Release Event of The Nation’s Report Card: 2015 Science, Grades 4, 8, and 12

Release Event of The Nation’s Report Card: 2015 Science, Grades 4, 8, and 12


♪♪ JOHN DAILEY: Here at the
Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum,
it is my pleasure to welcome you here today to
discuss the Nation’s Report Card in science for 2015. Since 1969, the
National Assessment of Educational Progress has
been America’s yardstick for student ability. Today we’ll hear the
results of the nation’s fourth, eighth, and 12th grade
students in physical, life, earth, and space science,
critical areas for success in a world more and
more dependent upon STEM disciplines. Since 1976, this museum
has educated and inspired the world with some of
history’s most famous milestones in those very same subjects. We spotlight the scientists,
engineers, inventors, and innovators that
changed the world and tell the stories that can
spark a lifetime of curiosity and learning. The skills necessary to
build a flying machine, calculate the orbit
of a spacecraft, or discover new planets
around distant suns are rooted in
scholastic abilities measured by today’s assessment. But there’s more to history’s
greatest adventures. Creativity and imagination
are critical to believe that a once impossible
dream is within grasp. The Wright brothers
took early inspiration from the work of one of
history’s greatest artists, Leonardo da Vinci. Many of the first astronauts
heard their first calling as children in the pages
of science fiction. Museums can be forums where
we celebrate the high water marks of history, where the
arts and scientists meet. But they can also
be laboratories to encourage the skills
and spark the imagination of new generations. The National Air
and Space Museum works to create innovative
models for informal education, and to build bridges to the
nation’s formal education systems. One of our most successful
programs to that end has been STEM in 30, a
fast-paced interactive exploration of STEM topics with
museum experts beamed directly into classrooms and
broadcast on NASA TV. One of the show’s
hosts, Marty Kelsey, is here to moderate the panel
discussion of today’s National Report Card. And you will hear more
from him a bit later. I’d like to thank the US
Department of Education and the National Assessment
Governing Board for being here today. And our institutions can work
to change the way schools and museums work
together and ensure that a century from
now, these halls are filled with new stories
of achievements we can’t yet envision. It’s now my pleasure to
introduce the Chief Executive Officer of Change the Equation
and member of the National Assessment Governing
Board, Dr. Linda Rosen. [applause] LINDA ROSEN: Thank you
so much, General Dailey. Your leadership in science
education and the National Air and Space Museum’s contribution
to science learning make this the perfect
setting for today’s event. I must confess when I first
walked into the space, my reaction was, wow. And I couldn’t even
quite get past that. This is an incredible setting. We’re so grateful to
have the opportunity to release the results for
the Nation’s Report Card, 2015 science, here. We’re also grateful to
partner with the Smithsonian at the largest of its
19 museums and galleries and, combining its two
landmark locations, the most visited
museum in the country. The Smithsonian is revitalizing
education through its programs and operations. It serves as a laboratory
to create models of innovative informal
education that link to the formal education system. Many thanks to everyone in
attendance here at the museum– there are lots of
familiar faces– and also to everyone
joining the webcast. I suspect there are some
familiar faces there as well. I’d also like to express
thanks to the National Science Teachers Association for
supporting today’s event, and for its tireless efforts
on behalf of students, parents, and teachers across the country. As you heard, I’m Linda
Rosen, chief executive officer of Change the Equation. Our group works at
the intersection of business and
education to ensure that all students graduate
high school STEM literate. We do that by collaborating
with schools, communities, nonprofits, and states to adopt
and implement excellence STEM policies and programs. I’m also a proud member of the
National Assessment Governing Board, an independent,
nonpartisan board whose members include governors, state
legislators, local and state school officials, educators,
business representatives, and members of the
general public. Congress created the
26 member board in 1988 to oversee and set
policy for the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, or NAEP, also known as
the Nation’s Report Card. It’s an exciting time to
be on the governing board. For me, it’s brought
out my inner policy wonk all over again. But with this report, NAEP has
measured all STEM subjects– that’s science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics– over the
course of a single year. The report that
we’ll discuss today features national and
state level results at grades four and eight. It also includes
national results at grade 12 from NAEP’s
2015 science assessment. The assessment measures
students’ knowledge in physical science,
life science, and earth and, appropriately,
space sciences. It also measures how well they
implement science practices, like using scientific
principles and engaging in scientific inquiry. Well let’s get on
to the assessment. Just like our students,
your knowledge of science was measured this morning. You were asked to
answer three questions. And those three questions
were taken from an actual NAEP science assessment. Let’s see how we did on
the first question, which came from the fourth
grade assessment. It asks, which statement
explains why light from the sun can warm up water in a glass. Dum dum dum, the
correct answer is D, water absorbs light energy. It looks like 93% of
you got that correct. So OK, yeah for fourth grade. We’ll discuss the results
of the other questions later in the program. Before we begin,
I’d like to share the schedule of our program. First, the science assessment
results will be presented. I will have a few minutes
to offer some remarks. And after that, our
distinguished panel will explore how
lessons and activities inside and outside the
classroom help students acquire scientific knowledge
and literacy in today’s STEM-driven world. We want to make
certain this event is a discussion with both our
in-person and remote audiences. Those of you tuning
into the webcast, please feel free to submit a question
at any time during the event. Just type your question
into the chat tab on your screen and click Send. Those of you here
in the audience will have to use the
old fashioned raising your hand during the
upcoming Q&A, which we’ll describe later. We also encourage your
ongoing conversation on Twitter using the hashtag–
this is 2016– #NAEP. Now it is my great pleasure
to introduce Dr. Peggy Carr. Dr. Carr is the
acting commissioner of the National Center for
Education Statistics, or NCES. She is one of the nation’s
most foremost experts on student assessment, having
guided the NAEP assessment for many years. What’s missing from
the bio that I got is that Peggy also
holds the Guinness World Record for juggling the most
balls without dropping any. And I say that having
seen her in her workplace and doing what she does
with great frequency. While Dr. Carr makes
her way to the stage, let’s take a look at our
second question, which came from the eighth
grade assessment. That question asks why
earthquakes occur near the San Andreas fault. The
correct answer is C, portions of the
plates get stuck, and then suddenly
loosen and move. Oops, it looks like 49% of
you answered that correctly. We need to do a little
more work on our science. Dr. Carr? [applause] PEGGY CARR: Well,
thank you, Linda. That was kind of fun
and nostalgic here. I want to add my thanks from
the US Department of Education for having this
event here today. So General Dailey and others
here in the museum, thank you. So let’s get started. The results I’m going
to be releasing today are for a national
