Hope

 to Improve Students’ 

Charting New Paths

Achievement and Participation

 in Science Education

into

Turning

Despondency
Hope

Written for SERC@SERVE by

Alberto J. Rodriguez

into

Turning

Despondency

Charting New Paths

to Improve Students’

Achievement and Participation

in Science Education
ii Turning Despondency into Hope

Associated with the School of Education

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

© SERVE 2004

First Printing, 2004

Produced by

The Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium for Mathematics and Science (SERC) at SERVE

www.serve.org

Written by

Dr. Alberto J. Rodriguez

Science Education, Department of Policy Studies in Language and Cross Cultural Education

Education Building 152, College of Education, San Diego State University

5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1152

(619) 594-2687 voice

(619) 594-1183 fax

email: arodrigu@mail.sdsu.edu

In collaboration with

Mid-Atlantic Equity Center, an educational assistance center serving Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. 

www.maec.org

e-mail: equity@maec.org

Edited by

Donna Nalley, SERVE Publications Director

Tracy Hamilton, SERVE Art Director

Designed by

Jane Thurmond Design, Austin, TX

Photography by

©GettyImages

Photographs may not be reproduced without written permission from the photographer or the stock photography company.

This publication is based on work sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education under award number R319A000011. 

The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Doom and Gloom vs. Hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Another Look at the Trends in Student Achievement and Participation 

in Science Education: Where Are We Heading? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

NELS Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

NAEP Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

 Trends in Student Achievement: Original NAEP 1970-1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 Trends in Student Achievement: Revised NAEP 1996-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 TIMSS Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

 Limitations and Other Considerations About These Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

Factors Affecting the Trends in Student Achievement and Participation: 

Has Anything Changed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

 Student-Related Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

 Students’ Attitudes Toward Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

 Family’s Education and Socioeconomic Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 Peer and Sibling Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

 Teacher-Related Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

 Teachers’ Professional Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

 Teachers’ Expectations and Stereotyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 Institution-Related Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 Class Size and Access to Equipment And Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

 Teachers’ Working Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

 New Policies: The No Child Left Behind Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

Turning Despondency into Hope iii

Contents
Promising Cases of School Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

 Promising Cases of School Reform: Projects That Started With Small-Scale Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

 Promising Cases of School Reform: Projects That Started With Large-Scale Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

 The Urban Systemic Initiative Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

 A Tale of Two Promising Cases: Contrasting One Statewide 

 Educational Reform Program with an Urban Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Conclusion: Courage, Hope and Charting New Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

 Summary of Suggestions for Reforming Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

 Teacher Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

 School Restructuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

 Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

 Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

iv Turning Despondency into Hope
Foreword

Global Positioning Satellites, Pentium chips, 

Human Genome Project, the Internet, Global 

Economy, National Science Education Standards... 

and the “Achievement Gap.” In the 22 years since 

I began my quest for a better understanding 

of racial, ethnic, gender, and socio-economic 

disparities among those who participate in 

science (and those who do not), our world has 

been changed by countless new developments; but 

the Achievement Gap, acknowledged more than 

three decades ago, remains. Turning Despondency 

into Hope: Charting New Paths to Improve 

Students’ Achievement and Participation in Science 

Education is a much-needed resource for a society 

in which technological advances far outpace our 

progress in science education reform and our skills 

in meeting the academic needs of an increasingly 

diverse student population.

In the introduction to Mathematics and 

Science: Critical Filters for the Future of Minority 

Students (first published in 1985), the available 

data allowed me to summarize the situation at that 

time quite simply: “Black and Hispanic students 

are scoring below the national norm on science 

and mathematics achievement tests and are not 

enrolling in advanced high school mathematics 

classes in proportion to their numbers in the 

population.... Because mathematics is a sequential 

subject and most science and science-related 

positions require a mathematics background, 

minority students must be encouraged to begin 

their mathematics education early and to continue 

through high school at a minimum.”

That monograph represented a novice’s 

attempt to make sense out of a myriad of often 

unrelated research and reports that spanned a 20-

year period. Seeking to arm educators, particularly 

elementary and middle school principals and 

teachers, with a research-based understanding 

of the issues and possible intervention strategies, 

it identified and summarized then-known 

variables thought to affect minority student 

performance in mathematics and science. These 

variables, clustered into three groups—affective 

factors, cognitive factors, and classroom/

instructional factors—included attitudes toward 

and stereotyping of these disciplines, perceived 

utility of mathematics and science, influence 

of significant others, persistence, previous 

experiences, academic deficiencies, language, 

misuse of testing/test data, learning styles, teacher 

expectations, teacher anxiety about mathematics 

and science, and instructional practices.

In this new monograph, Turning Despondency 

into Hope: Charting New Paths to Improve 

Students’ Achievement and Participation in 

Science Education, Alberto Rodriguez, a strong 

advocate for equity in science education, takes 

full advantage of recent studies and reports 

to explore academic trends, provide a deeper 

understanding of the relevant factors, describe 

promising practices, and explore relevant issues 

emerging from the No Child Left Behind Act. 

He opens with a discussion of a significant—but 

too often ignored—ray of hope: many teachers 

and school administrators really DO want their 

Latina/Latino, African American, and Native 

American students to achieve; they are desperate 

for direction and sufficient support; and reports of 

national studies are now acknowledging that these 

and other teacher-related contextual and systemic 

issues must be addressed as part of education 

reform policies and practices. 

To many readers—whether they be concerned 

with policy, practice, or equity—Dr. Rodriguez’ 

comparative review of the most recent data from 

the National Longitudinal Study (NELS), the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP), and the Third International Mathematics 

and Science Study (TIMSS), can serve as a 

cohesive resource on trends. We usually read 

these kinds of reports individually, but his 

Turning Despondency into Hope v
analysis across three major assessment programs 

(with appropriate caveats) quite effectively 

highlights for even the busiest reader, current 

trends in mathematics and science performance 

by gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic 

status. Similarly, from time to time, we have read 

of research that suggests effective intervention 

strategies, but the information is frequently offered 

in “sound bites” and without sufficient context, 

and seldom as part of a comprehensive program. 

However, Dr. Rodriguez’ update on the factors 

affecting student achievement, summary of their 

cumulative effects as well as his “Promising Cases 

of School Reform” are presented in a way that can 

encourage the reader to not only think about the 

whole picture, but to consider the implications for 

his or her own work. 

When I think about my own work, I am 

deeply disturbed that data on underserved 

students continue to tell us that, while there 

has been some progress, their performance and 

participation in science, and the contributing 

factors, have not changed dramatically since 

1985. Of particular concern is what appears to be 

the dearth of research on the science education 

of African American and Native American 

students. We have a myriad of test scores, but 

too little understanding of what successful 

science education reform would look like for this 

country’s oldest minority populations and effective 

strategies for achieving it. Clearly, there is much 

that remains to be done if we are to have a solid 

research base on which to build sustainable reform 

for ALL students.

Nevertheless, Turning Despondency into 

Hope offers us much solid information, far more 

than was available back in 1985. We can choose 

to forge ahead from a position of hope, using 

wisely what has been learned, partnering with 

informed researchers for what we have yet to 

understand, or we can wring our hands in despair. 

I love Dr. Rodriguez’ optimism as he calls us to 

be proactive. This monograph offers tools for 

understanding and action. The tough question 

is “What will we do with this information?” The 

degree of proactiveness in our response will be 

evident 30 years hence when the majority of the 

students—and quite probably the workforce—

will be comprised of people from today’s 

underserved populations.

Thank you, Dr. Alberto Rodriguez, for the 

hard facts and the hope that you offer here!

Thank you, Dr. Francena Cummings, Director 

of the Mathematics and Science Consortium at 

SERVE, for recognizing the need and supporting 

the development of this monograph.

DeAnna Banks Beane, Director, 

Partnerships for Learning Association of Science—

Technology Centers Incorporated

December, 2003

vi Turning Despondency into Hope
Over 20 years ago, I began working 

with schools to improve minority students’ 

participation and achievement in mathematics and 

science. As I began this work, the one practical 

tool that served as a template for thinking about 

this topic was Mathematics and Science: Critical 

Filters for the Future. In this document, Beane 

(1985) described research-based factors that 

influenced the achievement and participation of 

minority students. (See Foreword by Beane in this 

document.) These factors informed the framework 

that was used to design the Mathematics, Science, 

and Minorities K-6 Project (MSM: K-6 Project), a 

project I coordinated in my local school district. 

This project was implemented in three school 

districts with tremendous success. A glimpse of 

this success is described in the following:

Not only was change evident in those 

MSM: K-6 Project principals, teachers 

and guidance counselors who worked 

so diligently on their school-based 

leadership teams, but their schools also 

changed. African American and Hispanic 

students in most of these schools were 

no longer “listening to and watching 

mathematics and science,” they were 

doing mathematics and science. In fact, 

all students benefited from the changes. 

(Denbo, 1992 p. v) 

As director of the Southeast Eisenhower 

Regional Consortium, my world-view related 

to working with schools to improve mathematics 

and science was shaped by my work with this 

project. Therefore, equity has always been the 

lens for the Consortium’s products and services. In 

recent years, our review of recent documents on 

the achievement gap continued to indicate 

that minority student participation and 

achievement in science and mathematics lag 

behind that of white and Asian students. These 

results were both disappointing and disturbing, 

and they became the drivers for commissioning a 

document that examines specific research related 

to minority student participation and achievement 

in science.

Mary Budd Rowe believed that science could 

play a powerful role in determining the destiny of 

a people. In her early work with urban students, 

she offered the following comment:

Probably the single greatest contribution 

which early education in science can make 

to a people is the development of a belief 

based on evidence, that they can to some 

extent influence the direction and quality 

of their destiny. 

—Mary Budd Rowe, 1974, cited in 

Mathematics and Science: Critical Filters

 for the Future, 1985

I agree with Rowe’s disposition that science 

provides a place for students to begin thinking 

about how they can control and/or influence the 

quality of their destiny. 

Alberto Rodriguez’s document Turning 

Despondency into Hope: Charting New Paths to 

Improve Students’ Achievement and Participation 

in Science shines light on recent research reports 

that highlight trends related to academic 

achievement. He offers hope for improving 

achievement and participation and closing 

the achievement gap through a description of 

promising practices in science. Our hope is 

that science educators will find this document 

a valuable resource for improving the science 

Preface

Turning Despondency into Hope vii
viii Turning Despondency into Hope

education experiences of all students and for 

creating opportunities for underserved students 

to enhance their destinies.

Francena D. Cummings, Director 

Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium 

References

Denbo, S. (1992). Opening up the mathematics 

and science filters: Our schools did it, so can yours!

Washington, DC: Mid-Atlantic Equity Center, The 

American University.

Rowe, M. B. (1974). Relation of wait time and 

rewards to the development of language, logic 

and fate control. Journal of Research in Science 

Teaching, 11, 299.
Acknowledgments

Forum Participants/Reviewers

Dr. Mary Atwater

University of Georgia

Mrs. DeAnna B. Beane

Association of Science & Technology Centers

Dr. Angelicque Tucker Blackmon

Innovative Learning Concepts

Dr. Malcolm Butler

University of Georgia

Dr. Sheryl Denbo

Mid-Atlantic Equity Center

Dr. Karen Falkenberg

Emory University/Concept Catalysts, Inc.

Mrs. Gay Gordon

Eisenhower National Clearinghouse

Dr.. Vallie Guthrie

North Carolina A&T State University

Ms. Aminata Umoja

Atlanta Public Schools

Ms. Wilma Guthrie

Talladega City Schools

Dr. Doris Hipps

Jonesboro High School

Ms. Kayren Bell Hughley

Atlanta Public Schools

Dr. Marilyn Irving

Howard University

Dr. Mozell Lang

Science Consultant

Dr. Carolyn Randolph

South Carolina Governor’s School 

for Math and Science

Ms. Neva Rose

Georgia Institute of Technology/

Atlanta Public Schools

Dr. Pat Shane

University of North Carolina—

Center for Math & Science Education

Mrs. Adrienne Turner

Albany State University

Dr. Brian Williams

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

The author is indebted to the reviewers for 

their insightful comments and suggestions. The 

contributions of all of those who attended the 

Special Issues Forum to discuss this monograph 

are also very much appreciated. 

Your passionate interest in enhancing the 

educational opportunities of traditionally 

underrepresented students in science was a 

source of inspiration, and I hope your valuable 

suggestions are well represented here.

Turning Despondency into Hope ix
x Turning Despondency into Hope
Consider this letter written by a teacher 

in response to an article published in NEA 

Today1 about my research on trends in student 

achievement and participation in science and 

mathematics (Rodriguez, 1998a): 

I read the article about your research in 

the latest issue of NEA Today. Needless 

to say, those of us who have worked with 

Hispanic students have known some of 

these things for a long time, but we don’t 

know what to do about it. I was excited to 

see the article. 

I am a member of our school 

improvement team, and we have just 

recently looked at...[our] scores for the 

district. We are a district in southeastern 

Iowa, and our Hispanic population runs 

about 20% or so. The scores for our 

Hispanic students tend to be 10 percentile 

points below the district average, and 

when we get to high school, they are only 

about half. We are at a loss as to what 

to do. One outspoken parent made a 

suggestion to me that we just retain the 

students until they are ready to go on. 

Now, if you knew me, you would know 

that it was no small feat that I maintained 

my cool with this comment and politely 

informed her that this was not a 

good option.

I was wondering if you could possibly 

send me some concrete ideas of things that 

would be better options to look into and 

Introduction

research.... I think the district is ready to 

do something, but I don’t want to just pass 

it off as low socioeconomic status or test 

bias. I know these things figure in, but I 

think there is a lot more to it that we aren’t 

doing....I would appreciate any help you 

could offer.

 Chris Clark, 

 ESL/Science Teacher from Iowa2

The sense of urgency and frustration in this 

teacher’s voice is as strong as his obvious desire 

to do something different—something that could 

really help narrow the gap in student achievement 

and participation at his school. While many 

teachers, like Chris, hope for concrete suggestions 

to effect long-lasting change in their schools, 

most of the literature on student achievement and 

participation focuses on depressing narratives 

of despair. These narratives offer little or no 

guidance on how to implement the complex, 

risky and demanding changes that must take 

place to improve the academic performance of 

traditionally underrepresented students3

 in 

today’s schools. 

This monograph aims to provide a more 

positive outlook on the future of science education 

reform by offering new insights and concrete 

suggestions for change based on the analysis 

of recent reports and promising field-based 

studies. This does not imply that we should avoid 

paying attention to those who warn us about 

the undeniable social, economic and political 

1

 The National Education Association’s magazine, Jan. 1999 issue.

2

 This letter was first published in Rodriguez, A. J. (2001a).

3

 Traditionally underrepresented students in science include women and students from Latino/a (Hispanic), African 

American (Black), Native Americans (First Nations) ethnic backgrounds, and students from disadvantaged socioeconomic 

status. See the Appendix for a description of terms used.

Turning Despondency into Hope 1
conundrum our country is going to experience 

if we do not improve the access to and success 

rate of traditionally underrepresented students 

in science courses. In this report, I heed these 

warnings by offering a realistic look at current 

trends in student achievement and participation 

and the many factors that serve to sustain them. 

But, instead of stopping there and adding to the 

narratives of doom and gloom, a narrative of hope 

and possibility is offered. 

To this end, I start with a short review of 

key national reports that provide more specific 

suggestions for bringing about change. These 

reports do highlight legitimate threats to our 

economic, social and political stability, but at the 

same time, they move beyond just ringing the 

same alarm that has been rung in the last three 

decades. This section is followed by an update on 

trends in student achievement and participation 

by gender and by ethnic groups. Key reports, 

such as the recently released National Assessment 

of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Third 

International Mathematics and Science Study 

(TIMSS), are included in the discussion in order to 

explore whether so many years of intensive school 

reform efforts in various parts of the country have 

had any impact on student performance and/or 

teachers’ practice. 

After an update on the achievement trends, it 

is only appropriate to offer a review of what many 

researchers and teachers consider to be the key 

factors affecting this issue. This review focuses 

on exploring whether anything has changed 

after three decades of research have pointed out 

repeatedly the factors that impact how students 

learn and how teachers teach.

To meet one of the major goals of this 

monograph, an analysis is provided of some key 

school-based studies that are either very promising 

or have already had a significant and positive 

impact on student performance and teaching 

practice. A summary of promising strategies 

for enhancing the academic achievement and 

participation of traditionally underrepresented 

students concludes the monograph. I hope 

that readers will take into their own contexts a 

message of hope and possibility after reading this 

analysis—for the suggestions provided here will 

require more than good intentions to implement. 

They will require political will to face risks, 

emotional capital to sometimes stand alone in a 

crowd, and courage to make the first two even 

possible and to bring about long-lasting change in 

today’s schools.

2 Introduction
It is now well 

known that 

after the former 

Soviet Union 

put Sputnik into 

orbit in 1957, a 

massive wave of 

school reform 

in mathematics 

and science was 

launched in the 

United States. It 

seems that four 

and a half decades 

later, we are still 

swept by this 

wave since 

all sorts of 

school reform efforts continue to be proposed (or 

expected). Yet, many of these reform initiatives are 

being attempted without a reliable compass or an 

effective map. This was evident, when in 1983, the 

alarm was sounded again loud and clear with the 

release of the much-publicized report, A Nation 

at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform. 

