doi:10.1007/s11251-0119166-5.
Stern, N. (2006). What is the economics of climate change? World Economics, 7(2).
Retrieved from
https://www.humphreyfellowship.org/system/files/stern_summary___what_is_the
_economics_of_climate_change.pdf.
Strauss, V. (2014, March 17). Wyoming officially rejects new science standards. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answersheet/wp/2014/03/17/wyoming-is-first-state-to-officially-reject-new-sciencestandards/.
Swarat, S., Ortony, A. and Revelle, W. (2012), Activity matters: Understanding student
interest in school science. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 49: 515–537. doi:
10.1002/tea.21010.
44
Tans, P., & Keeling, R. (2015, November 5). Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Retrieved November 20, 2015, from
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html.
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2013, June 25). Remarks by the
President on Climate Change [Press release]. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-presidentclimate-change.
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2014, November 11). U.S.-China Joint
Announcement on Climate Change [Press release]. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/us-china-jointannouncement-climate-change.
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2016, March 10). U.S.-Canada Joint
Statement on Climate, Energy, and Arctic Leadership [Press release]. Retrieved
from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/10/us-canada-jointstatement-climate-energy-and-arctic-leadership.
Trudeau, G. (2015, November 8). Doonesbury [Cartoon]. Retrieved from
http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2015/11/08.
U.S. EPA. (2016, February 23). What You Can Do. Retrieved from
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/.
U.S. EPA. (n.d.). Evaluating climate policy options, costs and benefits. Retrieved from
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics.html.
45
Union of Concerned Scientists. (n.d.). Ten Personal Solutions to Global Warming.
Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/what_you_can_do/tenpersonal-solutions-to.html#.V4wJ7LgrLIW.
United Nations. (2014, May 04). 'The race is on, it's time to lead', UN chief tells Abu
Dhabi climate change event. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47718#.Vk-08PmrTIX.
University of California - Santa Barbara. (2015, November 5). Global climate change:
Anthropogenic warming in the west Pacific likely contributed to the 2014 drought
in East Africa, say climate scientists. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105141344.htm.
Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S., & Lorenzoni, I. (2013). Public engagement with climate
change: What do we know and where do we go from here? International Journal
of Media & Cultural Politics, 9(1), 7-25. doi:10.1386/macp.9.1.7_1.
Williams, C. (Writer). (2015, March 11). Florida Isn't Alone: North Carolina,
Pennsylvania Ban 'Climate Change' Too [Transcript, Television broadcast]. In
The Weather Channel. Retrieved from
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/north-carolina-pennsylvaniaofficials-ban-climate-change-global-warming.
Witte, B. (2015, August 11). What to Know About the Next Generation Science
Standards. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/3992995/next-generationscience-standards/.
46
Wu J, Zhou Y, Gao Y, et al. Estimation and Uncertainty Analysis of Impacts of Future
Heat Waves on Mortality in the Eastern United States. Environmental Health
Perspectives. 2014;122(1):10-16. doi:10.1289/ehp.1306670.
Wuebbles, D., Kunkel, K., Wehner, M., & Zobel, Z. (2014). Severe Weather in United
States Under a Changing Climate. Eos Trans. AGU Eos, Transactions American
Geophysical Union, 95(18), 149-150. doi:10.1002/2014EO180001.
47
Appendix A. Methodology
In this research, I used four steps. First, I identified climate science concepts,
coding the state science standards for recurring themes, a common qualitative research
tool (Hays, 2000). Then I surveyed science educators on the relative importance of these
concepts. This survey was based in part on the Yale Project on Climate Change
Communication public survey, and was designed according to survey research best
practices (Borch, 2015). Next, I aggregated my results from the first two steps to
determine the relationship between a concept’s frequency of inclusion in state standards
and the level of priority awarded by the educators. Finally, I used basic statistical
analytical techniques in my analysis. These steps are discussed in the sections below.
A.1 Concept Identification and the Survey
I identified six search terms: climate (to include both climate and climatic), fossil
fuel, carbon, acidification, warming, and greenhouse. With these, I found fifteen climate
science concepts that appeared in at least one state’s science standards (for the list, see
Appendix B). Using my keywords as my search tool, I reviewed the state science
standards for all states that had not adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (nonNGSS states), in addition to the NGSS themselves (links to the standards can be found in
Appendix C). In order to determine what the most important concepts were, I surveyed
science educators.