assessment of students from public and private
schools across the nation, grades four, eight, and 12. The last time science was
assessed at all three grades for the National Assessment of
Educational Progress was 2009. The assessments were
administered in January through March of 2015. We had 115,000 fourth graders,
111,000 eighth graders, and 12,000 12th graders. In 2015, we have results
for the nation, 46 states, and the Department
of Defense schools. Trial urban district assessment
results are not available this time around. And we do not have results for
a limited number of states. They include Alaska, Colorado,
Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. Remember, this is a voluntary
assessment, not mandated. Student performance
on NAEP is reported in a couple of ways, scale
scores from zero to 300, and achievement levels– basic,
proficient, and advanced. So let’s get started
with grade four. In 2015, the average scale
scores for fourth grade students was 154. This was an increase from 2009
when the average score was 150. This is indicated that is a
significant increase because of the asterisk. And you’re going to see this
throughout this presentation this morning. Scores are also reported
using percentiles to show results for
students performing at the low, 10th and
25th percentile, middle, 50th percentile,
and higher levels. That would be the 75th
and the 90th percentile. And as you can see,
all of the scores are rising for
these percentiles. This slide shows results
for fourth grade students at each achievement level. Fourth grade students performing
at or above proficient are able to
demonstrate competency over challenging subject matter. As you can see to the
far right of this figure, 38% of fourth grade
students scored at or above proficient in 2015, which
was higher than the 34% that we reported in 2009. On the left side
of the figure, you will see that there was a
lower percentage of students scoring below basic in
2015 compared to 2009. Now this figure shows the
2015 grade for science scores by race, ethnicity, and gender. So for example, white students
had scores that increased by three points in
2015 compared to ’09. Scores are higher for all of
these student groups compared to ’09, as you can see here. However, note that scores for
black students and Hispanic students increased at a faster
rate than their white fourth grade students’ counterparts. Continuing with our
look at student groups, we see that fourth grade
science scores were higher in 2015 for all
school locations, and eligibility for the
National School Lunch Program. Fourth graders attending schools
in cities had a score of 148, lower than the
scores for students attending schools in other
locations– suburbs, town, and rural. Grade four scores were
also higher in 2015 for students who were disabled
or English language learner students in comparison to
the last time we administered this assessment. This figure shows the 2009
and ’15 score differences between white and
black students. 2009 scores are shown on
the left, and 2015 scores on the right, with the score
differences shown below in the dark blue circles. Now, the score difference
between black and white students was smaller in
2015 compared to ’09. Scores increased for both groups
since ’09, which is really good. But the scores
for black students was larger and helped to
narrow the difference, the good way to close gaps. The score difference between
white and Hispanic students also narrowed since
2009, 32 to 27 points. This eight-point
difference for the increase for Hispanic students
led to the same sort of pattern of narrowing
of the gaps in comparison to their white counterparts. Now let’s look at some maps. This map compares student
performance by state in 2015 with ’09 for the 44 states
and jurisdictions that participated. 18 states or jurisdictions
had higher scores, as shown by the dark blue. The medium blue
indicates states where scores for the two
assessment years were not significantly
different, while the white indicates
states that did not participate in either 2009 or
2015, and therefore we have no trend data. Now the gray indicates a
score decrease from 2009. For states and
jurisdictions shown in dark blue– that would
be Arizona, Tennessee, Georgia, and the
Department of Defense schools– had significantly
higher average gains, score gains, than their
nation’s public school students. This 14 states in
medium blue had score gains that were
not significantly different from the nation. And this is shown in the green
near the bottom of the chart. That’s the nation. These states in gold font had an
average score or average scores in 2015 that were greater than
the national public average. These states shown
in regular font had scores that were not
different from the nation. And the italicized
states shown here had scores that were
lower than the nation. So now let’s turn to the
eighth grade results. And I want to remind you that
we have a 2015 in comparison to 2011 data point. And that’s because in 2011
we did a linking study with the Trends in International
Math and Science Study. You probably know it as TIMSS. In 2015, the average scale
score for eighth grade students was 154. This was an increase from
2011 when the average scale score was 152, in comparison to
2009 when the average score was 150. At all percentiles,
the scores in 2015 were higher than in
2011 and in 2009. This slide shows the percentage
of eighth grade students at each achievement
level and below basic. The achievement
level below basic is not an achievement level, but
basic, proficient, and advanced are official levels. As you can see on the far
right side of this figure, 34% of eighth grade
students scored at or above proficient in 2015, which was
higher compared to 32% in 2011 and 30% in 2009. On the left side, we see that
there was a lower percentage of students scoring below
basic in 2015 than in both 2011 and in 2009. This figure shows the 2015
eighth grade science scores by race, ethnicity, and gender. For example, white students
had score increased by two points in 2015 compared
to ’11, and four points in comparison to 2009. Scores were higher for
all of these student groups in comparison to
2011, except for students who were Native Hawaiian, other
Pacific Islanders, American Indian, Alaskan Native,
and two or more races. Scores were higher for
all of these student groups in comparison to
2009, except for students who were American Indian
and Alaskan Natives. Average scores for
female students were higher than their
male counterparts in comparison to 2011. Continuing with our
look at student groups– we see at grade
eight science scores were higher in
2015 in comparison to 2009 by school location
and the eligibility for the National
School Lunch Program. We see, again, higher
scores in 2015 in comparison to ’11 across the groups,
with the exception of town and rural school locations. Eighth graders attending schools
in cities had a score of 148, lower than scores for
students attending schools in the other locations, the
suburbs, town, and rural. Students without disabilities
scored higher in 2015 compared to 2011 and ’09, as did English
language learners and students who were not English
language learners. There were no score changes
for students with disabilities during this time period. This figure shows 2011,
2009, and ’15 scores, and scores between black
and white students. The score differences
are shown on the top. And the figure or
the information and circles at the bottom
represents the differences. These score differences between
white and black students, it was narrower in
2015 compared to 2009, and not significantly different
in comparison to 2011. Scores increased in 2015 for
both groups since 2009 and ’11, but the increase
for black students was large enough to narrow
the difference, something that we saw, again,
for the fourth grade. And the white-black
score difference narrowed from 36
points to 34 points. The difference between
white and Hispanic students also narrowed during this time
period from 30 to 26 points, and was not significantly
different, though, for the 2011 comparison. The eight points, again,