Members of the Commission on Excellence in 

Education, who prepared this report, put it boldly 

when they stated that a “rising tide of mediocrity” 

was flooding U.S. schools. Their solution? To 

have students spend more time learning science 

and mathematics by increasing the number of 

required courses in these subjects for high school 

graduation. To this call, most states responded 

positively by doing just as expected.

However, ten years after the Nation at Risk

report’s recommendations, Blank and Engler 

(1992) found that the report had little effect on 

the previous trends in student achievement. These 

trends, past and present, will be discussed in more 

detail in the next section. What is important to 

highlight here is that the lack of success of various 

reform efforts for the last four decades has left 

many frustrated and pessimistic about the future 

of education in this country. This sense of gloom 

and doom is clearly reflected in the title of recent 

reports and books such as, The Predictable Failure 

of Educational Reform (Saranson, 1999), Is Student 

Achievement Immutable? (Suter, 2000), or The 

Sharp Edge of Educational Change (Bascia and 

Hargreaves, 2000). 

But there is hope. Some reports being 

prepared by national task forces are beginning 

to finally acknowledge how limited resources 

and the diverse socio-cultural contexts in which 

teachers are expected to work play key roles in 

how and what teachers teach and in what students 

learn. For example, the National Commission on 

Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF, 1996), in 

sharp contrast to the Nation at Risk report, states:

After a decade of reform, we have 

finally learned in hindsight what should 

have been clear from the start: Most 

schools and teachers cannot produce 

the kind of learning demanded by the 

new reforms—not because they do not 

want to, but because they do not know 

how, and the systems in which they 

work do not support them in doing so...

Successful programs cannot be replicated 

in schools where staff lack the knowhow and resources to bring them to life. 

Wonderful curriculum ideas fall flat in the 

classroom where they are not understood 

or supported by the broader activities of 

the school. And increased graduation and 

testing requirements only create greater 

failure if teachers do not know how to 

teach students so that they can learn (p. 5).

To address these issues, the National 

Commission on Teaching and America’s 

Doom and Gloom vs. Hope

Turning Despondency into Hope 3
Future (NCTAF, 1996) put forward three basic 

principles to guide their comprehensive plan of 

recommendations4 :

 • What teachers know and can do is the most 

important influence on what students learn. 

 • Recruiting, preparing, and retaining good 

teachers is the central strategy for improving 

our schools.

 • School reform cannot succeed unless it focuses 

on creating the conditions in which teachers 

can teach and teach well (NCTAF, 1996, p.vi).

The first principle would have faired very 

well with John Dewey, who over 100 years ago 

emphatically explained the key roles teachers’ 

preparation and abilities play in students’ learning: 

No matter what is the accepted precept 

and theory, no matter what the legislation 

of the school board or the mandate of 

the school superintendent, the reality 

of education is found in the personal 

and face-to-face contact of the teacher 

and child. The conditions that underlie 

and regulate this contact dominate the 

educational situation (Dewey, 1901, cited 

in Kliebard, 1992, p. 103). 

The second principle is based on the alarming 

fact that over two million teachers will be 

needed in the next decade, yet teacher attrition 

rates and low teacher salaries continue to work 

against meeting this goal. Finally, the third 

principle points out that well-intended policies 

or comprehensive documents like the National 

Science Education Standards cannot be enacted 

without the corresponding financial, structural, 

and professional development support.

This sentiment is echoed by another more 

recent report, Before It’s Too Late: A Report to 

the Nation from the National Commission on 

Mathematics and Science Teaching (Glenn, 2000), 

spearheaded by former astronaut John Glenn. 

Despite its ominous title, this report, too, is a ray 

of hope as it describes some concrete suggestions 

for effecting change at a system-wide level. 

4

 Instead of rehashing the specific recommendations being proposed by this and other national commissions here, I will 

contrast some of these key recommendations with the promising reform efforts being implemented in various schools 

around the country. The reader is encouraged to read the full commission reports for more details on their strategies 

for action.

4 Doom and Gloom vs. Hope
This Commission also uses strong and direct 

language to explain that “two decades of 

experience in education reform demonstrate 

that tinkering around the edges will not suffice” 

(p. 16). And, like the National Commission 

on Teaching and America’s Future, members 

of the Glenn Commission based their 

recommendations on available research 

rather than well-intended rhetoric.

At the core of the Glenn Commission report, 

the enhancement of teacher preparation, retention, 

and recruitment are also perceived as key factors 

in improving the academic performance and 

participation of all students in science and 

mathematics. In fact, this Commission proposes 

three broad goals (along with a $5 billion budget 

and strategies for implementation):

 • Establish an ongoing system to improve the 

quality of mathematics and science teaching 

in grades K–12. 

 • Increase significantly the number of 

mathematics and science teachers and 

improve the quality of their preparation.

 • Improve the working environment and make 

the teaching profession more attractive for 

K–12 mathematics and science teachers (p. 5).

Considering that most of the teachers who 

leave the teaching profession cite “dissatisfaction” 

with their working environment as one of the 

main reasons for quitting (Glenn, 2000), Goal #3 

should help ameliorate this pervasive problem. 

More details on the factors that influence the 

trends in student achievement and participation 

will be provided later, but now it is important 

to highlight three common themes between 

these two key reports and the more recent 

literature on school reform. First of all, these 

national commissions for the first time are 

acknowledging—and making specific suggestions 

to address—the fact that the socio-cultural 

contexts in which teachers are expected to teach 

are as important as the availability of sufficient 

resources to teach well. In short, one not only 

needs to crack eggs to make an omelet, one must 

have access to eggs, equipment and the expertise 

necessary to do the expected job well. Second, for 

math and science reform efforts to be long lasting, 

deep analyses of educational research must be 

our compass. And third, our educational reform 

map must be collaboratively constructed with 

the effective representation of the stakeholders 

who are familiar with the unique socio-cultural 

landscape of each school (i.e., teachers, students, 

parents, administrators and members 

of the community).

So what are the current trends in student 

achievement and participation in science that 

after three decades of school reform efforts, after 

the work of several commissions, and after the 

publication of various reports, we are still haunted 

by the same issues?

Turning Despondency into Hope 5
Three major educational attainment projects 

will be contrasted to explore current trends in 

student achievement and participation in the 

U.S. These projects are: the National Education 

Longitudinal Study (NELS), the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 

and the Third International Mathematics and 

Science Study (TIMSS).

NELS Trends

The Office of Educational Research and 

Improvement is in charge of the National 

Education Longitudinal Study or NELS (Horn, 

Hafner, & Owings, 1992; Owings, & Peng, 1992; 

Rock, & Pollack, 1995). One of the goals of this 

study was to measure cognitive growth in science 

over time. The NELS also aimed to investigate the 

impact of school policies, family participation, 

and teacher practice on educational outcomes 

as the students developed and made challenging 

transitions from middle school, to high school, 

to college.

In its base year, 1988, the National Education 

Longitudinal Study (NELS) involved 25,000 

eighth-graders from over 1,000 randomly selected 

schools across the nation. In addition, NELS 

gathered information from students, their parents, 

teachers and school administrators. In this 

monograph, I will contrast the results of two 

of the follow-up studies of the 1988 eighth-grade 

cohort, which were conducted in 1990 and 

1992, respectively.

Findings from the NELS’s base year and first 

follow-up indicate that all ethnic groups showed 

improvement in their science performance scores 

in the first follow-up (Table 1; Scott, Rock, Pollack, 

& Quinn, 1995); however, the gap in achievement 

was maintained between Anglo-European and 

Asian students and African American and 

Latino/a students. Moreover, the U.S. Anglo and 

Asian students showed the most gain in average 

scores (by half to three quarters of a standard 

deviation) in comparison to African American 

and Latino/a students.

Table 1 National Education Longitudinal 

Study 1988 average science scores vs. 1990 

average scores by ethnicity, gender, and 

socioeconomic status

1988 1990

Sample

Size

Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Total Sample 15222 11.730 4.354 14.009 5.034

Ethnicity

Asian 933 12.198 4.588 14.956 5.211

Hispanic 1719 9.840 3.469 11.666 4.280

African American 1450 9.083 3.347 10.467 4.036

Anglo-European 10938 12.410 4.348 14.874 4.900

Gender Groups

Male 7517 12.172 4.594 14.664 5.267

Female 7705 11.289 4.052 13.355 4.701

SES Quartiles

SESQ1 (Low Quartile) 3099 9.532 3.412 11.237 4.238

SESQ2 3642 10.974 4.029 12.995 4.765

SESQ3 3790 12.059 4.191 14.362 4.750

SESQ4 (High Quartile) 4691 13.730 4.465 16.642 4.705

In addition, Table 1 shows that males not only 

outperformed females in both the base year and 

first follow-up tests (by one-fifth of a standard 

deviation), but they also showed the larger gains in 

scores (Scott et al, 1995). This table also illustrates 

the pattern of achievement according to the 

students’ socioeconomic status. Students from 

the top SES quartile obtained higher scores and 

showed the most gains over time. 

The NELS’s second follow-up in 1992 with 

grade 12 students was more detailed and allowed 

Another Look at the Trends in Student Achievement 

and Participation in Science Education:

Where Are We Heading?

Source: Scott et al. (1995)

6 Where Are We Heading?
for a more in-depth analysis of academic growth 

(Green, 1995). Students were given four 

cognitive tests in reading, science, mathematics 

and history/government. The scores were 

interpreted according to the following 

four-level proficiency scale: 

 • Below Basic: No demonstration of 

understanding everyday science concepts.

 • Basic: Understanding of everyday science 

concepts; “common knowledge” that can be 

acquired in everyday life

 • Intermediate: Understanding of fundamental 

science concepts upon which more complex 

science knowledge can be built

 • Advanced: Understanding of relatively 

complex scientific concepts, typically 

requiring an additional problem-solving step

Figure 1 illustrates that only 11% of Latinos/as 

and 5.4% of African American students attained 

the advanced proficiency level; whereas slightly 

over 28% of U.S. Asian and 26.3% of the AngloEuropean students scored at the advanced level 

of science proficiencies. On the other hand, the 

pattern reverses dramatically at the below basic 

level with 34.5% of African American and 25.8% 

Latino/a students scoring at this level. Note 

that the achievement gap is narrower among 

all underserved students at the Intermediate 

level (Table 2 includes the statistical data for the 

information shown in Figures 1 to 3.) 

In regard to gender differences, the NELS 

does not provide data on the performance score 

distribution by gender within ethnic groups. 

In a previous analysis of trends in student 

achievement, I argued that it is imperative for 

researchers, national institutes and organizations 

to avoid reporting student achievement by 

homogenizing categories (Rodriguez, 1998a). That 

is, lumping the academic performance of girls 

and women from various ethnic backgrounds and 

socioeconomic status into one single “female” 

Group Below basic Basic Intermediate Advanced Unweighted N

Total 16.4 (.63) 30.2 (.59) 31.1 (.69) 22.3 (.67) 11623

Gender

Male 14.7 (.93) 29.3 (.84) 29.8 (1) 26.1 (.92) 5834

Female 18.1 (.72) 31.0 (.82) 32.6 (.87) 18.3 (.86) 5789

Ethnicity

Asian 15.3 (2.09) 27.5 (2.61) 29.0 (2.58) 28.2 (2.44) 808

Hispanic 25.8 (1.7) 36.4 (2.05) 26.7 (1.63) 11.0 (1.31) 1324

African American 34.5 (2.69) 39.1 (2.21) 21.0 (1.96) 5.4 (.79) 1053

Anglo-European 12.1 (.59) 28.1 (.66) 33.5 (.83) 26.3 (.79) 8299

Socioeconomic Status

Low 28.2 (1.17) 39.5 (1.23) 23.9 (1.07) 8.5 (.67) 2794

Medium 14.7 (.8) 32.0 (.85) 32.4 (.95) 20.9 (.82) 5512

High 7.6 (1.2) 17.5 (.88) 36.0 (1.53) 38.9 (1.63) 3270

Note: Standard errors of estimated percentages are shown in parentheses.

Table 2 Percent of 1992 NELS high school seniors demonstrating proficiency at various levels of science by 

ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status

Figure 1 Percent of 1992 NELS high school seniors 

by science proficiency level and by ethnic group

Source: Green et al. (1995)

Advanced Intermediate Basic Below basic

Proficiency level

Percent

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

All groups Anglo-Euro African Amer. Hispanic Asian

Source: Green et al. (1995)

Turning Despondency into Hope 7
category. Similarly, researchers should avoid 

lumping the academic performance of richly 

diverse ethnic groups such as Latinas/os into one 

general “Hispanic” category. As mentioned earlier, 

Latinos/as could be of any skin color and/or 

could come from any of the major Latino ethnic 

groups in the U.S. such as Chicano/a, Mexican 

American, Latin American, or Puerto Rican. Some 

improvement in the reporting of student academic 

performance and participation has been made 

in recent years, and this approach could lead us 

to better understandings of the unique struggles 

and successes students face in their schooling by 

gender within ethnic groups (Rodriguez, 1998a).

Given the aforementioned limitations, the 

differences in achievement between males and 

females are shown in Figure 2. Males dominate 

the advanced proficiency level by almost eight 

percentage points, whereas females are slightly 

ahead at the Intermediate level by almost 2.5 

percentage points. By combining the percentage of 

students who scored at the basic and below basic 

levels, we see that 49% of the female high school 

seniors do not understand fundamental principles 

of science, whereas 44% of the males are in the 

same predicament (see Table 2 and Figure 2).

This trend in achievement is also shown in 

the score distribution according to socioeconomic 

status. That is, almost 68% of students from 

low-income families and 47% of students from 

medium-income families do not appear to 

understand the fundamental principles of science 

(see Figure 3 and Table 2). On the other hand, 75% 

of high-income students scored at the intermediate 

and advanced proficiency levels. 

Now, let’s contrast these trends in student 

achievement with the scores reported by the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress. 

NAEP Trends 

The National Center for Education Statistics 

manages the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) project. This has probably 

been the most comprehensive tool for assessing 

students’ cognitive achievement in science and 

mathematics at critical grade levels since 1969 

(Mullis, Dossey, Campbell, Gentile, O’Sullivan, 

& Latham, 1994).

Essentially, the NAEP evaluates the academic 

achievement of a nationally representative sample 

of elementary (grade 4) and secondary (grades 8 

and 12) students in science, mathematics, reading, 

writing, history, civics, and geography. Since 

the NAEP underwent major changes in 1996, 

the NAEP scores from previous years cannot be 

directly compared. However, the trends in student 

achievement from the 1970 to 1992 NAEP tests 

will be briefly discussed here because they add 

a richer understanding of students’ academic 

performance by gender and ethnic group on the 

revised NAEP tests. 

Advanced Intermediate Basic Below basic

Proficiency level

Percent

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

All groups Female Male

Source: Green et al. (1995)

Advanced Intermediate Basic Below basic

Proficiency level

Percent

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

All groups High Medium Low

Source: Green et al. (1995)

Figure 2 Percent of 1992 NELS high school seniors 

by proficiency level and by gender

Figure 3 Percent of 1992 NELS high school seniors 

by proficiency level and by socioeconomic status

8 Where Are We Heading?
Trends in Student Achievement: 

Original NAEP 1970–1992

The original NAEP study was designed to draw 

from a representative sample of the student 

population in grades 4 (age 9), 8 (age 13), and 12 

(age 17). For example, in 1990, approximately 

45,000 students per grade participated in the 

assessment. To facilitate interpretation of NAEP 

scores, students’ performance was assessed 

according to a five-level proficiency scale 

(Mullis et al, 1994) as follows:

 • 350—Student can infer relationships 

and draw conclusions using detailed 

scientific knowledge.

 • 300—Student has some detailed 

scientific knowledge and can evaluate the 

appropriateness of scientific procedures.

 • 250—Student understands and applies 

general information from the life and 

physical sciences.

 • 200—Student understands some simple 

principles and has some knowledge, for 

example, about plants and animals.

 • 150—Student knows everyday science facts.

Figure 4 illustrates that, compared to 1970 scores, 

the average science achievement for all students 

who participated in the 1992 NAEP (Mullis et 

al, 1994) was slightly higher for nine-year-olds, 

practically the same for 13-year-olds, and lower 

for 17-year-olds. (The standard errors for the 

estimated proficiencies are shown in Table 3.) 

Though it may not appear so, this bad news hides 

some good news. The overall science performance 

for all three age groups actually increased from 

1982 to 1992.

1970 1973 1977 1982 1986 1990 1992

Age 17 305 (1.0) 296 (1.0) 290 (1.0) 283 (1.2) 288 (1.4) 290 (1.1) 294 (1.3)

Age 13 255 (1.1) 250 (1.1) 247 (1.1) 250 (1.3) 251 (1.4) 255 (0.9) 258 (0.8)

Age 9 225 (1.2) 220 (1.2) 220 (1.2) 221 (1.8) 224 (1.2) 229 (0.8) 231 (1.0)

Table 3 Average NAEP science scores and standard errors of estimated proficiencies per age group 1970–1992

Note: Standard errors of estimated proficiencies are shown in parentheses. Source: Mullis et al. (1994)

Figure 4 Trends in U.S. students’ achievement 

in science: National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) 1970–1992

5

 The original NAEP study only reported the academic achievement of these three ethnic groups. The revised NAEP now 

includes the scores of Asian and Native American students.

