Performance in high school science is a critical indicator of science literacy and regional competitiveness. Factors that influence science proficiency have been studied using national databases, but these do not answer all questions about variable relationships at the state level. School context factors and opportunities to learn science may vary geographically across states and interact with demographic composition variables.
Purpose
The purpose was to examine relationships between 10th-grade science proficiency and school context factors related to school environment, courses, and teachers. The moderating or interaction effects were examined for the school demographic composition variables of free/reduced lunch and minority percentages on variable relationships with science proficiency scores.
Population and Unit of Analysis
Data for this study consisted of all Missouri high schools in 2002 with a 10th-grade class size of at least 25 students (N = 423). Unit of analysis was the single school.
Research Design
This was a secondary data analysis study that used variables collected annually from all schools in Missouri. Multiple regression was used to examine relationships and moderating effects of school demographic composition. Predictor variables were grouped into three categories for school context: school environment, course-related, and teacher-related. The outcome variable was 10th-grade scientific attainment as measured by the Missouri state proficiency test in science.
Results
School context variables of higher dropout and mobility rates signaled greater risk factors, especially when moderated by free/reduced-price lunch percentage (FRL pct) and minority status. When FRL pct and Minority pct were higher, lower science proficiency scores were associated with elevated dropout rates. Similarly, greater mobility was related to lower science scores when school FRL pct was high. Some school-level variables interacted positively with FRL pct and minority status, which resulted in higher science scores. Schools with more FRL and minority students achieved higher science proficiency scores when they had a greater percentage of courses taught by highly qualified teachers and more teachers were regularly certified. Higher science scores were associated with greater percentages of master's degree teachers in schools with a larger percentage of minority students. A surprising finding revealed a geographic influence and demonstrates why testing for interactions can lead to better understanding of the data.
Conclusions
The findings are consistent with the status attainment literature and the theoretical arguments associated with geography and educational attainment in that socioeconomic status and minority status are important predictive factors in Missouri. As an extension of previous research, this study demonstrates that the school composition variables of FRL pct and Minority pct are significantly related to science proficiency in the 10th grade. Not only are they predictive of science proficiency scores, but they also interact with each other and moderate the relationships between school context variables and 10th-grade science scores. This study suggests that teacher quality in high-poverty majority-minority school settings remains an important policy target for reform and improvement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BalfanzR. (2000). Why do so many urban public school students demonstrate so little academic achievement? In SandersM. G. (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents (pp. 37–62). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
Battelle Technology Partnership Practice and SSTI. (2006, April). Growing the nation's bio-science sector: State bioscience initiatives 2006. Retrieved December 26, 2008, from http://www.bio.org/local/battelle2006/
3.
BeattyA. (2008). Common standards for K-12 education? Considering the evidence. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
4.
BerlinerD. C., & BiddleB. J. (1997). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and attack on America's public schools.White Plains, NY: Longman.
5.
BormanK. M., EitleT. M., MichaelD., EitleD. J., LeeR., JohnsonL., . (2004). Accountability in a postdesegregation era: The continuing significance of racial segregation in Florida's schools. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 605–631.
6.
Building Engineering and Science Talent. (2006). Making Missouri a national leader in mathematics, engineering, technology and science (A data book for Governor Blunt's summit). San Diego, CA: Author. Retrieved December 26, 2008, from http://governor.mo.gov/mets/metsleader.pdf
7.
ByrnesJ. P., & MillerD. C. (2007). The relative importance of predictors of math and science achievement: An opportunity-propensity analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 599–629.
8.
Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. (1998). Every child a scientist: Achieving scientific literacy for all. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9.
CohenJ., CohenP., WestS. G., & AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11.
Darling-HammondL. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Journal of Educational Policy Analysis, 8, 88–114.
12.
Darling-HammondL., BerryB., & ThoresonA. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 57–77.
FergusonR. F., & BrownJ. (2000). Certification test scores, teacher quality, and student achievement. In GrissmerD. W. & RossJ. M., Analytical issues in the assessment of student achievement (pp. 133–156, NCES 2000-050). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
16.
FinnJ. D., & AchillesC. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 557–577.
17.
FinnJ. D., & VoelklK. E. (1993). School characteristics related to student engagement. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 249–268.
18.
FowlerW. J., & WalbergH. J. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 189–202.
19.
GhiselliE. E., CampbellJ. P., & ZedeckS. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences.San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
20.
GoldhaberD. D., & BrewerD. J. (1996). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. Rockville, MD: Westat. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED406400)
21.
GonzalesP., GuzmánJ. C., PartelowL., PahlkeE., JocelynL., KastbergD., . (2004). Highlights from the trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMMS) 2003 (NCES 2005-005). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
22.
GollubJ. P., BertenthalM. W., LabovJ. B., & CurtisP. C. (Eds.) (2002). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U. S. high schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23.
GriggW. S., LaukoM. A., & BrockwayD. M. (2006). The nation's science report card: Science 2005 (NCES 2006-466). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
24.
HamiltonL. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. In FlodenR. E. (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 25–68). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
25.
HanushekE. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 129–146.
26.
HarmstonM. T., & PliskaA. (2001). Trends in ACT mathematics and science reasoning achievement, curricular choice, and intent for college major: 1995-2000 (ACT Research Report Series 2001-3). Iowa City, IA: ACT.
27.
HeckR. H. (2007). Examining the relationship between teacher quality as an organizational property of schools and students’ achievement and growth rates. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 399–432.
28.
JelleymanT., & SpencerN. (2008). Residential mobility in childhood and health outcomes: A synthetic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62, 584–592.
29.
KamenD. H., & BenavotA. (1991). Elite knowledge for the masses: The origins and spread of mathematics and science education in national curricula. American Journal of Education, 99, 137–180.
30.
KonstantopoulousS. (2006). Trends of school effects on student achievement: Evidence from NLS: 72, HSB: 82, and NELS: 92. Teachers College Record, 108, 2550–2582.
31.
KonstantopoulosS. (2008). Do small classes reduce the achievement gap between low and high achievers? Evidence from Project Star. Elementary School Journal, 108, 275–291.
MassellD. (2008, January). The current status and role of standards based reform in the states. Paper prepared for the National Research Council Workshop on Assessing the Role of K–12 Academic Standards in States, Washington, DC. Retrieved December 27, 2008, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cfe/Massell%20State%20Standards%20Paper.pdf
34.
MillerL. S. (1995). An American imperative: Accelerating minority educational advancement. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
MorrisJ. E., & MonroeC. R. (2009). Why study the U.S. South? The nexus of race and place in investigating Black student achievement. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 21–36.
36.
MosesR. P., & CobbC. E. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston: Beacon Press.
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2002). School locale codes 1987–2000 (NCES 2002-02) by Nancy Speicher. Arnold A. Goldstein, project officer. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/200202.pdf
40.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, §115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
41.
NyhanR. C., & AlkadryM. G. (1999). The impact of school resources on student achievement test scores. Journal of Education Finance, 27, 885–907.
42.
OkpalaC. O., SmithF., & JonesE. B. (2000). A clear link between school and teacher characteristics, student demographics, and student achievement. Education, 120, 487–494.
43.
O'SullivanC. Y., LaukoM. A., GriggW. S., QianJ., & ZhangJ. (2003). The nation's report card science 2000 (NCES 2003-453). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
44.
PerkinsR., KleinerB., RoeyS., & BrownJ. (2004). The high school transcript study: A decade of change in curricula and achievement 1990-2000 (NCES 2004-455). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
45.
PetersonP., & MayerS. (Eds.) (1999). Earning and learning: How schools matter. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
46.
ProcterB. D., & DalackerJ. (2003). Poverty in the United States: 2002 (U.S. Census, Current Population Reports, P60-222). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf
47.
Raffaele MendezL. M. (2003). Predictors of suspension and negative school outcomes: A longitudinal investigation. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, 17–33.
48.
St. JohnN. H. (1970). Desegregation and minority group performance. Review of Educational Research, 40, 111–133.
49.
SandersW. H. (1993). Expenditures and student achievement in Illinois: New evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 52, 403–416.
50.
SecadaW. (1991). Diversity, equity, and cognitivist research. In FennemaE., CarpenterT., & LamonS. (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 17–53). Albany: State University of New York Press.
51.
ShapiroT. M. (2004). The hidden cost of being African American: How wealth perpetuates inequality. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
52.
SirinS. (2005). Socio-economic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
53.
SkibaR., & RauschM. K. (2004). The relationship between achievement, discipline, and race: An analysis of factors predicting ISTEP scores (Children Left Behind Policy Briefs Supplementary Analysis 2-D). Bloomington: Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://ceep.indiana.edu/ChildrenLeftBehind/pdf/2D.pdf
54.
SmithM. O. (2004). How the apportionment of district money is associated with differences in the Grade 8 mathematics and reading achievement scores for Minnesota students. Journal of Education Finance, 29, 299–314.
55.
SouthS. J., HaynieD. L., & BoseS. (2007). Student mobility and school dropout. Social Science Research, 36, 68–94.
56.
TajalliH., & OpheimC. (2004). Strategies for closing the gap: Predicting student performance in economically disadvantaged schools. Educational Research Quarterly, 28, 44–54.
57.
TateW. F. (1995). School mathematics and African American students: Thinking seriously about opportunity-to-learn standards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 424–448.
58.
TateW. F. (2001). Science education as a civil right: Urban schools and opportunity-to-learn considerations. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1015–1028.
59.
TateW. F. (2004). Brown, political economy, and the scientific education of African Americans. In FloodenR. E. (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 147–184). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
60.
TateW. F. (2008). “Geography of opportunity”: Poverty, place, and educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 37(7), 397–411.
61.
United States General Accounting Office. (1993). School age demographics: Recent trends pose new educational challenges (HRD-93-105BR). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat5/149755.pdf
62.
United States General Accounting Office. (1994). Elementary school children: Many change schools frequently, harming their education (Report to the Honorable Marcy Kaptur, House of Representatives, GAO/HEH- S94-95). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat4/150724.pdf
63.
WarnerR. M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques.Los Angeles: Sage.
64.
WayneA. J., & YoungsP. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89–112.
65.
WeissI. R., KnappM. S., HollwegK. S., & BurrillG. (Eds.) (2002). Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in mathematics, science, and technology education.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
66.
WhiteK. R. (1982). The relationship between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461–481.
67.
WoodD., HalfonN., ScarlataD., NewacheckP., & NessimS. (1993). Impact of family relocation on children's growth, development, school function, and behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 1134–1138.
68.
WoodN., LawrenzF., HuffmanD., & SchultzM. (2006). Viewing the school environment through multiple lenses: In search of school-level variables tied to student achievement, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 237–254.
69.
WrightS. P., HornS. P., & SandersW. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.