helped to narrow the difference between white and
Hispanic students because the Hispanic students
were making greater gains. Now let’s look at another map. This map compares student
performance by state. 24 states or jurisdictions
had higher scores, as shown by the dark blue. The medium blue indicates the
states where scores were not significantly different,
while the white states show which states had no
change in their data, or where we had no
data, I should say. As you can see, no state showed
a significant score decrease from 2009. Three states– Utah,
Tennessee, and Nevada– had score gains greater than
the nation at grade eight since 2009, indicated here
by the dark blue bars. The 20 states in medium
blue had score gains that were not significantly
different from the nation. Wyoming, shown here in
gray, had a score smaller than the nation. These states in bold font had
average scores in 2015 that were greater than the nation. These states shown
in regular font had scores that were not
different from the nation. And these states had scores
that were lower than the nation. This map compares student
performance by state in 2015 with 2011 for the 46
states and jurisdictions that participated. 12 states or jurisdictions
have higher scores, as shown again by the dark blue. The medium blue
indicates the states where scores for the
two assessment years were not significantly
different, while the white indicates states
for which there was no data. And we have one state in
gray, representing a decline in performance in
comparison to 2011. Two jurisdictions
with dark blue– that would be Tennessee and the
Department of Defense schools– had score gains greater than
the nation at grade eight in comparison to 2011. The 10 states in medium
blue had score gains that were not significantly
different from the nation. Again, states in bold font
had average scores that were greater than the nation. States shown here had
scores that were not different from the nation. And these italicized
states had scores that were that were
lower than the nation. Now, this slide
shows the states that had score increases
and decreases by grade in comparison to 2009. It’s a nice summary slide. Three states has score
increases at grade four only. One state, Delaware, had a
score decrease at grade four. Nine states had score
increases at grade eight only. And 15 states had
score increases at both grades four and eight. Again, a nice summary. Now let’s turn to the grade 12. In 2015, the average scale
score for 12th grade students was 150. This was not different from
what we reported in 2009. The scores in 2015
were not significantly different from
2015 in comparison to 2009 at any of the five
percentiles shown here. On the right side
of this figure, you see that 22% of
12th grade students scored at or above
proficient in 2015. This was not significantly
different from what we reported in 2009. This figure shows the 2015 race,
ethnicity, and gender data. For example, white students
had an average score of 150, which was
not significantly different from the average
score that reported in 2009. Scores were not
different for any of the subgroups shown here. Continuing a quick look at
student performance, subgroup performance, we see that scores
were not different in 2015 compared to 2009 by
school or location or the highest level
of parental education. Grade 12 science
scores were also not different in ’15 for
students with disabilities and English language learners. To help contextualize
these results, we asked students
which courses they had taken from eighth
grade until the present. The percentage of students in
each group by year is indicated in the bold green font here,
while the bars indicate average scale scores, with 2015 scores
in dark blue and ’09 scores in medium blue. What you see, as indicated
by the asterisk on the 34, the number 34, is that
more students in 2015 are reporting having
taken biology, chemistry, and physics compared to 2009. These students’
scores are higher than those who took only two
of these courses, biology and chemistry, or biology
only and something else. This finding suggests that
the more science courses a student takes, the better he
or she performs on the NAEP. Notice that as the percentage
of students taking more science courses increases, the
average score for this group has decreased, as
indicated by the asterisk. And that would be
next to the 166. Well, there are a lot of
possible reasons for this. But one potential
explanation is that we are observing more students
who are in the below basic category taking all
three of these courses, as well as an
increase in students who are English
language learners and students with
disabilities and students who attend schools
that are high poverty or as indicated by eligibility
for free and reduced price lunch. So now let’s summarize that. I just gave you a lot of data,
a lot to hold in your heads. Just want to give
you some highlights before we turn it back over to
the question and answer part. This is a screenshot of the home
page for the 2015 NAEP science report card. It’s online. It summarizes the
data very nicely. In 2015, students in
grades four and eight scored higher compared to 2009. And there was no
change in scores for grade 12 students
in comparison to 2009. And remember that extra
data point for grade eight. We did see an improvement. Additionally, the percentage
of fourth and eighth grade students scoring at or
above the proficient level, these data pretty
much mirror what we see here for the scores. This slide summarizes
the performance gaps for selected student groups. Score differences between some
students was smaller in 2015 in comparison to ’09. Now the arrow directions, the
direction of the arrow denotes the change in comparison to ’09. Although not indicated
here, in 2009 we did observe a score
gap between boys and girls in the fourth grade,
but boys scoring higher. They scored higher in 2009. But that difference is
no longer evident in 2015 for fourth graders. The score gap remained in 2015
for eighth and 12th graders, although that eighth grade
gap did narrow a little bit. The numbers in the dark
blue denote the size of the gap in 2015,
while the gray diamond indicates no significant
differences in scores. Again, there was no
difference in overall science scores between male and
female students at grade four. Greater score gains for
black and Hispanic students contributed to the white-black
and white-Hispanic score difference narrowing
in comparison to 2009 for both grade
four and grade 8. And at 12th grade it’s sort
of holding steady there. Although these gaps that we are
noticing here are narrowing, I want to point out
that they are still large and unacceptable. So again, go to the
Nation’s Report Card. This is just a
smidgen of the data that we have available
through our report card, our online report
card, especially the state pages in our NAEP data explorer. I want to conclude
by thanking those who helped us bring
this data to you today, the students, the teachers,
the schools, our state coordinators who made
this all possible, the office of the report,
the analysts of the report, and those at the National
Center for Education Statistics who helped pull all
of this together. So thank you. [APPLAUSE] LINDA ROSEN: Thank
you so very much. Lots and lots and
lots to absorb, and obviously it’s
going to take some time. So I want to take a couple
of moments and also reflect. But I’m putting on
a different hat. It’s not the NAGB hat, but it
is rather my Change the Equation hat. So like you, I’m asking
myself, so what’s going on with 12th grade? While it’s heartening to see
improvement for grades four and eight, it’s quite
worrisome that there was no improvement of NAEP
scores between 2009 and 2015 among high school seniors. Senior year is the launching
pad to postsecondary learning, whether it is formal higher
education or on the job training. Equally troubling, as Peggy
mentioned, is the fact that only 22% of 12th graders
perform at or above proficient. That means only
one in five seniors are ready for challenging
work in science– yikes. No wonder that
employers are worried. According to Change the