6

 Note that figures 5 through 7 are for illustration only. These figures were created by doing simple subtractions of the students’ 

scores. No statistical claim is being made about these differences.

Scores

Year

1970 1973 1977 1982 1986 1990 1992

Age 9 Age 13 Age 17

Source: Mullis et al. (1994)

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

In the last 20 years, according to NAEP 

(Mullis et al, 1994), the gap in science performance 

scores of students of African American, Latino/a, 

and Anglo-European descent5

 closed modestly 

from 1977 to 1986. From 1986 to 1992, however, 

the achievement gains of underserved students 

seemed to have stalled (see Figures 5 and 6). 

Furthermore, in spite of some improvement, the 

differences in academic performance among 

ethnic groups are still quite large for all three 

age groups considered. For example, in 1992 

the gaps in proficiency scores among students 

from Anglo-European and African American 

ethnic backgrounds were 48 points for 17-yearolds, 43 points for 13-year-olds and 39 points 

for nine-year-olds6 (see Figure 5 and Table 4). 

Turning Despondency into Hope 9
Proficiency

in 1970

Proficiency

in 1992

Proficiency

in 1970

Proficiency

in 1992

Proficiency

in 1969

Proficiency

in 1990

Nation 255 (1.2) 231 (1.0) 255 (1.1) 258 (0.8) 305 (1.0) 294 (1.3)

Anglo-European 236 (0.9) 239 (1.0) 263 (0.8) 267 (1.0) 312 (0.8) 304 (1.3)

African American 179 (1.9) 200 (2.7) 215 (2.4) 224 (2.7) 258 (1.5) 256 (3.2)

Hispanic 192 (2.7) 205 (2.8) 213 (1.9) 238 (2.6) 262 (2.2) 270 (5.6)

Male 228 (1.3) 235 (1.2) 257 (1.3) 260 (1.2) 314 (1.2) 299 (1.7)

Female 223 (1.2) 227 (1.0) 253 (1.2) 256 (1.0) 297 (1.1) 289 (1.5)

Table 4 Average 1970 NAEP science scores vs. 1992 average scores by age, ethnicity and by gender

Age 9 Age 13 Age 17

Note: Standard errors of estimated proficiencies are shown in parentheses. Source: Mullis et al. (1994)

A similar pattern of achievement was observed 

between Latina/o students and Anglo-European 

students (i.e., a gap of 34, 30, and 34 points per 

grade level, respectively; see Figure 6 and Table 

4). Nevertheless, as Figure 6 shows, the gap in 

achievement between Anglo and Latino/a students 

continued to shrink at ages 13 and 17. 

The gender difference in the average 

proficiency scores between 13- and 17-year-old 

males and females seems to be decreasing (Figure 

7). The differences in 1992 scores were 10 points 

for 17-year-olds, four points for 13-year-olds and 

eight points for nine-year-olds. Interestingly, while 

both males and females made some gains in the 

last decade, males continue to have higher scores 

at all three age levels since 1970. These patterns 

should be interpreted with caution since none of 

the differences in scores by gender and by age 

have been statistically significant since 1969–70.

1977 1982 1986 1990 Year

Source: Mullis et al. (1994)

Age 9

Age 13

Age 17

Difference in score

1992

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 5 Differences in NAEP proficiency scores: 

U.S. Anglo minus African-American scores

Figure 6 Differences in NAEP proficiency scores: 

U.S. Anglo minus U.S. Latina/o scores

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1970 1973 1977 1982 1986 1990 1992

Age 9

Age 13

Age 17

Difference in score

Year

Source: Mullis et al. (1994)

10 Where Are We Heading?
Figure 7 Differences in NAEP Proficiency scores: 

male minus female scores

Has the pattern in student achievement 

changed now that a new and improved NAEP 

has been put in place since 1996? Next, I contrast 

the revised NAEP 1996 vs. 2000 scores with the 

original NAEP results.

Trends in Student Achievement: 

Revised NAEP 1996–2000

Since its revision, the NAEP has been 

administered twice—once in 1996 and again in 

2000. Similarly to the original version of this test, 

the revised NAEP 2000 involved a representative 

random sample of 47,000 students from 2,100 

schools (including non-public schools). A 

new scale was created to determine students’ 

achievement levels as follows:

 • Basic—Student has partial mastery of 

prerequisite knowledge and skills that are 

fundamental for proficient work at each grade.

 • Proficient—Student demonstrates solid 

academic performance for each grade level 

assessed. Students reaching this level have 

demonstrated competency over challenging 

subject matter, including subject-matter 

knowledge, application of such knowledge 

to real-world situations, and analytical skills 

appropriate to the subject matter.

 • Advanced—Student demonstrates superior 

performance (NCES, 2002).

Figure 8 Percentage of students at or 

above Basic and Proficient levels by ethnicity 

Grade 4—NAEP 1996 vs. 2000

Figure 9 Percentage of students at or 

above Basic and Proficient levels by ethnicity 

Grade 8—NAEP 1996 vs. 2000

Figure 10 Percentage of students at or 

above Basic and Proficient levels by ethnicity 

Grade 12—NAEP 1996 vs. 2000

18

16

12

8

6

4

0

1970 1973 1977 1982 1986 1990 1992

Age 9

Age 13

Age 17

Difference in score

Year

Source: Mullis et al. (1994)

14

10

2

Percentage

Ethnicity

African

American

Latina/o Native American Asian/P.I. Anglo

Basic Level: 1996 2000

Note: Due to technical issues, the NCES did not include the 

NAEP 2000 scores for Asian/P.I. Students.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Proficient Level: 1996 2000

34 34

7 7

42 42

58 57

9 11

26

19

66

29

79 79

37 38

Source: NCES. (2002a)

Percentage

Ethnicity

African American

Latina/o Native American Asian/P.I. Anglo

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

24 26

5 7

36 35

60

39

1112

24

14

62

30

73 74

37

41

64

37

Source: NCES. (2002a)

Basic Level: 1996 2000 Proficient Level: 1996 2000

Percentage

Ethnicity

African

American

Latina/o Native American Asian/P.I. Anglo

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

23 22

4 3

33

30

7 7

52

44

10 9

56 59

68

62

22 26 27 23

Source: NCES. (2002a)

Basic Level: 1996 2000 Proficient Level: 1996 2000

Turning Despondency into Hope 11
Basic Prof Basic Prof Basic Prof Basic Prof Basic Prof Basic Prof

Nation 58 26 57 19 60 24 39 14 52 10 44 9

Anglo-European 79 37 79 38 73 37 74 41 68 27 62 23

African American 34 7 34 7 24 5 26 7 23 4 22 3

Hispanic 42 9 42 11 36 11 35 12 33 7 30 7

Male 68 31 69 33 62 31 64 36 60 29 54 21

Female 67 27 64 26 61 27 57 27 55 17 51 16

Table 5 Percentage of students at or above Basic and Proficient by ethnicity Grade 4, 8, and 12: 1996–2000

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

1996 2000 1996 2000 1996 2000

Note: Standard errors were not available per ethnic group. Source: National Center for Education Statistics. (2002a)

Figures 8 through 11 clearly indicate that 

there has been little change in the pattern 

of student achievement by ethnicity and by 

gender between the 1996 and 2000 NAEP 

tests. Furthermore, exactly the same pattern 

of achievement—with similar wide gaps in 

performance—is observed between the original 

and revised NAEP tests (contrast Figures 4 

through 7 with Figures 8 through 11).

For example, starting with Figure 8, one can 

observe that 79% of the Anglo grade 4 students 

who took the ‘96 NAEP test outperformed 

students from all other ethnic groups at the Basic

level. The second highest scoring ethnic group was 

the U.S. Asian/Pacific Islander (66%), followed by 

Native American students (59%), Latinos/as 

(42%) and African American students (24%). 

There was no statistical significance change in the 

pattern and magnitude of achievement among 

these ethnic groups for the year 2000 NAEP 

(NCES, 2002a). 

Figure 8 also shows the students’ performance 

at the Proficient level (see scale above). Again the 

same pattern of achievement—with similar wide 

gaps in performance among ethnic groups—is 

observed. Whereas 37% and 38% of Anglo grade 

4 students scored at the Proficient level for the 

1996 and 2000 NAEP, respectively, much smaller 

percentages of Latinos/as and African American 

students performed well at this level for the same 

years (NCES, 2002a). 

In terms of gender differences, Figure 11 

illustrates the percentage of male and female 

students performing at or above the Basic and 

Proficient NAEP levels for 1996 and 2000. As 

the graph illustrates, there was practically no 

change in the pattern of achievement. That is, 

males scored higher than females at the Basic

and Proficient levels for all three grades. The only 

statistical significance change was observed at 

grade 12 where the male students’ score dropped 

from 69% at or above Basic in 1996 to 54% in 2000 

(NCES, 2002a).

Figure 11 Percentage of students at or above Basic and Proficient NAEP levels by gender and by grade Percent

Year

1996

Basic

Source: NCES. (2002a)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Male Female

68

2000 1996

Proficient

2000 1996

Basic

2000 1996

Proficient

2000 1996

Basic

2000 1996

Proficient

2000

Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12

67 69

64

31

27

33

26

31

27

36

27

62 61

64

57 60

55 54 51

25

17

21

16

12 Where Are We Heading?
7

 The NAEP scale used to determine whether a student’s score falls within the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels is different 

for each grade. For example, for grade 8 a score between 138 and 169 points falls within the Basic level, scores between 170 

and 203 points, and scores between 204 and above, fall within the Proficient and Advanced levels, respectively. See the NAEP 

technical report for more details at http://nces.ed.gov.nationsreportcard

Other important statistically significant 

changes were observed for the overall grade 8 and 

grade 12 males’ average scores. At grade 8, male 

students’ score increased from 151 points7

 in ‘96 to 

154 in ‘00. Grade 12 male students’ score, on the 

other hand, decreased from 152 points to 148 in 

the same years. 

When one looks at the average scores across 

ethnic groups, there was no substantial change for 

most groups on the ‘96 and ‘00 tests. However, the 

score for grade 8 Native American students and 

grade 12 Anglo students dropped significantly 

from 148 to 134 and 159 to 154, respectively.

Table 5 provides a more visual indicator of 

how the gaps in average scores across ethnic 

groups for the ‘96 and ‘00 NAEP tests have 

remained unchanged. Mathematically speaking, 

these wide gaps in achievement should be 

interpreted with caution, of course, because 

most of them were not found to be statistically 

significant. Speaking as a Latino science educator, 

however, I cannot help but worry about how 

pervasive this pattern of student achievement has 

been over time (since the original NAEP in 1970) 

and across different tests and grade levels (see 

Rodriguez, 1998a). It is also a serious concern how 

poorly all students perform across various tests. In 

other words, only a small percentage of students 

performed at the Proficient level, with even a 

smaller percentage performing at the Advanced

level (that is, 3–4% for all grade 4 and grade 8 

students in ‘96 and ‘00, respectively, and between 

3–2% for grade 12 students during the same years; 

NCES, 2002a).

Some teachers, administrators, parents and 

politicians continue to explain these gaps in 

student achievement by some kind of circularblame game. That is, some teachers blame the 

parents, some parents blame the schools, some 

schools blame the politicians, some politicians 

blame the teachers, and in the meantime, 

researchers mainly document and keep the score 

in this blame game. The stereotyping of parents 

and teachers and the often unattached and distant 

approach used by researchers contribute to the 

misunderstanding of the differences in student 

Turning Despondency into Hope 13
Korea (597)

Japan (574)

USA (534)

Austria (565)

Australia (562

Netherlands (562)

England (551)

Singapore (574)

Ireland (539)

Hong Kong (533)

New Zealand (531)

Latvia (512)

Iceland (505)

Canada (549)

Slovenia (547)

Scotland (536)

Hungary (532)

Norway (530)

Israel (505)

Greece (497)

Nations with an 

average score 

significantly higher 

from the USA

Nations with an 

average score not 

significantly different

from the USA

Nations with an 

average score 

significantly lower 

than the USA

achievement observed here. Those who engage 

in a circular-blame game fail to understand that 

the gap in student achievement and participation 

in science is caused by a wide variety of factors. 

These factors need to be better understood and 

they will be explained in more detail below, but 

first, it would be useful to briefly review how our 

students’ science achievement scores compare 

with those of students from other countries.

TIMSS Trends

The Third International Mathematics and Science 

Study (TIMSS) is the largest international 

study ever conducted. Through TIMSS, half-amillion students from 41 countries were tested in 

mathematics and science at three grade levels in 

1995 (NCES, 1997). Needless to say, the details of 

this study cannot be discussed here, but in this 

paper, I will focus on how U.S. grade 4 and grade 8 

students performed in contrast with students from 

other countries on the TIMSS science portion. 

Overall, U.S. students’ achievement in science at 

both grade levels was better than that observed 

in mathematics, but the students’ performance 

declined sharply for both subject areas for 

grades 8 and 12 (NCES, 1997, 2000a).

Starting with the grade 4 students’ average 

score, Figure 12 illustrates that U.S. students did 

quite well compared to students in the same age 

group from the other 26 participating countries. 

Only Korean students scored significantly higher 

than U.S. students. Students from Japan, Austria, 

Australia, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands 

scored at a range not significantly different from 

U.S. students. On the other hand, grade 4 U.S. 

students’ average score was higher than those 

attained by students from 19 other participating 

countries (see Figure 12, NCES, 1997). 

How do our top students compare to the 

top students from other countries? When one 

takes a closer look at the achievement rate of 

the top 10% of students from each country, U.S. 

students take the lead for the first time with 16% 

Figure 12 Grade 4 average science scores from various countries compared to the USA— TIMMS 1995

14 Where Are We Heading?

Source: NCES. (1997)
of our students receiving a score within the top 

10%8

 (NCES, 1997).

For the grade 8 test-component of TIMSS, 

41 countries participated in the project. As 

mentioned above, Figure 13 indicates that U.S. 

students did not do as well at this grade level as 

students in grade 4. Our grade 8 students scored 

above the international mean, but were not among 

the nine top scoring nations (NCES, 2000a). In 

other words, the U.S. students’ average score was 

534 points, whereas the international mean was 

516. Figure 13 shows that students from Singapore, 

the Czech Republic, Japan, Korea, Bulgaria, the 

Netherlands, Slovenia, Austria, and Hungary 

all scored significantly higher than U.S. grade 

8 students in that order. Fifteen other countries 

received scores substantially lower than 

the U.S. 

Our top grade 8 students are well represented 

among the top 10% of students from other 

participating countries. However, students from 

Singapore show a huge lead by having over a third 

of their students attaining scores within the top 

10%. On the other hand, only 13% of U.S. grade 8 

students achieved science scores within this range 

(NCES, 2000a). 

U.S. students’ performance is worse at the 

high school levels for both mathematics and 

science. This will not be discussed here, but it is 

enough to mention that grade 12 U.S. students 

performed close to the international average for 

mathematics, and below average for advanced 

mathematics. In physics, U.S. students received 

the lowest score of any other nation participating 

in the study (NCES, 2002b; Schmit, McKnight, 

Cogan, Jakwerth, Houang, 1999).

Figure 13 Grade 8 average science scores from various countries compared to the USA— TIMMS 1995

8

 Korea had 17% of their students scoring at the top 10%, but there was no statistical significance between Korean and U.S. 

students for this category.

Turning Despondency into Hope 15

Nations with an 

average score 

significantly higher 

from the USA

Nations with an 

average score not 

significantly different

from the USA

Nations with an 

average score 

significantly lower 

than the USA

Singapore (607)

Czech 

 Republic (574)

Japan (571)

Korea (565)

Bulgaria (565)

Netherlands (560)

Slovenia (560)

Austria (558)

Hungary (554)

Spain (517)

France (498)

Greece (497)

Ireland (494)

Rumania (486)

Latvia (485)

Portugal (480)

Denmark (478)

Lithuania (476)

Belgium (Fr) (471)

Iran (470)

Cyprus (463)

Kuwait (430)

Colombia (411)

South Africa (326)

England (552)

Belgium (FI) (550)

Australia (545)

Slovak Rep. (544)

Canada (531)

Norway (527)

Thailand (525)

New Zealand (525)

Russian Fed. (538)

Israel (524)

Sweden (535)

Germany (531)

Ireland (538)

Hong Kong (522)

Switzerland (522)

Scotland (517)

USA (534)

Source: NCES. (2000a)
Figure 14 Percent change of the U.S. population 

based on ethnicity from 1970–2000

Percent Change

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov

Latina/o

Asian/Pacific I.

Nation

African American

Anglo-European

8.04

2.95

0.53

1.21

-12.55

Limitations and other considerations 

about these studies

Caution should be followed when interpreting 

the original NAEP scores for Latino/a students. 

NAEP results are less reliable for Latinos due to 

the confusion some individuals face when trying 

to identify Latino/a children (Grissmer, 1996). 

That is, Latinos/as could be of any shade of skin 

color and/or could have any range of proficiency in 

English. In fact, it was not until 1977 (seven years 

after the first NAEP study) that the category of 

“Hispanics” was created to include all 

Latino/a students. 

