Most of the 17 urban districts that took part in a prominent science exam fell below the national average, with the exception of the school systems in Austin, Texas; Charlotte, N.C.; and Jefferson County, Ky.; where 4th graders scored about the same as their peers across the country.
Even in those three districts, however, only about one-third of 4th graders were deemed 鈥減roficient鈥� in science, according to on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as 鈥渢he nation鈥檚 report card.鈥�
At the other end of the spectrum, a scant 4 percent of 4th graders in Cleveland and Detroit, and 5 percent in Baltimore, were rated proficient.
Meanwhile, at the 8th grade level, only students in Austin had an average score that did not fall below the national level; it was not statistically different.
Because of recent changes to update the framework guiding the NAEP in science, the new findings are not considered comparable to the results last reported, from 2005.
Alan J. Friedman, a member of the , which sets policy for NAEP, noted that the results come on the heels of what he terms the 鈥渓ackluster鈥� performance shown by the nation as a whole when the national results, as well as state-by-state data, came out in January. (鈥淧roficiency Eludes U.S. Students on Science NAEP,鈥� Jan. 25, 2011.)
鈥淭he situation is worse in the big cities,鈥� said Mr. Friedman, a former longtime director and chief executive officer of the in New York City, in a prepared statement. 鈥淎nd, unfortunately, the achievement deficit in the cities is considerably greater in science than it is in reading and math.鈥�
Overall, the average for all students in big-city public schools was about 14 percentile points behind the nation in science, compared with about 10 points behind the national average in recent results for reading and mathematics. NAEP science tests score students on a scale that ranges from zero to 300 with a mean of 150.
鈥楤asic Really Is Basic鈥�
The science NAEP seeks to assess student knowledge and skills in physical science, life science, and earth and space sciences. The results released Feb. 24 were for the , which tested representative samples of between 900 and 2,200 4th and 8th graders in each school system. The revised science framework was updated to incorporate new advances in the field, research on science learning, and components from international assessments.
The report notes that the demographic makeup of the large-city school systems is quite different from the nation鈥檚 as a whole and is 鈥渋mportant to consider鈥� when making comparisons.
Urban schools and districts on average have more racial and ethnic minority students and more children from low-income families than the nation. For example, 71 percent of 4th graders tested in big-city public schools were eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch, compared with 48 percent of 4th graders nationally, the new NAEP report says.
Although the results are not directly comparable with the NAEP science data from 2005, the Austin and Charlotte-Mecklenburg districts were once again at the top of the pack compared with other participating urban systems. (Jefferson County, which includes Louisville, did not take part in the special study in 2005.) Those three districts also have some of the lowest student poverty rates among the 17 participants.
In most of the districts that took part in the trial assessment, half or more of all 8th graders fell below the 鈥渂asic鈥� level. For example, 80 percent of 8th graders in Detroit and Baltimore were below basic, the two lowest performers.
That compares with 38 percent for the nation as a whole and 56 percent for all large cities.
鈥淏asic really is basic,鈥� Mr. Friedman said in an interview. 鈥淜ids who don鈥檛 reach that level ... are just not prepared to think about science and all the issues that they鈥檙e going to face in their lives.鈥�
The below-basic numbers were somewhat more favorable at 4th grade, where eight of the 17 districts had more than half their students fall into that category.
Arthur Eisenkraft, a professor of science education at the University of Massachusetts Boston, expressed alarm at the most recent findings.
鈥淭he view is not pretty,鈥� he said in a prepared statement. 鈥淭he problems of science education have been identified before. It seems that we rediscover them on a regular basis.鈥�
Mr. Eisenkraft said that the NAEP science data show that 鈥渟ome schools and some students have found a way to thrive. We have to find these pockets of success and learn from them.鈥�
