50-State Analysis of Education Policies on Science and Mathematics

Author(s): Rolf K. Blank and Pamela H. Espenshade

Source: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter, 1988), pp. 315-324
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164173 .
Accessed: 28/09/2014 09:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:24:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Educational
Evaluation
andPolicyAnalysis
Winter1988,Vol.10,No. 4, pp.315-324

50-State Analysis of EducationPolicies on Science and

Mathematics
Rolf K. Blank and Pamela H. Espenshade
Councilof ChiefState School Officers
TheCouncilof ChiefStateSchoolOfficers
begana projectin 1986to developstateindicators
educationin elementary
andsecondary
schools.
of theconditionofscienceandmathematics
Basedon a 50-statesurvey,thefollowingdatasummarizecurrentstatepoliciesrelatedto
scienceand mathematics
in threeareas:(a) policiesaffectingthe amountof instruction
at
and secondarylevels;(b)staterequirements
elementary
for the certification
of scienceand
math teachersand policyinitiativesrelatedto teachercertification,
and (c) state testing
programsin scienceandmathematics.
Editor'sIntroduction
In 1990, the National Assessment of EducationalProgress(NAEP)will launcha historic state-by-stateappraisalof eighth-grade
mathematicsachievement.Thispilot project
may be theforerunnerof widerspreadtesting
in additionalareas such as reading,writing,
geography and history, and science. If or
when, such extensive assessment is undertaken,it will be importantto knowthe nature
of state curriculumpolicies. Thus,thefollowing materials about state mathematicsand
science policies are presented as a form of
baseline data which may prove of use to
future evaluators,analysts, and policymakers. EEPA will attempt to present similar
summaries in writing and reading if and
whenthey becomeavailable.
Many states recently have institutededucation policy reformsthat are aimed at improvingscienceand mathematicseducation.
State commissionersof education and their
Thispapercontainsstate-by-state
information
thatwascollectedthroughthecooperation
of the
StateNetworkon Science/Mathematics
Indicators, whichincludesprofessionalstaff in each
statedepartment
of education.Researchsupport
wasprovidedthrougha grantfromthe National
ScienceFoundation.

staffshave been workingto implementthese

reformsas well as to improve information
by which the quality of education can be
monitored. In 1984, the Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO) adopted a
position on the responsibilityof the states
for leadingeducationalassessmentand evaluation, and the followingyearCCSSOestablished the State EducationAssessmentCenter to coordinatethe development,analysis,
and use of state-leveldata (CCSSO,1987).
With support of the National Science
Foundation, the Center began a project in
1986 to develop state indicatorsof the condition of scienceand mathematicseducation
in elementary and secondaryschools. The
goals of the project are (a) to improve the
quality and usefulness of data on science
and mathematics education to assist state
policymakers and program managers in
makingmore informeddecisions,and (b) to
develop a system of indicatorsthat provides
the capacity for state-to-statecomparisons
of science and mathematics education as
well as a national database to assess the
condition of educationin these subjects.
State Policies and Indicatorsof Scienceand
MathematicsEducation
Since 1983 several researchstudies have
assessedthe extent of states'education pol315

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:24:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Blankand Espenshade

icy reforms. For example, Goertz (1986)

conducted a 50-state analysis of state education policy changes and intensively studied four states. The EducationCommission
of the States (ECS) reviewed state policies
relatedto teachers(1985) and conducted a
survey of state policies related to science,
mathematics, and computer education
(1987). In California,a consortium of university researchershas been conducting a
multi-yearproject,entitled "PolicyAnalysis
for CaliforniaEducation"(Odden & Marsh,
1987). The federallyfunded Centerfor Policy Researchin Educationhas been analyzing local implementationof state policy reforms in six states (Clune, 1987).
The National Science Foundation (NSF)
has recently increased its involvement in
improving the quality of information on
science and mathematics education. The
need for better data was highlightedin the
recommendationsof the National Science
BoardCommissionon PrecollegeEducation
in Mathematics, Science, and Technology
(1983). The NSF has supportedmajorstudies by the RAND Corporationand the National Academyof Sciences,which have recommended indicators and data that are
needed to effectively monitor science and