Findings from NELS follow-up studies 

no doubt produced a great deal of valuable 

information on the experiences of middleschoolers as they progress through school and 

through college. However, the same problems 

related to identifying Latino/a students mentioned 

above for NAEP also applies to NELS. In addition, 

one of the drawbacks of longitudinal studies 

such as NELS is that it provides a less reliable 

assessment of students’ cognitive performance 

due to the short length of time allocated for the 

science test (Rock, & Pollack, 1995). That is, NELS 

allows only 20 minutes for students to answer the 

25 multiple-choice question section, the original 

NAEP science component has 63 multiple-choice 

questions at age nine, 83 multiple-choice questions 

at age 13, and 82 multiple-choice questions at 

age 17 (Mullis et al, 1994). The revised NAEP 

and TIMSS studies were better assessment tools 

since, in addition to multiple-choice questions, 

they included a set of constructed responses. 

Furthermore, students taking either one of these 

tests were expected to write short and extended 

constructed responses, thus allowing for a more 

meaningful measure of students’ cognitive growth. 

However, it is not clear what kind of assistance (if 

any) second language learners and students with 

disabilities received while taking these tests. This 

is particularly important when one considers the 

short amount of time given to do these extensive 

tests. The assessment time for the revised NAEP 

was 40 or 60 minutes for fourth-grade students, 

16 Where Are We Heading?
9

 The maximum number of points for the grade 4 exam was 1000 points; however, I was unable to find for certain whether 

the grade 8 exam has the same maximum number of points. Based on the average scores shown in Fig. 13, this seems to be a 

safe assumption.

10 Bill Clune (1996) personal communication.

Figure 15 Percent change in public elementary 

and secondary school enrollment based on 

ethnicity from 1976 to 1999

Percent Change

0 2 4 6 8 10

Source: www.nces.gov. (2002)

Other

Latina/o

African American

Anglo-European

Race/Ethnicity

3.8

9.7

1.0

4.4

and 60 or 90 minutes for eighth- and twelfth-grade 

students, with the longer time corresponding to 

students that performed a hands-on task. The 

assessment time given to students participating in 

the TIMSS study was very similar.

Summary

The general pattern in academic performance 

by gender, socioeconomic status and ethnicity 

observed so far in NELS is congruent with that 

observed in the NAEP and TIMSS tests. This 

is so even though there are marked differences 

among these assessment tools. Another thing that 

these tests have in common and that represents 

a significant drawback in interpreting the results 

is that they do not provide a breakdown of the 

achievement scores by gender within ethnic 

groups. Therefore, it is not possible to determine, 

for example, whether the achievement level of 

African American girls is different from that of 

African American boys, or different from that of 

females from other ethnic groups. Similarly, it is 

not possible to determine whether Mexican boys 

or girls are achieving at a higher rate than Puerto 

Ricans or than students from other Latino groups. 

It is essential that more detailed information be 

gathered and made readily available in order to 

effectively assess student achievement in terms of 

equity. This information is especially imperative 

when we consider how rapidly the U.S. population 

is changing. For instance, Figure 14 illustrates 

how the distribution of the U.S. population has 

changed in the last decades (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2000). As it can be observed, Latinos/as are now 

the second largest ethnic group in the U.S. (about 

seven years earlier than previously predicted, 

Day, 1993). Figure 15 shows the obvious impact 

on student enrollment when Latinas/os are the 

fastest-growing ethnic group in the country. 

Furthermore, within the broad ethnic category of 

Latina/o, Mexicans constitute the largest ethnic 

group, followed by other Latinos (peoples from 

various Latin American countries), and Puerto 

Ricans being the third-largest Latino group.

Another important aspect to keep in mind 

regarding these national and international tests 

is that even the students who are doing well are 

not doing that well. Only a small percentage of 

students scored at the proficient level and even less 

at the advanced equivalent levels for the original 

and revised NAEP, as well as for the NELS. 

Similarly, if we were to use the same grading scale 

that probably most U.S. teachers use to assign 

grades to students who participated in the TIMSS, 

then even the U.S. students who did above the 

international average would have received the 

equivalent of an “F” for both grade 4 (mean score 

= 57%) and grade 8 (mean score = 53.4%). This 

is estimated based on the fact that the maximum 

possible score for the TIMSS was 1,000 points9

(see Figures 12 and 13). Using the same criterion, 

Korean students—who achieved the top TIMSS 

score for grade 4—would have received a “C” 

average (60%) by U.S. teachers’ traditional scoring 

standards, and Singapore—the top grade 8 scoring 

country—would have received the same grade (61%).

In any case, the consistent trends in student 

achievement over time and across different kinds 

of tests at various grade levels shown here point 

to the need to move beyond “gap gazing”10 and 

begin to pay more attention to the many factors 

that prevent teachers from doing their best job and 

that prevent students from showing what they can 

really do. 

In the next section, some of these key factors 

that contribute to sustaining the current gap in 

academic achievement and participation between 

Anglo and traditionally underserved students will 

be explored.

Turning Despondency into Hope 17
Factors Affecting the Trends in 

Student Achievement and Participation:

Has Anything Changed?

In 1988, the Mid-Atlantic Equity Center—

with funding from the U.S. Department 

of Education—published the monograph, 

Mathematics and Science: Critical Filters for the 

Future by DeAnna Banks Beane. It is striking 

to see that the same issues affecting student 

achievement that Beane addressed in her 

monograph still play the same roles today. Rather 

than replicating Beane’s work, in the following 

sections, I provide an update. This update on the 

factors that affect student achievement in science 

is organized into three major areas: student-related 

factors, teacher-related factors, and institutionrelated factors. Even though all of these factors are 

closely intertwined and usually have a cumulative 

effect on students’ lives, they will be discussed 

separately to better understand their individual—

yet significant—impact.

Student-Related Factors

1. Students’ attitudes toward science

The pattern in students’ attitudes toward 

science reported in the monograph by Beane 

(1988) mentioned above has not changed. In 

two recently released reports, Land of Plenty: 

Diversity as America’s Competitive Edge in 

Science, Engineering, and Technology prepared 

by the Commission on the Advancement of 

Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering 

and Technology Development (the Mendoza 

Commission, 2000) and Trends in Educational 

Equity of Girls and Women written by Bae, Choy, 

Geddes, Sabble and Snyder (2000), it is stated that 

at the elementary level—regardless of gender and 

ethnicity—students seem to like science and feel 

confident in the subject. For instance, in grade 4, 

about an equal percentage of boys (68%) and girls 

(66%) responded positively to the statements, “I 

like science,” and “I’m good at science.” However, 

by grade 8—for both mathematics and science—

the percentages of females who believe they are 

good at these subjects dropped significantly 

compared to the percentages of male students 

(Bae et al, 2000). In addition, according to the 

Mendoza Commission “by grade 8, twice as many 

boys as girls (independent of race/ethnicity) 

show an interest in SET (science, engineering 

or technology) careers” (p. 16). The Mendoza 

Commission also states that even though girls 

demonstrate abilities to do well in SET, their 

interest and participation in mathematics and 

science activities go down. This is an interesting 

phenomenon because while female and other 

traditionally underrepresented students’ 

enrollment in SET courses have steadily increased 

(Suter, 1996) this same pattern is not reflected 

in the number of female and underrepresented 

students seeking college degrees in SET. In fact, 

in one study over three quarters of SAT-takers 

who were interested in pursuing engineering and 

computer science fields in college were males. The 

biological sciences continue to be the only field 

attracting more females than males (Mendoza 

Commission, 2000).

These consistent patterns suggest that a 

variety of factors (like the ones discussed below) 

play a role in discouraging female and other 

underrepresented students from pursuing SETrelated fields despite these students’ abilities and 

original interest in SET.

18 Has Anything Changed?

11 The survey data included students’ responses from the base-year (grade 8), first follow-up (grade 10) and second follow-up 

(grade 12) studies.
Turning Despondency into Hope 19

2. Family’s education and socioeconomic status

In a study conducted by Horn (1998) using survey 

data11 from the National Education Longitudinal 

Study (NELS, described above), it was found 

that among the most common risk factors—or 

increased probability that a student would fail 

or drop out of school—were changing schools 

two or more times (27%) and being in the lowest 

socioeconomic quartile (18%). Horn (1998) also 

found that when low socioeconomic status (SES) 

is considered, students at moderate or high risk 

of dropping out were most probably Latina/o 

or African American. The researchers add that 

African American students were “about twice as 

likely to be at high risk (22%) than they were at 

low risk (10%)” (p. 12). 

Parents’ education has always been closely 

associated with SES, so unfortunately it is not 

surprising that 58% of the students found at 

high risk of dropping out of school had parents 

who have achieved no more than a high school 

education (Horn, 1998). When one takes a 

closer look at the poverty rate among children 

under 18 years in the United States (see Figure 

16), it is easy to understand how some students 

from diverse backgrounds may be caught in a 

spiraling cycle of poverty. Figure 16 shows that 

even though the poverty rate has decreased for 

Latinas/os and African Americans, there are still 

disproportionate differences when the population 

demographics are considered. Furthermore, a 

report by the Census Bureau, Poverty in the U.S. 

(2000b) indicates that children (18 and younger) 

make up 38% of the poor in the U.S., yet children 

represent 26% of the total population.

One interesting aspect of the Horn (1998) 

study is that they investigated the factors 

associated with increasing the odds that 

students—commonly identified as at risk—would 

stay in school and go on to college. They found 

that students whose parents frequently discussed 

school-related matters with them had more 

than double the odds of enrolling in a four-year 

college. This points to the need to encourage 

more parents—regardless of their SES and/or 

education level—to talk to their children about 

school and career goals. Schools can play an 

important role in helping parents become more 

involved by facilitating parent-to-student and 

parent-to-teacher communication workshops. 

Furthermore, schools (and local governments) 

can also play a key role in interrupting the cycle 

of poverty affecting the families of students from 

diverse cultural backgrounds and low SES by 

facilitating information (in various languages) on 

adult education programs. When one considers, 

for example, that only one out every two students 

in Latin America completes the sixth grade and 

only one out every three enrolls in high school, it 

is not difficult to appreciate that the children of 

some migrant workers or of new immigrants to 

12 Other examples of the desperate need for educational reform in Latin America are the facts that in Chile only 50% of the 

students finished high school in 1998, and in Mexico the graduation rate was even worse with only 30% completing high 

school during the same year (CIEECE, 2001).

Figure 16 Percentage of individuals (under 18 years old) living at or below the poverty rate by ethnicity, 1995–2000 Percent

Year

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Source: www.census.gov. (2002)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2000

White Black Hispanic Asian & Pacific Islander

16.2

41.9 40.0

19.5

16.3

39.9 40.3

19.5

16.1

37.2 36.8

20.3

15.1

36.7

34.4

18.0

13.5

33.1

30.3

11.8 13.0

30.9

28.0

14.5
the United States may have special educational 

needs that go beyond acquiring English as a 

second language12 (Comision Internacional sobre 

Educacion, Equidad y Competitividad Economica 

en America y El Caribe, CIEECE, 1998, 2001). If 

we add to this equation the increasing number 

of free trade agreements with various countries 

(that allow more fluid movement of workers 

across international borders), we must also pay 

close attention to the economic, social and moral 

advantages of having a better-educated, betterpaid and productive work force.

3. Peer and sibling support 

The impact of peers and siblings on student 

achievement is usually described negatively in 

the literature and in the media (e.g., gang activity, 

school violence, drug abuse, and so on). However, 

using the same survey data from the NELS study 

mentioned above, Horn (1998) found that peers 

and siblings can also play a major positive role on 

whether at risk students stay in school and go on 

to college. For instance, Horn (1998) explained 

that at-risk students whose peers expressed a 

strong interest in learning activities had 70% 

higher odds of pursuing a higher education at 

four-year colleges and almost two and half times 

the odds of enrolling in any postsecondary 

institution. As expected, students at risk who 

reported that their friends planned to attend 

college had six times higher odds of doing 

the same. 

These findings are congruent with those 

from a study conducted by Rodriguez (2002) in 

an economically impoverished, rural high school 

in the U.S. Southwest borderlands. Most of the 

grade 10 students interviewed were Latina/o and 

most of them and their peers intended to go to 

college. The students, however, seemed to have 

little idea of what kind of academic requirements 

they needed to pursue their respective careers. 

In addition, some of them were not clear on what 

their potential careers may entail. One student, 

for example, who wished to become an electrical 

engineer, believed that repairing TV sets is what 

electrical engineers do.

It seems obvious then that if schools strive to 

create a community of learners in which a culture 

of peer collaboration and support is encouraged 

and highly valued, the odds are that more students 

usually identified as at risk may go on to college, 

and thus break away from the entrapments of the 

cycle of poverty into which they may have been 

born. Similarly, ensuring that each child has a 

career plan by the end of grade 10—designed in 

collaboration with the school counselor and the 

students’ parents—may increase the chances that 

each student is taking the courses necessary not 

only to be successful but to stay interested 

in school.

4. Language

While we live in an increasingly smaller planet 

where communications technology and a global 

economy continue to bring us closer together, 

speaking a second language is still perceived 

as a deficiency in the United States. Bilingual 

education programs—wherever they may exist—

often look more like remedial English programs, 

and they are constantly threatened by cutbacks, 

teacher shortages, and/or English-only supporters 

(Secada, Chavez, Garcia, Muñoz, Oakes, Santiago, 

& Slavin, 1998). In contrast, children attending 

European schools are expected to become fluent 

in more than one language as part of a wellrounded education. 

This is the kind of inclusive education needed 

in our country, especially when, according to the 

U.S. Census (2000), it is estimated that 45 million 

people speak a language other than English at 

home. Even though this an unavoidable reality—

and something that should really be perceived as 

a positive feature of a democratic and developed 

country—most teachers are not being prepared to 

work with an increasingly linguistic and culturally 

diverse society. This is the topic of the next section.

Teacher-Related Factors:

1. Teachers’ professional preparation

It is a well-documented fact that most new teacher 

graduates do not feel adequately prepared to 

teach science and/or mathematics, especially at 

the elementary and middle school levels (Weiss, 

Banilower, McMahon, & Smith, 2001; NCTAF, 

1996). In a more recent survey study with almost 

6,000 K–12 teachers from 1,200 schools across the 

U.S., Weis et al (2001) found that “while roughly 

75% of elementary teachers feel very qualified 

to teach reading/language arts, approximately 

60% feel very qualified to teach mathematics and 

about 25% feel very qualified to teach science” 

(p. 30). The obvious impact of this reality on 

student achievement and participation in science 

20 Has Anything Changed?
gets worse when we consider that “in schools 

with the highest minority enrollments, students 

have less than a 50% chance of getting a science 

or mathematics teacher who holds a license and 

a degree in the field he or she teaches” (p. 16, 

NCTAF, 1996). 

Given that these are well-known facts and 

that common-sense recommendations have been 

put forward to address these issues (such as higher 

salaries, more opportunities to major in more 

than one-subject area, and so on, NCTAF, 1996), 

I will present below other important aspects of 

teacher professional development that are seldom 

discussed in the reform literature. These aspects 

have to do with teacher resistance to learning to 

teach for diversityand understanding.

For instance, consider the following excerpt 

from an essay written by one of my elementary 

science methods students in response to assigned 

readings for the class:

I also believe that it is important for 

educators and teachers, as well as everyone, 

to embrace diversity and multiculturalism. 

A few weeks ago, I heard some of my peers 

discussing multiculturalism, and they were 

saying that they thought it was so “annoying” 

that the education department promoted 

multiculturalism, and that it was stupid, and 

when they wrote papers they wrote what their 

professors wanted to hear, not what they really 

felt. I thought it was sad, and a little scary, that 

these people are our future teachers and they 

thought the “whole diversity and multicultural 

thing was annoying and stupid.” It made me 

think that there are plenty of educators out 

there who also think like this, and there are 

even more children who will become the 

students of these teachers who will suffer 

because of their ignorance.

These comments are not uncommon among 

some of the pre- and in-service teachers with 

whom I have worked in my classes and/or in 

research projects. These types of comments are 

particularly disturbing when one considers that 

most of the pre-service teachers in our teacher 

education program will be seeking jobs in an 

area of the U.S. Southwest where over 80% of the 

student population is Latina/o. On the positive 

side, it has been my experience that most of the 

pre- and in-service teachers with whom I have 

worked have become more open to teaching for 

diversity and understanding after they have had 

many opportunities to collaboratively explore 

more student-centered, socially relevant, and 

culturally responsive ways of teaching (Rodriguez, 

1998b, 2002). Nevertheless, there is always a group 

of individuals that remain entrenched in their 

beliefs and resist learning to teach for diversity. 

As a matter of fact, the learning to teach and 

multicultural education literature is flooded with 

articles describing pre-service teachers’ resistance

to learning to teach for diversity (Chavez & 

O’Donnell, 1998; Grant, 1999; Rodriguez, 1998b).

