More dismal science test results
Hope that new standards will make difference
Once again, California students have done stunningly worse than their eighth grade peers in other states on Science 2011 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), a biennial test of knowledge in science.
The results were announced earlier this month on the same day as the release of the first draft of the Next Generation Science Standards, which the National Research Council and states have been developing. Many California science educators are counting on the new standards, which focus on an in-depth understanding of science concepts, to jump-start improvement in science in California. Count Elizabeth Stage, the director of the Lawrence Hall of Science, the public science center at UC Berkeley, among the optimists, but only, she adds, if the state makes science a priority, with more time spent on it and training for teachers in how it should be taught.
Partial state-by-state results, including California, with percentages of students who tested basic, proficient, and advanced. Source: NAEP. (Click twice to enlarge)
There’s a lot of room for improvement. Nationwide, 32 percent of students tested proficient or above on the NAEP science test of physical, life, and Earth and space sciences. In California, 21 percent tested proficient, including one percent advanced, and 47 percent were far below basic. California’s average score of 140 on a scale of 300 – on the upper end of the below-basic band – put it on par with Arizona and perennially poor performers from the Deep South – Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana – at the bottom. Only Washington, D.C., which took the test for the first time this year, did a lot worse.
The national average was 152, two points higher than in 2009. Massachusetts, often compared with California for its rigorous standards in general, had a score of 160 – the upper end of the basic band, with 40 percent of its students proficient and 4 percent advanced.
Science scores made a slight improvement in California in two years but continued to lag behind the nation. Source: NAEP. (Click to enlarge)
White students in California scored 159, compared with 163 nationwide, and Asians averaged 158, one point below the national average. But Hispanics in California scored only 128, compared with 137 nationwide, with only 11 percent proficient or advanced. For African Americans, the scores were 124 in California (8 percent proficient) and 129 nationwide.
Dave Gordon, superintendent of Sacramento County and a former member of the NAEP board of governors, called California’s distance behind the rest of the nation “shocking.” He said the low score reflects that science is not being taught enough in elementary grades, where disproportionate time is spent on math and English language arts, which are tested annually (science is tested only in fifth and eighth grades in California). And science isn’t being taught engagingly, with hands-on lessons, Gordon said.
There appears to be a connection. Students of teachers who reported they did hands-on projects nearly every day scored significantly higher (156 points) than those who reported they did it only once or twice a month (149). A survey of California teachers and principals last year by the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd confirms Gordon’s impressions; 85 percent of elementary teachers said they had no training in science in the past three years, and 40 percent said they taught it less than an hour each week.
Sixteen of 47 states that took NAEP in 2011 made what NAEP termed significant increases – anywhere from two- to six-point gains on the 300-point scale. Although California’s score also increased three points, from 137 in 2009, NAEP didn’t consider this significantly higher because of the number of test takers relative to the size of the state.
There was some good news nationwide and in California, in narrowing the achievement gap. Hispanic students’ scores rose five points nationwide and four points in California, reducing the big disparities between them and white students from 30 points two years ago to 26 points in 2011 nationwide and 31 points in California. The 36-point gap between African American and white students in California and 35-point gap nationwide failed to narrow.
More than multiple choice
NAEP Science was given to 122,000 eighth graders in 7, 292 schools in 47 states. It used a matrix sampling method, with each student answering only sections of the test. It tested students in physical science and life science (30 percent each), with 40 percent Earth and space sciences. The NAEP test isn’t aligned with California standards or those of any state. It measures the knowledge that a group of scientists and educators agree that all students in eighth grade should know. While California’s science test is all multiple choice, NAEP includes some short-answer questions that require students to analyze a problem or set of data and explain the reasoning behind an answer.
72 percent of eighth graders who took NAEP Science answered this question correctly. (Click to enlarge)
NAEP science results shouldn’t be compared with California’s content standards tests, in part because the NAEP board sets a higher expectation for reaching proficiency. NAEP defines “basic” as partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade, while “proficient” represents “solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter.”
Even the description of “basic” knowledge in the Earth and space sciences section sounds rigorous, however: Students “should be able to describe a Sun-centered model of the solar system that illustrates how gravity keeps the objects in regular motion; describe how fossils and rock formations can be used as evidence to infer events in Earth’s history; relate major geologic events, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and mountain building to the movement of lithospheric plates; use weather data to identify major weather events; and describe the processes of the water cycle including changes in the physical state of water.”
