|
1996 Science Performance Standards
Achievement Level Results:
 State Comparisons |
|
||
| The NAEP 1996 Science Assessment gathered detailed information about the science knowledge and skills of the nation’s fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students. In addition, state-level data were collected at grade 8 in 43 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS), and the overseas Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS). Throughout this report the terms states and jurisdictions are used interchangeably to refer to participants in the state NAEP program, even though some participants are political units, such as a territory (Guam) or a district (District of Columbia).
As Table 9 indicates, three states did not obtain participation from at least 70 percent of the public schools in their initial samples and thus failed to meet the minimum participation requirement. Therefore, data for these states are not reported here. Ten additional states met the 70-percent requirement, but did not satisfy one or more of the guidelines for public school participation rates; their data are reported with appropriate annotation. See Appendix A of the NAEP 1996 Science Report for a full discussion of the participation guidelines. This chapter presents detailed descriptions of 1996 grade-8 science achievement levels for the states and for major subpopulations (gender, race and ethnicity, etc). The findings show a number of consistent patterns. At grade 8, large differences in achievement level attainment exist among racial and ethnic groups. Also, at grade 8, higher levels of parental education are generally associated with attainment of higher achievement levels. Finally, at grade 8, groups of students who may be low in socioeconomic status or otherwise at risk -- specifically, those receiving Title I services and those eligible for free or reduced-price lunches -- attain lower achievement levels than other students. State Results Table 10 contains achievement level data for 40 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, DoDDS, and DDESS. In addition to the average score for each jurisdiction, Table 10 shows the percentage of eighth-grade students at the Advanced level, at or above the Proficient level, at or above the Basic level, and below the Basic level. As a basis for comparison, achievement for only public school students in the nation has been included in each Table and Figure. These values differ slightly from the national results in Chapter 2 which includes both public and nonpublic school students in the national estimates. Figure 6 displays the national and state results according to the percentages of eighth-grade public school students who were at the Advanced level and at or above the Proficient level. The rank order is by the percentages of students at or above Proficient. Comparisons can be made between the state-by-state and national results. Figure 7 shows the states where the percentages of students at or above the Proficient level were at, above, or below the percentage in the nation. In 16 of the 44 jurisdictions, as Figure 7 shows, the percentages of eighth-grade public school students at or above the Proficient level were significantly higher than the percentage at or above this level for the nation. In 17 jurisdictions, smaller percentages of students achieved this level, while the percentages of students achieving this level in the remaining 11 jurisdictions were not significantly different from the percentage of students achieving at this level nationwide. There is considerable variability in achievement level results among the states, from the states with the highest percentages at or above Proficient (Maine, Montana, and North Dakota) to the lowest performing jurisdictions (Guam and the District of Columbia). Performance of Selected Subgroups within States The following sections of this chapter report state-level results for eighth-grade students in selected demographic subgroups. The subgroups are classified by gender, race and ethnicity, highest level of parental education, type of school, Title I participation, and eligibility for the free or reduced-price lunch program. The results from the 1996 Science Assessment are consistent with NAEP results in other subjects, in that achievement level attainment across subgroups varies considerably. Gender Table 11 shows percentages of students at each achievement level for all students and for males and females. At the national level, no significant gender differences in achievement level attainment are found at grade 8. However, in 13 jurisdictions -- Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Utah, Washington, and DDESS -- significant gender differences in achievement level attainment of eighth-grade students occur. The most pronounced differences appear at the Proficient level, at which the percentages of males at or above this level are significantly greater than the percentages of females in 12 of 43 jurisdictions. In two jurisdictions (Michigan and Utah), the percentages of males at all three achievement levels exceed the percentages of females. In five jurisdictions (Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Utah, and Washington), the percentages of males at the Advanced level exceed the percentages of females. Race/Ethnicity How does the achievement level attainment of students from different racial and ethnic groups compare? Achievement level attainment of eighth-grade students by state is presented in Table 12. Results for the following racial and ethnic categories are reported: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian. Students’ racial and ethnic classification was based on information gathered from their answers to student background questionnaires. Significant differences in achievement level attainment of students in the racial and ethnic groups occur in all jurisdictions. The largest differences occur between White and Black students and between White and Hispanic students. In three-quarters of the reporting jurisdictions, the percentages of Whites at or above the Proficient level are significantly greater than the percentages of Blacks. In more than 90 percent of the jurisdictions, the percentages of Whites at or above the Proficient level are significantly greater than the percentages of Hispanics. The results are similar at the Basic level. In about three-quarters of the jurisdictions, the percentages of White students at or above the Basic level are greater than those for Black students. In almost all jurisdictions, larger percentages of White students than Hispanic students are at or above the Basic level. In some cases, comparisons among groups could not be made because data did not meet statistical criteria. Often, the reporting sample was not large enough to draw inferences. For instance, the White population in the District of Columbia is too small to make valid White-Black and White-Hispanic comparisons. Differences in students’ achievement level attainment