|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 303
K–12 Science, Mathematics, and
Technology Education
SUMMARY
US education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is
undergoing great scrutiny. Just as the launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957 led the
United States to undertake the most dramatic educational reforms of the
20th century, the rise of new international competitors in science and tech-
nology is forcing the United States to ask whether its educational system is
suited to the demands of the 21st century.
These concerns are particularly acute in K–12 education. In compari-
son with their peers in other countries, US students on average do worse on
measures of mathematics and science performance the longer they are in
school. On comparisons of problem-solving skills, US students perform
more poorly overall than do the students in most of the countries that have
participated in international assessments. Some believe the United States
has failed to achieve the objective established in the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act—for US students to be first in the world in mathematics and
science achievement in the year 2000.
National commissions, industrial groups, and leaders in the public and
private sectors are in broad agreement with policy initiatives that the fed-
eral government could undertake to improve K–12 science, mathematics,
and technology education. Some of these are listed below:
This issue paper summarizes findings and recommendations from a variety of recently pub-
lished reports and papers as input to the deliberations of the Committee on Prospering in the
Global Economy of the 21st Century. Statements in this paper should not be seen as the
conclusions of the National Academies or the committee.
303
OCR for page 304
304 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
Increasing the Number of Excellent Teachers
• Allocate federal professional-development funds to summer institutes
that address the most pressing professional-development needs of math-
ematics and science teachers.
• Keep summer-institute facilitators—teachers current with the most
effective teaching methods in their disciplines and who have shown demon-
strable results of higher student achievement in mathematics and science—
abreast of new insights and research in science and mathematics teaching
by providing funding for training them.
• Encourage higher education institutions to establish mathematics and
science teaching academies that include faculty from science, mathematics,
and education departments through a competitive grant process.
• Support promising students to study science, mathematics, and engi-
neering teaching—particularly those obtaining degrees in science, math-
ematics, or engineering who plan to teach at the K–12 level following gradu-
ation through scholarships and loan programs for students as well as
institutional funding. Qualified college students and midcareer profession-
als need to be attracted into teaching and given the preparation they require
to succeed. Experts in mathematics, science, and technology should be able
to become teachers by completing programs to acquire and demonstrate
fundamental teaching skills. Recruitment, preparation, and retention of
minority-group teachers are particularly important as groups underrepre-
sented in science, mathematics, and engineering become a larger percentage
of the student population.
• Conduct an aggressive, national-outreach media campaign to attract
young people to teaching careers in mathematics and science.
• Work for broad improvements in the professional status of science,
mathematics, and technology teachers. Structured induction programs for
new teachers, district–business partnerships, award programs, and other in-
centives can inspire teachers and encourage them to remain in the field. Most
important, salaries for science, mathematics, and technology teachers need to
reflect what they could receive in the private sector and be in accord with
their contributions to society, and teachers need to be treated as professionals
and as important members of the science and engineering communities.
Enhancing the Quality and Cohesion of Educational Standards
• Help colleges, businesses, and schools work together to link K–12
standards to college admissions criteria and workforce needs to create a
seamless K–16 educational system.
• Provide incentives for states and coalitions of states to conduct bench-
marking studies between their standards and the best standards available.
OCR for page 305
305
APPENDIX D
• Foster the development of high-quality curricula and assessments
that are closely aligned with world-class standards.
• Establish ambitious but realistic goals for student performance—for
example, that 30% of high school seniors should be proficient in science by
2010 as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP).
Changing the Institutional Structure of Schools
• Provide seed money or incentives for new kinds of schools and
new forms of schooling. Promising ideas include small high schools, dual-
enrollment programs in high schools and colleges, colocation of schools
with institutions of higher education, and wider use of Advanced Placement
and International Baccalaureate courses.
• Help districts institute reorganization of the school schedule to sup-
port teaching and learning. Possibilities include devoting more time to study
of academic subjects, keeping schools open longer in the day and during
parts of the summer, and providing teachers with additional time for devel-
opment and collaboration.
• Provide scholarships for low-income students who demonstrate that
they have taken a core curriculum in high school that prepares them to
study science, mathematics, or engineering in college.
The challenge for policy-makers is to find ways of generating meaning-
ful change in an educational system that is large, complex, and pluralistic.
Sustained programs of research, coordination, and oversight can channel
concerns over K–12 science, mathematics, and technology education in pro-
ductive directions.
THE CHALLENGE OF K–12 SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS,
AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
The state of US K–12 education in science, mathematics, and technology
has become a focus of intense concern. With the economies and broader
cultures of the United States and other countries becoming increasingly de-
pendent on science and technology, US schools do not seem capable of pro-
ducing enough students with the knowledge and skills needed to prosper.
On the 1996 NAEP, fewer than one-third of students performed at or
above the proficiency level in mathematics and science—with “proficiency”
denoting competence in challenging subject matter.1 Alarmingly, more than
1National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress: Three
Decades of Academic Performance. NCES 2000-469. Washington, DC: US Department of
Education, 2000.
OCR for page 306
306 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
FIGURE K–12-1A NAEP 1996 science results, grades 4, 8, and 12. Studies suggest
that a large portion of US students are lacking in science skills. In 1996, at least one-
third of students in 4th, 8th, and 12th grade performed below basic in national tests.
