Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 205–216 | Cite as

Secondary Education Systemic Issues: Addressing Possible Contributors to a Leak in the Science Education Pipeline and Potential Solutions

  • Hollie Young
Article

Abstract

To maintain the legacy of cutting edge scientific innovation in the United States our country must address the many pressing issues facing science education today. One of the most important issues relating to science education is the under-representation of African Americans and Hispanics in the science, technology, and engineering workforce. Foreshadowing such under-representation in the workforce are the disproportionately low rates of African American and Hispanic students attaining college degrees in science and related fields. Evidence suggests disparate systemic factors in secondary science education are contributing to disproportionately low numbers of African American and Hispanic students in the science education pipeline. The present paper embarks on a critical analysis of the issue by elucidating some of the systemic factors within secondary education that contribute to the leak in the science education pipeline. In addition, this review offers a synthesis and explication of some of the policies and programs being implemented to address disparate systemic factors in secondary schools. Finally, recommendations are offered regarding potential mechanisms by which disparities may be alleviated.

Keywords

science education teacher quality coursework funding minority students 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in The Toolbox, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. E., and Ronnkvist, A. (1999). The Presence of Computers in American Schools, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, Irvine,/CA.Google Scholar
  3. Ault, C. R., and Norman, O. (2001). Issues in the preparation of teachers to face the challenge of the Black-White achievement gap in science: “I love your question but we have to get through this stuff,” Paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science Education International Conference, Costa Mesa, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Barth, P. (2003). A Common core Curriculum for the New Century, The Education Trust, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Carey, K. (2004). The Funding Gap 2004, The Education Trust, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, J. V. (1999). Minorities in Science and Math, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  7. College Board. (2002a). Advanced Placement Program,/National and 50 States Summary Reports, College Entrance Examination Board, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  8. College Board (2002b). Opening classroom doors: Strategies for expanding access to AP, College Entrance Examination Board, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Council of Chief State School Officers (2003). State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Ferguson, R. (1991). Racial patterns in how school and teacher quality affect achievement and learning. Challenge: A Journal of Research on African American Men 2: 1–26.Google Scholar
  11. Ferguson, R. F. (2002, December). Addressing racial disparities in high-achieving suburban schools. Closing the achievement gap in suburban and urban school communities, NCREL Policy Issues 13: 1–10.Google Scholar
  12. Ferguson, R. F., and Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In Ladd, H. F. (Ed.), Holding Schools Accountable, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 265–298.Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, C., Scafidi, B., and Sjoquist, D. L. (2002). Racial Segregation in Georgia Public Schools 1994–2001: Trends, Causes, and Impact on Teacher Quality, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.Google Scholar
  14. Goldhaber, D. D., and Brewer, D. J. (1996). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. In Fowler, W. (Ed.), Developments in School Finance U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC, pp. 199–208.Google Scholar
  15. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., and Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research 66: 361–396.Google Scholar
  16. Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., and Williamson, S. (1997). Does money matter for minority and disadvantaged students? Assessing the new empirical evidence. In Fowler, W. J. Jr. (Ed.), Developments in School Finance, 1997: Does Money Matter? National Center for Education Statistics, Washington,/DC.Google Scholar
  17. Grissmer, D. W., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J., and Williamson, S. (2000). Improving Student Achievement: What State NAEP Test Scores Tell Us, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., and Rivkin, S. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources 39: 326–354.Google Scholar
  19. Hupp, S. (2004, August, 18). Graduation proposal raises bar. The Indianapolis Star.Google Scholar
  20. Ingersoll, R. M. (1996). Out-of-field Teaching and Educational Equality, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  21. Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). Out-of-field Teaching, Educational Inequality, and the Organization of Schools: An Exploratory Analysis, University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  22. Jerald, C. (2002). All Talk, No Action: Putting an End to Out-/of-field Teachingm, The Education Trust, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Joyner, C. C. (1998). Five School Districts’ Experiences in Financing Technology Programs, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. Kim, J. J., and Crasco, L. M. (2003). Overcoming Challenges in Urban Education: CPMSA Achievement Highlights and Case Studies of Five Sites. Systemic Research, Norwood,/MA.Google Scholar
