FOR RELEASE Tuesday, November 20, 2001

Contact: Lawrence Feinberg (202) 357-6942

The results of the NAEP 2000 science assessment are troubling.

At a time when the world needs a strong United States, and the U.S. must keep its leadership in science to remain strong, the National Assessment shows that far too few of our students can demonstrate a proficient level of scientific knowledge and understanding. The situation is particularly disturbing among high school seniors. Despite efforts to improve science education, their performance on the NAEP science assessment fell during last half of the 1990s.

In the year 2000, only 18 percent of a nationally representative sample of 12th graders reached a proficient level of science achievement. The proportion that scored below the basic level rose to almost 50 percent. In contrast, the proportion of 8th graders reaching the proficient level rose to 32 percent from 1996 to 2000, while the proportion of 4th graders reaching proficient held steady at 29 percent.

This pattern of decline at grade 12 after stability or improvement in grades 4 and 8 is similar to results of the NAEP 2000 mathematics assessment, which were reported in August. What also is similar to math is that the proportion of students reaching NAEP standards is much higher in elementary and middle schools than it is in senior high. Unfortunately, the same pattern shows up repeatedly on international assessments as well: American students do relatively well in the early grades; they fall almost to the bottom by the end of high school.

What this clearly points to is a weakness for most students in their high school education. While school reform efforts have concentrated on early childhood and elementary education—and these are enormously important—there obviously is a great need to increase the expectations and learning in our high schools, and to have high standards apply to all high school students. That was the conclusion last month of the report issued by the National Commission on the Senior Year, headed by Gov. Paul Patton, of Kentucky. The need for it can be seen in business and in our economy.

Over the past decade, American companies, including my own, have only been able to meet the demand for research scientists by turning their labs into mini-United Nations. About a third to a half of the new scientists hired have been immigrants, largely educated in other countries, although many of them receive graduate degrees at American universities.

The numbers and problems are much greater, however, in finding technicians to fill the middle-level jobs, requiring some scientific training, in our shops and plants and factories. These jobs typically are for high school graduates or the graduates of two-year colleges. And business has had a hard time getting the people we need because most students don't have the science and math they need.

The NAEP achievement levels illustrate the problem quite well. These levels are standards, set by the National Assessment Governing Board based on input from teachers, business people, and other experts across the country. They describe the content of what students should know for basic, proficient, or advanced performance at each grade tested.

What the results show, I think, is a troublesome pattern. Most students do have a grasp of basic factual knowledge and procedures, but a disturbing proportion—34 to 47 percent, depending on the grade—are below that basic level.

To be proficient for their grade requires something more: students must be able to apply scientific knowledge to a new situation and be able to explain their reasoning clearly. Unfortunately, the proportion meeting this standard is fairly small, even though its substance, as shown in the descriptions and example questions, seems modest and reasonable. It is these reasoning and application skills, built on a strong base of scientific knowledge, that are required for the technical jobs we have to fill, and there simply aren't enough people coming from our schools who have them.

The new NAEP data, like results from other testing programs, show these academic problems are most severe among children from low-income families. NAEP uses information from the federal program of free and reduced-price lunch to identify low-income students. Among 12th graders only 6 percent of students eligible for the lunch program reach the proficient level in science. For those with family income too high to qualify, 20 percent reach proficient. And this tremendous disparity may in fact understate the achievement gap because many low-income students drop out of school before reaching the 12th grade.

There is one other point in today's results that is disturbing to those of us who care, in particular, about public schools, which enroll about 90 percent of American students. The entire decline in 12th grade science achievement during the late 1990s took place in public schools. In private schools, there was an improvement in 12th grade science from 1996 to 2000.

As in other NAEP exams, private school students generally do better in science than those in public schools. But in 1996, when this NAEP science assessment was first administered, there was one important exception. The proportion of 12th grade students reaching the proficient level in science was about the same in the two types of schools—21 percent in public schools and 22 percent in nonpublic. In 2000, however, the proportion reaching proficient in the public schools fell to 17 percent, but in private schools that proportion rose to 29 percent, producing a significant gap.

Of course, private schools have advantages over public schools. They can be selective, and because of their tuition and fees, the average income and education levels of the students' families are high. In 1996, however, the top 10 percent of 12th graders did equally well on science in both public and private schools. But in 2000, scores of the top 10 percent in private school rose by 3 points, while those of the top 10 percent in public school dropped by 5 points. And the parity at the top no longer existed.

In the state-by-state results for grade 8, the only grade for which we can make comparisons over time, there are very few significant changes between 1996 and 2000. But this is stability at an inadequate level. There are only four states—Montana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Ohio—in which even 40 percent of eighth graders reach the proficient achievement level.

As you know, the National Assessment is a survey. It does not follow the same students from grade to grade. Thus, it can show the correlation of various factors to student achievement. But it cannot be used to prove cause and effect.

Still, some of the correlations seem important, though they sound like common sense. Eighth grade students whose teachers have majored in science education do better than those with teachers majoring in other fields. Students who have taken science courses score higher than those who haven't taken them.

Obviously, to improve science achievement, our schools must teach more science and have more science teachers who know their subject well. But this has proven much easier to say than do. College students with strong science backgrounds—even those with teaching credentials—often have been lured into higher-paying jobs elsewhere. And simply adding more science courses to high school graduation requirements doesn't add much to what students learn unless the quality of those courses can be assured.

It would be much more pleasant for NAEP to give a rosy report card about science education in the United States. Unfortunately, we can't. There is a great deal of room for improvement.

American science is still flourishing at selective universities and research labs, though often with graduates of other nations' schools. Across the country, as NAEP shows, we still are far from giving a strong science education to all our students.