The vast majority of American public school students are not proficient in the level of science learning expected for their age group. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute has issued "The State of Science Standards 2012" as part of an effort to assess the causes of this dismal state of affairs. Here's a map summarizing their results:

State Science Standards Grades, 2012

Notice that some of the battleground states for the "Evolution-Creationism Controversy" have reasonable ratings. Notice also the vast regions of D and F states. In fact, in order to convey the meaning of it all, I've created a new version of the map that signifies all states with D and F rankings with one color, and all states with C or better grades with a different color (The "Pass/Fail" version of the test!):

The Fordham report identifies the reasons for lower than ideal grades on a state by state basis. Remember, these are criticisms of the state science standards used to guide or regulate teaching. These include:

An Undermining of Evolution

A Propensity to be Vague

Poor Integration of Scientific Inquiry

Poor Integration of Scientific Inquiry

I looked up Minnesota to see what was said about my state. I was not involved in generating the standards, but I did watch the process and at the time I gave it mixed reviews. According to Fordham:

The Minnesota science standards are like the frustrating student who does excellent work two days a week but shoddy work on the other three. When the standards are "on," they are cogent and challenging. But too often they are marred by vague, incorrect, or grade-inappropriate material, or are missing key content entirely.

I did have some secret in-the-background involvement in the development of Earth and Space science during the previous iteration of Science Standards development, so I was happy to see that we didn't do too badly there:

The Minnesota earth and space science standards are reasonably comprehensive, covering the water cycle, mineral properties, fossils, and natural resources. The basic structure of the solar system is also well covered,...

Integration was certainly what we were looking for. And the Life Science standards did not exactly take it in the neck:

Important life science content is presented quite minimally, but the flow and logic are such as to convey an understanding of the concepts rather than coming across as a list of topics to check off. The inclusion of examples from Kindergarten through eighth grade helps to further explain what students should know and be able to do.

Physical Science and High Shool Physics did not do so well:

The physical science standards are barely passable. While some important content is covered, much is missing--or slighted--and the overall impression is of disorganization and a superficial understanding of the subject matter on the part of the writers. .... The high school physics standards are marred by illogical organization. As noted above, prior to high school there is ndiscussion of kinematics in one dimension, let alone two. Yet high school physics students are expected to: Use vectors and free-body diagrams to describe force, position, velocity and acceleration of objects in two- dimensional space. Then, immediately afterward, students are asked to: Apply Newton's three laws of motion to calculate and analyze the effect of forces and momentum on motion. How does this relate to the item immediately preceding? What are we to make of the mention of momentum? And what follows in the next few items is pure chaos. Unfortunately, this typifies the entire treatment of high school physics.

Chemistry did a little better.

It is an interesting report to browse through, and you can get your PDF copy of it here for free! Also, have a look at this overview from the NCSE.

How did your state do?