The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) published Science 2011, science results for grade 8.

A representative sample of 122,000 8th-graders were involved in the 2011 NAEP science assessment.  No student took the entire test.  Instead the 144 questions that made up the test were divided into nine 25-minute sessions of between 14 and 18 questions.  Each student responded to two sections. NAEP reported that no hands-on or computer tasks were administered.

The NAEP test assessed physical science (30%), life science (30%), and Earth and life science (40%).  The test included multiple choice and constructed response (open-ended) questions.

Analysis of test results is reported as the percentage of students performing at or above Basic and Proficient and at the Advanced level.

Results

The average eighth-grade science score increased from 150 in 2009 to 152 in 2011. The percentages of students performing at or above the Basic and Proficient levels were higher in 2011 than in 2009. There was no significant change from 2009 to 2011 in the percentage of students at the Advanced level.

As seen in Figure one, the average score of eight-graders improved from 2009

NAEP reports that the racial/ethnic gaps narrowed in 2011 from 2009. The biggest change was seen comparing Hispanic students (who gained 5-points) and white students, who gained 1-point. Black students scored 3-points higher in 2011 than in 2009. Although the gap between white and Black student narrowed, only by 1-point.

There were other differences among student scores at grade 8.  Male students and female students scored higher in 2011 than 2009.  There is a 5-point gap between males and females (males: 154; females: 149)

Income levels were a factor in 8th-grade scores.  Students eligible for free or reduced lunch had an average score of 137 in 2011 compared to 2009 when the average score was 133.  This was a significant change.  However, students not eligible for free or reduced lunches continued to score higher.  In 2011 the average score was 164, while in 2009 the score was 161.  The increase of 3 points was significant. <!–more–>

Students  in classes that participated in hands-on activities at least twice a week (average score 154 and 156), score higher than students in classes where the frequency was once a month or never (average score 149 and 150).

Meaning of Results

The NAEP created three achievement levels:

Basic--denotes partial mastery of science skills and knowledge. Cut score 141 which means the lower end of the score range.

Proficient–represents solid performance. Cut score 170

Advanced–superior performance. Cut score 215.

These cut scores were determined by a panel of experts in 1990 by NAEP.  They are based on definitions of what the experts think students should know and be able to do at grade level points.  The decisions are subjective.  But because we’ve attached a number to each achievement level, we begin to think in terms of these levels as representing what students really know and able to do.  This is highly questionable.

Newspaper headlines tell us a different story.  Headlines use phrases like, schools try to pull out of science slump, U.S. students’ lackluster performance, science scores nearly flat, comparisons have painted a bleak picture.  You would think that the sky is falling.

But the truth is headlines like these fall right into the hands of organizations like Achieve, who stand to make millions from standards reform, corporations of testing companies and publishers who have already made billions off America’s poor performance on reading, math and science tests.

I’ve written elsewhere on this blog that the conservative view of focusing on assessing achievement test scores has narrowed not only the curriculum, but profoundly changed the experience that students have in schools today.

The NAEP science achievement scores did not drop, in fact they rose.  And given the fact that there is less emphasis on science at the elementary school level, American students may not be doing as poorly as a lot of adults think they are.

What do you think?  Are American kids showing lackluster performance?  Do these results warrant panic among the public?