Equation’s analysis, STEM jobs will grow by more than
2 million over the next decade. And of this total, roughly half
are health care related jobs that clearly require
strong science background. Will there be enough
future applicants to fill the openings? And if not, which
frankly seems likely, what can we do to
accelerate improvement? Change the Equation
partnered with Amgen, a leading biotechnology
company that creates medicines for patients
with serious illnesses, to begin to get a handle on
answers to these questions. We commissioned a survey of
high school sophomores, juniors, and seniors for their
ideas about ways to strengthen science
education for teens. And here is what we learned. First slide please. Teens overwhelmingly
believe that science is interesting and relevant. But when it comes to science
classes, they are lukewarm. 81% of teens say science is
interesting, but only 37% like their science
classes a lot. Oh be still my heart. To give this some context,
nearly half of the teens report liking their
other classes a lot. Another result– teens
are savvy consumers, and they know that their
classes aren’t giving them the experiences most
likely to engage them. The survey results merely
echo decades of research on science education, as many of
you will immediately recognize. Teens want hands-on
lab experiments. They want more field trips. They want virtual experiments. And they’d like their choice
of topics for further study. Unfortunately, their
preferences do not align well with the learning
techniques most often used, which are classroom discussions
or teaching straight from the textbook. The last result I’ll mention,
and appropriate for this slide, is particularly appropriate
for the business community. And that is the need for
real-life exposure to science careers and professionals,
because teens have very few pathways to
informed career decisions. For example, only
a third of teens know an adult working
in a scientific career. But nearly nine out of 10
wish they knew someone. And low income students
face even greater hurdles. Only 19% said that
they know someone who works in one of the
biological sciences. So here we see a list
of things that teens want, but lack about career
exploration opportunities. These are clearly a charge
to the business community, a charge and a challenge
that they have willingly stepped up to address. Companies generously contribute
their time and talent to enrich students’ education,
and they contribute money to support worthy
learning experiences for students, teachers,
and adult youth leaders, all in the spirit of
strengthening STEM learning. But they also bring
impatience and concern. And that relates to the
numbers I started with. While the 2015 fourth
and eighth grade data is heartening, until it
is sustained all the way through high school and the
number of youngsters reaching proficiency rises
significantly, we all have our work cut out for us. The results of other
questions that NAEP asks test takers and
their teachers do suggest some promising
ways to start. The fact that eighth
graders who participated in regular hands-on activities
and investigations in class outscore those who did not
have such opportunities validates recent
nationwide efforts to promote hands-on learning
in science, both in and out of school. And this is especially
important since we know from Change the Equation
survey that young people prefer active learning. Of course, the relationship
between hands-on learning, museum visits such as
this incredible facility, and NAEP scores are correlations
and don’t prove causation. But we must act on
the best information available rather than
sitting on our hands. The business community will
continue to do its part, I can assure you of that. Back with my NAGB
hat, let’s take a look at the results of our third
and final question, which came from the 12th grade assessment. The question asked, what is
a property of all galaxies? I wonder why they picked
this question for today. The correct answer
is C, all galaxies contain a large number of stars. Based on the result, it
looks like 52% of you are well-versed on space. We did better than we
did in eighth grade. And all the more reason
to explore the museum after our event. General Dailey didn’t
have me say that. Now is the time for
our panel discussion, which will be moderated
by Marty Kelsey. Marty is a national
board certified science teacher who taught at the
elementary and middle school levels. He’s now the education
specialist for digital learning and host of Stem in 30 at the
National Air and Space Museum. As he and the rest
of the panelists make their way onto the stage,
please watch a new video produced by the National
Assessment Governing Board that highlights contextual
data from the report card. Video please. [VIDEO PLAYBACK] ♪♪ – When I grow up, I want
to be a marine biologist. My parents think being a
scientist is a good idea. Plus, my teachers make
science interesting and fun. ♪♪ I love working with all
the cool tools in the lab. It makes science
come to life for me. ♪♪ I also like working
with my lab partner. We usually come up
with ideas together and learn something more
than you could on your own. ♪♪ I think you can make
your dreams come true with a little bit of
help and a lot of hard work. For me, that’s a job in science. But until then, I’ll keep
enjoying the eighth grade. ♪♪ [END PLAYBACK] LINDA ROSEN: Great video. It underlies the importance
of exploring factors inside and outside the
classroom that contribute to student performance. And let me now turn the
podium over to Marty as I put my STEM hat on. MARTY KELSEY: Hi,
I’m Marty Kelsey. I am a lifelong educator. I taught elementary
school for a long time. I taught middle school
science and broadcasting. But ultimately I’m
a science nerd. I’ve been a science nerd
since I was in second grade. I can vividly remember
getting a book order one day when I was in second
grade, and they had a poster of the first
space shuttle flight. And my mom let me order that. When we got it in,
my dad went out into the backyard in the
garage and built a frame to put that poster in. And that poster hangs
in my office now, at my parents’ home
until I came here to the Smithsonian a
couple of years ago. I love teaching and
I love what I do here because I feel like I get an
opportunity to really reach out and impact a whole lot of
students on a larger scale. The show that I host
is called STEM in 30. It is a fast-paced show
with teachers in mind. There is rarely
a segment that we have on our show that is
over three minutes long. And that’s done
very intentionally, because we know that
teachers are pressed for time and they may not be able to show
an entire 30-minute episode. But we break things down into
three minute chunks, three or four minutes, and
we put them online so that teachers
that are teaching about the International
Space Station can show an animation on how
to go out in your backyard and see it pass over. We had a show yesterday,
we had an engineer from the Jet
Propulsion Lab come in. And we did an egg dropping
experiment with the kids. And then he went over and
critiqued their designs. And then we posted
the lesson plan online so the teachers could replicate
that in their classrooms. We have a lot of fun. It is very fast-paced. I want to give you guys a
little preview of that show. We’ve had three shows
so far this year– Star Trek, The Albuquerque
International Balloon Fiesta, and yesterday landing
on other planets. So this kind of shows those
three shows as well as our upcoming schedule. So check it out. [VIDEO PLAYBACK] ♪♪ [END PLAYBACK] MARTY KELSEY: I should
have made you guys dance. That’s what we do with the
students in our audience whenever we play
music like this. One of the things that we try
very hard on the show to do is to bring the museum
into students’ classrooms. We know that there are a whole
lot of kids that are never going to get a chance to
actually walk through the door here at the National
Air and Space Museum, and so we want to
bring that to them. And so we bring
in leading experts and we do things live from
the floor or on locations to really help enhance a
