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 R1
Indicators of Precollege Education in Science and Mathematics APreliminay Renew Senta A. Raizen and Lyle V. Jones, editors Committee on indicators of Precollege Science and Mathematics Education Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education National Research Council National Academy Press Washington, D.C. 1985
OCR for page R2
National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council has become the princi- pal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences. This study by a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) was supported by the NRC Fund, which consists of contributions from: a consortium of private founda- tions including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Charles E. Culpeper Founda- tion, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and John D. and Catherine T. MacAr- thur Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Academy Industry Program, which seeks annual contributions from companies that are concerned with the health of U.S. science and technology and with public policy issues with technological content; and the endow- ments of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Indicators of precollege education in science and mathematics. Bibliography: p. 1. Science Study and teaching (Secondary) United States Evaluation. 2. Mathematics Study and teaching (Secondary) United States Evaluation. 3. Science indicators United States. I. Raizen, Senta A. II. Jones, Lyle V. III. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Indicators of Precollege Science and Mathemat- ics Education. Q183.3.A.lI53 1985 507'.1073 85-3028 International Standard Book Number 0-309-03536-8 Printed in the United States of America First Printing, April 1985 Second Printing, May 1988
OCR for page R3
Committee on Indicators of Precollege Science and Mathematics Education .. LYLE V. JONES (Chair), L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory, University of North Carolina (psychology, statistics) RICHARD D. ANDERSON, Council of Scientific Societies Presidents, Washington, D.C. (mathematics) NORMAN M. BRADBURN, Provost, University of Chicago (survey research) DENIS F. JOHNSTON, Washington, D. C. (statistics, social indicators) C. THOMAS KERINS, Illinois Office of Education, Springfield (program evaluation and testing) HAROLD NISSELSON, Westat, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (statistics) DONALD B. RUBIN, Departments of Statistics and Education, University of Chicago (statistics) MARSHALL S. SMITH, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin (educational research and policy) MARY L. TENOPYR, AT&T, New York, N.Y. (industrial psychology) WAYNE W. WELCH, Department of Education, University of Minnesota (educational psychology, science education) SENTA A. RAIZEN, Study Director · · — 111
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
Preface Some 25 years ago, in the wake of the launching of Sputnik by the Soviet Union, the United States embarked on a reform of science and mathematics education. The primary objective then was to ensure that- a sizable number of students would be motivated to choose scientific and technical careers and would be well educated to do so. Today, again, the United States is embarking on a reform of science and mathematics education. But the present call for reform embraces a larger mission: not only to meet the country's need for scientific and technical manpower, but also to ensure scientific and technical literacy for all students. Students must be prepared for the changing requirements of a society more and more heavily linked to rapidly advancing technology, no matter at what stage they terminate formal education. To help assess the degree to which this ambitious new goal is approached, the National Research Council established a Commit- tee on Indicators of Precollege Science and Mathematics Education. Many efforts are already under way to improve the teaching and learning of mathematics and science by all students in elementary and secondary school. To understand the impact of these efforts and make them more effective in the future, it is important to be able to monitor the condition of science and mathematics education in the nation's schools. And for that monitoring, assessment measures indicators must be available. The committee was charged with developing a framework for an efficient set of in- dicators, filling in the framework as far as possible with existing data to provide a baseline, and suggesting what data and analyses will be needed in the future for a continuing portrayal of the condi- tion of precollege science and mathematics education. This report presents the committee's work, based on a review of information and data currently available. As the title of the report v
OCR for page R6