mathematics education in elementary and

secondary schools (Murnane & Raizen,
1988; Shavelson, McDonnell, Oakes, &
Carey, 1987).
As these studies were proceeding, NSF
joined with CCSSOin designinga projectto
improve state-level indicatorsand data on
science and mathematics.
ProjectDesign
The first major step in the State Science/
Math IndicatorsProject was to determine
the status of state policiesthat affectscience
and mathematicsat the elementaryand secondary levels and to identify the kinds of
data that states collect that can be used in
monitoringeducationin science and mathematics.An Inventoryof StateIndicatorsof
Science and Mathematics Education was
conductedin spring 1987.
This paper summarizes the inventory
findings on state policies relatedto science
and mathematicsin three areas:(a) policies
affecting the amount of instruction at elementary(Table 1) and secondary(Table 2)
levels; (b) state requirementsfor the certification of science and math teachers(Table
3) and policy initiatives related to teacher
certification(Table 4); and (c) state testing

TABLE1
State direction/guidanceon elementaryclass time to be spenton scienceand mathematics(as of June
1987)
Science

Mathematics

Alabama

K-3: 150min/wk
4-6: 225 min/wk
7-8: 275 min/wka

1-6:225 min/wk
7-8: 250 min/wka

Alaska

Lowerelem: 150-250 min/wk

Upper elem: 150-300 min/wk

Lowerelem: 60-225 min/wk

Upperelem: 175-250 min/
wk

Arkansas

1-3: 300 min/wk (& Soc. Living)

4-6: 150 min/wk

1-3: 225 min/wk

4-6: 300 min/wk

California

1-6:200 min/wk

1-3:200 min/wk
4-6: 250 min/wk

Colorado

Lowerelem:150min/wk
Upperelem:200 min/wk
MidSchl/JrH: 225 min/wk
(TaskForceRecommendation)

316

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:24:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AnalysisofEducationPolicies
TABLE 1 (continued)
Science
Connecticut

1-3: 75-150 min/wk

4-5: 135-200 min/wk
6-8: 250-300 min/wk

Delaware

Mathematics
1-3: 225 min/wk
4-6: 300 min/wk
7-8: 5 periods/wk
200-225 min/wk"

Dist. of Columbia

135 min/wka

225 min/wka

Indiana

1-3: 150 min/wk

4-6: 180 min/wk
7-8: 200 min/wk

1-3: 225 min/wk

4-6: 225 min/wk
7-8: 200 min/wk

Iowa

1-3: 100 min/wk

4-6: 150 min/wk
7-8: 250 min/wk

Kentucky

1-4: 120 min/wk

5-8: 225 min/wk

1-4: 300 min/wk

5-8: 225 min/wk

Louisiana

1-3: 225 min/wk (& Soc. Stud.)

4-6: 225 min/wk
7-8: 250-275 min/wk"

1-6: 300 min/wk

7-8: 250-275 min/wka

Michigan

K-3: 6%
4-6: 9%

K-6: 15%
(Schl yr = 900 hrs)

Minnesota

1-6: 100 min/wk

(approximately)

1-6: 135 min/wk

(approximately)

Missouri

1-8: 300 min/wk

New Hampshire

1-3: 150 min/wk

4-8: 200 min/wk
K-3: 110 min/wk
4-6: 160 min/wk
7-8: 200 min/wk

K-3: 200 min/wk

4-6: 250 min/wk
7-8: 300 min/wk

New Mexico

4-6: 240 min/wk

1-6: 300 min/wka

Oklahoma

1-8: 300 min/wka

Oregon

K-3: 7%
4-8: 10%

1-8: 15%

South Carolina

1-6: 125 min/wk

7-8: 200 min/wk

1-3: 225 min/wk

4-8: 250 min/wk

Tennessee

K-8: continuousprogram

1-3: 240 min/wk

4-8: 300 min/wk

Texas

K: Partof curriculum
1-3: 100 min/wk
4-6: 225 min/wk

K: 20%
1-6: 300 min/wk

317

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:24:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Blankand Espenshade
TABLE 1(continued)
Science