By comparison, students who test proficient “should be able to explain how gravity accounts for the visible patterns of motion of the Earth, Sun, and Moon; explain how fossils and rock formations are used for relative dating; use models of Earth’s interior to explain lithospheric plate movement; explain the formation of Earth materials using the properties of rocks and soils; identify recurring patterns of weather phenomena; and predict surface and groundwater movement in different regions of the world.”
California eighth graders take and are tested in physical science. They’re supposed to learn Earth science in sixth grade and life science in seventh grade. So students are partly being tested in NAEP on two-year-old knowledge – one reason cited for California’s poor performance. But both Gordon and Stage say that’s a minor factor.
Stage says that California science standards require an extensive knowledge of facts; with little time to teach science each week, that’s what teachers focus on and not a conceptual framework or scientific investigations and experimentation.
The Next Generation Science Standards teach science in a more integrated way, encouraging students to see common practices between life science and engineering and technology. It stresses what creators call “crosscutting concepts” – a way of linking different areas of science through similar lines of inquiry, such as cause and effect, patterns, and scale. These sound abstract, but the standards stress making them explicit.
Stage points to a distinction between second grade California and New Generation standards dealing with motion of objects. California requires that students know “the way to change how something is moving is by giving it a push or a pull.” The Next Generation standards would expect students to “analyze data to determine the relationship between friction and the warming of objects” by rubbing two objects together or “develop and share a design solution to reduce friction between two objects,” perhaps by lubricating wheels on a skateboard – something kids can relate to.
The Next Generation standard is an /“accessible way to understand the relationship between energy and experience and it’s a really good example of an engineering practice,” Stage said.
California is expected to adopt the new standards sometime next year. It has no plans – or money, for now – to design a new set of science assessments, but Stage hopes that California will join other states in creating one.
19 Comments
Trackbacks
- The Educated Guess: More dismal science test results : SCOE News Reader
- May 29 « tigersteach
- Oregon Flunks Science - City-Data Forum
While I dont disagree that we should think about how we prioritize and/or teach science in our schools, I would like to make a couple of contextual comments.
The childhood poverty rate in california has increased from 18% in 2008 to 22% in 2010 (as has the US rate). Perhaps makes the slight increase in scores slightly more meaningful? And if you sort the states by poverty rate and look at their NAEP science scores, there is a fairly high inverse correlation (perhaps not surprisingly).
And finally, SED rates for CA CST test-aged ethnicities changed from 2009 to 2011 as follows:
AA: 62% to 67%
Hisp: 79% to 80%
White: 22% to 25%
Asian: 37% to 39%
Those numbers may also help to explain/contextualize the relative changes (or lack thereof) in the ‘gap’. FWIW.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The caption under the image has an error, I think. You say in the post that kids didn’t answer every question. So unless all the kids answered the Himalayas question, the correct description would be “72% of the students who were asked this question on the NAEP got it correct.”
Of course, when you put it that way, it explains why it’s hard to care much about the NAEP.
“California is expected to adopt the new standards sometime next year. It has no plans – or money, for now – to design a new set of science assessments, but Stage hopes that California will join other states in creating one.”
Given that California, by your own description, has “rigorous standards” already, what earthly difference could new standards make in our performance?
The reality is, the more low ability kids in a classroom, the more difficult it is for all kids, regardless of ability, to do well. Thus, it’s hard to get worked up about California’s supposedly poor performance without wondering how much of it is due to the fact that the state has a very high percentage of low ability kids. It seems as if California’s results per racial category are just a few points below every other group. That would be consistent with the “drag” effect of low ability kids. Asians, who segregate themselves ruthlessly in California, would thus have less of a “drag” than whites.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Several points, Cal:
The caption is correct, and the rate applies nationally, not just to California. An additional 27 percent picked another answer and only 1 percent failed to answer the question. I picked this as a sample because it fit easily on the page. I would encourage readers to go to NAEP sample questions for the type of more complex question that may have thrown California students requiring written analysis. A good assessment for the Next Generation Science Standards would also include these more difficult questions.
I would strenuously disagree with your assertion that the state is being held back by “low-ability” students. Navigio makes a valid point regarding the high poverty rate among California students, a quarter of whom are English learners. These factors relate to circumstances they face, not abilities they have. Most low-income, low-performing minorities live in racially isolated neighborhoods and attend racially isolated schools. There is nothing about the data to conclude there is a “drag” effect.