Elsewhere, I argued that teachers’ resistance 

can be better described and understood by 

differentiating between their resistance to 

pedagogical change and their resistance to 

ideological change (Rodriguez, 2001a). Resistance 

to pedagogical change is defined as the resistance 

to changing one’s perceptions of what constitutes 

being an effective teacher in today’s schools. It 

is not surprising for beginning teachers to resist 

teaching for understanding (or resisting to teach 

in more inquiry-based, socially relevant and 

inclusive ways) when they have already been 

exposed to an “apprenticeship of teaching” by 

virtue of 15 or so years of being in school before 

entering a teacher education program (Lortie, 

1975). In other words, educators like myself have 

typically only 15 weeks in a science methods class 

to engage pre-service teachers—who are most 

likely middle-class, female and Anglo—with more 

effective, gender-inclusive, and multicultural ways 

of teaching science that could help their students 

learn for understanding. Thus, it is not surprising 

to encounter resistance to these pedagogical 

approaches when they differ so much from the 

transmissive and behaviorist approaches they have 

encountered for 15 or so years of schooling—and 

that have worked well enough for them to be 

admitted into teacher education programs. This 

cycle continues to perpetuate itself as many 

teacher graduates often feel that they cannot apply 

what they learned in teaching education programs 

because of curriculum and standardized tests 

constraints, or because they fear losing control of 

their students’ behavior through student-centered 

Turning Despondency into Hope 21
pedagogical approaches (Rodriguez & Kitchen, 

in press). A recent report on mathematics and 

science teaching makes evident that in spite of all 

of the calls for educational reform, most teachers 

simply continue to teach the way they were taught 

(Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck, 2003). 

For instance, Weiss and her colleagues at Horizon 

Research found that after observing 364 lessons 

taught by K–12 teachers from various parts of 

the United States fewer than 1 in 5 lessons were 

intellectually rigorous. Furthermore, 66% of the 

teachers observed used inadequate or low level 

questioning strategies. Similarly, in 66% of the 

classrooms observed, students were engaged in 

what Weiss and her colleagues called “inadequate 

sense-making”; that is, teachers not helping 

students make relevant connections with the 

key concepts being covered in the lesson. In only 

16% of the classrooms, the research team found 

teachers actively engaging students in more 

meaningful understanding of the subject matter 

and in high-level questioning. On the positive 

side, the researchers also found that most teachers 

appeared confident and provided accurate and 

significant science and mathematics content.

The findings reported by Weiss et al (2003) 

make clear that educational reform must be 

driven by more than the politics of accountability; 

that is, the assumption that by only requiring 

more standardized tests for students and/or for 

teachers to obtain certification, student learning or 

teaching practice will improve. This assumption is 

akin to requiring firefighters to pass standardized 

tests before certification, and then expecting them 

to put out fires without water and other essential 

equipment.

As teacher educators, we constantly face the 

challenges of helping experienced and beginning 

teachers explore and resolve the contradictions 

between what the National Science Education 

Standards and other reform documents suggest 

and how many teachers continue to teach and/

or believe that they are expected to teach to 

meet standardized tests requirements. Another 

way to help address this situation besides 

providing funding that matches the expectations 

for educational reform is establishing more 

support and collaboration among university 

faculty outside of colleges of education. In 

this way, university faculty across science and 

mathematics disciplines could be more in tune 

with the recommendations being put forward 

by various national organizations such as the 

National Research Council (National Science 

Education Standards), the American Association 

for the Advancement of Science (Science for All 

Americans: Project 2061), and many others. For 

example, new professional development and 

research grants programs could facilitate more 

meaningful collaborations among education 

faculty, schoolteachers and administrators, and 

science faculty. In this fashion, beginning teachers 

could be provided with effective teaching models 

in multiple contexts. That is, student teachers 

will not only see culturally inclusive and studentcentered teaching modeled in their methods 

courses, but also in their regular college-level 

science courses, as well as during their student 

teaching field experience.

The other type of resistance commonly 

encountered among pre- and in-service teachers 

is resistance to ideological change. This is defined 

as the resistance to changing one’s beliefs and 

values systems. For example, some pre- and 

in-service teachers believe in a kind of “rugged 

individualism” that has worked well for them and 

their families as members of the predominant 

culture. Through this ideological lens, they believe 

that if students from diverse backgrounds spoke 

English only, “worked hard enough,” or had 

“caring parents,” they would do well in school 

22 Has Anything Changed?
(Rodriguez, 1998b). Individuals who adhere to 

these beliefs often get very defensive when asked to 

reflect about their inherent positions of privilege 

as members of the predominant culture or by 

virtue of their SES (Sleeter, 1994). In fact, these 

individuals often dismiss research evidence on 

trends in student achievement, tracking practices, 

gender discrimination, racism and other social 

ailments afflicting our schools by claiming that 

these are “issues of the past.” In the last two 

decades, many articles and books have been 

written describing pre- and in-service teachers’ 

resistance to ideological change (Alhquist, 

1991; Cochran-Smith, 1991; 1995; McInstosh, 

1989; Tatum, 1992, Rodriguez, 1998b). What is 

lacking in the teacher education literature is more 

practical suggestions for how to assist experienced 

and beginning teachers in becoming more willing 

and able to teach for diversity.13

In short, by first acknowledging and 

understanding teacher resistance to ideological 

and pedagogical change, teacher educators and 

administrators may be able to provide more 

effective professional development experiences. 

Furthermore, if we acknowledge that resistance to 

change is an unavoidable step toward meaningful 

professional and personal growth, we may feel 

more encouraged by the fact that those resistant 

to ideological and/or pedagogical change are 

at least becoming more intellectually engaged 

and aware of the kind of teachers they wish to 

become in a pluralist society. One obvious point 

of departure for this personal and professional 

journey of becoming and understanding what it 

means to be “a good teacher” is to reflect on the 

fact that 84.3% of the teaching force in the U.S. 

is Anglo, female and middle class (NCES, 2003). 

Whereas, as indicated in Figure 15, the faces and 

cultural backgrounds of many of the students 

these teachers will most likely encounter in their 

classrooms will not mirror theirs. 

2. Teachers’ expectations & stereotyping 

Teachers’ lower expectations of culturally and 

linguistically diverse students have been long 

associated with poor student achievement (Secada 

et al, 1998; Peng, & Hill, 1995). It follows then that 

teachers’ lack of experience with students from 

cultures and SES levels different than their own 

end up producing stereotypes, which drive a wider 

wedge between teachers and students and teachers 

and parents. One of the most common stereotypes 

is the Pobrecito Syndrome. This stereotype refers 

to the tendency of some school officials to have 

lower expectations of Latina/o children because 

they feel sorry for these children’s SES, family 

structure, English language skills, and/or 

cultural backgrounds. 

One way to assist some teachers to move 

away from these damaging stereotypes—besides 

encouraging them to expand their first-hand 

experiences with culturally diverse individuals—

is to expose them to research on this topic. One 

key source is the study conducted by Patricia 

Gandara and reported in her book, Over the 

Ivy Walls: The Educational Mobility of LowIncome Chicanos (1996). As part of this project, 

Gandara conducted in-depth interviews with 50 

Latinas and Latinos who had two major things in 

common. They all completed the highest postsecondary degrees (Ph.D., M.D. and J.D.), and 

they all came from the barrios (or economically 

impoverished Latina/o neighborhoods). These 

individuals explain in detail their struggles to 

be taken seriously by teachers and other school 

officials, and how their parents made all sorts of 

sacrifices to assist them in pursuing their career 

goals. As more teachers become aware of their own 

stereotypes and learn more about the struggles of 

diverse students and their parents to access equal 

opportunities to learn, more opportunities for 

collaboration and mutual success are possible.

Institution-Related Factors

1. Tracking 

Tracking is to the schooling of diverse students 

what cancer is to a healthy body. This pervasive 

institutional practice continues to dominate 

how diverse students are “sorted out” in public 

schools, and it continues to deprive students 

of equal opportunities to learn.14 Although a 

13 This is the subject of a book I edited with Rick Kitchen (Rodriguez & Kitchen in press). This book brings together science 

and mathematics teacher educators to describe their pedagogical strategies for helping teachers learn to teach for diversity 

and understanding.

14 Standardized testing is another discriminatory institutional practice closely associated with tracking. Standardized tests 

are usually normed using student populations that are different from the culturally and economically diverse student 

Turning Despondency into Hope 23
large body of research in the last decade has 

clearly demonstrated how tracking adds to the 

multiplicative effect of the various inequalities to 

which diverse students are exposed in schools, this 

research continues to be ignored (Oakes, Ormseth, 

& Campbell, 1990; Peng, & Hill, 1995; Tierney, 

1997). Furthermore, tracking practices contradict 

the notion of “science for all” being promoted 

by key reform documents such as the National 

Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and 

Project 2061 of the American Association for 

the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 1989) to 

name a few.

An example of how tracking adds to the social 

disadvantages some diverse students already face 

can be found in Peng and Hill’s (1995) study. These 

researchers used student data from the NELS base 

year (8th-graders) and the first follow-up test (10thgraders) to explore the impact of specific factors 

on student achievement. These researchers looked 

at the following factors: “educational activities at 

home, course work in school, teacher qualification, 

school environment, and student learning 

behavior” (p. v). They found that each one of these 

factors has an impact on student achievement, but 

when these factors were considered jointly, they 

could account for as much as 45% of the gap in 

scores between diverse students and Anglo and 

Asian students. Peng and Hill (1995) also found 

that a larger percentage of diverse students were 

placed in low achievement groups and low-track 

high school programs. These researchers add that 

“consequently, [diverse students] have received 

less rigorous academic training and have failed 

to obtain enough preparation, competence, or 

motivation to take more higher level courses that 

prepare them for science and mathematics-related 

fields” (p. vi).

The Land of Plenty report prepared by the 

Mendoza Commission (2000) and the Hispanic 

Drop Out Report (Secada et al, 1998) are also two 

of many major national reports and/or studies 

condemning tracking as a discriminatory practice 

that must be eliminated. What is the alternative to 

tracking? Placing students in culturally and ability 

diverse groups is one alternative. However, this 

strategy cannot be implemented in overcrowded 

classrooms and in schools with limited resources 

and support for teachers. This is another 

institutional factor that plays a key role on 

student achievement, and it is discussed next.

2. Class size and access to equipment 

and materials

According to the National Commission on 

Teaching and America’s Future report (NCTAF, 

1996), one of the key factors influencing the ability 

of teachers to teach for understanding is class size. 

In fact, the Commission proposes a radical plan 

for school restructuring that moves beyond the 

traditional industrial model that dominates most 

schools in the U.S. For example, the Commission 

suggests that instead of having only 24 classroom 

teachers, 26 other staff, an average class size of 

25 students, and teacher planning for about 3.75 

hours/week serving 600 students, we should 

restructure the way we serve the same number of 

students by increasing the number of teachers to 

43 (full-time employees, FTE); reduce the number 

of other staff to 7 (FTE), reduce the class size to 

16 students, and increase the number of teacher 

planning time to at least 10 hours/week. In the 

24 Has Anything Changed?
redesigned elementary school, three teams of 7 

teachers each would work closely with about 100 

students each at the lower grade levels. To facilitate 

opportunities for professional development 

and the use of instructional technologies, a 

lead teacher and media/computer specialist 

would devote half of her/his time coordinating 

the curriculum and visiting the team teachers’ 

classrooms. The other half of this teacher’s time 

would be devoted to teaching so that the other 

teachers in the team could visit each other’s 

classrooms. This same model is repeated at the 

upper elementary grades.

The Commission argues that this new model 

affords teachers a more collegial environment with 

many opportunities for professional development 

and collaboration. In addition, the new team 

model approach with smaller classes allows 

richer teacher-to-student and student-to-student 

interactions and better access to equipment 

and materials. 

Interestingly, the Weiss et al (2001) teacher 

survey mentioned above indicates that only 

about 7% see class size as a factor influencing 

instruction. Most teachers involved in this 

survey see the lack of appropriate resources 

and equipment as serious issues influencing the 

teaching of science and mathematics. In fact, 

“inadequate funds for purchasing equipment 

and supplies was labeled as a serious problem 

by 25-35% of the respondents [teaching at the 

elementary, middle and high school levels], 

inadequate facilities by 20-28%, and lack of 

materials for individualized instruction by 

16-27%” (p. 101). These findings seem to indicate 

that—if given a choice—most science and 

mathematics teachers would rather have the 

proper equipment and materials to carry out 

their jobs well than to have smaller classes and 

no access to equipment and materials. Ideally, by 

heeding the National Commission on Teaching 

and America’s Future’s (1996) restructuring 

recommendations, teachers could have both—

smaller classes and access to equipment 

and materials.

3. Teachers’ working environment 

Teachers who leave the profession cite 

“dissatisfaction” with their working environment 

as one of the main reasons why they quit (Glenn 

Commission, 2000). This is a fact more commonly 

found among mathematics and science teachers 

(40%) than teachers who leave from other 

curriculum areas (29%). In addition, about 66% 

of science and mathematics teachers who leave 

teaching state that “poor salaries” is the number 

one reason they are dissatisfied with their jobs. 

It is no wonder that so many teachers leave the 

profession considering that teaching is one of the 

lowest-paying professions after completing at least 

four years of college, coupled with an often high 

student-to-teacher ratio and the lack of access to 

equipment and materials. However, if there is one 

thing the reports cited so far have in common it 

is that in order to recruit and retain more than 

the two million teachers needed in the next 

decade, the teachers’ working environment must 

be dramatically improved. At the center of this 

improvement is providing teachers with increased 

salaries and more meaningful opportunities for 

collaboration and professional development. Weiss 

et al (2001) found that most of the approximately 

6,000 teachers who participated in their survey 

stated that they did not have time to plan and/or 

discuss issues related to the teaching of science 

and mathematics. Furthermore, there seems to 

be a mismatch between teachers’ professional 

needs and the focus of professional development 

opportunities offered. In other words, Weiss 

et al (2001) found that “only a third or fewer of 

the respondents perceived a strong emphasis in 

an area where they indicated a strong need for 

professional development” (p. 45).

4. New policies: The No Child Left Behind Act

In addition to the factors mentioned above, one 

key institutional factor that influences what 

and how teachers teach is the ratification of 

new education acts. While these nation-wide 

policies tend to outline a long list of well-intended 

objectives, many of these objectives have little 

hope of ever being met because they lack the 

necessary financial support and insights generated 

from solid research on teaching and learning. Take 

for example, President Clinton’s Educate America 

Act, Goals 2000. According to this law:

(A) By the year 2000, the high school 

graduation rate will increase to at least 90%.

(B) The objectives for this goal are that

(i) the nation must dramatically reduce 

its school dropout rate, and 75% of 

the students who do drop out will 

successfully complete a high school 

Turning Despondency into Hope 25
degree or its equivalent; and

(ii) the gap in high school graduation 

rates between American students from 

minority backgrounds and their nonminority counterparts will be eliminated 

(Section 102, School Completion,).

By the year 2000, United States students will 

be first in the world in mathematics and science 

achievement (Section 102.5.A, Mathematics 

and Science).

As it was already shown in the previous 

section on student achievement, we are still far 

off from meeting these goals. Now, President 

Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, U. S. 

Department of Education, 2001) also outlines a 

well-intended set of policies without the financial 

and educational research backing to make 

them possible. Nevertheless, the NCLB Act has 

generated a great deal of attention because—

unlike the Goals 2000 Act—it comes with an 

accountability/punitive component if schools, 

administrators, and teachers do not meet the 

prescribed objectives by a set timeline.

The NCLB raises many other interesting 

issues worthy of further analysis, but only some 

of the aspects of the NCLB Act relevant to this 

monograph are discussed here. These aspects are:

a. Increased Accountability: States must 

develop rigorous content standards 

and implement statewide assessments 

to measure students’ annual academic 

growth in grades 3 through 8 reading 

and mathematics. Students’ performance 

must be broken down according to 

the students’ ethnicity, socioeconomic 

status, English language proficiency, and 

disability. Science content standards and 

corresponding assessments should be 

developed next.

b. Set Timelines to Demonstrate Performance: 

According to the NCLB Act, by the end of 

2013-2014, twelve years after being passed, 

states are expected to have all of their 

students performing at the proficient 

or above levels on statewide, standardbased assessments. 

c. Consequences for Failure to Meet 

Standards: Schools that fail to 

demonstrate adequate yearly progress 

(AYP) and that do not move toward 

closing the gap in student achievement 

across various ethnic groups will be 

placed in the “identified for improvement” 

category. This means that schools placed 

in this category must provide students 

with alternative opportunities to succeed 

such as attending a different school within 

the district (and pay for the student’s 

transportation if needed). The NCLB 

Act also states that schools that continue 

to fail to meet the standards will be 

allowed to use up to 20% of their Title 

I funds to provide school choice and/or 

supplemental educational services to 

qualified students. The bottom line is that 

schools that fail to make adequate yearly 

progress for five years will be re-organized 

and put under a new improvement plan.

No doubt several aspects of the NCLB Act are 

needed and welcome, especially when it comes to 

ensuring that traditionally underserved students 

have opportunities to experience not only equal 

access to but also success in education. So, if 

the NCLB Act is a national policy that directly 

addresses issues of school accountability and 

the gap in student achievement, why is it being 

widely criticized?