classroom teacher’s experience and what they can offer
to their students. I do want to
introduce our panel. We have some great
panelists today. Linda and Peggy,
join us up here. We also had Susan German,
who is a nationally board certified teacher,
teaches eighth grade in Hallsville Middle School
in Hallsville, Missouri. Go Missouri, that’s
where I’m from. She has 24 years of experience
teaching math and science in the classroom. She is the recipient of the
National Science Teachers Association
Distinguished Teaching Award and the Science Teachers
of Missouri Outstanding Service Award. So Susan, welcome. We also have Deja Wright. She is a 12th grader at
Anacostia High School. She is enrolled in
honors biomedical science and other science classes. Let me tell you this, I
talked with her a few minutes before we started today, and
she goes, “What class do you want me to talk about? Do you want me to talk about
biomedical or the advanced chemistry?” I’m like, “I think
either one of those would be perfectly fine
for this venue today.” She’s also actively
involved in Global Kids, a nonprofit educational
organization focused on global learning
and youth development. And we look forward to hearing
about her experiences today. And so the first question
that I have for the panel– and I’m going to
answer this one too, because I want to
give them a shout out. Did you guys have an
influential teacher growing up that really pushed
you on the path that you took,
particularly in science, but any teacher at all? Who wants to start? DEJA WRIGHT: I’ll start. This teacher I met when
I was in 10th grade when I first got to Anacostia. And her name is Miss Nanda. And she’s actually here today. She inspired me to like science,
and she actually enrolled me into her honors biomed
because she thought that I was smart enough to do it. MARTY KELSEY: Where is she? Stand up. Give that lady a
round of applause. [APPLAUSE] Thank you for what you do. How about you Susan? Did you have an
influential teacher? SUSAN GERMAN: Well
I grew up in a house full of veterinarians– dad,
uncle, grandfather, and now brother. And they’re all in
practice together. So science was just
part of our life. So I always had an interest. As far as a teacher
went, Joyce Worker, she was my high school
chemistry teacher. She was the first one to let
us really touch things and do stuff. And she made us
work like none other to learn chemistry, stacks
and stacks and stacks of work. But it was all
related to the labs and the experiments and the
things that we did in class. So she would probably be
the one that– I mean, I went on to get a
degree in chemistry. And she would probably
be the reason for that. MARTY KELSEY: Linda? LINDA ROSEN: Definitely. So I’m going to show my age,
but it’s appropriate here. Sputnik went up. The National Science
Foundation put a lot of money into beating the Russians. And in particular they
developed curriculum for junior high schools in math
and science, all the new math. And I was in one of
the pilot programs that was developed at the University
of Maryland at College Park. That first day of seventh
grade– I went to junior high. I’m too old to have
gone to middle school. I walked into that math class. And in that brief 20
minutes, the teacher started talking about
the binary system. I was mesmerized. I understood the decimal
system in a way– and I had always
been good in really what was arithmetic–
but very good. But I understood just looking
at the decimal system. And I came home that
night and I said, I’m going to be a mathematician. And that’s what happened. MARTY KELSEY: Peggy? PEGGY CARR: Well I don know if
I can beat that great story, but I can say that my
experience with science reflects where I grew up,
sort of in the rural part of the country. So my teacher, Miss
Bess– Mrs. Bess– helped us to understand life
sciences by dissecting pigs. That was the first one we did. And we also dissected frogs. We had frogs. And we also looked at
eggs, chicken, chicks. And we would go
through the stages and then hatch them at
different time periods so we can study them. It is so vivid in my mind. So that was my start. MARTY KELSEY: For
me, I knew I wanted to be a teacher for
a long time, started with Mrs. Bogan in third
grade, and then Mr. McCoy, who was a huge mentor
of mine in sixth grade. I actually had him
as a sixth grade teacher, incredibly hard class. And then I taught across the
hall from him for six years, and really taught me how to work
hard and how to be a teacher. And then another
one, Mrs. Ackerman, I wouldn’t be standing
up here on the stage if it weren’t for her, because
she taught me to speak in front of people in debate class. We got a flyer that said,
sign up for debate class. I’m like, I don’t
know about that, speaking in front of people. That doesn’t seem like something
that would be very much fun. And after a couple of
years of debate class, I still have my NFL pin. I actually saw it this morning. If you’re a debater, you
know what that means. And taught me how to
speak in front of people without really tripping
over my myself too much. So to all of those
teachers, thank you so much. And I do want to ask a question. How many of you in the
audience can remember vividly the name of that teacher that
made a difference for you? Almost every single
person in here. I think that shows
the power of teachers. That’s incredible. I’d love to hear all of
those individual stories, because teachers are worth that. And Susan, I’m guessing being
in your class is a lot of fun. Tell us what a day in
your classroom looks like. SUSAN GERMAN: Well
here recently, I gave kids the
question, how does mass affect the time of fall? So if we were to drop things,
how does the mass of the object affect it? And so what I’m looking
for is I’m looking for their thinking on it. And the kids had to design
an investigation around that. And the objects we
used was Ziploc bags, and they had two
different masses in them. They had beads in them. And so a lot of the kids
thought the heavier bag would fall faster. And that’s actually a
bit of a misconception. But I allow them to– I
don’t judge them for it. I allow them to keep going
because the data will show that they’re incorrect. And so the hardest
part of my job is to get kids to confront
those misconceptions and then be willing
to change them. So the kids took the data. They saw that there
wasn’t any difference. But they would
still claim, well, I think the heavy
bag fell faster. So we took the bags and
I held up two in class. And the kids were like, can we
take slow mo video with this? Sure. So they all had
their cameras out. They’re all laying around. They’re ready. They’re watching me. And I dropped the bags and
they watch and they can hear. They fall, they
hit the same time. They’ve got video proof. They fall, they
hit the same time. At which point most
of the kids go, I think they fall at the
same rate, Ms. German, but I still have a few go no,
the heavier bag fell first. OK, so you know, as you can
tell, we live in a technology here. Thank goodness for the internet. There is a video clip
of the NASA vacuum chamber, the large one in Ohio,
and they dropped the bowling ball and the feather. Now for me, I had to just
take the teacher’s word for this growing up, that they
would fall at the same rate. So I’m enthralled by this video. The kids not as much. But they finally
would agree with me that mass doesn’t
make a difference. Well, when you get a
child to kind of confront that misconception
and realize it’s time for something
new, at that point you can start teaching
with the science and put the science
education in. And this is just one
of a lot of things. I mean, I could take up all
of our time with stuff, so. MARTY KELSEY: I
think I would have enjoyed being in your class. Deja, you are in biomedical
class, honors biomedical class, and you’re doing something with
a fictionalized murder case? DEJA WRIGHT: Yes. MARTY KELSEY: That class
has got to be killer. [LAUGHTER] Go ahead. DEJA WRIGHT: In this class
I’m analyzing a dead body. The name is Anna Garcia. And I’m learning how to figure
out the time of her death, who killed her, or how did