indicates, it is a preliminary study, but we hope one that lays a solid foundation for the next tasks, to be performed by a successor committee that will include mathematicians and scientists as well as experts in educational research and data. Under the chairmanship of John G. Truxal, Department of Technology and Sociology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, the successor committee will address the important goal of developing imaginative new indicators. It will also continue to consult with state departments of education and will initiate communication with local school dis- tricts to help build a coordinated monitoring system for mathemat- ics and science education. The new committee will be helped in its work by other National Research Council activities, for example, the Committee on Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technol- ogy Education, which is examining what research needs to be done to address critical substantive issues pertaining to the improvement of mathematics and science education. We wish to acknowledge the assistance provided to our commit- tee by a number of state officials; their names are listed in the Appendix. As the work of the successor committee proceeds, the help of state and local education authorities will continue to be needed to bring about a monitoring system for science and mathe- matics education that is useful at all levels of educational govern- ance. The committee extends to Senta A. Raizen, study director, its greatest expression of gratitude: without her initiative, persever- ance, and enthusiastic dedication to our task, this report could not have been written. LYLE V. JONES, Chair Committee on Indicators of Precollege Science and Mathematics Education V1
OCR for page R7
Contents 1. Introduction and Summary INTRODUCTION, 1 Background, 1 Scope of Report, 4 SUMMARY, 6 Selecting Indicators, 6 Outcome Variables, 7; Process Variables, 9; Input Variables, 9 Teachers, 12 Findings: Supply and Demand, 12; Findings: Quality, 14; Conclusions and Recommendations, 15 Curriculum Content, 16 Findings, 16; Conclusions and Recommendations, 17 Instructional Time and Course Enrollment, 18 Findings, 18; Conclusions and Recommendations: Elementary School, 19; Conclusions and Recommendations: Secondary School, 20 Student Outcomes, 22 Findings, 22; Conclusions and Recommendations, 23 2. The Selection and Interpretation of Indicators ... AVAILABLE DATA AND INFORMATION ON EDUCATION, 25 THE CONCEPT OF INDICATORS, 27 SELECTING INDICATOR VARIABLES, 29 Outcomes, 29 Schooling Inputs and Processes, 32 School Processes: Instructional Time, 33; Input Variables, 34 Conclusion, 38 COLLECTING INFORMATION, 39 DISAGGREGATING DATA, 40 Collecting Data at the State and Local Levels, 40 Disaggregating Data by Demographic Descriptors, 41 Separating Data by Educational Level, 41 INTERPRETING INDICATORS, 42 · ~ V11 1 25
OCR for page R8
3- Schooling Input to Science and Mathematics Education: Teachers and Curriculum Content TEACHERS, 44 Number of Teachers, 47 Supply of Teachers, 47; Demand for Teachers, 52 Quality of Teachers, 61 · · ~ ... 44 Elementary School, 64; Secondary School, 65; Defining Teacher Quality, 66 Findings, 68 Supply and Demand, 68; Quality, 70 Conclusions and Recommendations, 70 Supply and Demand, 70; Quality, 71 CURRICULUM CONTENT, 72 Opportunity to Learn, 72 The Role of Textbooks, 74 Variations in Topic Emphasis, 77 Findings, 80 Opportunity to Learn, 80; Textbooks and Courses, 80 Conclusions and Recommendations, 81 Curriculum Content, 81; Textbooks and Courses, 81; Tests, 82 4. The Schooling Process: Instructional Time and Course Enrollment ............................. INSTRUCTIONAL TIME AND STUDENT LEARNING, 84 Allocated Versus Actual Instructional Time, 88 Homework, 89 MEASURING INSTRUCTIONAL TIME, 9 Elementary School, 91 High School, 96 FINDINGS, 106 Instructional Time and Student Learning, 106 Measuring Instructional Time, 106 Elementary School, 106; High School, 106 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 107 Elementary School, 107 Measures of Instructional Time, 107; Improving Methods for Collecting Information, 107 Secondary School, 108 Measures of Course Enrollment, 108; Improving Measures of Course Enrollment, 108; Assessing the Effects of Policy Changes, 109 · · — vail .. 83
OCR for page R9
Student Outcomes STUDENT ATTITUDES, 1lO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT, 113 Measures of Achievement, 113 Grades, 113; Test Scores, 114 Limitations of Achievement Tests, 115 Achievement: All Students, 117 Mathematics, 117; Science, 124 Achievement: College-Bound Students, 128 FINDINGS, 132 Tests, 132 Achievement, 132 All Students, 132; College-Bound Students, 133 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 133 Assessments of Achievement, 133 Tests, 133 References Appendix: State Data INTRODUCTION, 149 TEACHERS, 152 California, 156; Connecticut, 156; Illinois, 157; Michigan, 160; Minnesota, 160; New Jersey, 161; New York, 163; North Carolina, 165; Pennsylvania, 165 CONTENT, 166 Connecticut, 166; Illinois, 167; Michigan, 167; Minnesota, 168; New York, 168; North Carolina, 169; Pennsylvania, 169 INSTRUCTIONAL TIME/ENROLEMENT, 169 California, 169; Illinois, 171; Michigan, 172; Minnesota, 173; New Jersey, 174; New York, 175; North Carolina, 178; Pennsylvania, 178; Washington, 178 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT, 180 California, 182; Connecticut, 183; Illinois, 185; Michigan, 187; Minnesota, 189; New Jersey, 190; New York, 192; North Carolina, 193; Pennsylvania, 193; Washington, 194 REFERENCES, 195 STATE PERSONNEL, 199 110 135 149 1X
OCR for page R10