Some researchers argue that the NCLB law 

does not take into account the complexity of 

providing appropriate resources to school districts 

with high student achievement gaps. For example, 

Rechovsky and Imazeki (2003) developed an 

educational cost function using funding data 

from elementary and secondary school districts 

in Texas. They then estimated a cost index that 

could be used to ensure that school districts 

receive the appropriate financial support they 

required. Rechovsky and Imazeki (2003) also state 

that “present evidence suggesting that measuring 

student performance, setting performance 

standards, and threatening to sanction schools 

that fail to meet those standards are unlikely to 

close the achievement gaps unless accompanied 

by a restructuring of the financing of public 

education” (p. 264).

Linn, Baker, and Betebenner (2002) seem to

agree, and in a clever and timely analysis of NAEP 

and statewide student achievement tests, Linn 

and his colleagues (2002) provide compelling 

arguments for rethinking the accountability 

components of the NCLB law. They state that 

26 Has Anything Changed?
Turning Despondency into Hope 27

“the challenges posed by the NCLB law are 

many; unless considerable flexibility is allowed 

in the interpretation of some aspects of the 

accountability components of the law, it seems 

likely that many more schools will be placed in the 

improvement category than can be provided with 

effective assistance” (p. 4). 

To elaborate their position, Linn et al, (2002) 

start by showing the trends in the percentage 

of students who met state standards tests in five 

different states from 1998 to 2001. They found 

that there was a great deal of variability in student 

performance in reading and mathematics grade 

8 tests, as well as different kinds of interpretation 

of what some states may perceive as “passing” 

state assessments and being “proficient.” In 

addition, Linn and his associates used straightline projections to explore what it would take by 

some states to meet the NCLB’s requirement of 

having all students achieving at the proficiency 

level on state assessments by 2012. They found 

that states that already have high test scores may 

need to maintain a 1% per year increase in student 

achievement; whereas the states with the lowest 

achieving scores will have to maintain more than 

5% increase in student achievement every year for 

12 years.

This already formidable task is complicated 

by the fact that few states currently show students 

scoring at the proficient level in the NAEP (a 

national test discussed earlier and in which, 

according to a new provision in the NCLB law, 

every state must now participate every two years). 

By looking at the change in percentage of students 

who scored at the proficient and above levels 

on NAEP from year to year, Linn et al, (2002) 

illustrated how only 3 states showed gains of one 

point or more in grade 4 reading scores, 15 states 

showed gains in the grade 4 mathematics test, and 

18 states showed gains in grade 8 mathematics 
test. The number of states that participated in 

the NAEP ranged from 29 to 34 depending on 

the grade level and curriculum area. Again, 

this indicates that some states may have a lot 

more to put in place and may require more 

focused financial and professional development/

administrative support than others to be able to 

meet the requirements of the NCLB law by 2012. 

Linn and his associates (2002) also propose 

several suggestions to enhance the flexibility of 

the NCLB law in terms of school accountability. 

Two key suggestions are to use the state results 

on NAEP as the standard indicator of adequate 

yearly progress instead of the state-based 

assessments. By having one national and accepted 

common assessment tool, the effects produced 

by the existing variability across state assessment 

instruments and standards would be eliminated. 

The second suggestion is to use the basic level on 

NAEP as the minimum standard for students, 

instead of using the more ambitious proficiency 

level. As it was shown earlier, given that so few 

students score at the proficiency level across ethnic 

groups, and given that requirements to achieve 

this level may be set too high to be realistic, it may 

be practical to rethink the current expectations 

that all states will be ready to have all students 

achieve at the proficiency level. “...Having a 

goal that is so unobtainable no matter how hard 

teachers try can do more to demoralize than to 

motivate greater effort. Goals need to provide 

challenge but not be set so high that they are 

unachievable.” (Linn et al, 2002, p. 12).

As can be observed of all of the factors 

that influence student achievement and 

participation discussed so far, and the appropriate 

implementation of national educational policies 

could play the most significant roles in helping 

reduce—if not eliminate—the student achievement 

gap across various ethnic groups. However, as the 

conversation continues on the pros and cons of 

implementing the NCLB Act, we need to keep the 

dialogue focused on measuring students’ learning 

for understanding. After all, helping students learn 

for understanding is what makes schools sites for 

the development of critical thinking, life-long 

learning, and problem solving. This notion should 

be what drives the eradication of achievement gaps 

and the development of meaningful standards and 

assessment tools.

Summary

In the last decade, a strong base of research clearly 

indicates that each of the factors discussed in this 

monograph play a key role on whether students 

are successful—or even participate—in science 

classes. Perhaps the most important finding—

and one that cannot be ignored anymore—is 

the cumulative impact these factors have on a 

student’s academic life. For example, if a student 

is tracked in elementary school, this racist 

institutional practice will have ripple effects on 

that student’s chances of being successful in high 

school and/or taking advanced science classes. 

This student’s chances are reduced even more if he 

or she comes from a low SES, if his or her parents 

have lower than a high school education, and 

so on. 

On the positive side, the student, teacher, 

and institutional-related factors that influence 

student achievement and participation in 

science can be addressed by improving teacher 

professional preparation, improving parent-school 

communication, and by restructuring schools in 

such a way that teachers have more opportunities 

for collaboration, higher salaries, smaller class 

sizes, and better access to technology and 

equipment. While this is not an easy task—and 

one that carries a high price tag—ignoring these 

factors will carry (and is carrying) an even higher 

social, economic, and moral price tag. Perhaps a 

revised and more realistic version of the NCLB 

law, based on sound educational research and 

responsive funding, may become the catalyst for 

long-lasting educational reform.

28 Has Anything Changed?
Promising Cases of 

School Reform

intervention studies with a focus on science 

education only. (Readers are encouraged to do a 

bibliographical search in ERIC—a search engine 

of educational research studies—using the terms, 

“Latino” or “Hispanic” or “African American,” 

and “science education,” and “achievement.” 

There seem to be many articles that tend to focus 

on student achievement “gap gazing” and fewer 

on interventions leading to achievement gap 

reduction or eradication).

Promising cases of school reform: 

Projects that started with smallscale funding 

Deborah Meier, the author of The Power of their 

Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in 

Harlem (1995), uses a charming narrative to highlight 

30-years of successes, near-misses, and areas for 

growth associated with her courageous and innovative 

work as an educator in diverse urban schools.

In 1974, and after teaching for a few years in 

urban schools, Meier was already what I prefer 

to call “a good teacher at risk” of dropping out of 

the profession. Just as many good students are at 

risk of dropping out of unresponsive schools with 

culturally monotonous and insipid curricula, good 

teachers are also “at risk” of leaving the profession 

due to—among the various factors mentioned 

above—choking bureaucracies and the lack of 

professional support to respond to students’ needs. 

Luckily, a Latino superintendent of East Harlem’s 

District 4, Anthony Alvarado, approached Meier 

with the vision of starting a new, alternative 

elementary school. This new school was to serve a 

mainly Latino population, with a growing African 

American population, in one of New York’s 

poorest communities.

Central Park East (CPE) started with six 

teachers and one paraprofessional. Three of the 

teachers were Anglo, two were African American, 

While being complacent and allowing oneself 

to slide down into a pit of cynicism may be 

almost fashionable during these trying times 

of overwhelming challenges, broken promises, 

attacks on public education, and misguided reform 

efforts, we must heed Dr. King’s words and not 

“wallow in the valley of despair.” 

In fact, if we stay the course and ground 

our commitment to work for social justice on 

the indissoluble belief that better opportunities 

to learn for all students is the key to social 

transformation, we shall learn to celebrate our 

successes—no matter how small. We shall also 

learn not to lose sight of our objectives—no 

matter how large the obstacle in our path may 

be obstructing the view. It seems that it is indeed 

this kind of attitude and determination that 

the following individuals have adopted to effect 

change in their own school contexts against the 

odds. What are some of the specific strategies 

for implementing change used (and being 

used) by these teachers, teacher educators and 

administrators? To explore the answers to this 

question, the following sections offer highlights 

from some promising initiatives, and to facilitate 

discussion, the sections have been organized into 

two broad categories. These are: projects that 

started with small-scale funding and projects that 

started with large-scale funding. It is important 

for the reader to note that in spite of the large 

differences in original funding, these initiatives 

had two major things in common: the unshakable 

commitment of all those involved to effect change 

and the fact that these initiatives were being 

implemented in economically disadvantaged and 

diverse school contexts. Another aspect to note is 

the lack of small-scale intervention studies with 

a focus on science education reform. The studies 

discussed in the first section below were selected 

because they were successful across curriculum 

areas, but it was very difficult to find promising 

“Let us not wallow in the valley of despair”

— Dr. Martin Luther King, 

 Address to the Civil Right Marchers, Washington, DC, 1963.

Turning Despondency into Hope 29
could not be changed. Again, with focused 

determination and a “wait and see” attitude, 

Meier and her team navigated though many 

obstacles and started Central Park East Secondary 

(CPESS) with 80 seventh-graders in 1984. CPESS 

now serves 450 students grades 7 through 12. 

According to Meier, in 1991 CPESS had fewer than 

5% of the students who enrolled in this school 

at grade nine drop out. The rest of the students 

graduated with regular diplomas, and about 90% 

went on to college.

At the core of CPESS schools—just as is 

found in the elementary schools—we find many 

features that are now being hailed as necessary in 

various reform documents (including the reports 

from the various commissions and/or task forces 

highlighted in this monograph so far). Among 

these features are:15

 1. Small schools with small class sizes that 

promote more student-to-student and 

teacher-student interactions.

 2. Where schools are large, the students and staff 

are divided into interdisciplinary houses that 

allow students to stay with the same teachers 

for more than one year.

 3. Curriculum integration across various subject 

areas is expected and required.

 4. Less is more—fewer subjects being taught 

allows more in depth exploration of content 

knowledge.

 5. Academic periods are longer in high schools 

(Two hours preferably or at least one hour).

 6. All teachers must facilitate cooperative 

learning.

 7. Students demonstrate meaningful learning 

through performance assessment activities 

(such as portfolios, presentations, projects, 

and so on). 

 8. Students are required to engage in socially 

relevant schoolwork with real connections to 

their community and the real world of work.

 9. High school homerooms are full-periods 

dedicated to real student advising.

 10. The teaching staff in collaboration with 

the administration makes decisions about 

pedagogy, curriculum, and course scheduling.

and one was Latina, and all had one thing in 

common—they were already dissatisfied with the 

current school status quo and were eager to try 

a different, more democratic, student-centered, 

and community-responsive model. The success 

of Meier and her team’s efforts can be measured 

in multiple ways. She states, “Of the first seven 

graduating classes of CPE elementary school 

(1977-1984), 85% received regular diplomas, and 

another 11% got GEDs. This compared to roughly 

50% citywide” (p. 16). Meier adds that two thirds 

of the students who graduated from high school—

prior to the opening of their own high school—

had gone on to college. Due to the success of CPE’s 

students and its philosophy of respect, community 

involvement, integrated hands-on and minds-on 

curriculum, small class sizes, and authentic forms 

of assessment, within ten years three other CPE 

schools were open—each serving 250 students. 

At this time, Meier and her team were challenged 

to expand her model to the undisputedly most 

resistant school level to change—the indomitable 

terrain of high school education. Meier explains: 

But the obstacles that block the path 

of reforming a high school are harder 

than those that face elementary schools. 

Bureaucratic and financial impediments 

are only parts of the picture, and not 

the most difficult ones. The biases and 

prejudices of the larger society have more 

obvious effects as youngsters come closer 

to the ‘real thing’—being adults. The 

external demands of proof and evidence 

are far greater in high school, the rituals 

more fixed (curriculum, credit hours, 

course sequences, daily schedules), 

and the ‘next’ institution—college or 

workplace—even less under our influence. 

But even those factors were not the most 

important (p. 31).

Meier and her team found that in addition 

to the curricular and institutional rituals that 

perpetuate inequities in high schools, the future 

of other social rituals—such as sporting events 

and other after-school programs—heightened 

the skepticism of those who felt that high school 

15 The reader is encouraged to note that these innovative features were being implemented in the mid-80s, and it is only 

recently that we are starting to hear about them through national reform reports.

30 Promising Cases of School Reform
 11. Parents are involved in and informed about 

their children’s academic growth.

These are only a few of the features that 

made Central Park East Schools successful over 

time and that no doubt took a lot of negotiating, 

perseverance, and strength of spirit to see 

to fruition. 

The next project to be highlighted here is 

Lessons from High-Performing Hispanic Schools: 

Creating Learning Communities. In this edited 

book, Reyes, Scribner and Scribner (1999)

document the findings from a case study of eight 

schools (three elementary, three middle and two 

high schools) that had several things in common:

 1. The schools had an enrollment of over 66% 

Mexican Americans students.

 2. The schools had well-above average scores 

in the statewide test (Texas Assessment of 

Academic Skills).

 3. The schools had received national and/or 

statewide recognition for student achievement.

The authors of this book were not directly 

involved in the reform effort at these schools. 

Their goal was to identify the common features 

across these schools that had enabled them to be 

successful against the odds. Reyes et al (1999) 

selected the schools for a case study based on the 

above criteria, and they gathered information 

about these schools by conducting site visits, 

interviews and document analysis. 

According to Reyes et al’s (1999) analysis 

and review of the literature on “best practices,” 

four broad themes or dimensions should guide 

school reform efforts to enhance diverse students’ 

achievement. These dimensions are:

 • Action Dimension I: Community and family 

involvement are essential to the development 

of a high-performing learning community for 

Hispanic students.

 • Action Dimension II: High-performing 

learning communities for Hispanic students 

depend on leadership at all levels that supports 

collaborative governance that enables every 

student to succeed.

 • Action Dimension III: Culturally responsive 

pedagogy is required for students to succeed 

in a high-performing community for 

Hispanic students.

 • Action Dimension IV: Advocacy-oriented 

assessment that motivates the individual 

learning of the student is crucial to sustaining 

a high performing learning community for 

Hispanic students (Reyes et al, p. 192).

Reyes et al (1999) describe some specific 

suggestions for enacting each of these dimensions, 

but they are too complex to explain here in 

detail. Suffice it to say that the Reyes et al 

findings are congruent with the strategies used 

by Meier (1995)—discussed previously—in the 

establishment of the Central Park East Schools. 

Another study that exemplifies the successful 

implementation of school reform efforts in diverse 

school contexts and that provides a realistic 

narrative of the struggles and resistance associated 

with effecting change is described in Paul 

Heckman and his associates’ (1996) The Courage 

to Change: Stories from Successful School Reform. 

Heckman makes a unique contribution to the 

reform literature because his book is co-written 

with several of the teachers who have been at the 

front lines of school change for five years in their 

own teaching contexts. 

Using funding from private foundations, 

Heckman set out to find a school in which 

teachers and the principal would be committed 

to change from the bottom up over an extended 

period of time. He found Ochoa Elementary—one 

of two elementary schools in the City of South 

Tucson, Arizona. Ochoa Elementary had a student 

population of 385 students, 16 full-time teachers, 

5 Title 1 resource teachers, and 12 teaching 

assistants. This school—like many schools in 

the Tucson Unified School District—had a 90% 

Latina/o student population. About 10% of the 

students came from Native American cultural 

backgrounds, and 95% of all students were on the 

free or reduced lunch program. Spanish was the 

primary language of most students, and about 65% 

of the students had arrived in the U.S. within the 

previous three years.

Unlike other reform efforts, Heckman’s 

approach for effecting change at Ochoa 

Elementary was not to provide a preconceived 

notion of school reform. On the contrary, the 

goal was to generate a grass-root reform project 

based on what the teachers and the principal—in 

collaboration with members of the community—

felt was necessary to “improve dramatically the 

achievement of students in mathematics, science, 

Turning Despondency into Hope 31
social science, literature, the arts, reading and 

writing” (Heckman, p. 8). Another important 

precondition for teachers to participate in the 

project was that they needed to collaboratively 

work toward restructuring “schooling practices 

so that poor and minority students achieve well 

beyond elementary, and thus the drop out rate 

diminishes” (p. 8).

According to Heckman, three conditions 

are necessary to establish successful reform 

efforts. The first is “Advancing Further Dialog, 

Inquiry and Reinvention.” These conditions 

are the same as described above in terms of 

establishing open and collaborative professional 

development relationships among teachers 

and the school administration. Heckman and 

his associates suggest that in a nurturing and 

responsive professional environment, teachers 

would feel more comfortable to take risks and 

learn from one another as they move toward a 

common goal. The second condition involves “The 

Political Dimensions of Educational Reinvention.” 

Essentially, this condition acknowledges the 

socio-cultural contexts in which schools function, 

and thus teachers are encouraged to help in 

the creation of partnerships with business and 

community organizations to effect change that 

moves beyond the school walls. Heckman (1996) 

provides an example: “the project has developed 

a partnership between the Industrial Areas 

Foundation/Southwest, known as the Pima 

County Interfaith Council, to encourage parents 

and other neighborhood members to identify and 

seek political action to change...that is, better 

housing, improved community safety, and close 

connections between school and the families...” 

(p. 192).

The third condition is “Support 

and Connections Among Schools and 

Neighborhoods.” This condition is similar to 

number 2 above, but it focuses on cross-school 

collaboration and networking. In 1995-1996, 

Heckman and his associates expanded their 

project to five different schools. He explains the 

main objective was to seek “the development of 

support networks for teachers, principals, parents, 

and district administrators in order to further 

enhance their understandings and commitments 

to the project ideas and practices discussed in this 

book” (p. 194).