Mathematics

Utah

K-6: 150 min/wka

K-6: 150 min/wk

VirginIslands

1-6: 90 min/wk

1-6: 100 min/wk

West Virginia

K-4: 80-110 min/wk

5-8: 190-260 min/wk

K-4: 250-300 min/wk

5-8: 225-240 min/wk

1-2: 100 min/wk

K: 10%(Math& Sci)
3-4: 150 min/wk
1-6: 250 min/wk
5: 175 min/wk
6: 250 min/wk
"Statedirectionor guidanceoriginallyexpressedas minutesper day.
Wisconsin

TABLE2
State requirementsin mathematicsand sciencefor high schoolgraduation(forclass of 1987 unless
specified)
Coursesfor regular
diploma
Alabama(1989)
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas(1988)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia(1988)
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho(1988)
Illinois(1988)
Indiana(1989)
Iowa
Kansas(1989)
Kentucky
Louisiana(1988)
Maine (1989)
Maryland(1989)
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi(1989)
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada

Math
Science
2
2
2
2
2
2
5 combined"
2
2
Localboardb
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
Local board
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
Local board
Local board
O'
0c
2
2
2
2
2
1
Local board
2
1

Coursesfor advanced/
honorsdiploma
Math
3

Science
3

4
3

4
3

318

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:24:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AnalysisofEducationPolicies
TABLE2 (continued)
Coursesfor regular
diploma
Math
2
3
3

New Hampshire
New Jersey(1990)
New Mexico

Science

Math

Science

2d

2d

2
2
2

New York

Coursesfor advanced/
honorsdiploma

2
North Carolina
2
2
North Dakota
2
2
Ohio
1
Oklahoma
2
2
2
2
Oregon
3
3
Pennsylvania(1989)
2
PuertoRico
2
2
Rhode Island(1989)
2
3
2
South Carolina
3
2
2
South Dakota (1989)
2
2
Tennessee
2
3
3
Texas
3
2
3
3
2
Utah (1988)
2
Vermont
5 combined
5 combined
3
3
Virginia(1988)
Islands
2
2
Virgin
2
2
Washington(1989)
West Virginia
2
2
Wisconsin
2
2
Local board
Wyoming
"Combined= 3 math and 2 science or 2 math and 3 science.
b
Local board= requirementsdeterminedby local school boards.
SMinnesotahas no state requirementsfor grades 10-12; 1 math and 1 science requiredfor grades7-9.
d New York State
Regentscoursesfor credittowardRegentsdiploma.

TABLE3
State certificationrequirements
for secondaryscienceand mathematicsteachers(requirementsas of
June 1987, unlessspecified)
Coursecreditsaby certificationfield

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida

Math
27
None
30
21
45
b

18
30
27
21

Science,
broadfield
52
None
30
b

30

Biology,
chemistry,
physics
27
None
30
24
45

Earth
science
27
None
30
24

General
science
27
None
30
24

18
39-45
30
20

18
39
30
20

21
36
30
20
319

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:24:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Blank and Espenshade

TABLE3 (continued)
Coursecreditsaby certificationfield

Georgia(9/88)
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa

Science,
broadfield
45 qtr
18

Math
60 qtr
18
b

Biology,
chemistry,
physics
40 qtr

Earth
science
40 qtr

General
science

20
24
36
24

36
24

20
24
36
24

45
32
24

20
24
36
24

Kansas

Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan

30
20
18
24
36
30

48

30
20

30
20

32

24
36
30

24
36
30

Minnesota

Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada

24
30
30 qtr
30
16

NewHampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York

West Virginia

30
60 qtr
45
36

32
20
30 qtr
24
16

32
20
30 qtr

30
24
24

30
24

30
24
36

30
24
36

30
24
36

16

C
C

30
40
21

60
40
45

30
40
45

30
40
45

30
40
45

30
30
24
18
36 qtr
24

30
30
30
21
48 qtr
48

30
30
12
12
24 qtr
24

Utah

Vermont
Virginia
VirginIslands
Washington

36
36

32
20
30 qtr
24
16

North Carolina
North Dakota

Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
PuertoRico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