must be interpreted with caution. Factors such as socioeconomic status, home environment, and available educational opportunities can influence achievement level attainment and must be considered when any comparison is made.1 Parents’ Highest Education Level Students who participated in the NAEP Science Assessment indicated the highest level of education attained by each parent, using the following categories: Did Not Finish High School, Graduated from High School, Some Education after High School, Graduated from College, and "I Don’t Know." The highest educational level reported for either parent determined students’ classifications in this subgroup. For example, if a student reported that one parent graduated from college and the other from high school, that student’s achievement level attainment appears in the Graduated from College subgroup. Nationally, 34 percent of fourth-grade students, 9 percent of eighth-grade students, and 3 percent of twelfth-grade students reported not knowing the educational level of either parent. The patterns observed in the state data reflect those observed in the national data. As Table 13 indicates, in the majority of the jurisdictions, greater percentages of students whose parents graduated from college achieved at or above the Basic and Proficient levels than the percentages of students whose parents did not finish high school. Furthermore, in a majority of jurisdictions, higher percentages of students whose parents have some education following high school graduation achieved at or above the Basic and Proficient levels than the percentages of students whose parents did not have postsecondary education. Type of School Approximately 90 percent of the nation’s eighth-grade students attend public schools. The remainder attend Catholic and other private schools (i.e., nonpublic schools). Table 14 displays science achievement level attainment by type of school. Nineteen jurisdictions met the minimum participation criteria for reporting their nonpublic sample data separately; the remaining 25 are not included in Table 14. At grade 8, in 11 of the 19 reporting states, students attending nonpublic schools attained higher achievement levels than those attending public schools. There were no significant differences between grade 8 public and non-public percentages of students attaining the achievement levels in Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, and Washington. However, five jurisdictions (Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and Guam) attained higher percentages at both the Basic and Proficient levels. California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Texas, and Vermont showed higher performance for nonpublic over public schools at the Basic level only. The reader is cautioned against using these data to make simplistic inferences about the relative effectiveness of public and nonpublic schools. Differences in achievement level attainment by students in these two types of schools may be partly related to socioeconomic or sociological factors such as parental education or parental involvement in their children’s education. Participation in Title I The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382) reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Title I, Part A of the act provides local education agencies with financial assistance to meet the educational needs of children performing below grade level and are economically disadvantaged.2 Title I programs are designed to help disadvantaged students meet challenging academic performance standards. They assist schools in improving teaching and learning and in providing students with opportunities to acquire the knowledge and skills outlined in their state’s curriculum content and performance standards. Typically, Title I funds are used for reading and mathematics. All children in schools located in high-poverty areas may benefit from participation in schoolwide Title I programs. Title I funding supports state and local education reform efforts and promotes the coordination of resources to improve education for all students. Nationally, 12 percent of eighth-grade students received Title I services during the 1995-96 academic year. As Table 15 shows, smaller percentages of these students than other students attained higher achievement levels. Because the program targets students performing below grade level, these results are not surprising. At grade 8, 33 jurisdictions contained sufficient samples of students who participated in Title I to allow comparisons between those who received Title I services and those who did not. In all states reporting data, the percentages of students who did not receive Title I services and who were at or above the Basic level were greater than those of students who received Title I services. The results were similar at the Proficient level. Title I information collected by NAEP refers to current participation in the programs. Thus, students who received these services in the past but who did not receive services at the time of the assessment are not identified as Title I participants. Differences in achievement level attainment between students who receive Title I services and those who do not should not be used to evaluate Title I programs. Typically, Title I services are intended for low-achieving students. To properly evaluate Title I programs, the performance of students participating in the programs must be monitored and assessed over time. Eligibility for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program The free or reduced-price lunch component of the NSLP offered through the USDA is designed to ensure that children near or below the poverty level receive nourishing meals.3 The program is available to students attending public schools, nonprofit private schools, and residential child care institutions. Eligibility for free or reduced-price meals is determined by the USDA’s Income Eligibility Guidelines. NAEP includes eligibility for the free or reduced-price lunch program as an indicator of poverty. Table 16 shows that in the jurisdictions as in the nation, lower percentages of eighth-grade students who are eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program attained the Basic or Proficient levels than percentages of students who are not eligible. Summary The preceding sections provide a detailed picture of achievement levels attained by eighth-grade students within states and in various subgroups defined by gender, race and ethnicity, highest level of parental education, type of school, Title I participation, and eligibility for the free or reduced-price lunch program. Although results differed slightly by achievement level, the following major findings emerged:  On average, significant differences between males and females were found in about one-fifth of the jurisdictions at grade 8. These differences were particularly evident at the Proficient level, with 28 percent of the jurisdictions showing significant gender differences.
|
