Remarks on the Release of the NAEP 2000 Science Assessment Results
November 20, 2001
George D. Nelson, Ph.D.
Director, Project 2061
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Most Americans would agree that literacy in science—achievement of a
core set of knowledge and skills dealing with the natural world and how we
come to understand it—is necessary for all citizens in the 21st century.
Our prosperity, security, and health depend directly on the educational achievement
of all students, not only those who will become scientists and engineers,
but all workers, voters, parents, and consumers. But despite this urgent need
for science literacy, the 2000 NAEP science assessment results provide alarming
evidence that most of our students are not being prepared for the challenges
ahead.
Both average scores and achievement levels indicate virtually no progress over
the last four years. The only statistically significant change is a small
decline in the average score for twelfth graders, 81 percent of whom perform
at a below proficient level. And while the claim is often made, based on data
from the Third International Mathematics, Science Study (TIMSS), that U.S.
fourth graders are performing well, the NAEP findings do not support that
claim, showing 71 percent of fourth graders with below proficient achievement
levels.
Students in some states do score better than others, for a variety of complex
reasons. But should Montana take comfort in the fact that 46% of its eighth
grade students are proficient or above just because California and Mississippi
have only 15% of their students at the same levels? The bottom line is still
the same: fifty-four out of 100 children in Montana are less than proficient
in science. Is that good enough for every state? No, it is not even close.
The gaps in NAEP science scores among ethnic groups are particularly troubling.
For example, the gap between the average scores of white and black twelfth
graders is 31 points, with only three percent of black students achieving
at levels at or above proficiency compared to 23 percent of white students—itself
a pitifully low fraction! The gap narrowed over the last four years, but only
because the scores of white students decreased by five points while scores
for black students decreased by only one point. If this trend continues, the
gap will be closed in around thirty years when scores for the white and black
students reach the same shamefully low level. Understanding and solving the
problems that result in this huge discrepancy in basic educational performance
should be one of the nation's most immediate priorities.
If the U.S. is to continue to lead the world in scientific research and technology
development, then future generations of scientists, engineers, and technicians
must reflect our nation's diversity. What is more, our citizens must understand
the contributions (and limits) of science and technology in sustaining and
improving our quality of life. This will not be possible unless we make significant
improvements in science education for every student.
How and how quickly can widespread science literacy be achieved? As these latest
NAEP results indicate, the vast majority of our students today are learning
very little science. They are taught to memorize some facts and vocabulary,
but almost never to connect the knowledge into a coherent picture of how the
world works and how we have come to know it. They do not understand either
science or the scientific enterprise.
What is needed? Unlike reading and mathematics education, science education
is lacking some key research and strategies. Here is a brief list:
-
Coherent learning goals. Although both the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Research
Council have developed science literacy goals that have been carefully
crafted with the nation's science and engineering communities, to
date these goals have generally been poorly translated into local
standards by the states. Most state standards still envision science
education as the accumulation of almost random facts rather than the
development and application of concepts and skills.
-
Curriculum materials and assessments aligned with learning
goals. If textbooks, tests, and classroom activities are
to focus on helping students gain an in-depth understanding of the
ideas and skills that are most important for science literacy, they
need to incorporate what is known about how people learn science and
how to probe for conceptual understanding and higher order skills.
Unfortunately, there are significant gaps in our knowledge that can
only be remedied by increased funding for more extensive research.
-
Well-designed local curricula. If the K-12 curriculum
is an accumulation of lessons and labs built for each grade or class
without consideration of what has come before, what comes next, or
what is happening in related classes, students are likely to learn
very little that will be useful. School districts and schools need
to design their science curricula with specific learning goals and
purposes in mind.
-
Teachers prepared to recognize and use effective educational
strategies. Most teachers today are poorly trained in science
content and lack opportunities to improve their content knowledge
and instructional techniques. Higher education institutions rarely
apply scientific findings to their teacher preparation programs, focusing
instead on timeworn and ineffective approaches that are not supported
by research.
-
States, school districts, and communities committed to long-term
reform. Rather than look for fast and easy solutions to the
challenges of science education, educators and the communities they
serve need to provide the time and resources necessary for well-researched
reform strategies to have their intended impact. Texas, which has
had a consistent approach to reading and mathematics for the past
20 years, is an exception, and the results prove the value of staying
on one course.
What will NAEP science scores be like four years from now? We know what to
do to improve them, but it takes at least five years to produce tests and
implement new curriculum materials, there continues to be deep-seated resistance
to change in the institutions that prepare our teachers, and states and local
communities have yet to commit to coherent long-term reform programs. Unless
immediate actions are taken to remedy all of these shortcomings in science
education, the prospects for improved science learning and resultant increase
in NAEP scores will remain grim for the foreseeable future.
Contact
Information:
Mary
Koppal
(202) 326-6643