she die, and also I’m learning the hair samples, the
blood types A, BB, and O. And also– MARTY KELSEY: Sounds
very hands-on. DEJA WRIGHT: It’s hands on. Everything I do with
science is hands-on, and that’s what I like
the most about it. MARTY KELSEY: Awesome. Now, Linda, your
organization kind of bridges the gap between
business and schools. What’s the big concern
with business right now towards schools? LINDA ROSEN: Sure. In the fall of 2014,
the Business Roundtable and Change the Equation released
a survey of their membership in which the CEOs– and
these are the big companies with enormous number of
employees, an enormous part of the US economy. And their answer was that
the skills gap is real, and it hurts
business, which means it hurts our economy, which
means it hurts us individually. Nearly 98% of the CEOs said
the skills gap is a problem for their own company. Most of the open jobs, the
jobs that they can’t fill, require STEM
knowledge and skills. And they’re having
trouble finding people with that knowledge and skills. About 2/3 of the
job openings require just basic STEM literacy. That’s not talking about
an advanced degree, a postsecondary degree. And 42% require
advanced STEM knowledge. Yet the applicants
who are coming to jobs in corporate
America, only a little over a third say that
half of their entrants lack basic STEM literacy,
what we would think is necessary with a
high school degree. MARTY KELSEY: Wow. We had Ian Clark, an engineer
from the Jet Propulsion Lab on our show yesterday. And talking to
him between shows, we were looking at some
of the upcoming shows. And he was offering some
suggestions for people to bring in. And he pointed out that the
Jet Propulsion Lab is actively searching out young
engineers, particularly young female engineers. And they are struggling to
fill all of the positions that they need. And he actually told me the
story that on the low density supersonic decelerator
project, they brought in a bunch of fresh
out of college engineers, and just let them sink or swim. And a lot of them that did
really well in that program are now leading important
parts of the Mars 2020 program. So we’re hearing that all
the way up to NASA and JPL. Peggy, was there anything in the
report card that surprised you? PEGGY CARR: Well,
you know, I try not to talk about these
data in terms of affect, because that’s not something the
National Center for Education Statistics does. But I can say I was
very pleased to see the gaps narrowing for
both boys– for girls and for minorities. Now boys were improving as well,
but girls were closing the gap. So again, not surprised,
but certainly pleased. I think that we have
a lot of work to do. I think the contextual variables
that were highlighting so far and what we’ve
talked about today, there are going to
be lots of nuggets there if people take the time
to go in and look at these data and see how instruction in
the schools and instruction outside of school, going
to museums and field trips actually has a correlation or
a relationship with student performance. So no surprises per se, but
certainly pleased to see the results showing promise for
our students in this country. MARTY KELSEY Well,
and that leads to my next question, which
I want to ask to all of you guys is, how do we get
kids excited in science? And Susan, I’ll start with you. SUSAN GERMAN: For me,
you have to– I mean, the human brain wants
to make sense of things. So for me, to get kids in to
garner the interest or at least the willingness to do
what I’m asking them to do is I create my challenges
or questions or things that have a science phenomena
type base, so things that they see and
they’re curious about. So you talk to your students. You listen to them and
you find their interests and you find things that you
can start working with the kids. And that gets them
going in that direction. MARTY KELSEY: Deja,
how about you? DEJA WRIGHT: I feel as though
doing hands-on activities makes me like science
and other students in my class like science more
because if I’m reading out of a textbook, I’m
not so interested and I don’t want
to learn about it. But when I do experiments
and go to– I’ve visited museums and
things like that. Then I start being
interested in it. MARTY KELSEY: Linda? LINDA ROSEN: Well, children
are natural-born scientists. What’s their favorite
question– why? And they come to school with
that incredible interest. And they come to out
of school programs with that incredible interest. So I think we have to
find ways to nurture that. And even as you look at the
results, going through school, we especially have to look at
the high school level courses and ask ourselves, how are
we nurturing that interest and how do we rethink the way
we’re providing education? PEGGY CARR: You
know, I don’t want to miss the opportunity today
to talk a little bit more about the assessment itself. We have paper and pencil items,
yes, the more boring ones that you sort of alluded to. But we also have hands-on tasks. And students are able
to conduct experiments with these hands-on tasks. We have interactive
computer tasks where students are
able to do simulations and sort of have a more
authentic experience with the assessment. And then in 2019, we’re
going DBA, Digitally Based Assessments. And I guarantee you, you are
going to like what you see. You are going to be able
to go into virtual worlds and move around in a lab and
conduct experiments and blow things up and not have to
worry about harming anyone. So stay tuned. SUSAN GERMAN: There’s a
great simulation that I use. So the kids have to
look at the planets and why the planets
orbit the sun. And we’re once again
dealing with gravity, just in a little different situation. And it’s out of Colorado. And I call it the masters
of the universe simulation, because the kids get to
decide how big the sun is and how big the planets are. And they enjoy that
a great deal, yes. That garners a lot of
interest very quickly. MARTY KELSEY: And Deja, I
think you touched on this, the wonder of doing
real-world stuff, whether it be in the classroom or
coming to a museum like this, to see a kid walk
through those doors and their eyes just
light up, which I’m guessing happened to a lot
of you that maybe haven’t been here before, is incredible. One of the coolest things that
I’ve seen since I’ve been here was we had Michael Collins,
Apollo 11 astronaut, in for some different things. And he was doing
a news interview and asked me if he could go
out and look at the Columbia module. And he goes out there,
and the museum’s open and there’s a group of
students sitting on the floor, doing a docent tour. And he walks over. And the docent– we had
given him a heads-up. The docent just introduced
him and said, by the way guys, this guy flew this. And their jaws just hit the
ground and their eyes lit up. And it was a brief moment. But they’re never
going to forget that. And those experiences
that are real world, whether they be in the classroom
or at a museum or somewhere else, can be
incredibly powerful. We’re going to move on
to Q&A. So if you’ve got any questions that
you would like to ask, there’s a microphone over here. Please come up to
the microphone. No fighting over the mic,
just make a nice line and ask your questions and we’ll
do our best to answer them. AUDIENCE: Thank you. Good
morning. Is this on? MARTY KELSEY: Yep. AUDIENCE: Well first
of all, thanks. My name is Michael Feuer. I’m the Dean of the Ed School
at George Washington University just up the road here. I have a quick comment
for each of you, and I’ll be really brief. First of all Marty, terrific
moderation of the panel. I go to a lot of these. This was lively, entertaining,
interesting, congratulations. Galileo’s Law? You brought back these
wonderful memories of my science experiment,
my science fair experiment from, I think, the sixth grade. So write to me because I have
a great story about how Galileo actually came to that insight
about mass and falling objects. If you don’t know that story,
it’s a wonderful story. Deja, my kids went to DCPS. You make me very proud. And I just want you to know
that you, being a senior, if you want to talk
