For the last hundred years, the teaching of evolution in schools has gradually expanded, but still remains controversial in some US states. In new research, Benjamin W. Arold examines how state-based reforms which increased coverage of evolution in school science curriculums has influenced students’ knowledge of, and interest in, science and science careers as adults. He finds that students who were exposed to comprehensive evolution coverage at school were more likely to believe in and be knowledgeable about evolution and were 23 percent more likely to pursue life sciences careers – especially in biology.
For more than a century, the teaching of evolution theory in US public schools has been a source of controversy and legal battles. But does teaching evolution even make a difference to students? To understand its long-term impact on students, my research explores the staggered reforms that altered the coverage of evolution in US state science education standards. I find that this increased coverage not only boosted students’ short-term knowledge about evolution, but also resulted in a stronger belief in evolution in adulthood without diminishing religiosity or changing their political views. Additionally, these reforms influenced what can be high-stakes life decisions for people, such as the likelihood of pursuing a career in life sciences.
The historical debate
Since Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, US policymakers have debated whether evolution should be taught in public schools. Before World War II, there was significant opposition to teaching evolution. Some states, like Tennessee, banned teaching it in public schools entirely. The famous Scopes Trial of 1925 saw biology teacher John T. Scopes convicted under the Tennessee’s Butler Act for teaching evolution. Legislative changes in the latter half of the 20th century gradually allowed for more widespread teaching of evolution. In 1967, Tennessee repealed the Butler Act, and subsequent decisions have enabled more comprehensive evolution education. However, today there is still a great deal of difference across the states in how evolution is covered in educational standards.
US reforms of evolution teaching
In new research, I examine reforms from the early years of the 21st century to study whether the coverage of evolution in education standards affects students’ beliefs about evolution in adulthood and their significant life choices. My “evolution score” measure captures the comprehensiveness of evolution coverage of a given Education Standard, ranging from zero to one. As Figure 1 shows, between 2000 and 2009, 22 states increased evolution coverage in their education standards according to my measure, while 15 states reduced it.
Figure 1 – Difference of evolution coverage in state education standards between 2000 and 2009
Notes: The map shows the evolution-score difference, which I define as the evolution score of 2009 minus the evolution score of 2000. A positive (negative) difference implies an increase (decrease) in the evolution score between 2000 and 2009, as indicated by blue plain coloring (orange striped coloring). White plain coloring indicates no change of the evolution score between 2000 and 2009. The years shown below the two-letter state codes mark the respective reform years.
Charles Darwin creator QS:P170,Q1035, Darwin Tree 1837 , cropped, CC0 1.0
Determining the influence of evolution teaching
It’s hard to estimate how school curriculums influence students, as they tend to reflect the state population’s attitudes and beliefs. To unpack the influence of evolution teaching, I took advantage of state-level reforms in US State Science Education Standards which were staggered over time. The timing of these reforms is determined by the characteristics of elections for governors and State Boards of Education members’ tenures. To study the effects of state standards on these outcomes, I compared students who attended high school in the same state before and after standards changed. This approach addresses the concern that states with more comprehensive standards differ in other ways that matter for students’ outcomes. I also adjust for differences in a range of individual characteristics that could be associated with outcomes, such as gender, race, parental education, and students’ religion. Finally, I considered the year each student entered high school and the year the outcome data was gathered, to capture changes in these outcomes over time across the nation as whole.
Impact on knowledge about and belief in evolution
I use data from the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), a standardized student achievement test, to test whether evolution coverage affects students’ knowledge about evolution. I find that students exposed to more comprehensive evolution coverage are more likely to answer evolution questions correctly by the end of high school. Specifically, an increase in the evolution score – the comprehensiveness of evolution teaching – from zero to one raises the share of evolution questions answered correctly by 6.5 percentage points (20 percent of the sample mean). This finding is economically significant, as scientific knowledge can positively impact earnings and economic growth.
Next, I examine whether evolution coverage affects evolution beliefs in adulthood using data from the General Social Survey. The survey asks US adults about their belief in evolution and other scientific, religious, and political attitudes. The data includes respondents’ year of birth and state of residence at age 16, allowing for the approximation of the year and state of high school entry and the corresponding evolution score. I found that exposure to evolution teaching in school increases the probability of believing in evolution in adulthood by 33.3 percentage points (57 percent of the sample mean). There is no effect on non-evolution scientific, religious, and political attitudes.
Evolution teaching and students’ career choices
I also considered if learning about evolution increases the likelihood of working in life sciences. I use data from the IPUMS American Community Survey, which includes detailed information on respondents’ occupational fields, to measure this impact. Comprehensive evolution coverage increases the probability of working in life sciences by 23 percent of the sample mean. This overall effect on life sciences is most pronounced for biology, the subject in which evolution is typically taught. Evolution teaching does not affect the probability of working in fields outside of the life sciences, suggesting that science education can attract future STEM workers, a central policy goal in the US and Europe.
Teaching evolution can improve technological progress
These findings may have broader implications beyond the topic of evolution. The fact that education standards shape students’ beliefs on a controversial topic like evolution may imply that there might be even larger effects on less contentious subjects. Overall, fostering scientific attitudes and attracting STEM workers through education can enhance technological progress, potentially addressing some of the major challenges of our time.
- This article is based on the paper ‘Evolution vs. Creationism in the Classroom: The Lasting Effects of Science Education’ in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.
- Please read our comments policy before commenting.
- Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.
- Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-enm