SOURCE: S. C. Loomis and M. L. Bourque, eds. National Assessment of Educational
Progress Achievement Levels, 1992-1998 for Science. Washington, DC: National
Assessment Governing Board, July 2001. Available at: http://www.nagb.org/pubs/
sciencebook.pdf.
one-third of students scored below the basic level in these subjects, meaning
they lack the fundamental knowledge and skills they will need to get good
jobs and participate fully in our technologically sophisticated society (see
Figures K–12-1A and K–12-1B).
International comparisons document a gradual decline in performance
and interest in mathematics and science as US students get older. Though
4th graders in the United States perform well in math and science compared
with their peers in other countries (see Tables K–12-1 and K–12-2), 12th
graders in 1999 were almost last in performance among the countries that
participated in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
OCR for page 307
307
APPENDIX D
FIGURE K–12-1B NAEP 1996 mathematics results, grades 4, 8, and 12. The results
are similar for mathematics: 30% of students scored below basic.
SOURCE: S. C. Loomis and M. L. Bourque, eds. National Assessment of Edu-
cational Progress Achievement Levels, 1992-1998 for Science. Washington, DC:
National Assessment Governing Board, July 2001. Available at: http://www.nagb.
org/pubs/sciencebook.pdf.
(TIMSS).2 Among the 20 countries assessed in advanced mathematics and
physics, none scored significantly lower than the United States in math-
ematics, and only one scored significantly lower in physics.
There has been some good news about student achievement.3 US 8th
graders did better on an international assessment of mathematics and sci-
ence in 2003 than they did in 1995 (see Tables K–12-3 and K–12-4). The
2National Center for Education Statistics. Pursuing Excellence: A Study of Twelfth-Grade
Mathematics and Science Achievement in International Context. NCES 98-049. Washington,
DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998.
3R. W. Bybee and E. Stage. “No Country Left Behind.” Issues in Science and Technology
(Winter 2005):69-75.
OCR for page 308
308 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
TABLE K–12-1 Average TIMSS Mathematics Scale Scores of 4th-Grade
Students, by Country: 1995 and 2003
Country 1995 Country 2003
Singapore 590 Singapore 594
Japan 567 Hong Kong SAR 575
1, 2
Hong Kong SAR1,2 557 Japan 565
(Netherlands) 549 Netherlands 1 540
(Hungary) 521 Latvia-LSS 533
3
United States 518 England 531
1
(Latvia-LSS)3 499 Hungary 529
United States1 518
(Australia) 495
Scotland 493 Cyprus 510
England 484 Australia1 499
Norway 476 New Zealand 496
4
Cyprus 475 Scotland 490
1
4
New Zealand 469 Slovenia 479
(Slovenia) 462 Norway 451
Iran, Islamic Republic of 387 Iran, Islamic Republic of 389
Average is higher than the U.S. average
Average is not measurably different from the U.S. average
p Average is lower than the U.S. average
1
Met international guidelines for participation rates in 2003 only after replacement schools
were included.
2
Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.
3
Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were included in 1995. For this
analysis, only Latvian-speaking schools are included in the 2003 average.
4
In 1995, Maori-speaking students did not participate. Estimates in this table are computed
for students taught in English only, which represents between 98-99 percent of the student
population in both years.
NOTE: Countries are ordered based on the average score. Parentheses indicate countries
that did not meet international sampling or other guidelines in 1995. All countries met inter-
national sampling and other guidelines in 2003, except as noted. See NCES (1997) for
details regarding 1995 data. The tests for significance take into account the standard error
for the reported difference. Thus, a small difference between the United States and one
country may be significant while a large difference between the United States and another
country may not be significant. Countries were required to sample students in the upper of
the two grades that contained the most number of 9-year-olds. In the United States and
most countries, this corresponds to grade 4. See table A1 in appendix A for details.
SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA),
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 1995 and 2003.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. Highlights from the Trends in Interna-
tional Mathematics and Science Study: TIMSS 2003. Washington, DC: United States Depart-
ment of Education, December 2004. P. 8. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/
2005005.pdf.
OCR for page 309
309
APPENDIX D
TABLE K–12-2 Differences in Average TIMSS Science Scale Scores of
4th-Grade Students, by Country: 1995 and 2003
Country 1995 2003 Difference1
42 ▲
Singapore 523 565
-10 ▼
Japan 553 543
35 ▲
Hong Kong SAR2,3 508 542
13 ▲
England3 528 540
United States3 542 536 -6
22 ▲
(Hungary) 508 530
43 ▲
(Latvia-LSS)4 486 530
(Netherlands)3 530 525 -5
18 ▲
New Zealand5 505 523
(Australia)3 521 521 -1
-12 ▼
Scotland2 514 502
26 ▲
(Slovenia) 464 490
30 ▲
Cyprus 450 480
-38 ▼
Norway 504 466
34 ▲
Iran, Islamic Republic of 380 414
▲ p<.05, denotes a significant increase.
▼ p<.05, denotes a significant decrease.
1
Difference calculated by subtracting 1995 from 2003 estimate using
unrounded numbers.
2
Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's
Republic of China.
3
Met international guidelines for participation rates only after replacement
schools were included.
4
Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were included in
1995. For this analysis, only Latvian-speaking schools are included in the
2003 average.