18
36
36
36

18
27
24
24

18

12
24 qtr
24
C

18
24
NA
24

NA
51
C

30
30
18
18
24 qtr
C

18
24
NA
24
C

18
30
NA
C

Wisconsin
34
54
34
34
34
24
30
12
Wyoming
12
12
Note. Blankspace = no certificationoffered.NA = not available.
"Coursecredits= semestercredithours,unless otherwisespecified(e.g., qtr = quartercredithours)
institutionor approved/competency-based
b Certificationrequirementsdeterminedby degree-granting
program.
c Major or minor-North Dakota, Utah; 20-40% of program-Minnesota, North Carolina;courses
matchedwithjob requirements-West Virginia.
320

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:24:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE4
State alternativecertificationprogramsa (as of June 1987)
State

Programcharacteristics
Alabama
Certifiedteachermay applyfor temporarymath permit,6 semester
hours of math yearlyfor 4 yearsto completecertification.
Arizona
AssociateTeacherAuthorization,renewabletwice, allowsholderto
teach part-timeor one-halfyear full-timeundersupervisionof
certifiedteacher.
Pass CaliforniaBasic EducationSkillsTest (CBEST)and National
California
TeacherExamination(NTE), mentorteacherand programto
work for certificationafter2 years.
Connecticut
Six weeks educationtrainingand classroomexperienceunder90day provisionalcertificate,then enter 1 year new teachersupport
and assessmentprogram.
Florida
On secondarylevel, 3 week intensivetrainingprogramand 1 year
internship.
In areaof criticalneed, a science/mathmajor,teachercertification
Georgia
test, performance-based
assessment,coursework,and 1 yearinternship.
Indiana
Limitedlicensewith 15 semesterhoursscience/math,renewable
with 6 hourscrediteach yeartowardlicensurerequirements.
Louisiana
LouisianaState Universityprogram:pass NTE, coursework, internship.
Maryland
ProposedalternativeprogrambapprovedunderCreativeInitiatives
in TeacherEducation.
On secondarylevel, provisionalcertificateuntil pass NTE, comMississippi
plete 12 hours creditand on-the-jobcompetency.
New Hampshire
Pass teachercertificationexam, 3 yearinternshipwith master
teacher.
New Jersey
Pass NTE and subjectareatest, employmentwith a trainingprogram.
New Mexico
Pass NTE, employmentand individualizedprofessionalplan.
North Carolina
Lateralentry in areaof criticalneed, employmentand examination
of qualifications.
Ohio
ProposedalternativeprogramsbapprovedunderFlexibleand Innovative IndividualizedProgramStandard.
Oklahoma
Pass teachercertificationtest, employmentand teachereducation
program.
Certifiedteachersmay take NTE subjectexam for science/math
Oregon
endorsement.
Pennsylvania
May teach if participatingin internprogramat institutionof
highereducation.
South Carolina
In area of criticalneed, summercourses,trainingworkshopsin
school year and 3 graduatecourseswithin 3 years.
Tennessee
Fifth-yearprogramfor second careerpersonswith part-timeclassroom teaching.
Texas
In areaof criticalneed, pass teachercertificationtest, coursework,
and 1 yearinternshipwith appraisal.
Vermont
Peer review.
On secondarylevel, pass National TeacherExamination-Virginia
Virginia
(NTEV), employmentand 2 yearsto complete9 credithours.
West Virginia
In area of criticalneed, summersessionand 1 yearinternship.
"Programsdesigned,at least
partially,to increasethe numberof science or mathematicsteachersin the
state.
b
Alternativecertificationprogram:Teacherpreparationprogramthat enrolls noncertifiedindividuals
with at least bachelor'sdegree, offeringshortcuts,special assistance,or unique curriculaleading to
eligibilityfor a standardteachingcredential(Adelman, 1986).
321