about opportunities– [LAUGHTER] –talk to me. [APPLAUSE] Not only in the sciences, but
for future science educators, thanks to the great work
of the federal government and of some of the
major foundations that support the improvement
of teaching, there are some programs
that I want to have a chance to tell you about. Linda, congratulations. What you’re doing for
the nation is superb. We’re all very grateful. And Peggy, you’re so right to
mention about the assessment. This is an era of
greatly flamboyant, extravagant rhetoric. To have something like
NAEP that keeps us steady and focused on the data
with real knowledge and with real insight, this
is a testament to your work and to the work
of the department. And I just say, NAEP is
another national treasure that we’ve got to
really sustain. So thank you all
for a great morning. [APPLAUSE] AUDIENCE: Hi. I’m Jerome Dancis. I’m a retired professor of
mathematics from the University of Maryland. And I’ll start
right off by saying that I’m aghast that the
National Research Council’s K-12 science
framework is basically arithmetic-free
and algebra-free. And unfortunately the
three sample problems that were presented
were arithmetic-free. Having engaging activities
in science class is crucial, but
so is arithmetic. And you know, it’s crucial
that there be both. And what I expect as the
National Research Council science framework is
implemented across this country is that the number of
college freshmen signing up for STEM majors will increase. And then they’ll
discover that STEM is not arithmetic- and algebra-free,
and the number of sophomores will decrease. On my campus, students who show
up in the first biology course, if they have not
learned precalculus in high school– this means
not just pass it with a C, but actually learned it,
they will be at risk. MARTY KELSEY: I think one of
the things that you’ll find is that really good teachers
meld the math and the science together. And I can only imagine
that you do that. SUSAN GERMAN: In the example
that I gave with the kids dropping the bags, they
computed two averages, right? And then the next
step from there, we computed the mean
absolute deviation, and then used that as a
comparison of the means to figure out if the
numbers are different. It’s an integral
part of my class. I’m with you 100%. In fact, my eighth grade
students often go to math class and go, oh, we’re
learning how to graph. Don’t worry, Ms. German
already taught us. I mean, I understand
your concern. And I can tell you that
it needs to be there. The math– the math
needs to be there. LINDA ROSEN: So there are
two famous quotations. One is mathematics is the
queen of the sciences. And the other is mathematics is
the handmaiden of the sciences. Guess which one
Jerry and I prefer? AUDIENCE: All right, so I’ll
give you my favorite arithmetic problem. MARTY KELSEY: I
wish we had time. We don’t have time
to get to that. If we can go to the
next question please. Thank you, though. AUDIENCE: Thank you. My name is
Claire Caulfield. I’m the education reporter
for Cronkite News, Arizona PBS here in Washington, DC. Arizona only has 160
registered physics teachers in the entire state. And the nation is looking at
a teacher shortage crisis. What kind of data can
we expect going forward when we don’t have
strong science teachers in our classroom? Thank you. PEGGY CARR: Me? MARTY KELSEY: Sure. LINDA ROSEN: OK. So several of you in
this room were here at Air and Space
in September 2000 when we released
the report known as Before It’s Too Late– The
National Commission of Math and Science Teaching
for the 21st Century. That’s actually known as
the John Glenn Commission. John pointed to the
Friendship 7 capsule and said, that’s the second dummy who
climbed into that thing. But that aside, the point
of that report was saying, it’s the teacher who’s going
to make the difference. And we have to dramatically
deepen teacher knowledge and increase the number
of teachers– that’s why Mike was giving you the push
before– in math and science. And we laid out an agenda
for making that happen, using a budget
surplus to provide professional development
for every single teacher of mathematics and science,
which is the phrase we use. Because a second grade
teacher is a teacher of math and a teacher of
science, even if they don’t self-identify that way. And we laid out a very
ambitious agenda, which did not come to pass, I’m sorry to say. But parts of it have
continued to be picked up. It is very clear that
we need to strongly move to make teaching
a highly respected, a well-compensated profession,
a profession where there is a career ladder to grow
and progress over time and to get great success. And we clearly have to deepen
the knowledge of people who are preparing to be teachers. But the vast majority
of people who will be in schools tomorrow,
or today, even, in fact were in schools last year. So we really need to deepen
their professional knowledge. MARTY KELSEY: And I think
the professional development is incredibly
important because I know there are times when
teachers are teaching subjects that they didn’t
go to college for. And so by having that strong
professional development does nothing but
benefit the students. Did you have something on that? PEGGY CARR: Well,
you know, I was going to add just one other point. You know, I thought it was
really, really encouraging when we saw more students
in these data taking biology and chemistry and physics. But what I didn’t
say is that we still have an access problem
in this country, access to these kinds of
courses of access to these more advanced courses. Lean over and help me. [LAUGHTER] MARTY KELSEY: I was
told you guys were going to be troubled today. PEGGY CARR: Yeah, we’re
like two little kids. No, but the basic
point is, and it’s well stated by the person asked us
the question is that we still have a lot to do. And although students who do
have access to these courses are taking more of them, there’s
so many students that don’t. Students in rural
places in this country, rural locations,
minority students in some of the urban schools,
they have less access to these science courses. So we do have a lot to do. MARTY KELSEY: All
right, we’re going to go to an online
question now. Now that we know that teens
want hands-on teaching, how can we implement
that in classrooms? That’s a great question. Susan, how can we
implement that? SUSAN GERMAN: Well, to be
honest with you, in order to, quote, unquote, “fund”
what I do in my classroom, it comes from me. So there’s a whole
lot of material that comes from my house, empty
jars, empty cans, containers, you name it. I have tons of it. And I wash it out, clean
it out, bring it in, and have the kids use that. I do have science materials. I do have computers. I do have technology. But kids need a full
realm of experiences. And we talk about
the lack of skills. You can’t just always
use a computer. You have to have
material for the kids to touch and build
and think about. While kits serve a purpose, if
I give kids an engineering task, I like for them to have to
look at different materials and try and figure out if
it’s going to work or not. I don’t want everything
predone, premade. I want them thinking as
they’re going through. MARTY KELSEY: And when I
taught elementary school, my budget for the
year was $100, which I had to order from
a desk order form before the first day of school. And that was the entire
budget for the entire year. So I think getting those
materials into classrooms is important. All right, we’ve got
an audience question. AUDIENCE: Good afternoon. Thank you all for wonderful,
encouraging results. My question is sort
of building off the other topic about
integrating math and science, and we talk a lot about STEM–
I’m with the Museum of Science in Boston. My name’s Patty Curtis. And I wondered if now with
the technology and engineering literacy assessment, NAEP
science and mathematics, do you envision a world
where we might assess across or integrated STEM topics,
and the ability to teach those to those integrated activities? It sounds like you’re doing
a lot of math in your class. I wonder if you collaborate
with your mathematics teachers, and then how might we assess