5
In 1995, Maori-speaking students did not participate. Estimates in this
table are computed for students taught in English only, which represents
between 98-99 percent of the student population in both years.
NOTE: Countries are ordered based on the 2003 average scores.
Parentheses indicate countries that did not meet international sampling or
other guidelines in 1995. All countries met international sampling and other
guidelines in 2003, except as noted. See NCES (1997) for details regarding
1995 data. The tests for significance take into account the standard error
for the reported difference. Thus, a small difference between averages for
one country may be significant while a large difference for another country
may not be significant. Countries were required to sample students in the
upper of the two grades that contained the largest number of 9-year-olds.
In the United States and most countries, this corresponds to grade 4. See
table A1 in appendix A for details. Detail may not sum to totals because of
rounding.
SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS), 1995 and 2003.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. Highlights from the Trends in Interna-
tional Mathematics and Science Study: TIMSS 2003. Washington, DC: United States Depart-
ment of Education, December 2004. P. 16. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/
2005005.pdf.
OCR for page 310
310 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
TABLE K–12-3 Average TIMSS Mathematics Scale Scores of 8th-Grade
Students, by Country: 1995 and 2003
Country 1995 Country 2003
Singapore 609 Singapore 605
Japan 581 Korea, Republic of 589
Korea, Republic of 581 Hong Kong SAR 586
1,2
Hong Kong SAR1 569 Japan 570
Belgium-Flemish 550 Belgium-Flemish 537
Sweden 540 Netherlands2 536
Slovak Republic 534 Hungary 529
(Netherlands) 529 Russian Federation 508
Hungary 527 Slovak Republic 508
(Bulgaria) 527 Latvia-LSS3 505
Russian Federation 524 Australia 505
(United States) 504
(Australia) 509
New Zealand 501 Lithuania 4 502
Norway 498 Sweden 499
(Slovenia) 494 Scotland2 498
(Scotland) 493 New Zealand 494
United States 492 Slovenia 493
(Latvia-LSS)3 488 Bulgaria 476
(Romania) 474 Romania 475
Lithuania4 472 Norway 461
Cyprus 468 Cyprus 459
Iran, Islamic Republic of 418 Iran, Islamic Republic of 411
Average is higher than the U.S. average
❐ Average is not measurably different from the U.S. average
❐
p Average is lower than the U.S. average
1
Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.
2
Met international guidelines for participation rates in 2003 only after replacement schools
were included.
3
Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were included in 1995. For this
analysis, only Latvian-speaking schools are included in the 2003 average.
4
National desired population does not cover all of the international desired population.
NOTE: Countries are ordered by average score. Parentheses indicate countries that did not
meet international sampling or other guidelines in 1995 or 2003. See appendix A for
details regarding 2003 data. See NCES (1997) for details regarding 1995 data. The tests
for significance take into account the standard error for the reported difference. Thus, a
small difference between the United States and one country may be significant while a
large difference between the United States and another country may not be significant.
Countries were required to sample students in the upper of the two grades that con-
tained the largest number of 13-year-olds. In the United States and most countries, this
corresponds to grade 8. See table A1 in appendix A for details.
SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA),
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 1995 and 2003.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. Highlights from the Trends in Interna-
tional Mathematics and Science Study: TIMSS 2003. Washington, DC: United States Depart-
ment of Education, December 2004. P. 19. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/
2005005.pdf.
OCR for page 311
311
APPENDIX D
TABLE K–12-4 Difference in Average TIMSS Science Scale Scores of
8th-Grade Students, by Country: 1995, 1999, and 2003
Difference1
Country
1995 1999 2003 (2003-1995) (2003-1999)
Singapore 580 568 578 -3 10
Chinese Taipei — 569 571 † 2
13 ▲ 10 ▲
Korea, Republic of 546 549 558
46 ▲ 27 ▲
Hong K ong SAR2,3 510 530 556
Japan 554 550 552 -2 3
-10 ▼
Hungary 537 552 543 6
(Netherlands)2 541 545 536 -6 -9
15 ▲ 12 ▲
(United States) 513 515 527
13 ▲
(Australia)4 514 — 527 †
-28 ▼
Sweden 553 — 524 †
7▲
(Slovenia) 514 — 520 †
4
New Zealand 511 510 520 9 10
56 ▲ 31 ▲
(Lithuania)5 464 488 519
-15 ▼ -18 ▼
Slovak Republic 532 535 517
-17 ▼ -19 ▼
Belgium-Flemish 533 535 516
-16 ▼
Russian Federation 523 529 514 -9
37 ▲
(Latvia-LSS)6 476 503 513 11
(Scotland)2 501 — 512 10 †
18 ▲
Malaysia — 492 510 †
-21 ▼
Norway 514 — 494 †
Italy 7 — 493 491 † -2
20 ▲
(Israel)7 — 468 488 †
-66 ▼ -39 ▼
(Bulgaria) 545 518 479
25 ▲
Jordan — 450 475 †
13 ▲
Moldova, Republic of — 459 472 †
(Romania) 471 472 470 -1 -2
-9 ▼
Iran, Islamic Republic of 463 448 453 5
(Macedonia, Republic of) — 458 449 † -9
-11 ▼ -19 ▼
Cyprus 452 460 441
-15 ▼
Indonesia5 — 435 420 †
Chile — 420 413 † -8
-26 ▼
Tunisia — 430 404 †
32 ▲
Philippines — 345 377 †
South Africa8 — 243 244 † 1
—Not available.