Many science teachers would disagree with the common characterization of California science standards as rigorous. They would argue they focus on topical knowledge not conceptual understanding. With little time to teach science, especially in elementary grades, and a multiple-choice test in those grades that assess science, many teachers don’t do the inquiry-based and hands-on learning that the new standards will stress.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
With the way the state focuses on language arts and math test scores, science often ends up as an afterthought. My daughter’s elementary school does better than others by my guess, but even so, its Single Plan for Student Achievement didn’t even mention science until I asked that we put something in a couple years back.
We need to do better, for certain, and especially I want to see more great hands-on activities. That said, science was barely even mentioned in my elementary school as a child – we do much better now. Still, we don’t even build elementary schools to facilitate science, nor do we do much to give teachers money for consumable materials to run those hands-on activities.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I agree with the prior post. I have served on site councils at both the elementary and middle school level since 2004. All of the attention in the plans for student achievement are on math and reading. The preverse incentives we created in our school accountability system has devalued other academic subjects like science and history. And, there’s absolutely no ‘reward’ for schools to maintain a diverse curriculum outside of the academic core. Current accountability policies are grossly out of sync with what parents, kids and educators want from our educational system. Part of the issue is money, of course, but absent fundamental reform to our accountability system, it would just get spent on more math and reading intervention!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
As an early childhood educator, working with families and teachers of young children birth through 8 years old, I believe a strong, developmentally-appropriate preschool experience is essential for sparking that inquiry-based, hands on learning so critical to scientific learning. Unfortunately, with increased, mandatory, high-stakes testing, children seem less likely to be given time to come up with a hypothesis, design an experiment, and (gasp!) make mistakes. Instead, they are more likely to be given skill drills related to the next assessment.
My own children (one in elementary school and one entering middle school) are fortunate we live in a community with a strong educational foundation, which pays for science specialists at the elementary level. Science learning goes beyond these National Assessments. The skills learned through the scientific process can be applied to every other subject as well. It concerns me that children are missing out on these critical thinking skills.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@Susan, one year in the Single Plan we all (parents, teachers, principal) chose to explicitly write in a section that we considered writing ability to be substandard at our school, that we considered writing to be of critical importance, and that we were going to put resources and school time into a more rigorous writing program even though we suspected that such an action would lower test scores. Nothing wrong with a bit of active defiance when it is warranted.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
You are on the right track el. There is nothing at all to stop schools from going beyond “the minimum” requirement, and apart from that there are many ways to bring in improved programs. I hope that you continue to push for what will improve your school. Sounds like you have a group of parents who are on the same wavelength – - – I’m still working on that!
I won’t repeat my rants on a post earlier in the year about science education, underprepared elementary teachers, etc., but will add that I think there are many social issues at play when approaching science education. Where parents and students have a strong science and math background and/or at least value that element of life, there is pressure on schools to deliver. Weaker teachers are then forced to get up to speed (with school support and resources), and the “floor” is raised.
It is not about lower ability, or funding. My science education in 1973 in the UK in an impoverished, high immigrant elementary school was far superior to that my daughter is receiving at the same age! Science was integrated with reading and math. We did endless experiments (most stuff was cheap/recycled), and we spent time on our learning. I still remember my projects on wind, the canals (water pressure, etc.,), and who knows what else. At the heart of it all lay teachers (most emergency trained after WWII) who were determined that our lives would be different, that girls would ‘do’ science and math, and they pulled together long before psychologists emerged with wonderful names for their collaboration!
The NAEP questions are not unreasonable, but without a value placed upon science, and a sense that it is intensely meaningful - for career and home – then the affective and motivational connections are just not there. Do you know how many lawyers graduated in the US last year compared to engineers? Have you followed the decline of female students graduating in the hard sciences, math and compsci? Somewhere we have lost our determination – and we are the adults.
Mentors and role models cannot be underestimated. They are lacking in impoverished, high minority neighborhoods. My daughter aspires, at 10, to be an engineer like her older brother. That is the critical motivational and affective component that we must also consider as part of the package.
Having said all that – - – there is just no excuse for these results! We need to demand that all elementary and middle school teachers take higher level college science classes (and not just bio please), then force colleges of ed. for improve prep. for science ed., within the programs.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John: What is the explanation for the % of Af. American students who are scoring at Below Basic? This result is particularly troubling to me, especially when considered against ELLs.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I am hoping that I am misunderstanding the data you provide, navigio.
