National Indicator of Student Science Performance
The national goal of having U.S. students rank number one in the world in math and science by the year 2000, established by President Bush and continued by President Clinton in his “Goals 2000" program, has helped stimulate a number of attempts to assess and improve the nation’s K-12 education. Recent efforts include the development of voluntary national education standards for both math and science, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), hearings by the House Science Committee and, just released this month, the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP) science achievement results.
The NAEP, mandated by Congress more than 25 years ago, calls itself “the nation’s only continuing indicator of what America’s students know and can do.” Prior to the 1996 survey, a significant attempt was made to update the assessment to comply with contemporary theories and consensus among scientists and educators regarding what is important in science education. The results provide a way to compare scientific achievement in three major fields - earth, physical, and life sciences - of fourth, eighth and twelfth graders nationally and across states.
An inportant aspect of this test was that, while including some multiple choice questions, it emphasized “questions that call for student-constructed responses. . . . In addition, students were given hands-on activities that required them to actually do’ a scientific investigation appropriate to their level of development.” The performance levels were developed in an iterative process with input from the National Assessment Governing Board, science educators, scientists, and other relevant parties.
The report’s goal is to describe NAEP results “in terms of the quality of student achievement by defining levels of learning linked to a common body of knowledge and skills that all students should attain, regardless of their backgrounds.” Three levels of performance were defined for each of the three grades evaluated: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Students achieving a Basic rating had shown partial, but not solid, “mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.” Students rated Proficient “demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter.” Advanced students showed “superior performance.” According to the report, “the Board believes . . . that all students should reach the Proficient level.”
The results of the 1996 science NAEP report, in which approximately 47 states and jurisdictions participated, are summarized below: At the fourth grade level, 38 percent of students tested achieved the Basic level, 26 percent achieved Proficient, and 3 percent reached Advanced. In eighth grade, 32 percent of students demonstrated knowledge at the Basic level, 26 percent were rated Proficient, and 3 percent were Advanced. By twelfth grade, 36 percent of students were rated Basic, 18 percent Proficient, and, again, 3 percent Advanced. Thus, for each grade, over 30 percent of students did not even show a Basic understanding of the science knowledge and skills appropriate for their age.
In fourth grade, more males were rated Proficient or above than females. Eighth-graders did not show any gender disparity, but by twelfth grade, “males performed better than females at all three levels - Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.” For all three grades, “higher levels of parental education were associated with higher achievement level attainment.” Those students identified as economically-disadvantaged, by the fact that they participated in Title I and reduced-price lunch programs, “attained lower achievement levels than those not participating in those programs.” Regional differences were also found: “In general, compared with students in the Southeast and West, a higher percentage of students in the Northeast and Central regions attained higher achievement levels.” Additionally, data is provided on achievement levels by the following racial and ethnic categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian. The report cautions against assuming causal relationships and says that “socioeconomic status, home environment, and available educational opportunities influence attainment and argue against oversimplified explanations.”
The 88-page report, “NAEP 1996 Science Performance Standards: Achievement Results for the Nation and the States,” is available on the Web at http://www.nagb.org , as is the 94-page “Science Framework” that describes development of the performance levels, and other related documents.