†Not applicable.
▲ p<.05, denotes a significant increase.
▼ p<.05, denotes a significant decrease.
1
Difference calculated by subtracting 1995 or 1999 from 2003 estimate using unrounded numbers.
2
Met international guidelines for participation rates in 2003 only after replacement schools were included.
3
Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.
4
Because of national-level changes in the starting age/date for school, 1999 data for Australia and Slovenia cannot be compared to 2003.
5
National desired population does not cover all of the international desired population in all years for Lithuania, and in 2003 for Indonesia.
6
Designated LSS because only Latvian-speaking schools were included in 1995 and 1999. For this analysis, only Latvian-speaking schools
are included in the 2003 average.
7
Because of changes in the population tested, 1995 data for Israel and Italy are not shown.
8
Because within classroom sampling was not accounted for, 1995 data are not shown for South Africa.
NOTE: Countries are sorted by 2003 average scores. The tests for significance take into account the standard error for the reported differ-
ence. Thus, a small difference between averages for one country may be significant while a large difference for another country may not be
significant. Parentheses indicate countries that did not meet international sampling and/or other guidelines in 1995, 1999, and/or 2003.
See appendix A for details regarding 2003 data. See Gonzales et al. (2000) for details regarding 1995 and 1999 data. Countries were
required to sample students in the upper of the two grades that contained the largest number of 13-year-olds. In the United States and
most countries, this corresponds to grade 8. See table A1 in appendix A for details. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS), 1995, 1999, and 2003.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. Highlights from the Trends in Interna-
tional Mathematics and Science Study: TIMSS 2003. Washington, DC: United States Depart-
ment of Education, December 2004. P. 17. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/
2005005.pdf.
OCR for page 312
312 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
TABLE K–12-5 Trends in Average NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores for
Students Ages 9, 13, and 17: 1973-2004
NOTE: *Significantly different from 2004.
SOURCE: National Assessment Governing Board. National Assessment of Educational
Progress 2004: Trends in Academic Progress Three Decades of Student Performance in Read-
ing and Mathematics. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, July 14, 2005.
achievement gap separating Black and Latino students from European-
American students narrowed during that period (see Figure K–12-2). How-
ever, a recent assessment by the Program for International Student Assess-
ment found that US 15-year-olds are near the bottom of all countries in
their ability to solve practical problems requiring mathematical understand-
ing. Additionally, testing for the last 30 years has shown that although
scores among 9- and 13-year-olds have increased, scores for 17-year-olds
have remained stagnant (see Table K–12-5) and there is a gender gap (see
K–12-6).
Perhaps the hardest trend to document is a sense of disillusionment
with careers based on science and technology.4 Fewer children respond posi-
4Committee for Economic Development, Research and Policy Committee. Learning for the
Future: Changing the Culture of Math and Science Education to Ensure a Competitive Work-
force. New York: Committee for Economic Development, 2003.
OCR for page 313
8th-Grade Math 1995
4th-Grade Math 1995
8th-Grade Math 1999
4th-Grade Math 2003
8th-Grade Math 2003
600 600
542
541
516 525 525
493 492
472
500 500
457* 448 443* 457 465
419* 444
400 400
300 300
200 200
Average score
Average score
100 100
0 0
White Black or African American Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Hispanic or Latino
600
Race/ethnicity
8th-Grade Science 1995
4th-Grade Science 1995
8th-Grade Science 1999
8th-Grade Science 2003
600
4th-Grade Science 2003
600 572* 565 544 547 552
503 498
487 482
500
500 462* 463 446* 462*
422* 438*
400
400
300
300
200
200
Average score
Average score
100
100
0
0
White Black or African American Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Hispanic or Latino
Race/ethnicity Race/ethnicity
FIGURE K–12-2 TIMSS math and science scores, 4th (1995 and 2003) and 8th (1995, 1999, and 2003) graders.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study: TIMSS
2003. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, December 2004. Figure 1-4. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/
2005005.pdf.
313
OCR for page 314
314 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
TABLE K–12-6 Students at or Above Basic and Proficient Levels as
Measured in NAEP Mathematics and Science Tests, Grades 4, 8, and 12,
by Sex: 1996 and 2000
1996 2000
Variable Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12 Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12
Mathematics
At or above basic
Male.......................... 65* 62* 70* 70 67 66
Female ...................... 63* 63 69* 68 65 64
At or above pro cient
Male.......................... 24* 25* 18 28 29 20
Female ...................... 19* 23 14 24 25 14
Science
At or above basic
Male.......................... 68 62 60* 69 64 54
Female ...................... 67 61 55 64 57 51
At or above pro cient
Male.......................... 31 31* 25 33 36 21
Female ...................... 27 27 17 26 27 16
NOTE: *Significantly different from 2000.