Survey participants were identified in two ways. First, I attended the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA) national conference in Nashville, TN, from March
30 to April 3, 2016, where I collected email addresses from people interested in
48
participating. At the conference, on Saturday, April 2, I also made the survey available on
a tablet I had with me, so people could respond on-site. Second, I used the internet to
reach people who were not at the NSTA conference. This took two forms: I wrote a blog
post for GHF: Gifted Homeschoolers Forum, and I did an interview for the weekly
STEM Girls column at the Maker Mom blog. The link to the survey was included in both
posts, which were shared on the internet without my involvement. My survey did not ask
participants to indicate how they heard about my research; the responses cannot be
sorted according to recruitment method.
My survey (see Appendix D) presented the fifteen concepts I found, and asked
teachers, “Which of the concepts do you believe is (first-, second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-)
most important for students to understand before graduating high school?” I also included
questions about age, political orientation, whether the respondents had teaching
certifications, what type of school they taught at, and what they believed causes modernday climate change. Age and political orientation have been linked to likelihood of belief
in anthropogenic climate change (Leiserowitz, 2015). Teaching certifications require
background education that may influence teacher belief and pedagogy; the type of school
where a teacher works was hypothesized to have a similar influence. Whether a teacher
believes in anthropogenic climate change holds strong influence over whether they teach
climate change to their students (Plutzer, 2016).
49
A.2 Data Analysis
A.2.1 Ranking the Standards
Using my table of concepts found in each state’s science standards (Appendix B),
I gave states one point for each concept they included, regardless of its ranking. Based on
their scores, state standards fell into one of five categories: Gold Standard (15 points),
High Performance (13-14 points), Acceptable (11-12 points), Inadequate (9-10 points),
and Poor Performance (1-8 points). I gave standards receiving a perfect score their own
category because they represent the gold standard for climate science inclusion in state
science standards and a goal for other states to aspire to. I based the point distribution on
the standard grading system of the United States.
To evaluate the quality of current standards and identify key points for
improvement, I awarded additional points for including the impact of human activities on
climate change (3 extra points), the impact of climate change on earth systems (2 extra
points), and the impact of climate change on living organisms (1 extra point). Thus, states
had a maximum score of 21 points (15 for all concepts, plus six bonus points). The
additional points were awarded based on the premise that states which already teach the
most important standards—regardless of their overall concept inclusion—should be
rewarded for being priority concept “early adopters.” I then ranked the states according to
these scores, and labelled them as high, medium, or low priority for revision based on
whether they obtained 1-7, 8-14, or 15 or more, respectively, of available points.
50
A.2.2 Survey Data Analysis
My survey received 86 responses, including three homeschoolers (including a
former teacher), one international respondent (from Canada), three informal educators,
and seven student teachers. For each variable, I looked at response types with at least 15
respondents (n ≥ 15); this sample size correlates with the 15 concepts on which
respondents voted.
I used two methods to determine which were the top-scoring concepts: % of total
(unweighted) votes and weighted count. When looking at weighted votes, I made
teachers’ first-choice votes worth 5 points, second-choice votes worth 4 points, and so on
through fifth-choice (1 point). For both methods, I calculated the means, standard
deviations, and spreads for both raw and weighted votes. I also calculated the sums of
raw and weighted votes for each concept within each subcategory for each variable.
Additionally, I counted how many standards included each concept. This allowed me to
contrast the ranking of the concept by educators against how widely it was taught. Some
survey respondents also provided their location, which enabled a comparison of
respondent values against the concepts included in their state’s standards.
A.3 Biases
As with all research, this methodology included a set of biases, primarily in the
survey. Although care was taken in composing the questions, I did not use a focus group
to test them, but went straight to data collection due to time constraints. This introduces
the possibility of leading questions, learning on the part of the respondent, and other
51
flaws. In some cases, respondents may answer according to how they want to portray
themselves.
Respondents were recruited both in person (at a conference) and online. At the
conference, at least one climate science contrarian refused to take the survey. A selfselected, rather than randomized sample, means that the results may not be indicative of
all educators; the limited sample size (86 respondents) makes this bias especially
possible. The sample could also be biased to give me the data respondents thought I
wanted because I appealed to their sympathy towards a graduate student when asking
them to take my survey. Additionally, coding brings inherent bias, due to its subjective
nature; I did my best to remain objective but may have overlooked or inappropriately
included concepts present in some state science standards.
