| The United States has recorded some
improvement in student mathematics and science achievement since
the 1970s. But gains have been modest and were mostly achieved before
the 1990s. Students are taking more advanced course-work than in
the past, and more students are going on to higher education than
in earlier decades.
However, compared with students in other countries, U.S. students
are not achieving at high levels, and U.S. students fare worse in
international comparisons at higher grade levels than at lower grade
levels. Several other developed countries appear to be producing
better qualified cohorts of high school graduates and sending as
many or more of them on to higher education.
Achievement differences between male and female students have largely
disappeared, especially in mathematics. However, substantial gaps
persist among different racial/ethnic and income groups. Blacks
and Hispanics are achieving at lower levels than whites and Asian/Pacific
Islanders, and students in high-poverty schools are doing worse
than their peers in low-poverty schools. Coursetaking patterns parallel
these achievement patterns, although with greater disparities in
some fields (e.g., physical sciences) and smaller ones in others
(e.g., advanced biology). Higher proportions of blacks are going
on to college than in the past, and the difference between blacks
and whites in this respect has narrowed somewhat. But the same is
not true for Hispanics.
Schools that serve students from different racial, ethnic, and
income groups provide students with differing access to educational
resources. Access to challenging courses, qualified and experienced
teachers, good learning environments, and learning opportunities
that make use of computers and the Internet is unequally distributed,
but more so in some respects than in others:
- Course availability. Differences in access to some mathematics
and science courses are modest. High schools with high proportions
of low-income students are comparable to other schools in the
percentages offering courses in advanced biology, chemistry, and
trigonometry/algebra III. Wider gaps exist for physics, but all
of these courses are almost universally accessible in U.S. public
high schools. However, AP courses are more widely available in
high schools with very low proportions of low-income students,
and the availability of certain specialized mathematics courses
is negatively associated with the percentage of low-income students.
- Out-of-field teachers. The extent of inequalities in
exposure to out-of-field teachers depends on how out of field
is defined and measured. Using a broad definition of out of field
(lacking a college major or minor in either the field taught or
one of several closely related fields) yields marginal but consistent
differences between schools with high and low percentages of low-income
or minority students: students in high poverty or high minority
schools are slightly more likely to have out-of-field teachers.
Using a narrow concept of out of field (lacking a major in the
subject taught) yields no substantial difference between schools
with different percentages of minority students. Likewise, students
taking mathematics and biology/ life science courses have similar
chances of encountering teachers who did not major in these subjects
regardless of their school's poverty level. The same is not true
for physical science students, however, where school poverty is
associated with out-of-field teaching. One of the most striking
differences in teacher qualifications is that fewer students in
heavily minority or low-income schools had mathematics or science
teachers who majored in mathematics or science education; although
critics have questioned the value of these types of credentials,
they appear to be more common in schools with more advantaged
students.
- New teachers. The percentage of inexperienced mathematics
teachers does not vary with school poverty or minority enrollment,
but the percentage of inexperienced science teachers does. New
mathematics and science teachers in schools with large percentages
of students from low-income or minority families had substantially
less practice teaching experience before taking on their assignments.
Science teachers in these schools were also substantially less
likely to participate in an induction program, but only relatively
modest differences existed for mathematics teachers. In both subjects,
the proportion of teachers who had worked with a mentor did not
vary substantially with a school's minority or low-income enrollment.
- Learning environment. Teachers had more favorable perceptions
of the learning environment in high schools with fewer low-income
and minority students. Differences in perceptions varied in size:
they were small for questions about administrative practices,
larger for questions about available teaching materials and student
apathy and disrespect, and largest for questions about parental
involvement and student attendance.
- IT access. In recent years, IT has rapidly become more
available in public schools. Disparities by race/ethnicity and
income are much smaller for computer access than for Internet
access. Access at home is much more unequally distributed than
access at school.
As a result of reform efforts begun in the 1980s and continuing
most recently with the NCLB Act, changes are occurring in mathematics
and science education. Increasing numbers of states are developing
and implementing standards, states and school districts are increasing
graduation requirements, and students are being offered (and are
taking) more advanced courses. In addition, educators and policymakers
are paying increasing attention to teacher professional development
and to taking advantage of computers and the Internet in instruction.
The NCLB Act has introduced new levels of accountability, requiring
schools to demonstrate improvement for all students or face sanctions,
thus raising the stakes for all involved.
|
Print this chapter
E-mail this page
