Perspectives: Science Scores Are Down. But We Know What Would Improve Them.

This article was originally published in Education Week. It is co-authored by Emma Banay, Portfolio Manager, Inspired Minds at Overdeck Family Foundation; Christine Cunningham, Senior Vice President, STEM Learning at the Museum of Science in Boston; and James Ryan, Executive Director of OpenSciEd. 

The latest release of 8th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress scores last month revealed a troubling reality: Coupled with steady drops in students’ math and literacy skills, students’ science achievement is also on the decline. The average science score decreased 4 points since 2019. In 2024, more than a third (38%) of 8th graders scored below “basic,” the highest percentage in that lowest achievement band since 2009. And while declines were seen for students at all percentiles, the gap between lowest- and highest-performing students was even larger than in previous years.

These scores matter. Proficiency in science is essential for helping young people thrive in today’s world and tomorrow’s workforce.

Science helps students understand and contribute to the world around them. As advances in artificial intelligence and other technologies accelerate, this fluency will only become more important. But even now, demand for professionals in science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine far exceeds supply. Projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggest we’ll need approximately 1 million additional STEM workers by 2033, making the disconnect between the skills students need to enter these fields and the way science and engineering are taught in schools today even more noteworthy.

Ultimately, if we want students to graduate scientifically literate, we need to rethink science education, starting with when, where, and how students begin learning science. Here are two principles to go by.

1. Start earlier, go deeper, and extend beyond the classroom

Unlike reading and math, the 2024 NAEP in science was only administered to 8th graders—a reflection of how late science instruction begins in many schools. In elementary schools, science instruction averages roughly 20 minutes a day, an estimate that obscures how many students receive no science instruction at all.

Building scientific thinkers requires starting early, engaging deeply, and providing opportunities to learn often. This means embedding high-quality science and engineering instruction in elementary classrooms as a core subject and extending it into the many rich learning settings beyond the school day. After-school programs, summer camps, libraries, and science museums are often overlooked and underappreciated venues for STEM learning. We should look at them afresh: These settings offer powerful opportunities for inquiry-based, hands-on instruction that can complement what happens in class.

2. Teach science aligned with how science works

But changing when we teach science isn’t enough. We also need to change how we teach it.

There’s broad consensus, reflected in publications from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine and based on decades of research, on what good science instruction in elementary and middle school looks like. It’s active, inquiry-driven, and relevant to students’ lives. It encourages learners to ask questions, investigate, collect and analyze data, and engage with the world as scientists do.

Unfortunately, that’s not what most students experience, and it shows in the outcomes. In the 2024 NAEP, students reported participating less frequently in scientific inquiry during class than in 2019. A lower percentage of students reported enjoying or being interested in science, down 10 points from 2019. And students’ confidence in their ability to do scientific activities also declined.

When students have the opportunity to engage in relevant, inquiry-based science, they learn better. One example is OpenSciEd (of which James Ryan is the executive director), a freely available curriculum aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards. It has shown that as teachers support students in both posing and answering questions about scientific phenomena rather than only answering questions posed by the teacher, students develop the ability to grapple with big ideas beyond their current understanding.

Similarly, Youth Engineering Solutions (YES) offers a suite of freely available engineering curricular resources from the Museum of Science in Boston (where Christine Cunningham is senior vice president of STEM learning). They provide hands-on, standards-aligned activities to teach high-quality STEM during the school day and in more informal settings, like after-school clubs and camps. The Los Angeles school district, for instance, uses YES in after-school enrichment clubs to help students apply science and math knowledge to real-world problems, such as the impact of plastics on human communities and the broader ecosystem.

YES found that students who use their inquiry-based engineering curriculum have better engineering and science learning outcomes than those using a comparison curriculum that lacked several of the components of YES, such as analyzing scientific data to guide design decisions. These results held for students regardless of demographic characteristics.

The latest NAEP results are a warning—but they can also be a turning point.

We cannot accept a status quo where students reach 8th grade having barely scratched the surface of what it means to “do science.” The good news is we already know what works.

States and districts are already focusing on evidence-based opportunities to improve numeracy and literacy outcomes. Science shouldn’t be left behind. Despite looming budget cuts and competing priorities, district leaders and curriculum developers must prioritize inquiry-based science learning that is active, relevant, and meaningful—both in and out of school. Only then will we cultivate the critical thinkers and problem-solvers our world needs.

Header image courtesy of the Museum of Science