So far, I have presented highlights from 

promising school reform projects that originally 

started with small-scale funding. These projects 

have been described here because they have 

been successful across curriculum areas, and 

because it is difficult to find small-scale and 

promising intervention studies with a focus on 

science only. Nevertheless, it is hoped that a 

better understanding of what made these projects 

promising could generate insights into how to 

implement effective science education reform in 

other school settings. Next, the general features 

of large-scale science education reform projects 

are described. 

Promising cases of school reform: 

Projects that started with largescale funding

In the early 90’s, a new approach to educational 

reform called systemic reform was gaining a lot of 

attention. This approach involved “reforming and 

restructuring the entire enterprise of education, 

from the level of national goals to state curriculum 

frameworks, on to the district, the building, the 

classroom, and the teacher” (Sashkin & Egermeier, 

1993, p. vi).

Therefore, systemic reform is a very different 

approach from previous reform initiatives in that 

it acknowledges how deeply interconnected all 

the driving elements of the educational enterprise 

really are (O’Day & Smith, 1993). In other words, 

systemic reform not only aims to transform the 

structures and process of how education is carried 

out, but the culture of schooling as well. To back 

up such high and complex goals, the NSF began 

the Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI) Program 

in 1991. Each state that was selected for this 

program received $10 million over a period of 

five years, and some SSIs claimed to have made 

a positive impact on student achievement and 

teacher professional development in science and 

mathematics. For instance, Kahle, Meece and 

Scantlebury (2000) conducted a study with middle 

school science teachers in urban schools. They 

found that the teachers who used the standardbased pedagogical strategies promoted by the 

Ohio SSI had a positive impact on urban African 

American students’ academic achievement and 

participation (African American students made 

up the second largest ethnic group in Kahle et 

al’s project). Their study showed that up to 15% 

of the difference in African American students’ 

scores was attributed to differences in teaching 

32 Promising Cases of School Reform
practices. Kahle and her colleagues’ (2000) 

findings corroborate the arguments presented in 

the previous section. In other words, teachers’ 

professional development is one of the key factors 

influencing student achievement; therefore, 

if teachers are provided with meaningful 

opportunities to improve their pedagogical 

content knowledge, all students—including 

traditionally underserved students—will benefit.

Unfortunately, not all the states that 

participated in the SSI program were as successful. 

In fact, out of the 26 states that were funded by the 

National Science Foundation, and after five years 

of funding, the Puerto Rico Statewide Systemic 

Initiative (PR-SSI) was one of the very few states 

that showed more promising progress in the 

reform of science and mathematics education at 

a system-wide level (Rodriguez, 2001b, 2000). 

This is worthy of further analysis here, but it is 

important to first consider another type of largescale funding—the Urban Systemic Initiative 

(USI). The USI Program was very similar to the 

Statewide Systemic Initiatives (and it was also 

sponsored by the National Science Foundation), 

but the USI focused on supporting reform efforts 

at a citywide level. Some of the USIs also met with 

some success; therefore, I will first describe some 

of the general characteristics of the USI Program 

below. This will be followed by a contrast analysis 

of what made one statewide reform program (the 

PR-SSI) and one urban systemic initiative (the 

Miami-Dade USI) most promising in terms of 

having a positive impact on teacher professional 

development and on student achievement 

and participation. 

The Urban Systemic Initiative Program

Since 1993, 22 large urban school districts have 

been funded as part of the Urban Systemic 

initiative Program, with the largest cohort of 

school districts (a total of 8) funded during the 

first year of the program. At the core of the USI 

was the effort to apply lessons learned from the 

Statewide Systemic Initiative Program. Thus, the 

National Science Foundation stated, “all children 

can learn if they are provided with rich learning 

environments” (Kim, Crasco, Smith, Johnson, 

Karantonis, & Leavitt, 2001, p. 3). This meant that 

all participating school districts were expected 

to implement district-wide changes that included 

“standards-based curriculum and instruction, 

aligned assessment, professional development for 

teachers, convergence of educational resources, 

and community partnerships” (Crasco et al, 

2001, p. 3). 

So far, the USI Program has impacted the 

education of 4.5 million children in urban centers 

with a large population of students from lowincome families (about 69% enrolled in the free or 

reduced lunch program) and from diverse cultural 

backgrounds (about 80%) (Crasco et al, 2001). 

Some of the funded USI’s (such as the Detroit 

USI) had a predominantly African American 

student population; whereas other USI’s (such 

as the Miami-Dade USI) had a predominantly 

Latina/o student population. However, in most 

cases, USI de-tracking policies, standards-based 

curriculum, and focus on teacher professional 

development made a promising impact on all

students’ achievement and participation in science 

and mathematics courses (Rodriguez, 2001b, 2000; 

Crasco et al, 2001; Kahle et al, 2000).

An in-depth discussion of each of the USIs is 

not the focus of this monograph, but an analysis of 

two of these education reform programs is offered 

below to illustrate some of the factors that made 

these large-scale initiatives promising.

A Tale of Two Promising Cases: Contrasting 

One Statewide Educational Reform Program 

with an Urban Program

The Puerto Rico Statewide Systemic Initiative 

(PR-SSI) and the Miami-Dade Urban Systemic 

Initiative (Miami-Dade USI) were selected 

from among many other cases because of their 

efforts to reform mathematics and science 

education simultaneously, their high population 

of traditionally underserved students, their high 

population of students in the free or reduced lunch 

program, and their innovative and promising 

approaches for enhancing the achievement 

and participation of all students in science and 

mathematics. In addition, due to Puerto Rico’s 

centralized education system, it can be considered 

the second largest in the United States (650,000 

students) and one of the poorest. According to 

federal guidelines, in 1999, 79% of all students 

in Puerto Rico qualified for the free and reduced 

lunch program; whereas in Miami-Dade county 

(with 352,595 students), 59% of the student 

population qualified for the free and reduced 

lunch program (Rodriguez, 2000). 

Turning Despondency into Hope 33
These two promising cases are analyzed and 

compared with one another in more detail in 

Rodriguez (2000). However, it should be noted 

here that after conducting in-depth interviews 

with key officials from both of these initiatives, 

and after reviewing all the available performance 

reports, curriculum materials, and some teacher 

workshop documents, it was evident that systemic 

conceptual clarity was the conceptual “glue” 

driving the systemic reform efforts for both the 

PR-SSI and Miami-Dade USI. Systemic conceptual 

clarity is defined as the shared vision that enables 

all those involved in the reform enterprise to work 

toward the same goal regardless of the different 

demands, challenges and/or advantages the 

various components of the reform effort may face. 

Just like having a vision for how to put a complex 

puzzle together, those involved in the reform 

effort work diligently to make their respective 

“puzzle pieces” fit the larger picture. This is not an 

easy feat, as one of the Miami-Dade USI officials 

stated that working in large-scale reform was like 

“jumping on a fast moving train” (Rodriguez, 

2001b). To better appreciate how officials 

maintained the systemic reform train moving on 

the right track, Figure 17 illustrates how systemic 

conceptual clarity (represented by the inverted 

pyramid) served to maintain the difficult but 

necessary balance of key PR-SSI and Miami-Dade 

USI elements. Figure 17 does not imply a lineal 

model. One finding from the analysis of these 

two case studies is that for systemic reform to be 

systemic—all of the elements shown in Figure 

17 must be perceived as closely connected and 

dependent on one another for the success of the 

whole project. 

For example, the PR-SSI used recently passed 

legislation to reform schools in Puerto Rico 

as leverage for simultaneously spearheading 

the reform of the mathematics and science 

curriculum. Tied to these reform initiatives was 

the PR-SSI push for having a Spanish version of 

the NAEP in place so that a baseline of student 

academic performance could be established. At 

the same time, increased high school requirements 

for graduation, aggressive de-tracking policies, 

and intensive teacher professional development 

institutes were being implemented to move the 

reform efforts forward. Similarly, the Miami-Dade 

USI aligned the mathematics and science school 

curriculum to national standards simultaneously, 

implemented de-tracking policies, and conducted 

professional development institutes that focused 

on student-centered and inquiry-based learning. 

The PR-SSI and the Miami-Dade USI had 

many things in common, but one important 

difference between these two large-scale reform 

efforts was their operational approach. Findings 

from the analysis of these two case studies indicate 

the Puerto Rico SSI’s operational approach 

was “whole school.” That is, this strategy was 

unique in that it required all math and science 

teachers in one school to be involved in systemic 

reform activities for an extended period of time. 

Figure 17 A framework of systemic reform in 

science and mathematics education: the Puerto 

Rico Statewide Systemic Initiative and the MiamiDade Urban Systemic Initiative

34 Promising Cases of School Reform

Strategies for 

scaling up and for selfsustaining systemic change

Professional development

as changing the 

culture of teaching

Establishing 

community support

and participation

Growth in student 

achievement 

and participation

Policy Curriculum Assessment

Systemic

conceptual

clarity

Status Quo Status Quo

Source: Rodriguez. (2000)

Note: This figure represents the author’s conceptualization of systemic reform.

Initiating and aligning changes in:
16 Even though PR-SSI students’ gains in mathematics and science achievement were small, the PR-SSI was one of the most 

promising compared to all other SSI projects, and one of only three that were funded for a second term.

Table 6 Contrasting the impact of the PR-SSI and the Miami-Dade USI on student achievement

PR-SSI Miami-Dade USI

 • Reduction of achievement gap in math (by 16 

points) and science (by 14 points) between 

students from SSI public schools and students 

from private schools (Data taken from the 

Spanish version of NAEP, administered in 1994).

 • Improved student achievement in the SENDA 

(a standardized math & English test).

 • Reduction of achievement gap in the math 

applications component of the Stanford 

Achievement Test for grades 5 and 8

(African American students showed the 

most improvement).

 • Reduction of achievement gap in the science 

component of the Stanford Achievement Test 

for grades 3 and 5 (Latina/o students showed 

the most improvement).

 • Significant increase in the enrollment and 

completion rate of gate-keeping math courses 

by all students (67.2% increase in completion 

rate) and by students from diverse cultural 

backgrounds (83.7% increase in completion rate).

Source: Rodriguez. (2000)

In contrast, Miami-Dade USI’s operational 

approach was based on a needs assessment/feeder 

pattern. This consisted of committing resources 

only to schools where specific needs (in terms 

of teacher development, student achievement 

or participation, and/or curriculum) had been 

identified. In addition, the Miami-Dade USI 

officials sought to include a 

set of schools that fed into others (i.e., elementary 

schools that fed into middle schools, and middle 

schools that fed into high schools) as a strategy 

to maximize the opportunities for long-lasting 

and self-sustaining change.

Even though the observed gains in student 

achievement from both of these initiatives were 

small,16 these two case studies are good examples 

of promising cases of science and mathematics 

education reform at a large scale (see Table 

6). Both the PR-SSI and the Miami-Dade USI 

showed student improvement in math and 

science standardized tests, and a definite increase 

in the number of students taking gate-keeping 

mathematics and science courses. 

The latter was the direct result of aggressive 

de-tracking policies that took a lot of courage and 

management of those resistant to change. Given 

the short term for implementing the ambitious 

changes required by systemic reform, expecting an 

immediate and large reduction of the achievement 

gap is unrealistic. Instead, more attention should 

be paid first to better understanding the various 

aspects that make some educational reform efforts 

more promising than others. One place to start 

this process would be the construction of alternate 

forms of assessment to measure the impact of 

the new inquiry-based curriculum and of the 

alternate forms of teaching being encouraged. 

It is odd that systemic reform leaders continue 

to use standardized, multiple choice tests to 

measure the content knowledge, critical thinking, 

problem-solving, and socially relevant skills 

their new curriculum is professing. It is obvious, 

however, that the costs of using alternate forms 

of assessment are an obstacle that only funding 

agencies could help remove. This is an investment 

worth making to advance our understanding of 

systemic reform, and to make “science for all” 

and “no child left behind” more than just 

popular slogans.

Turning Despondency into Hope 35
Given the pervasive social inequities that 

afflict diverse students in today’s schools, we 

cannot respond with complacency. Complacency 

takes no courage. It entangles the mind in a web 

of cynicism and fills the spirit with paralyzing 

despondency. If we learn to celebrate our successes 

one lesson at a time, one student at a time...just 

one day at a time, we shall begin to build the 

alliances with colleagues, administrators, parents, 

researchers, and students necessary to make 

science education reform efforts an on-going 

and responsive project. The promising cases of 

science education reform projects highlighted 

here17 clearly indicate that the reform enterprise 

must be a collaborative effort in which multiple 

stakeholders converge their unique positions of 

power, resources, expertise and strength of spirit 

into the school reform project. This is, of course, 

not easy and marked among many things by our 

contradicting desires for quick fixes, yet hopes 

for long-term positive change. Deborah Meier 

eloquently describes our impatience with the 

change process as follows: 

Small, democratically run schools are 

both quintessentially American and hard 

for Americans to swallow. They appeal to 

our spirit of independence, but not our 

impatient desire for guaranteed fixes and 

standardized products. In the face of vast 

school failure, such reforms argue for 

fewer rules, not for more of them. They 

smack of a kind of trustfulness that a 

heterogeneous and complex society finds 

reasons to be wary of (1995, p. 37).

Perhaps, the following summary would assist 

those interested in long-term positive change 

to ignite science education reform in their own 

contexts. The summary includes some of the main 

features that made the projects discussed here 

promising cases of successful science education 

reform. There is no silver bullet, however. Many 

of these features will have to be adjusted to the 

realities and specific contexts of each school for 

them to take root.

Summary of Suggestions for 

Reforming Science Education

Communication

 • Facilitate teacher-to-parent, teacher-tostudent, and parent-to-child communication 

workshops. These workshops should include 

information on college requirements for 

various programs and financial aid.

 • Require each student to have a career plan 

by the end of grade 10 in collaboration with 

school counselors, teachers and parents.

 • Facilitate and nurture a community of 

life-long learners that includes teachers, 

parents, and students. For example, have 

parents closely involved in student long-term 

and socially relevant projects that tie the 

curriculum to the community. These projects 

may include: a community/school garden, 

ecological studies of nearby parks, lakes or 

rivers, recycling/pollution, etc. 

 • Have key school documents and school 

newsletters available in the representative 

languages of the school community.

Conclusion

Courage, Hope and 

Charting New Paths

17 Even though several of the projects described in this monograph also involved mathematics education reform, and even 

though the suggestions for education reform can be applied across curriculum areas, the focus of this analysis has been on 

science education since that is the author’s area of expertise.

36 Courage, Hope and Charting New Paths
 • Facilitate and nurture collaborative 

partnerships with university faculty in the 

sciences, mathematics and education fields. 

For example, the professional development 

school model is an approach to universityschool collaboration that has gained much 

positive attention in recent years (Holmes 

Group, 1995; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, 

& Stiles, 1998).

Teacher Professional Development

 • Provide teachers with hands-on and mindson workshops for assisting second language 

learners to achieve success in science.

 • Acknowledge that resistance to ideological 

change (teaching for diversity) and 

resistance to pedagogical change (teaching 

for understanding) are common types of 

resistance found in school reform efforts. 

Therefore, teachers must be provided with 

many hands-on and minds-on opportunities 

to reflect on their own practice and on their 

belief systems, and to engage in honest 

professional development dialogues with 

peers and role models.

 • Provide teachers with opportunities to engage 

in focused discussions of current research on 

teaching and learning that could help dispel 

stereotypes about various cultural groups.

 • Provide teachers with the necessary 

equipment (including learning technologies) 

required to meet the expected science 

education standards.

 • Establish professional development 

partnerships with university faculty (in the 

sciences, mathematics, and education) that 

encourage all parties to research and reflect 

on their practice. Learning to teach for 

understanding and for diversity must be a 

collaborative effort by which all involved 

learn from each other.

School Restructuring

 • Eliminate tracking and instead place students 

in culturally and ability diverse groups where 

all students are expected to do their best work.

 • Reduce class sizes. For instance, implement 

the National Commission on Teaching and 

America’s Future’s recommendations for 

school restructuring. That is, instead of 

having a school of 600 students being served 

by 24 classroom teachers, 26 other staff, with 

an average class of 25 students, and teacher 

planning for about 3.75 hours, establish a 

school of 600 students being served by 43 

teachers, 7 other staff, with an average class 

size of 16 students, and 10 hours/week for 

teacher planning. In addition, restructure the 

school into three teams of 7 teachers each. 

Each teaching team works closely with 100 

students (three teams work with students from 

the lower grade and three teams work with 

students from the upper grades). To enhance 

opportunities for professional development 

and the use of instructional technologies, a 

lead teacher and media/computer specialist 

devotes half of her/his time coordinating 

curriculum and visiting the team 

teachers’ classrooms.

 • Increase teacher salaries and provide more 

incentives for professional development.

 • Establish interdisciplinary “houses” that 

allow students to stay with the same group 

of teachers for more than one year.

 • Involve the teaching faculty in decisions 

having to do with course scheduling, special 

events, pedagogy, professional development, 

student management, and curriculum. 

 • Establish functioning high school homerooms 

in which a full period is devoted to building 

a community of learners and where real 

academic advising is provided.