SOURCE: National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Ar-
lington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Appendix Table 1-4. This table was based
on US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The
Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2000. NCES 2001-517. Washington, DC: US Department
of Education, 2001; National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The Nation’s Report
Card: Science 2000. NCES 2003-453. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, 2003.
tively when surveyed to statements such as “I like math” than has been the
case in the past. The number of schools offering advanced courses, such as
Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate has increased dramati-
cally, but the vast majority of students in high school will never take an
advanced science or mathematics course (see Tables K–12-7 and K–12-8;
see Figure K–12-3). And a lack of interest in science, mathematics, and
technology is particularly pronounced among disadvantaged groups that
have been underrepresented in those fields.
In general, many Americans do not know enough about science, tech-
nology, and mathematics to contribute to or benefit from the knowledge-
based society that is taking shape around us. At the same time, other coun-
tries have learned from our example that preeminence in science and
engineering pays immense economic and social dividends, and they are
boosting their investments in these critical fields.
The traditions of autonomy and pluralism in American education limit
OCR for page 315
315
APPENDIX D
TABLE K–12-7 High-School Graduates Completing Advanced
Mathematics Courses (1990, 1994, and 1998), by Students and School
Characteristics in 1998
Any Any Any Calculus
trigonometry/ precalculus/ statistics/
Year and characteristic algebra III analysis probability Any AP/IB
1990 ....................................... 13.6 1.0 7.2 NA
20.7
1994 ....................................... 17.4 2.1 10.2 NA
24.0
1998 ....................................... 20.8 23.1 3.7 11.9 6.3
Male.................................... 19.4 23.1 3.4 12.0 6.8
Female ................................ 22.5 11.6 6.0
22.9 4.0
White................................... 23.6 25.1 4.3 13.1 7.0
Asian/Pacific Islander .......... 18.0 41.4 3.8 20.1 13.1
Black................................... 15.5 14.0 2.1 7.2 3.3
Hispanic .............................. 10.9 15.4 1.7 7.1 3.7
School urbanicity
Urban .............................. 19.0 28.5 3.6 13.2 7.7
Suburban ........................ 20.9 26.7 4.0 12.1 7.5
Rural ............................... 22.6 13.4 3.4 10.4 3.5
School sizea
Small............................... 22.2 21.9 3.6 10.8 3.4
Medium........................... 21.9 22.8 3.8 12.9 6.9
Large .............................. 16.7 25.1 3.4 10.3 7.7
School povertyb
Very low .......................... 26.3 35.4 6.5 15.6 8.8
Low................................. 18.1 23.6 4.3 12.0 6.7
Medium........................... 22.4 14.9 1.7 9.2 3.9
High ................................ 23.6 9.8 0.8 6.9 4.9
aSmall = fewer than 600 students enrolled, medium = 600-1,800, and large = more than 1,800.
bMeasured by percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches: very low = 5
percent or less, low = 6-25 percent, medium = 26-50 percent, and high = 51-100 percent.
NOTE: AP = Advanced Placement, IB = International Baccalaureate, NA = not available. AP
and IB courses were coded separately in 1998 and 2000 but not in prior years. AP/IB calculus
courses are counted both in their specific column and in the “any calculus” column. Before
1998, AP and IB courses were coded with the general set of courses.
SOURCE: National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Ar-
lington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Appendix Table 1-10. This table was based
on US Department of Education, Center for National Education Statistics, High School Tran-
script Studies, various years.
the influence that the federal government can exert on state educational
systems, school districts, and individual schools. Nevertheless, the federal
government can enable change by leveraging its investments in K–12 educa-
tion, by providing information and other resources to organizations, and by
helping to coordinate the many groups and individuals with a stake in sci-
ence, mathematics, and technology education. Three policy arenas seem
particularly promising: teacher preparation, educational standards, and in-
stitutional change.
OCR for page 316
316 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
TABLE K–12-8 High-School Graduates Completing Advanced Courses
(1990, 1994, and 1998), by Students and School Characteristics in 1998
Advanced
biology,
Advanced biology Chemistry Physics
chemistry,
Year and characteristic Any AP/IB Any AP/IB Any AP/IB and physics
1990 ................................ 27.5 NA 45.0 NA 21.5 NA 7.4
1994 ................................ 34.8 NA 50.4 NA 24.5 NA 9.9
1998 ................................ 37.4 4.9 56.4 2.9 28.6 1.7 12.1
Male............................. 33.8 4.0 53.3 3.3 31.0 2.3 11.8
Female ......................... 40.8 5.8 59.2 2.6 26.6 1.2 12.3
White............................ 38.5 5.0 58.8 2.9 31.1 1.8 13.4
Asian/Pacific Islander ... 43.0 14.0 63.7 9.5 37.4 4.8 15.7
Black............................ 35.8 3.4 51.1 1.2 20.3 0.8 7.6
Hispanic ....................... 31.2 3.1 45.5 2.9 19.4 1.3 8.2
School urbanicity
Urban ....................... 43.0 5.9 62.4 3.9 30.8 2.7 14.0
Suburban ................. 39.4 5.9 56.1 3.2 31.2 2.0 14.6
Rural ........................ 29.3 2.6 50.9 1.6 23.1 0.4 7.3
School sizea ..................