52
Appendix B. Concepts Used
Concept name
Abbreviation
Climate consequences of burning fossil fuels
FFC
Difference between weather and climate
WvC
Effect of oceans on the global climate
EOC
Geographical distribution of climate zones
SD
Greenhouse gas effect
GHGE
Impact of climate change on earth systems
CCES
Impact of climate change on living organisms
CCLF
Impact of climate change on risk from natural hazards and disasters CCNH
Impact of human activity on the global climate
AGW
Interpretation of climate models
GCM
Natural causes of climate change
NCC
Ocean acidification
OA
Relationship between energy flows and the global climate
CEF
The carbon cycle
CC
The history of Earth's climate
HEC
53
Appendix C. Links to the Standards
State
Link
Alabama (AL)
http://alex.state.al.us/staticfiles/2015_AL_Science_Course_of_Stud
y.pdf
Alaska (AK)
https://www.eed.state.ak.us/AKStandards/standards/standards.pdf
Arizona (AZ)
http://www.azed.gov/standardspractices/files/2011/12/sciencestandard.pdf
Colorado (CO)
https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/coscience/
documents/science_6th_grade.pdf;
https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/coscience/
documents/science_8th_grade.pdf;
https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/coscience/
documents/science_hs.pdf
Florida (FL)
http://www.cpalms.org/public/search/Search
Georgia (GA)
https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/Georgia%20Performan
ce%20Standards/EarthSystems-Approved2006.pdf;
https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/Georgia%20Performan
ce%20Standards/Ecology.pdf;
https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/Georgia%20Performan
ce%20Standards/EnvironmentalScienceStandardsApproved2006.pdf;
https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/Georgia%20Performan
ce%20Standards/Geology.pdf;
https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/Georgia%20Performan
ce%20Standards/Meteorology.pdf;
https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/Georgia%20Performan
ce%20Standards/Oceanography.pdf;
https://www.georgiastandards.org/standards/Georgia%20Performan
ce%20Standards/Environmental-Physics-Standards.pdf
Idaho (ID)
http://sde.idaho.gov/academic/science/files/draft/2015-Idaho-StateScience-Standards.pdf
Indiana (IN)
http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/standards/science/2010Science-EarthSpace.pdf
Louisiana (LA)
https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/academicstandards/standards---k-12-science.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Maine (ME)
http://www.maine.gov/doe/scienceandtechnology/standardsinstructi
on/index.html
Massachusetts
(MA)
http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2016-01.pdf
54
Minnesota (MN)
http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/EdExc/StanCurri/K12AcademicStandards/Science/index.htm
Mississippi (MS)
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/docs/curriculum-and-instructionslibrary/earth-and-space-scienceB31028A3D680.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Missouri (MO)
https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/gle-6-8-science.pdf;
https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/cle-other-science.pdf
Montana (MT)
http://opi.mt.gov/pdf/Standards/09ScienceELE.pdf
Nebraska (NE)
http://www.education.ne.gov/science/Documents/10-610%20Earth%20Science%20Standards.pdf
New Hampshire
(NH)
http://education.nh.gov/instruction/curriculum/science/documents/fr
amework.pdf
http://www.ped.state.nm.us/MathScience/dl08/Standards/ScienceSta
New Mexico (NM) ndardsV2.pdf
New York (NY)
http://static.nylearns.org//content/documents/mststa4.pdf
North Carolina
(NC)
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/acre/standards/newstandards/science/6-8.pdf;
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/acre/standards/newstandards/science/earth-env.pdf
North Dakota (ND) https://www.nd.gov/dpi/schoolstaff/assessment/unit/
Ohio (OH)
http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Ohios-LearningStandards/Science/ScienceStandards.pdf.aspx
Oklahoma (OK)
http://sde.ok.gov/sde/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/OAS_Science_Standards
_3-2-15.pdf
Pennsylvania (PA)
http://static.pdesas.org/content/documents/PreK2_Science_and_Technology_Standards.pdf;
http://static.pdesas.org/content/documents/Academic_Standards_for
_Science_and_Technology_and_Engineering_Education_(Elementa
ry).pdf;
http://static.pdesas.org/content/documents/Academic_Standards_for
_Science_and_Technology_and_Engineering_Education_(Secondar
y).pdf
http://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/file/agency/ccr/StandardsLearning/documents/South_Carolina_Academic_Standards_and_Per
South Carolina (SC) formance_Indicators_for_Science_2014.pdf
South Dakota (SD) http://doe.sd.gov/contentstandards/documents/sdSciStnd.pdf
Tennessee (TN)
https://www.tn.gov/education/article/science-standards
Texas (TX)
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter112/ch112c.html
Utah (UT)
http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/science/Core/Grade912.aspx
Virginia (VA)
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/science/201
55
0/complete/stds_all_science.pdf
Wisconsin (WI)
http://dpi.wi.gov/science/standards
Wyoming (WY)
http://edu.wyoming.gov/wordpress/downloads/standards/Standards_
2008_Science_PDF.pdf
NGSS States (AR,
CA, CT, DE, HI, IL,
IA, KS, KY, MD,
MI, NV, NJ, OR,
RI, VT, WA, WV, http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/NGSS%20DCI%20C
D.C.)
ombined%2011.6.13.pdf
56
Appendix D. Survey
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