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:24:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Blankand Espenshade

00
00
'T0~'
00

00

al

00

00u
00

UV,

00-

00al

00

al
000

00~
c

OI

?rCl

all
000

a,00V-0

0000

00O0

00

'T?J

00

-00

U,

'-.0

00?rc00
en

U,.OO

"

m0

00
00

'

CC

00

000

U,

)r-r--0
m

rC~

UCU,
o

Ua'

00
(1

.-

-0000
00rc

00

-c

Clc

00c00

322

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:24:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

r-

r-

AnalysisofEducationPolicies

"00
r

"00

all

al
all

000 -00

Crr1

a',O'0a,,

V--4
c
cn

UodIO

00

00

cnW

-h

al

v~~~

VO

o6O

OI

o\"

00

~U
h
0

U,

aL

Uo

Ud,

Qc~-

0"0

00v

c~

c~
sc
"0

d) c,

Cc)

*;

-n

Cc)

"00

II

cE
U,
Uc

U,

or~

--q

U,

C~r

323

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:24:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Blankand Espenshade
programs in science and mathematics (Table
5). The inventory results were used to produce reports on state education policies
(Blank & Espenshade, 1987) and state indicators and data related to science and mathematics education (Blank & Espenshade,
1988), and are being used to implement a
system for reporting comparable state data
on science/math indicators.

References
N.
E.
An exploratory
Adelman,
(1986,October).

study of teacher alternativecertificationand

retrainingprograms. Washington, DC: U.S.
Departmentof Education.
Blank,R. K., & Espenshade,P. H. (1987). State
educationpolicies relatedto scienceand mathematics. Washington, DC: Council of Chief
StateSchool Officers.
Blank,R. K., & Espenshade,P. H. (1988). State
educationindicatorson scienceand mathematics. Washington,DC: Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Clune, W. H. (1987). InstitutionalChoice as a
TheoreticalFrameworkfor Researchon Educational Policy. Educational Evaluation and
PolicyAnalysis, 9(2), 117-133.
Council of Chief State School Officers.(1984).
CCSSOAssessmentand Evaluation:Notebook.
Washington,DC: Author.
Council of Chief State School Officers.(1987).
Educationin the states. Vol. 1: State education
indicators1987. Washington,DC: Author.
EducationCommissionof the States.(1985).New
directionsfor state teacher policies. Denver,
CO: Author.

EducationCommissionof the States.(1987). Science surveyfollow-up.Denver,CO:Author.

Goertz,M. (1986). Educationalstandards.A 50state survey.Princeton,NJ: EducationalTesting Service.
Murnane,R. J., & Raizen, S. A. (Eds.). (1988).
Improvingindicatorsof the quality of science
and mathematics education in grades K-12
(NationalResearchCouncil).Washington,DC:
NationalAcademyPress.
National Science BoardCommissionon Precollege Educationin Mathematics,Science, and
Technology. (1983). EducatingAmericansfor
the 21st century. Washington,DC: National
Science Foundation.
Odden,A. R., & Marsh,D. D. (1987, December).
How state educationreformcan improvesecondary schools. Policy analysisfor California
education,policypaper.Berkeley:Universityof
California,School of Education.
Shavelson, R., McDonnell, L., Oakes, J., &
Carey,N. (1987). Indicatorsystemsfor monitoring mathematics and science education.
SantaMonica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Authors
ROLFK. BLANK,ResearchProjectDirector,
Council of Chief StateSchool Officers,400 N.
Capitol St., Washington,DC 20001. Specializations: sociology of education;education indicators.
PAMELAH. ESPENSHADE,ResearchAssociate, Councilof ChiefStateSchoolOfficers,400
N. Capitol St., Washington,DC 20001. Specializations: mathematics education, educational policy analysis.

324

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:24:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions