Science instructional time is declining in elementary schools: What are the implications for student achievement and closing the gap?

Science Education

Volumn 97, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 830-847

  Blank, Rolf K ^a  

^a Office of the Fire Chief   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885806077     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21078     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/.
2. Barton, P., & Coley, R. (2010). The black-white achievement gap: When progress stopped. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Information Center. Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICBWGAP.pdf.
3. Barton, P. E., & Coley, R. J. (2008). Windows on achievement and inequality. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Information Center.
4. Barton, P. E. (2002). Raising achievement and reducing gaps: Reporting progress toward goals for academic achievement in mathematics, lessons from the states. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Information Center.
5. Braun, H., Coley, R., Jia, Y., & Trapani, C. (2009). Exploring what works in science instruction: A look at the eighth-grade science classroom. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Information Center.
6. Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government. (1991). In the national interest: The federal government in the reform of K-12 math and science education. New York: Author.
7. Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved March 9, 2012, from http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/FullReport.pdf.
8. Center on Education Policy (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
9. Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association. (2010). Common core state standards initiative. Retrieved September 13, 2012, from http://www.corestandards.org/.
10. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047-1085.
11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
12. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade; National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
13. Gettinger, M. (1985). Time allocated and time spent relative to time needed for learning as determinants of achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 3-11.
14. Hanushek, E. A., Woesmann, L., & Peterson, P. E. (2012). Is the U.S. catching up? International and state trends in student achievement. Education Next, 12(4), 24-33.
15. Harris Interactive. (2011). Stem perceptions: Study & parent study. Parents and students weigh in on how to inspire the next generation of doctors, scientists, software developers and engineers. Study commissioned by Microsoft Corp. Retrieved March 8, 2012, from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/citizenship/docs/STEMPerceptionsReport.pdf.
16. Herman, J. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 141-166). New York: Teachers College Press.
17. Judson, E. (2010). Science education as a contributor to adequate yearly progress and accountability programs. Science Education, 94(5), 888-902.
18. Judson, E. (2012). When science counts as much as reading and mathematics: An examination of differing state accountability policies. EPAA, 20. Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/987.
19. Karweit, N. L. (1983). Time on task: A research review. Report No. 332. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools. Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED228236.pdf.
20. Kirsch, I., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K., & Sum, A. (2007). America's perfect storm: Three forces changing our nation's future. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
21. Loucks-Horsley, S., Kapitan, R., Carlson, M., Kuerbis, P., Clark, R., Mell, G., Sachse, T., & Walton, E. (1990). Elementary School Science for the 1990s. National Center for Improving Science Education. Alexandria, VA: ASCD and The Network.
22. McKnight, C. C., Crosswhite, F. J., Dossey, J. A., Kifer, E., Swafford, J. O., Travers, K. J., & Cooney, T. J. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. A national report on the Second International Mathematics Study. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.
23. Mullis, I. V. S., & Jenkins, L. B. (Eds.). (1988). Science learning matters: An overview of The Science Report Card. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
24. Murnane, R., & Raizen, S. (1988). Improving indicators of the quality of science and mathematics education in grades K-12. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
25. National Academy of Science, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26. National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Science framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved February 15, 2012, from http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/science-09.pdf.
27. National Center on Time and Learning. (2010). The relationship between time and learning: A review of the theoretical research. Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://www.timeandlearning.org/.
28. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A report to the nation and the U.S. secretary of education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://reagan.procon.org/sourcefiles/a-nation-at-risk-reagan-april-1983.pdf.
29. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962.
30. National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Board on Science Education and Board on Testing and Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31. National Research Council. (2012). Framework for K-12 science education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13165.
32. National Science Teachers Association. (2002). NSTA position statement: Elementary school science. Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/elementary.aspx.
33. Nord, C., Roey, S., Perkins, S., Lyons, M., Lemanski, N., Schuknecht, J. (Westat), & Brown, J. Brown (NCES). (2011). America's high school graduates: Results of the 2009 NAEP high school transcript study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011462.
34. Oakes, J. (1990). The underparticipation of women, minorities, and disabled persons in science. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
35. Obed, N., Ault, C. R., Bentz, B., Meskimen, L. (2001). The black-white "achievement gap" as a perennial challenge of urban science education: A sociocultural and historical overview with implications for research and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1101-1114.
36. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do-Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (volume 1). Retrieved March 7, 2012, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en.
37. Osborne, J. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
38. Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 60-80). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
39. President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. Retrieved March 7, 2012, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_feb.pdf.
40. Provosnik, S., Gonzales, P., & Miller, D. (2009). U.S. performance across international assessments of student achievement. Special supplement to the condition of education 2009 (NCES 2009-083). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 7, 2012, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009083.pdf.
41. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., Cogan, L., Jakwerth, P., & Houang, R. (1999). Facing consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Boston: Kluwer.
42. Stillman, L., & Blank, R. K. (2009). Key state education policies on pk-12 education: 2008. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Key_State_Education_Policies_2008.pdf.
43. Thomasian, J. (2011). Building a science, technology, engineering, and math education agenda: An update of state actions. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. Retrieved March 19, 2012, from http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1112STEMGUIDE.PDF.
44. Traphagen, K. (2011). Strengthening science education: The power of more time to deepen inquiry and engagement. Washington, DC: National Center on Time and Learning. Retrieved March 8, 2012, from http://www.timeandlearning.org/files/StrenghtheningScienceEducation.pdf.
45. U.S. Department of Education (2012). Education data express, State performance and accountability. Retrieved November 27, 2012, from http://www.eddataexpress.ed.gov/.
46. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011a). Science 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress at grades 4, 8, 12. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
47. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011b). Mapping state proficiency standards on to the NAEP scales: Variation and change in state standards for reading and mathematics, 2005-2009. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
48. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011c). NAEP data explorer. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
49. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011d). Schools and staffing survey. Public Teacher Data File, 1987-88, 1990-91, 1993-94, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/.