 • Establish systemic conceptual clarity by 

ensuring that all stakeholders are aware of 

the theoretical framework(s) guiding the 

reform efforts.

 • Establish an operational approach that clearly 

states how the reform project will be carried 

out and the roles various stakeholders 

will play.

Curriculum

 • Facilitate curriculum integration across 

subject areas.

 • Move away from the “mile wide, inch deep 

curriculum” to fewer curriculum subjects 

and more time for long-term projects and 

in-depth study.

Turning Despondency into Hope 37
 • Increase the academic periods (one hour for 

elementary and 11⁄2 to 2 hours for high school).

 • Implement curriculum that is tied to the 

cultural diversity of the community and that 

is socially relevant.

 • Make clear connections between the 

local curriculum and the national science 

education standards.

 • Facilitate integration of learning technologies 

across all subject areas.

Pedagogy

 • Facilitate cooperative learning where students’ 

interests and prior knowledge are valued 

and utilized.

 • Implement culturally responsive teaching 

strategies by which students’ cultural 

backgrounds and first languages become 

resources used to enrich learning for 

all students.

 • Implement multiple forms of student 

assessment (portfolios, performance 

assessment, projects, student-centered 

laboratory activities, presentations, and so on).

 • Facilitate conceptual clarity and 

implementation of the theories of 

learning guiding instructional practice. 

For example, if constructivism is 

the theoretical framework being encouraged, 

how are teachers supported to implement 

this framework in the classroom? What type 

of constructivism is being implemented—

individual or social constructivism?

 • Implement a variety of student-centered 

and inquiry-based pedagogical strategies 

that allow students to become aware of their 

own—and each other’s—prior knowledge and 

of how scientists construct knowledge.

To close, it is important to keep in mind that 

whether school reform is supported by large- or 

small-scale funding, one thing is for certain: 

reform only begins the moment that one teacher 

starts teaching that one lesson using a new 

approach and the moment the students take notice 

of it. What happens next is dependent on the many 

factors discussed here and on our willingness 

to be patient, yet committed to effect change—

committed to turning despondency into hope. 

38 Courage, Hope and Charting New Paths
References

Ahlquist, R. (1991). Position and imposition: 

Power relations in a multicultural foundations 

class. Journal of Negro Education, 60, 158-169.

American Association for the Advancement 

of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: 

A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, 

mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: 

Author.

Bae, Y., Choy, S., Geddes, C., Sable, J., & 

Snyder, T. (2000). Trends in educational equity of 

girls and women (NCES 2000–030). Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics.

Bascia, N., & Hargreaves, A. (2000). The sharp 

edge of educational change: Teaching, learning and 

the realities of reform. Toronto: Routledge Falmer.

Beane, D. (1988). Mathematics and science: 

Critical filters for the future. Mid-Atlantic Equity 

Center: U.S. Department of Education.

Blank, R. K., & Engler, P. (1992). Has science 

and mathematics education improved since 

A Nation at Risk: Trends in course enrollments, 

qualified teachers and student achievement. 

Washington, DC: Council of Chief State 

School Officers.

Comision International sobre Educacion, 

Equidad y Competitividad Economica. (2001). 

Quedandonos atras. [International Commission on 

Education, Equity and Economic Competitiveness 

(2001). Being left behind] Santiago de Chile, Chile: 

Programa de Promocion de la Reforma Educativa 

en America Latina y el Caribe. (www.preal.cl).

Comision International sobre Educacion, 

Equidad y Competitividad Economica (1998). 

El futuro esta en juego. [International 

Commission on Education, Equity and Economic 

Competitiveness (1998). The future is at risk] 

Santiago de Chile, Chile: Programa de Promocion 

de la Reforma Educativa en America Latina y el 

Caribe. (www.preal.cl).

Day, J. C. (1993). Population projections of 

the United States, by age, sex, race, and Hispanic 

origin: 1993 to 2050. (Current Population Reports 

p. 25–1104): U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Chavez-Chavez, R. (1998). De-centering 

our profession, centering our future: Sanitizing 

or futurizing. Keynote address given at the 

Association of Teacher Educators Annual Meeting, 

Dallas, Texas.

Chavez-Chavez, R., & O’Donnell, J. (1998). 

Speaking the unpleasant: The politics of (non) 

engagement in the multicultural education terrain. 

New York: State University of New York Press.

Clinton, W. (1994). The Educate America Act, 

Goals 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government. 

(www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000).

Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness 

and basket making are not the answers: 

Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and 

language diversity in teacher education. American 

Educational Research Journal, 32, 493–522.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach 

against the grain. Harvard Education Review, 61, 

279–310.

Gandara, P. (1996). Over the ivy walls: 

The educational mobility of low-income Chicanos. 

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Glenn, J. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report 

to the nation from the National Commission on 

Mathematics and Science Teaching. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government.

Turning Despondency into Hope 39
Grant, C. (1999). Multicultural research: 

A reflective engagement with race, class, gender, 

and sexual orientation. London: Falmer Press.

Green, P. J., Dugoni, B. L., Ingels, S. J., 

Camburn, E., & Quinn, P. (1995). A profile of 

the American high school senior in 1992 (NCES 

95–384). U. S. Department of Education.

Grissmer, D. W. (1996). Perceptions and 

misperceptions about families, schools and social/

educational investment and programs. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Heckman, P. (1996). The courage to change: 

Stories from successful school reform. New York: 

Corwin Press.

Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of 

education. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Horn, L. (1998). Confronting the odds: 

Students at risk and the pipeline to higher 

education. Washington, DC: National Center 

for Education Statistics.

Horn, L., Hafner, A., & Owings, J. (1992). A 

profile of American eighth-grade mathematics and 

science instruction. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics.

Kahle, J. B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. 

(2000). Urban African-American middle school 

science students: Does the standards-based 

teaching make a difference? Journal of Research 

in Science Teaching, 37(9), 1019–1041.

Kim, J. J., Crasco, L. M., Smith, R. B., Johnson, 

G., Karantonis, A., & Leavitt, D. J. (2001). 

Academic excellence for all urban students: Their 

accomplishments in science and mathematics. 

Norwood, MA: Systemic Research, Inc./NSF. 

(www.systemic.com/usi).

Kliebard, H. M. (1992). Forging the American 

curriculum: Essays in curriculum history and 

theory. New York: Routledge.

Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. 

(2002). Accountability systems: Implications of 

requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3–16.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press.

McInstosh, P. (1989). White privilege: 

Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace & 

Freedom (July/Aug), 10–12.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, 

N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional 

development for teachers of science and 

mathematics. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: 

Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. 

Boston: Beacon Press.

Mullis, I. V. S., Dossey, J. A., Campbell, J. 

R., Gentile, C. A., O’Sullivan, C., & Latham, A. 

(1994). NAEP 1992 trends in academic progress: 

Achievement of U.S. students in science, 1969 to 

1992; mathematics, 1973 to 1992; reading, 1971 

to 1992 and writing, 1984 to 1992 (23–TR01). 

Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics.

National Education Association Today. 

(1999, January). When myths merit a closer look. 

Author, 17.

National Center for Education Statistics. 

(2002a). Science highlights: The nation’s report 

card 2000. Washington, DC: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. 

(2002b). Pursuing excellence: Comparison of 

international eighth-grade mathematics and 

science achievement from a U.S. perspective 

1995-1999. Washington, DC: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. 

(2000a). Mathematics and science in the eighthgrade. Findings from the third international 

mathematics and science study. Washington, DC: 

Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. 

(2000b). Poverty in the U.S. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. 

(1997). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. fourthgrade mathematics and science achievement in 

international context. Washington, DC: Author. 

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/).

National Research Council. (1996). National 

science education standards. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press.

40 References
Oakes, J., Ormseth, R., & Campbell, P. (1990). 

Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, 

social class, and tracking opportunities to learn 

mathematics and science (NSF). Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND.

O’Day, J., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic 

reforms and educational opportunity. In S. 

Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational 

policy: Improving the system (pp. 250–312). 

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Owings, J., & Peng, S. (1992). Transitions 

experienced by 1988 eighth graders. Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Peng, S. S., & Hill, S. T. (1995). Understanding 

racial-ethnic differences in secondary school science 

and mathematics achievement (Research and 

Development Report NCES 95–710). Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Reschovsky, A., & Imazeki, J. (2003). Let 

no child be left behind: Determining the cost of 

improving student performance. Public Finance 

Review, 31(30), 263–290.

Reyes, P., Scribner, J. D., & Paredes, A. (1999).

Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools: 

Creating learning communities. New York: 

Teachers College Press.

Rock, D. A., & Pollack, J. M. (1995). 

Psychometric report for the NELS:88 base year 

through second follow-up (NCES 95–382). 

Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics.

Rodriguez, A. J., & Kitchen, R. (in press). 

Preparing prospective mathematics and science 

teachers to teach for diversity: Promising strategies 

for transformative action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates. 

Rodriguez, A. J. (2002). Using 

sociotransformative constructivism to teach 

for understanding in diverse classrooms: 

A beginning teacher’s journey. American 

Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1017–1045.

Rodriguez, A. J. (2001a). Courage and the 

researcher’s gaze: Becoming cultural warriors 

for social change. Journal of Science Teacher 

Education, 12(3), 277–294.

Rodriguez, A. J. (2001b). From gap gazing to 

promising cases: Moving toward equity in urban 

education reform. Journal of Research in Science 

Teaching, 38(10), 1115–1129.

Rodriguez, A. J. (2000). A cross-case analysis 

of the Puerto Rico statewide and the Miami-Dade 

urban systemic initiatives: Promising examples of 

equity in systemic reform (Monograph #21). The 

National Science Foundation’s National Institute 

for Science Education. Wisconsin Center for 

Educational Research, Madison, Wisconsin.

Rodriguez, A. J. (1998a). Busting open the 

meritocracy myth: Rethinking equity and student 

achievement in science. Journal of Women and 

Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4(2&3), 

195–216.

Rodriguez, A. J. (1998b). Strategies for 

counterresistance: Toward sociotransformative 

constructivism and learning to teach science 

for diversity and for understanding. Journal of 

Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 589–622.

Sarason, S. (1999). The predictable failure of 

educational reform: Can we change course before 

it’s too late? New York: Jossey-Bass.

Sashkin, M., & Egermeier, J. (1993). School 

change models and processes: A review and 

synthesis of research and practice. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., Cogan, L., 

Jakwerth, P., & Houang, R. (1999). Facing the 

consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. 

mathematics and science education. Dordrecht, the 

Netherlands: Kluwer.

Scott, L. A., Rock, D. A., Pollack, J. M., & 

Quinn, P. (1995). Two years later: Cognitive 

gains and school transitions of NELS: 88 eighth 

graders (NCES 95–436). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education.

Secada, W., Chavez-Chavez, R., Garcia, E., 

Munoz, C., Oakes, J., Santiago-Santiago, I., 

& Slavin, R. (1998). No more excuses: The 

final report of the Hispanic dropout project.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Turning Despondency into Hope 41
Sleeter, C. E. (1994). White racism. 

Multicultural Education, 1(4), 5–8 & 39.

Suter, L. E. (2000). Is student achievement 

immutable? Evidence from international studies 

on schooling and student achievement. Review of 

Educational Research, 70(4), 529-545.

Suter, L. E. (1996). Indicators of science and 

mathematics education 1995. Arlington, VA: 

National Science Foundation. 

Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, 

learning about racism: The application of racial 

identity development theory in the classroom. 

Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1–24.

The Mendoza Commission. (2000). 

Land of plenty: Diversity as America’s competitive 

edge in science, engineering and technology. 

Report of the Congressional Commission on 

the Advancement of Women and Minorities 

in Science, Engineering and Technology 

Development. Washington, DC: Author.

The National Commission on Teaching and 

America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: 

Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author. 

(www.nctaf.org).

The White House. (2001). The No Child Left 

Behind Act. Washington, DC: The White House, 

U.S. Government.

Tierney, W. G. (1997). The parameters of 

affirmative action: Equity and excellence in the 

academy. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 

165–196.

Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J.D., Smith, P. S., 

Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). A study of 

K–12 mathematics and science education on the 

United States: Looking inside the classroom. 

Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. 

(www.horizon-research.com).

Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., 

& Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 national 

survey of science and mathematics education. 

Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). 

(www.census.gov).

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The 

No Child Left Behind Act (http://ed.gov.nclb). 

42 References
Appendix

Terms Used

The labels we use to place individuals or groups 

of individuals are embedded in cultural and 

historical capital. For example, institutions use 

labels for convenience and simplicity—a way to 

distinguish “the Other” from the norm. However, 

commonly used “people labels” are colonial and 

emphasize superficial physical differences. For 

instance, even though colonial terms such as 

“Master” or “Patron” are unacceptable today, 

terms such as “Black,” “White,” “Indian” and 

“race” endure. Furthermore, even a new term 

was invented when the colonial use of “Spanish,” 

“mulatto’” or “mestizo” was not appropriate to 

classify Latinas/os. Hence, the term “Hispanic” 

(meaning “of Spain”) was created by the U.S. 

government in the late 70’s.

Although I prefer to use words that celebrate 

and bring attention to the individual’s ethnic and 

cultural heritage, I feel that I must compromise 

and use some of the more commonly accepted 

terms in this monograph for the sake of clarity. 

Even though these terms may not accurately 

represent the cultural diversity within the ethnic 

groups considered in this paper, I believe they 

are more inclusive. In any case, my goal is to 

celebrate the fact that we all have ethnic roots 

that cut across artificial boundaries, and that 

this is more worthy of notice than shades of skin 

color. Therefore, the following terms are used 

throughout whenever possible:

• Latina/Latino instead of Hispanic

• African American instead of Black 

• Native American instead of Indian 

• Anglo instead of White

• Asian 

• Ethnicity instead of race

• Underserved or underrepresented

 instead of minority

The terms used to describe ethnic groups 

by authors cited in this paper were kept as they 

appeared in their original manuscripts.

Turning Despondency into Hope 43
Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1. Percent of 1992 NELS high school seniors 

by science proficiency level and by ethnic group, 

page 7.

Figure 2. Percent of 1992 NELS high school seniors 

by proficiency level and by gender, page 8.

Figure 3. Percent of 1992 NELS high school seniors 

by proficiency level and by socioeconomic status, 

page 8.

Figure 4. Trends in U.S. students’ achievement 

in science: National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) 1970-1992, page 9.

Figure 5. Differences in NAEP proficiency scores: 

U.S. Anglo minus African-American scores, 

page 10.

Figure 6. Differences in NAEP proficiency scores: 

U.S. Anglo minus U.S. Latina/o scores, page 10.

Figure 7. Differences in NAEP Proficiency scores: 

male minus female scores, page 11.

Figure 8. Percentage of students at or above Basic 

and Proficient levels by ethnicity Grade 4—

NAEP 1996 vs. 2000, page 11.

Figure 9. Percentage of students at or above Basic 

and Proficient levels by ethnicity Grade 8—

NAEP 1996 vs. 2000, page 11.

Figure 10. Percentage of students at or above Basic 

and Proficient levels by ethnicity Grade 12—

NAEP 1996 vs. 2000, page 11.

Figure 11. Percentage of students at or above Basic 

and Proficient NAEP levels by gender and by 

grade, page 12.

Figure 12. Grade 4 average science scores from 

various countries compared to the USA— 

TIMMS 1995, page 14.

Figure 13. Grade 8 average science scores from 

various countries compared to the USA— 

TIMMS 1995, page 15.

Figure 14. Percent change of the U.S. population 

based on ethnicity from 1970–2000, page 16.

Figure 15. Percent change in public elementary 

and secondary school enrollment based on 

ethnicityfrom 1976 to 1999, page 17.

Figure 16. Percentage of individuals (under 18 

years old) living at or below the poverty rate by 

ethnicity, 1995–2000, page 19.

Figure 17. A framework of systemic reform 

in science and mathematics education: the 

Puerto Rico Statewide Systemic Initiative and 

the Miami-Dade Urban Systemic Initiative,

page 34.

44 Figures and Tables
Tables

Table 1. National Education Longitudinal Study 

1988 average science scores vs. 1990 average 

scored by ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic 

status, page 6.

Table 2. Percent of 1992 NELS high school seniors 

demonstrating proficiency at various levels of 

science by ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic 

status, page 7.

Table 3. Average NAEP science scores and standard 

errors of estimated proficiencies per age group 

1970-1992, page 9.

Table 4. Average 1970 NAEP science scores vs. 

1992 average scores by age, ethnicity and by 

gender, page 10.

Table 5. Percentage of students at or above Basic

and Proficient by ethnicity Grade 4, 8, and 12: 

1996–2000, page 12.

Table 6. Contrasting the impact of the PR-SSI and 

the Miami-Dade USI on student achievement, 

page 35.

Turning Despondency into Hope 45
For further information:

Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium @ SERVE

1203 Governor’s Square Boulevard, Suite 400

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(850) 671-6033

Please visit www.serve.org/Eisenhower 

Mid-Atlantic Equity Center

5454 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 655

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

(301) 657-7741

Please visit www.maec.org

For further information:

Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium @ SERVE

1203 Governor’s Square Boulevard, Suite 400

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(850) 671-6033

Please visit www.serve.org/Eisenhower 

Mid-Atlantic Equity Center

5454 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 655

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

(301) 657-7741

Please visit www.maec.org