The percentage of African American students who are classified as special education students is 67 percent in 2011?
Could you provide a source, please? What does “CST test-aged” mean?
There’s a depressing statistic for a Friday night.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
In Pleasanton Unifed, we have an isolated success story. All nine elementary schools hired science specialists for the first time about 8 years ago. Elementary grade teachers still incorporate science into their weekly lesson plans, and in tandem, students spend time with the science specialists in laboratory classrooms each week. Students actually *do* science, rather than just reading scientific facts and descriptions of the scientific method. Grade level teachers and the science specialist have collaboration time so that their lesson plans can reinforce one another.
The percentage of students scoring proficient on the 5th grade science CST have increased about 15 percentage points since the science specialists were hired, from roughly 75% proficiency to 90%. There’s one specialist per elementary (average size 600-700 students).
Class size reduction is being eliminated for K-3 next fall, but the science specialists are there to stay.
We need to make sure that kids throughout California have early opportunities to engage in hands-on science like the ones available in Pleasanton.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Hi Sandy. Sorry, I’m too acronym-happy. SED, as I was using it, stands for socioeconomically disadvantaged. It is a classification in our accountability structure used to represent students who are disadvantaged as a result of either income or parent education level. I think it’s currently defined as either F&R (free and reduced lunch) eligibility or lack of a parent with a high school diploma. In any case, rates of classification of this subgroup are reported on our CST STAR or AYP results. The CST data has the advantage that it provides eligibility by ethnicity. Unfortunately it does not do this for SWD status (students with disabilities). I say unfortunately because even though I wasn’t talking about special Ed, you are right that the rates of classification in California are much higher for minorities than for non. In don’t have the data in front of me but I seem to remember rates being about double for African Americans when compared to whites in some grades. This alone should bother us, but what bugs me even more is the fact that no one seems to want to acknowledge this. This is especially surprising when one realizes that the numbers used in defining the ‘achievement gap’ do not account for those differences. The irony is that every school and district must separate out these numbers in order to calculate its API (assuming they use the state’s worksheet to calculate it, which I believe most do) but that data is virtually never published and is not required to be disaggregated when reporting it to the state. this is a real problem and something that needs to be addressed. But that is a different topic than this thread. Though perhaps it may have some relationship to the differences in science achievement…
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Oh and I said CST test aged because CST subgroup classification is only specified for 2nd through 11th grades (Since those are the only kids that are tested).
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Thank you for the clarification.
While I am concerned about the increase in students who lack economic opportunity, the increasing percentages as the recession unfolded does make sense. I wonder if those students are more likely to be absent from class, which makes it hard to learn the basics.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
You appear to be conflating “low ability” with “low income”. I didn’t mention income in my post. However, if you wish to argue that these ” factors relate to circumstances they face, not abilities they have”, fine–but the circumstances are affecting their abilities and therefore, calling them “low ability” is not inaccurate.
But I really wonder why you are so eager to conflate the two. Low ability is correlated with poverty, but as a teacher working in a Title I school, I am well acquainted with many high ability, low income students.
“Most low-income, low-performing minorities live in racially isolated neighborhoods and attend racially isolated schools. There is nothing about the data to conclude there is a “drag” effect.”
Nothing in the data to deny it, either. And California schools include a whole bunch of racially isolated Asians (I live in Cupertino); I haven’t noticed racial isolation hurting their test scores.
So, just as a suggestion, here are two premises that shouldn’t require any debate: 1) Low ability is not low income. When someone talks about low ability, it’s probably not necessary to bring up income. Unless he or she brings it up first. 2) Racial isolation is not constantly correlated with low performance, and thus probably not correlated with low ability.
I have credentials in math, history, and English, not science, but I certainly know a lot of science teachers, too. They don’t think that standards are the problem. So I guess it’s “your science teachers vs. mine”. Count me deeply skeptical as to Common Core’s ability to change a thing–unless it’s to make it worse.
As for the question, did I misunderstand this sentence here? ” It used a matrix sampling method, with each student answering only sections of the test.” If so, apologies. But that certainly seems to suggest that not all students saw the question you used as an example.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Whoops–I don’t know why it pushes my answer to the bottom–I meant that last post as answer to John Fensterwald’s reply to me.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity