This is from 6 years ago but I doubt there's been much improvement since then. Only four states of our 50 states have human evolution in their public school science standards.

The State of State Science Standards 2012

Only 4 out of 50 states "openly embrace human evolution". The students learn how to hate science because they think it's boring.

"Finally, conspicuously missing from the vast majority of states’ standards is mention of human evolution—implying that elements of biological evolution don’t pertain to human life. This marks a subtle but important victory for creationists: Even states with thorough and appropriate coverage of evolution (e.g., Massachusetts, Utah, and Washington) shy away from linking the controversial term with ourselves. Only four states—Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Rhode Island—openly embrace human evolution in their current science standards. (Pennsylvania, which referenced human evolution in its previous standards, has omitted it from the more recent version.)"

I suggest take a look at The State of State Science Standards 2012 which explains why science education is terrible in Idiot America, mostly thanks to Christian scum. For example:

Our earlier evaluations, as well as those evaluations conducted by others, have made it clear that too many state science standards are mediocre to poor. In particular, there are four areas where they most frequently fail to measure up.

Problem 1: An Undermining of Evolution

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”So wrote famed biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1973. And so it is today. Yet controversy continues to envelop the teaching of evolution in American schools. One wonders, indeed, how much progress we’ve made in this realm since the Scopes trial in 1925. Six years ago, our science reviewers noted that:

The attack on evolution is unabated [since 2000], and Darwin’s critics have evolved a more-subtle, more dangerous approach. A decade ago, the anti-evolution movement argued vigorously for explicit teaching of the evidence for intelligent design. The claim now is that evidence against “Darwinism” exists, that curriculum makers should include it as an exercise in critical thinking, and that “freedom of speech” or “fairness” requires that they do so. The hidden agenda is to introduce doubt—any possible doubt—about evolution at the critical early stage of introduction to the relevant science.

While many states are handling evolution better today than in the past, anti-evolution pressures continue to threaten state science standards. In June 2008, for example, Louisiana passed its infamous Science Education Act, ostensibly an “academic freedoms act” meant to give teachers and students legal cover to debate the merits and veracity of scientific theories. In practice, the measure pushes a pro-creationist agenda—and gives cover to those looking to teach intelligent design creationism. Though the act is a free-standing statute with no direct link to the Pelican State’s academic standards, it does damage by allowing for the introduction of creationist teaching supplements—thereby affecting classroom instruction without explicitly altering the state’s standards.

Louisiana is not the only state that has tried to undermine the teaching of evolution through legislation. In 2011 alone, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced in six state legislatures. (Thankfully, none made it into law.) And two similar bills were pre-filed in New Hampshire for the 2012 legislative session, as well as one in Indiana.

Of course, most anti-evolution efforts are aimed more directly at the standards themselves. And these tactics are far more subtle than they once were. Missouri,for.example, has asterisked all “controversial” evolution content in the standards and relegated it to a voluntary curriculum that will not be assessed. (Sadly, this marks a step back from that state’s coverage of evolution in 2005.) And Maryland includes evolution content in its Kindergarten through eighth-grade standards but explicitly excludes crucial points from its state assessment.

Other states have undermined the teaching of evolution by singling it out as somehow not quite as “scientific”as other concepts of similar breadth. A common technique—used to a greater or lesser extent by Colorado, Missouri, Montana,and West.Virginia—is to direct students to study its “strengths and weaknesses.”

Far too often, important evolution content is included, but minimally. Some states mention evolution just once in their standards and never revisit it. Others—including Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Nebraska— unnecessarily delay it until high school.

Even some of the nation’s best standards subtly undermine the teaching of evolution. In California, for example, students are told to “understand science, not necessarily to accept everything taught.”In New York, students learn that “according to many scientists, biological evolution occurs through natural selection.” (This is not according to “many” but, in fact, all true scientists.)