So a beaker is more than just a Muppet Baby?!

By: Luis A. Oviedo
Contributing Writer

A national test shows that urban school districts do worse on science tests than students in rural school districts.

This week, the scores of ten urban area school districts showed that students in public schools do worse in elementary and middle school science in comparison to national averages. This is the first time that such a comparison has been done, and it came with results which do not fare well for those students who live in such districts. The ten cities which chose to partake in this bold experiment to see how their students compare to the rest of the nation were Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, Los Angeles, New York and San Diego. In all of the districts, eighth graders had average scores below the national average, and in only Austin, Texas was performing at the national average on the fourth-grade level. These exams covered the topics of earth science, physics, chemistry and biology, among other sciences.

The districts involved enroll a disproportionately large share of minorities, children who have limited English ability and children from low-income families. Taking this into account, the results showed minorities in the city schools often performed similarly to students with the same backgrounds in the national sample.

Some of the results are extremely disturbing for those who know that science is what is shaping much of today’s world.

The study showed Cleveland had the smallest percentage from both categories of students to be proficient. Cleveland’s scores hovered around 6 percent of the national scores, with 34 percent of fourth graders falling into the bottom achievement category, defined as “unable to perform at even a ‘Basic’ level.”

Chicago had the most fourth graders in the below-average group, with 65 percent of its students below basic levels according to national standards.

Atlanta did the worst overall, with 78 percent of the students doing poorly in the national study.

This major imbalance is startling and very disturbing to those in the profession, as it shows that teachers are not teaching to national standards. This shows that teachers are not teaching basic skills in inner cities, which is not even allowing them to compete with students on the national level. These scores are the first to ever become public, and there are no other previous sweeps of the overall proficiency of students in the sciences.

However, it shows that students in urban districts are failing science prophecy exams in an age when technology has been integrated into every part of daily life. These students do not know the basic functions of the things they use every day.

We need a stronger commitment to the sciences. Our schools are falling behind in a world which needs them to break free from their 18th and 19th century norms of teaching the three R’s. Many of the students in urban districts are our at risk students, and we are failing, yet again, in helping them even achieve the most basic of skills in the sciences. The United States has been an innovator, and now it is looking abroad for scientists to build the machines of tomorrow.

With numbers such as these, we see why we have to look to China and India to produce our next physicists and chemists, not Chicago or New York. If we do not teach the sciences, students will not see a purpose in them. In return, we will find fewer Americans in these much-needed fields.

Change starts at this crucial meeting-place of knowledge and possibilities called the classroom.