Research on science achievement disparities by gender and race/ethnicity often neglects the beginning of the pipeline in the early grades. We address this limitation using nationally representative data following students from Grades 3 to 8. We find that the Black–White science test score gap (–1.07 SD in Grade 3) remains stable over these years, the Hispanic–White gap narrows (–.85 to –.65 SD), and the Asian–White Grade 3 gap (–.31 SD) closes by Grade 8. The female–male Grade 3 gap (–.23 SD) may narrow slightly by eighth grade. Accounting for prior math and reading achievement, socioeconomic status, and classroom fixed effects, Grade 8 racial/ethnic gaps are not statistically significant. The Grade 8 science gender gap disappears after controlling for prior math achievement.
Association of American Universities. (2006). National defense education and innovation initiative: Meeting America’s economic and security challenges in the 21st century. Washington, DC: Association of American Universities.
2.
BanilowerE. R.SmithP. S.WeissI. R.MalzahnK. A.CampbellK. M.WeisA. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
3.
BroylesP.FennerW. (2010). Race, human capital, and wage discrimination in STEM professions in the United States. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30, 251–266. doi: 10.1108/01443331011054226
4.
CampbellJ. R.HomboC. M.MazzeoJ. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance (NCES 2000–469). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.
5.
ChenX.WekoT. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) in postsecondary education (NCES 2009–161). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
6.
CurrieJ. M. (2005). Health disparities and gaps in school readiness. Future of Children, 15, 117–138.
7.
DeBoerG. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582–601.
8.
DrewD. E. (2011). STEM the tide: Reforming science, engineering, and math education in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
9.
EcclesJ. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10.
EntwisleD. R.AlexanderK. L.OlsonL. S. (2000). Summer learning and home environment. In KahlenbergR. D. (Ed.), A notion at risk (pp. 9–30). New York: Century Foundation Press.
11.
FangZ. (2011). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 491–520.
12.
GriffithA. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters. Economics of Education Review, 29, 911–922.
13.
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2006). School quality and the black-white achievement gap (No. w12651). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
14.
HartB.RisleyT. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator, 27, 4–9.
15.
HillC.CorbettC.RoseA. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
16.
JacobB. (2007). The challenge of staffing urban schools with urban teachers. The Future of Children, 17, 129–153.
17.
KohlhaasK.LinH.ChuK. (2010). Disaggregated outcomes of gender, ethnicity, and poverty on fifth grade science performance. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 33, 1–12.
LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.
20.
LinH.WilsonB. (2014). The comparisons between ethnicity and poverty level on eight [sic] graders’ science performance. Journal of Studies in Education, 4, 122–130. doi:10.5296/jse.v4i4.6600
21.
MullerP. A.StageF. K.KinzieJ. (2001). Science achievement growth trajectories: Understanding factors related to gender and racial-ethnic differences in precollege science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 981–1012.
22.
NajarianM.PollackJ. M.SorongonA. G. (2009). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K), psychometric report for the eighth grade (NCES 2009–002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
23.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012a). The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2011 (NCES 2012–465). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
24.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012b). The Nation’s Report Card: Science in Action: Hands-on and interactive computer tasks from the 2009 Science Assessment (NCES 2012-468). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
25.
NguyenH. D.RyanA. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334. doi: 10.1037/a0012702
26.
OakesJ.OrmsethT.BellR.CampP. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
27.
OstB. (2010). The role of peers and grades in determining major persistence in the sciences. Economics of Education Review, 29, 923–934.
PriceJ. (2010). The effect of instructor race and gender on student persistence in STEM fields. Economics of Education Review, 29, 901–910.
30.
QuinnD. M. (2015). Kindergarten black-white test score gaps: Re-examining the roles of socioeconomic status and school quality with new data. Sociology of Education, 88, 120–139. doi: 10.1177/0038040715573027
31.
Riegle-CrumbC.KingB. (2010). Questioning a white male advantage in STEM: Examining disparities in college major by gender and race/ethnicity. Educational Researcher, 39(9), 656–664.
32.
Riegle-CrumbC.KingB.GrodskyE.MullerC. (2012). The more things change, the more they stay the same? Prior achievement fails to explain gender inequality in entry into STEM college majors over time. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 1048–1073. doi: 10.3102/0002831211435229
33.
Riegle-CrumbC.MooreC. (2014). The gender gap in high school physics: Considering the context of local communities. Social Science Quarterly, 95, 253–268. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12022
34.
RobinsonJ. P.LubienskiS. T. (2011). The development of gender achievement gaps in mathematics and reading during elementary and middle school: Examining direct cognitive assessments and teacher ratings. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 268–302. doi: 10.3102/0002831210372249
SnowC. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450–542.
37.
SnowC. E.UccelliP. (2008). The challenge of academic language. In OlsonD. R.TorranceN. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Stohr-HuntP. M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 101–109.
39.
TaiR. H.LiuC. Q.MalteseA. V.FanX. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.
40.
TourangeauK.NordC.LêT.SorongonA. G.NajarianM. (2009). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K), combined user’s manual for the ECLS-K eighth-grade and K–8 full sample data files and electronic codebooks (NCES 2009–004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
WangX. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1081–1121.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