Small........................ 36.4 2.9 57.7 0.9 25.7 0.3 11.7
Medium.................... 36.8 4.9 56.6 2.9 31.0 1.9 13.4
Large ....................... 40.1 6.6 55.0 4.8 24.8 2.6 9.2
School povertyb
Very low ................... 37.9 6.4 71.2 4.8 43.0 3.6 17.8
Low.......................... 39.4 4.6 54.2 1.9 26.9 0.9 11.7
Medium.................... 34.1 3.4 52.4 2.2 23.6 1.3 10.2
High ......................... 37.7 5.3 50.7 2.1 17.4 1.0 7.5
aSmall = fewer than 600 students enrolled, medium = 600-1,800, and large = more than 1,800.
bMeasured by percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches: very low = 5
percent or less, low = 6-25 percent, medium = 26-50 percent, and high = 51-100 percent.
NOTE: AP = Advanced Placement, IB = International Baccalaureate, NA = not available. AP
and IB courses were coded separately in 1998 and 2000 but not in prior years. AP/IB courses
are counted both in their specific columns and in columns that correspond to the general
course category. For example, AP chemistry is included in the “any chemistry” column in
addition to being listed in its own column. Before 1998, AP and IB courses were coded with
the general set of courses.
SOURCE: National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Ar-
lington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Appendix Table 1-11. This table was based
on US Department of Education, Center for National Education Statistics, High School Tran-
script Studies, various years.
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE,
AND TECHNOLOGY TEACHING
Students learn about science, mathematics, and technology first and
foremost through interactions with teachers. Changing the nature of those
OCR for page 317
317
APPENDIX D
16,000
14,000
Number of Schools or Colleges
12,000
Schools
10,000
8,000
6,000
Colleges
4,000
2,000
0
19 -56
19 -58
19 -60
19 -62
19 -64
19 -66
19 -68
19 -70
19 -72
19 -74
19 -76
19 -78
19 -80
19 -82
19 -84
19 -86
19 -88
19 -90
19 -92
19 -94
19 -96
19 -98
20 -00
20 -02
4
-0
55
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
99
01
03
19
Year
FIGURE K–12-3 Number of schools and colleges participating in AP programs.
SOURCE: National Research Council. Learning and Understanding: Improving
Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in US High Schools. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 2002. Data courtesy of Jay Labov, Center for Education,
National Academies.
interactions is the surest way to improve education in these subjects in the
United States.
Many mathematics and science teachers in US schools do not have back-
grounds needed to teach these subjects well (see Figure K–12-4).5 Many of
these teachers at the high school level—and even more at the middle school
level—do not have a college degree in the subject they are teaching (see
Tables K–12-9 and K–12-10). Many lack certification to teach mathematics
and science, and a subset of teachers start in the classroom without any
formal training. The lack of adequate training and background is especially
severe at schools serving large numbers of disadvantaged students, creating
a vicious circle in which a substandard education and low achievement are
intertwined (see Table K–12-11). The stresses on teachers are equally se-
5US Department of Education, The National Commission on Mathematics and Science
Teaching for the 21st Century. Before It’s Too Late. Washington, DC: US Department of
Education, 2000.
OCR for page 318
318 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
2,300
7.3% Noncertified New Teachers
4,200
13.2%
Noncertified Returning
and Transferring Teachers
8,300
26%
Certified New Teachers
17,000
53.5%
Certified Returning
and Transferring Teachers
31,800 Total
FIGURE K–12-4 Middle and high school mathematics and science positions filled
during the 1993-1994 school year by certified and noncertified teachers.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. Schools and Staffing Survey
(1993-1994). Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, 2006.
vere: Of new mathematics and science teachers, about one-third leave teach-
ing within the first 3 years.
The best predictors of higher student achievement in mathematics and
science are (1) full certification of the teacher and (2) a college major in the
field being taught.6 Teachers need a high-quality education and continued
development as professionals throughout their careers. Federal policy ini-
tiatives that could help meet these objectives include the following:
• Allocate federal professional-development funds to summer institutes
that address the most pressing professional-development needs of math-
ematics and science teachers.7
• Keep summer-institute facilitators—teachers current with the most
effective teaching methods in their disciplines and who have shown demon-
strable results of higher student achievement in mathematics and science—
abreast of new insights and research in science and mathematics teaching
by providing funding for training them.8
6Ibid.
7Ibid.
8Ibid.
OCR for page 319
319
APPENDIX D
TABLE K–12-9 Public High School Students Whose Mathematics and
Science Teachers Majored or Minored in Various Subject Fields, by
Poverty Level and Minority Enrollment in School: 1999-2000
Science, computer
Mathematics/ Mathematics/ Mathematics science, or
Subject and school characteristics statistics major statistics minor education major engineering major Other major
Mathematics
Students in poverty (percent)
0–10 .............................................................................. 45.1 3.7 31.3 4.0 15.9
More than 10 to 50......................................................... 37.6 5.2 34.4 4.0 18.8
More than 50.................................................................. 43.4 5.8 23.6 10.3 17.0
Minority enrollment (percent)
0–5 ................................................................................ 42.5 3.7 35.3 2.4 16.2
More than 5 to 45........................................................... 39.4 4.4 35.7 4.1 16.3
More than 45.................................................................. 41.6 6.6 24.5 7.3 19.9
Biology/life science Biology/life science Other science major Science education
major minor or minor major Other major
Biology/life sciences
Students in poverty (percent)
0–10 .............................................................................. 62.6 5.7 7.0 7.8 16.9
More than 10 to 50......................................................... 61.2 7.1 8.0 11.6 12.0
More than 50.................................................................. 62.5 6.4 2.7 7.0 21.4
Minority enrollment (percent)
0–5 ................................................................................ 59.8 7.9 5.4 13.5 13.4
More than 5 to 45........................................................... 64.2 4.6 6.0 8.4 16.7
More than 45.................................................................. 64.4 7.8 7.0 6.5 14.3
Physical science Physical science Biology/life science Science education
major minor major or minor major Other major
Physical sciences
Students in poverty (percent)
0–10 .............................................................................. 41.8 10.7 14.4 15.5 17.6
More than 10 to 50......................................................... 40.9 14.2 13.1 15.2 16.6
More than 50.................................................................. 30.8 15.7 26.1 6.0 21.5
Minority enrollment (percent)
0–5 ................................................................................ 41.4 11.2 14.4 19.3 13.6
More than 5 to 45........................................................... 41.7 14.3 15.0 13.4 15.7
More than 45.................................................................. 40.7 14.3 18.2 7.4 19.4
NOTE: Students in poverty are those who are approved to receive free or reduced-price lunches.
Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Physical sciences include chemistry, geol-
ogy/earth sciences, other natural sciences (except biology/life sciences), and engineering.
SOURCE: National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Ar-
lington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Appendix Table 1-13. This table was based
on US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staff-
ing Survey, 1999-2000.
• Encourage higher-education institutions to establish mathematics
and science teaching academies that include faculty from science, math-
ematics, and education departments through a competitive grant process.9
• Support promising students to study science, mathematics, and engi-
neering teaching—particularly those obtaining degrees in science, math-
ematics, or engineering who plan to teach at the K–12 level following gradu-
ation through scholarships and loan programs for students as well as
institutional funding.10 Qualified college students and midcareer profession-
9Ibid.
10Ibid.
OCR for page 320
320
TABLE K–12-10 Public Middle and High School Mathematics and Science Teachers Who Entered Profession
Between 1995-1996 and 1999-2000 and Reported Feeling Well Prepared in Various Aspects of Teaching in First
Year, by Participating in Induction and Mentoring Activities: 1999-2000
Handle Use Select/adapt
classroom Use variety Teach computers in Plan curriculum and
management of instructional subject classroom lessons instructional
Assess
Subject and activity and discipline methods matter instruction effectively students materials
All mathematics teachers ............... 50.5 65.1 90.1 41.5 77.5 69.7 53.9
Induction program
Yes ......................................... 50.8 67.2 89.4 45.1 78.2 70.9 55.8
No .......................................... 50.0 61.8 91.1 35.7 76.4 67.9 51.0
Mentor
Yes ......................................... 53.5 68.7 89.6 41.8 79.3 72.6 57.1
No .......................................... 44.6 58.2 91.0 40.8 74.0 64.1 47.8
All science teachers........................ 50.8 66.0 82.9 48.0 69.4 68.8 58.6
Induction program
Yes ......................................... 51.7 70.1 83.8 51.3 74.7 72.5 63.6
No .......................................... 49.1 58.0 81.0 41.5 59.0 61.6 48.6
Mentor
Yes ......................................... 56.6 73.6 84.9 51.5 75.3 74.3 64.6
No .......................................... 42.0 54.4 79.7 42.6 60.3 60.4 49.2
SOURCE: National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Appen-
dix Table 1-15. This table was based on US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-
2000.
OCR for page 321
321
APPENDIX D
TABLE K–12-11 Public School Students, Teachers, and Cost Data
Fall 2003 enrollment K–12a 48,132,518
High school graduates—2003-2004a 2,771,781
Male graduates going to college—2001b 60%
Female graduates going to college—2001b 64%
Total number of school teachers—2003-2004a 3,044,012
Total number of math and science teachers (K–12)c 1,700,000
Total number of math teachers (6–12) 1999-2000d 191,214
Total number of science teachers (6–12) 1999-2000d 159,488
Average public school teacher salary—2003-2004a $46,752
Average spent per studenta $8,248
Operating school districts in the United Statesa 15,397
SOURCES:
aNational Education Association. Rankings & Estimates: Rankings of the States 2004 and
Estimates of School Statistics 2005. Atlanta, GA: NEA Research, June 2005. Available at:
http://www.nea.org/edstats/images/05rankings.pdf.
bNational Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. NSB 04-01. Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation, 2004. Appendix Table 1-19.
cNational Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Before It’s
Too Late: A Report to the Nation. Washington, DC: National Assessment of Education
Progress, September 27, 2000. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/toc.html.
dNational Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2003. Washington,
DC: US Department of Education, 2004. Table 67.
als need to be attracted into teaching and given the preparation they require
to succeed. Experts in mathematics, science, and technology should be able
to become teachers by completing programs to acquire and demonstrate
fundamental teaching skills. Recruitment, preparation, and retention of
minority-group teachers are particularly important as groups underrepre-
sented in science, mathematics, and engineering become a larger percentage
of the student population.11
• Conduct an aggressive national-outreach media campaign to attract
young people to teaching careers in mathematics and science.12
• Work for broad improvements in the professional status of science,
mathematics, and technology teachers.13 Structured induction programs for
new teachers, district–business partnerships, award programs, and other in-
centives can inspire teachers and encourage them to remain in the field. Most
11National Research Council, Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation.
Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for the New
Millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
12Ibid.
13National Science Foundation, National Science Board. The Science and Engineering Work-
force: Realizing America’s Potential. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2003.
OCR for page 322
322 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
important, salaries for science, mathematics, and technology teachers need to
reflect what they could receive in the private sector and be in accord with
their contributions to society, and teachers need to be treated as professionals
and as important members of the science and engineering communities.
ENHANCING THE QUALITY AND COHESION
OF EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS
Since the early 1990s, states have been developing academic standards in
mathematics, science, and technology education based in part on national
standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science, and other organizations. The use of these standards in cur-
riculum development, teaching, and assessment has had a positive effect on
student performance and probably contributed to the recent increased perfor-
mance of 8th-grade students in international comparisons.14
But standards still vary greatly from state to state and across districts
and often are not well aligned with the tests used to measure student perfor-
mance. In addition, many sets of standards remain focused on lower-level
skills that may be easier to measure but are not necessarily linked to the
knowledge and skills that students will need to do well in college and in the
modern workforce. A common flaw in mathematics and science curricula
and textbooks is the attempt to cover too much material, which leads to
superficial treatments of subjects and to needless repetition when hastily
taught material is not learned the first time. Standards need to identify the
most important “big ideas” in mathematics, science, and technology, and
teachers need to ensure that those subjects are mastered.
The No Child Left Behind legislation requires testing of students’
knowledge of science beginning in 2006-2007, and the science portion of
the NAEP is being redesigned. Development of such assessments raises pro-
found methodologic issues, such as how to assess inquiry and problem-
solving skills using traditional large-scale testing formats.
Several federal initiatives can serve the national interest in establishing
and maintaining high educational standards while respecting local respon-
sibility for teaching and learning:
• Help colleges, businesses, and schools work together to link K–12
standards to college admissions criteria and workforce needs to create a
seamless K–16 educational system.15
14Bybee and Stage, 2005.
15National Science Foundation, National Science Board. Preparing Our Children: Math and
Science Education in the National Interest. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 1999.
OCR for page 323
323
APPENDIX D
• Provide incentives for states and coalitions of states to conduct
benchmarking studies between their standards and the best standards
available.
• Foster the development of high-quality curricula and assessments
that are closely aligned with world-class standards.
• Establish ambitious but realistic goals for student performance—for
example, that 30% of high school seniors should be proficient in science by
2010 as measured by the NAEP.
CHANGING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF SCHOOLS
Students and teachers remain constrained by several of the key organi-
zational features of schools.16 The structure of the curriculum, of individual
classes, of schools, and of the school day keeps many students from taking
advantage of opportunities that could build their interest in science and
technology.
Possible federal initiatives include these:
• Provide seed money or incentives for new kinds of schools and
new forms of schooling. Promising ideas include small high schools, dual-
enrollment programs in high schools and colleges, colocation of schools
with institutions of higher education, and wider use of Advanced Placement
and International Baccalaureate courses.
• Help districts institute reorganization of the school schedule to sup-
port teaching and learning.17 Possibilities include devoting more time to
study of academic subjects, keeping schools open longer in the day and
during parts of the summer, and providing teachers with additional time for
development and collaboration.
• Provide scholarships for low-income students who demonstrate that
they have taken a core curriculum in high school that prepares them to
study science, mathematics, or engineering in college.
CATALYZING CHANGE
The federal government has an important role to play in catalyzing the
efforts of states, school districts, and schools to improve science, mathemat-
ics, and technology education. Promising actions include the following:
16US Department of Education, National Education Commission on Time and Learning.
Prisoners of Time. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, 1994.
17Ibid.
OCR for page 324
324 RISING ABOVE THE GATHERING STORM
• Launch a large-scale program of research, demonstration, and evalu-
ation in K–12 science, mathematics, and technology education.18 Such a
program should include distinguished researchers working in partnership
with practitioners and policy-makers and supported by a national coalition
of public and private funding organizations and other stakeholders.
• Help create a nongovernment Coordinating Council for Mathemat-
ics and Science Teaching that would bring together groups with a stake in
mathematics and science teaching and monitor progress on teacher recruit-
ment, preparation, retention, and rewards.19
• Support the creation of state councils of business leaders, higher-
education representatives, and K–12 educators to achieve comprehensive,
coordinated, system-level improvement in science, mathematics, and tech-
nology education from prekindergarten through college.20
The United States brings unique strengths to the challenge of reforming
K–12 science, mathematics, and technology education, including the flex-
ibility of its workforce and its unparalleled legacy of achievement in science
and technology. The challenge facing policy-makers is to find ways of gen-
erating meaningful change in an educational system that is large, complex,
and pluralistic.
18National Research Council, Committee on a Feasibility Study for a Strategic Education
Research Program. Improving Student Learning: A Strategic Plan for Education Research and
Its Utilization. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.
19US Department of Education, The National Commission on Mathematics and Science
Teaching for the 21st Century. Before It’s Too Late. Washington, DC: US Department of
Education, 2000.
20Business-Higher Education Forum. A Commitment to America’s Future: Responding to
the Crisis in Mathematics and Science Education. Washington, DC: American Council on
Education, 2005.