  25. Kim, J. J., Crasco, L. M., Smith, R. B., Johnson, G., Karantonis, A., and Leavitt, D. J. (2001). Academic Excellence for All Urban Students: Their Accomplishments in Science and Mathematics, Systemic Research, Norwood, MA.Google Scholar
  26. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities, Harper-Collins, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Krei, M. S. (1998). Inequities in Teacher Allocation: Policy and Practice in Urban Schools Districts, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research/Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  28. Lankford, H., Wyckoff, J., and Papa, F. (2000). The Labor Market for Public School Teachers: A Descriptive Analysis of New York State’s Teacher Workforce, University at Albany, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  29. Massachusetts State Department of Education. (2002). Promoting High Achievement: Policies and Programs for Academically Advanced Students in Massachusetts, Center for Teaching and Learning, Massachusetts State Department of Education Malden, MA.Google Scholar
  30. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject matter preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics and Education Review, 13: 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Monk, D. H., and King, J. (1994). Multi-level teacher resource effects on pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science: The role of teacher subject matter preparation. In Ehrenberg, R. (Ed.), Contemporary Policy Issues: Choices and Consequences in Education. Ithaca, ILR Press, NY.Google Scholar
  32. National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Highlights from TIMSS: The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (No. NCES 1999-081), Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  33. National Center for Education Statistics (2001, November 16, 2001). The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2000 Major Results. Retrieved October, 20, 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/results/.
  34. National Center for Education Statistics (2003a). Documentation for the State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2001–02 (No. NCES 2003-359R), National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  35. National Center for Education Statistics (2003b, October 31, 2003). The Nation’s Report Card: NAEP data. Retrieved October 20, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/getdata.asp.
  36. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  37. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (2000). Before It’s too Late, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  38. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  39. National Science Board (2000). Science and engineering indicators 2000 (No. NSB-00-1),National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  40. National Science Board (2004, May 4, 2004). Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/.
  41. National Science Foundation (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2004. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics.Google Scholar
  42. Norman, O., Ault, C. R., Bentz, B., and Meskimen, L. (2001). The Black-White “achievement gap” as a perennial challenge of urban science education: A socio-cultural and historical overview with implication for research and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38: 1101–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  44. O’Sullivan, C. Y., and Grigg, W. S. (2001). Assessing the Best: NAEP’s 1996 Assessment of Twelfth-Graders Taking Advanced Science Courses (No. NCES 2001451), National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  45. O’Sullivan, C. Y., Lauko, M. A., Grigg, W. S., Qian, J., and Zhang, J. (2003). The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2000 (No. NCES 2003453), National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  46. Perkins, R., Kleiner, B., Roey, S., and Brown, J. (2004). The High School Transcript Study: A Decade of Change in Curricula and Achievement, 1999–2000 (No. NCES 2004455), National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  47. Prince, C. D. (2002). Higher Pay in Hard-to-staff Schools: The Case for Financial Incentives, American Association of School/Administrators, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  48. Public Education Foundation (2004, July 2, 2004). Benwood Initiative. Retrieved October 20, 2004, from http://www.pefchattanooga.org/www/docs/1/benwood/.
  49. Rebell, M. A. (1998). Fiscal equity litigation and the democratic imperative. Journal of Education Finance 24: 25–30.Google Scholar
  50. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., and Kain, J. F. (2001). Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement, Amherst College, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  51. Roza, M., and Hill, P. (2004). How within district spending inequities help some schools to fail. In Ravitch, D. (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy: 2004, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  52. U.S. Census Bureau (2001). Resident population estimates of the United States by sex, race, and Hispanic origin: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  53. U.S. Census Bureau (2003, January 21, 2003). National Population Estimates—Characteristics. Retrieved October 4, 2004, from http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage/_2001/US-2001EST-ASRO-03.html.
  54. U.S. Census Bureau (2004, March 18, 2004). U.S. interim projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, from http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/.
  55. Ucelli, M., Foley, E., and Emdon, T. (2002). First Steps to a Level Playing Field: An Introduction to Student-Based Budgeting, Brown University, Providence, RI.Google Scholar
  56. Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How un-tracking can save America’s schools, The New Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.James Madison University

Personalised recommendations