sort of that knowledge? Because in the
workplace, we don’t just do science for one hour
and math for an hour. Our application in
solving problems has to be an
integrated approach. So I wondered if there was
a way at some point we could assess in that fashion as well. PEGGY CARR: Well,
Linda and I have decided she’s going to take
the lead since she has the mic. But we’re going to talk a little
bit about TEL that we just released. I think it comes really close
to what she’s talking about. LINDA ROSEN: Sure, sure. Thank you Patty. So technology and
engineering literacy results, which were released
not too long ago– I don’t remember exactly
when– are really showing the interplay
between the made world and how you use what you can
make in the man-made world to solve problems. It was the first digital
online assessment. We hosted a luncheon
for a number of folks from the
business community to actually try the publicly
released items online. And you could have heard
a pin drop in that room. Everyone was totally engaged. They were really actually fun. But let me say something from
a National Assessment Governing Board point of view. I’m just starting
my second year. I’m having way too much fun. And I’m learning an
incredible amount. But the one thing
that is really dear to NAGB, which
oversees policy, is the notion of maintaining trend
and seeing progress over time. So in moving to digital
assessments, which we are moving to
in their entirety, I think it’s going
to be a very big leap to imagine that we’re going
to be giving up the math exam or the science exam at
any point, because we will lose that sense of progress. And NAEP and NAGB
preserve very carefully the authenticity
of that trend line and serving as the gold
standard in assessment. MARTY KELSEY: We’ve got
an online question next. What steps can be taken to
support students performing below their grade level? Susan, what do you do? SUSAN GERMAN: I use a lot
of instructional scaffolds. And the purpose of a scaffold
is to allow students to perform above what they’re capable of. Like when the kids have to
write a scientific argument, I have a frame for them. And so it gives
them specific steps, and it also helps give
sentence starters. So the kids– you know, it’s
a lot to think about for them. So I’m trying to help take away
the worry of the organization of the argument and allow
them to focus on talking about the science of it. And they’re very helpful. I use them. And as an eighth
grade teacher, I have kids, the whole spectrum,
all the way from they’re probably ready for
college already to oh my. And those kids have
those scaffolds. I have them on some
cards and stuff. They set them there. And they can pick that
sentence, and they can put the science into it. And it allows them to
produce a better argument. And some kids keep those
for the whole year. Some kids grab them
for the first few times until they get used to doing it. And then they’re done with it. It works very well. I mean, you have to
know your audience. And so you have to
think of different ways of trying to allow
them to overcome whatever their challenge is. LINDA ROSEN: If I could add one
point, as I mentioned before, one of the things that the
business community contributes is their treasure in
terms of supporting high-quality programs. And Change the Equation
was formed very early to help companies distinguish
between programs that are proven to be effective
and programs that just have good marketing materials. And there certainly
are many of those. So we have created a database
that we call STEM-Works. Programs self-nominate
themselves, but then they go through a
rigorous third party review. And they need to provide
evidence of their effectiveness according to the criteria
that a number of our companies have established. Many of these
programs are really targeting students who
are underperforming, or students who need
additional enrichment. Some of them include
professional development programs, which helps teachers
come close to your level. MARTY KELSEY: And Deja,
you mentioned earlier that your teacher that’s
here had said that you’re smart enough to do this. I’m not saying you’re
underperforming at all, because obviously you’re not. But how important is
that to you to hear somebody that’s kind of
got your back like that? DEJA WRIGHT: I think it’s a
very good point, because I don’t think I would be
where I am now if it wasn’t for her saying that. Because I don’t like science
and I don’t like math. But when she introduced me to
science I started liking it, enjoying it. MARTY KELSEY: Outstanding. All right, we’ve got
another online question. What similarities do you
see between the results for urban and rural schools? Peggy, that one is probably– PEGGY CARR: Yeah,
I want to think about that one a little bit. So I’m having this
terrific mic problem. So maybe we should come back to
me, because– can you hear me? – No – No Why don’t we go around
the [INAUDIBLE] someone gets me all hooked up. MARTY KELSEY: OK. I know that I taught
in a suburban school, and that my wife actually
for a couple of years taught in a very rural school. And the differences just in what
was available between those two schools was startling,
even down to just what the standard
classroom setup was. PEGGY CARR: Yeah. Let me say, I want to
travel back, pivot back to something I said earlier. But use another data
source to make the point. The US Department of
Education collects data for the Office
for Civil Rights. The assessment or
the data collection requires all schools in the
country to provide data. And what we’re learning
from that data collection is that we are having
a problem with access to Advanced Placement classes,
IB classes for students, particularly in the rural area. It’s sort of a bummer that
these students cannot get access to these classes. And there’s issues about labs. There’s issues about trying
to get people, teachers to move to these locations. And so that would
be, I would say, the biggest problem
we need to work on is for the rural and
the urban comparison. MARTY KELSEY: And Susan, you’re
in a smaller school district. Do you see a challenge there? SUSAN GERMAN: Well,
I wouldn’t have the things I have in
my classroom if it weren’t for the fact I
know how to write grants. And quite frankly,
my school is– we don’t qualify for any
minority, any free and reduced lunch. We don’t meet any
threshold to get money. So I really have to search
long and hard to find areas where we can get items,
get things in there. And you know, I
have it pretty good. And I’ve made certain that
the teachers around me have it pretty good,
because I don’t want being from a rural school
making that the problem. MARTY KELSEY: And I think one
of the big takeaways that I have from this discussion today is
that really good teachers make a really big difference. So I want to thank you
guys for coming in today. Let’s give our panelists
a round of applause. [APPLAUSE] And I will bring Linda
back up to the stage. LINDA ROSEN: Thank you, Marty. Thank you, fellow panelists. Thank you, wonderful audience. I hope that today’s discussion
of the Nation’s Report Card, 2015 science, inspires
you to learn more and to continue
the conversation. Please remember to
join others on Twitter in talking about the
report card results. And please use
the hashtag #NAEP. If you aren’t already, please
follow the Governing Board on Twitter and Facebook to stay
informed of our latest news. As Peggy mentioned, you can
also visit nationsreportcard.gov to see the full report
and to examine the data. And if you go to
NAGB, nationalassessme ntgoverningboard.org,
our website, you can find even more
materials, including a news release and the framework
guiding the NAEP assessments. In a few weeks, today’s
webcast and the new video will be available there as well. Members of the media may contact
the Governing Board’s public affairs specialist,
Stephaan Harris, who’s– oh, there he is– with
any questions. And with that, I say
thank you so much for taking your
time this morning to join us on this
important event. Appreciate it. [APPLAUSE]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *