Learn About: 21st Century | Charter Schools | Homework
Home / Edifier


The EDifier

December 7, 2011

Urban districts making progress, but more work needed

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Assessments,Data,NAEP,Report Summary — Tags: , , , , — rstandrie @ 5:48 pm

Earlier today, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released the fifth installment of the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), which reports on the performance of fourth- and eighth-graders on NAEP reading and mathematics in participating urban districts. Overall, both math and reading results show our urban schools have made significant progress over the past decade, yet a long climb remains until they close the gap between themselves and our high performing suburban districts.

There are some important takeaways from these results. First, the data over the past decade clearly shows that urban districts can and do improve student achievement. Second, change doesn’t happen overnight. Although the data shows that in some districts students are achieving nearly two years more of learning compared to their peers a decade earlier, those gains came from long, gradual improvement. It’s important to remember that our urban schools are on the right track. Let’s not derail their successes by trying to accelerate those gains without knowing what is making the gains possible.

Below are some of the major findings from both the math and reading assessments.

Math

Fourth Grade

  • Atlanta (3 points), Austin (5 points), Baltimore City (3 points), and Philadelphia (4 points) were the only districts to significantly increase their scores from 2009 to 2011. During this same time period, scores for the nation increased by 1 point. 
  •  Boston and Washington, D.C. made the greatest gains from 2003 to 2011 by increasing scores 17 points each. Such increases are roughly equivalent to about a year and half worth of learning.
    • During this time, Cleveland was the only participating district that did not improve its performance.
  • Austin (TX), Charlotte (NC), and Hillsborough (FL) were the only urban districts to score higher than the overall national average while San Diego’s score was not significantly different from the national average.  Charlotte was the only district to do so in 2009.
  • Eight urban districts scored higher than the average for students attending schools in large cities (cities of populations of 250,000 or more). This was up from seven districts in 2009.
  • The percent of students scoring at or above Proficient varied dramatically among urban districts, from 48 percent in Charlotte to just 3 percent in Detroit.
    • Only three districts increased the percent of students reaching the Proficient level since 2009, although seven out of nine districts increased their percentages since 2003.
    • Students at the Proficient level are able to “draw a line segment of a given length.”

Eighth Grade

  • Six districts significantly increased their scores from 2009 to 2011. This was up from just two states that increased their scores between 2007 and 2009. 
  • From 2003 to 2011, nine out of ten districts made significant gains in their performance, with Atlanta (22) and Boston (20) all making gains roughly equivalent to two years’ worth of additional learning.
    • Cleveland was the only district to not make significant progress during this time period.
  • Austin and Charlotte were the only districts to outscore the nation as a whole, while Boston and Hillsborough’s scores were not significantly different from the national average.
  • Six urban districts did score higher than the 2011 average for students attending schools in large cities, which is an increase from five districts in 2009.
  • The percent of students scoring at or above proficient varied just as it did at the fourth grade level. Austin had the highest percentage at 38 percent, while Detroit once again had the lowest percentage at just 4 percent.

Reading

Fourth Grade

  • None of the 18 districts that participated in both 2009 and 2011 saw any significant changes.  During this same time period scores for the nation remained flat.
  • Austin (TX), Charlotte (NC), Hillsborough County (FL), Jefferson County (KY), and Miami-Dade (FL) scored slightly higher than the overall national average.
  • Austin, Charlotte, Hillsborough County, Jefferson County, and Miami-Dade scored higher than the average for large cities (cities of populations of 250,000 or more).  
  • The percent of students scoring at or above proficient varied dramatically among urban districts from 44 percent in Hillsborough County to just 7 percent in Detroit.
    • However, 45 percent more students in large cities were proficient in 2011 than in 2003

Eighth Grade

  • Charlotte (6 points) was the only school district to significantly increase their scores from 2009 to 2011.  During this same time period students nationally increased their scores 2 points.
  • Austin, Charlotte, Hillsborough County (FL), Jefferson County (KY), and Miami-Dade scored higher than the average for large cities.
    • A few districts had slight score decreases since the first year they participated.  The District of Columbia’s score decreased by 3 points since 2002, Fresno’s (CA) score decreased by 2 points since 2009, Miami-Dade’s score decreased by 1 point since 2009, and Milwaukee’s score decreased by 3 points since 2009.
  • Hillsborough County was the only district to outscore the nation as a whole while Jefferson County and Miami-Dade didn’t score significantly different from the national average.
  • The range of students scoring at or above proficient was wide just as it was at the fourth grade level. Charlotte had the highest percentage at 34 percent while Detroit once again had the lowest at just 5 percent.
    • However, overall 50 percent more students in large urban cities were proficient in 2011 compared to 2003.

 

– Jim Hull and Mandy Newport

 

 





November 4, 2011

The not-so-good news second– NAEP reading

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Middle school,NAEP,Public education,Report Summary — Jim Hull @ 11:02 am

Earlier this week, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released the results of the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading for 4th and 8th graders.

Overall, there was little or no change from the 2009 scores. However, achievement at both levels has consistently been on the rise since 1992. During this same time period, the Black/White achievement gap narrowed at both the 4th and 8th grades. Although there has been some gains in reading over the past two decades, those gaisn pale in comparison to the the gains being made in math.

The findings

Fourth Grade State Level

  • At the state level, public school students’ scale scores were higher in 2011 than 2009 in four states (Alabama, Hawaii, Maryland, and Massachusetts).
    • Two states saw decreases in their scores (Missouri and South Dakota).
  • The percent of students reaching the Proficient level in 2011 ranged from 19 percent in the District of Columbia to 50 percent in Massachusetts.
    • Three states (Louisiana, Maryland, and Pennsylvania) significantly increased the percent of their public school students reaching the Proficient level from 2009 to 2011.
  • Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia achieved the highest scale scores, while the District of Columbia, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico earned the lowest scale scores.
  • When it came to educating minority students, Black students who attended Department of Defense schools (DoDEA) scored higher than Black students in any other state or jurisdiction. DoDEA schools, along with Maryland, did the same for their Hispanic students.

Fourth Grade National Level

  • Nationally, scores did not increase between 2009 and 2011. As a matter of fact, scores have remained unchanged since 2007.
    • However, since the first year of NAEP in 1992, scale scores in reading have increased by nearly a half a year’s worth of learning (4 points). 
  • The percent of fourth-graders scoring at or above NAEP’s proficient level has increased slightly since 1992 (29 percent in 1992 vs. 34 percent in 2011).
    • Moreover, the percent of fourth-graders scoring below NAEP’s basic level has decreased slightly from 38 percent in 1992 to 33 percent in 2011.
  • Since 2009, achievement gaps have remained relatively unchanged, because there was no significant change in performance for White, Black, or Hispanic students.
    • The Black/White achievement gap was 26 points while the Hispanic/White gap was 24 points.
    • However, since 1992 the Black/White achievement gap has decreased from 32 points to 25 points, which has reduced the gap by about 20 percent. 

Eighth Grade State Level

  • At the eighth grade level, 10 states (Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, and Rhode Island) improved their scores from 2009 to 2011. No state had a decline in scores. 
  • Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey obtained the highest scores, followed by Vermont, Montana, New Hampshire, and DoDEA schools. On the other hand, Alabama, California, the District of Columbia and West Virginia lagged furthest behind.
  • Just as in the fourth grade, eighth graders in DoDEA schools outperformed Black students in all other states/jurisdictions. DoDEA schools also had the highest-scoring Hispanic students.

Eighth Grade National Level

  • Nationally, scores increased by one point from 2009 to 2011 and have increased by five points since 1992.
  • The percent of students reaching NAEP’s proficient level has increased from 29 percent in 1992 to 34 percent in 2011. The percent scoring below NAEP’s basic level decreased from 31 percent to 24 during the same time period.
  • As at the fourth grade level, the Black/White achievement gap remained statistically unchanged between 2009 and 2011, although Black students increased their score by three points.
    • But between 1992 and 2011, the gap has narrowed by five points.
  • On the other hand, the Hispanic/White narrowed by two points between 2009 and 2011 and by four points since 1992.

For more information on NAEP, check out the Center’s report The Proficiency Debate: A guide to NAEP achievement levels. – Jim Hull

NAEP Reading Report

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf





October 17, 2011

Others agree, Fordham’s claims about high achievers not supported by data

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,research — Tags: , , , — Jim Hull @ 10:27 am

Last month I wrote about how the Fordham Institute’s claim that our nation’s high achievers are losing ground wasn’t supported by evidence.  Well, it is good to know I am not alone. First, the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) supported my critique that the data didn’t back up Fordham’s claim– but then again NEPC disagrees with just about everything Fordham says. Then the Center for American Progress (CAP)—which agrees with Fordham on several issues–released a critique of the Fordham report that raised similar concerns about the conclusions as I did. CAP’s main criticisms were:

1.     Fordham claimed that the federal No Child Left Behind law might have caused high-flying students to do worse over time. All of Fordham’s data, however, came from the post-NCLB time period. Without a pre-NCLB comparison, there is no way to make a claim that NCLB caused the decline.

2.     The report fails to acknowledge the true consequences of poverty on student achievement. The Fordham researchers note that “high achievers in high-poverty schools grew slightly less than those in low-poverty schools,” but use this finding to argue that poverty is not a strong predictor of student progress. Ample evidence proves, however, that low-income children need more resources in order to overcome the disadvantages they bring with them to school.

3.     A broader look at the data suggests that the nation’s top students have actually been gaining ground in a number of areas. For example, from 2000 to 2009, the percentage of eighth graders scoring at the highest level in math jumped 3 percentage points on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

I’d have to agree with CAP on each of these points. It will be interesting to hear Fordham’s rebuttable when they host a conference on their report that includes one of the CAP authors on Monday October 17th. I will certainly be watching. – Jim Hull





October 13, 2011

Using growth in NCLB’s reauthorization

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Assessments,Growth Models,Testing — Tags: , , , — Jim Hull @ 4:30 pm

On Wednesday, Senator Harkin released his bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), better known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). I haven’t read the bill yet, but I have read that Senator Harkin is proposing to drop the current Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirement and instead evaluate schools based on “continuous improvement.” This would mean that all students are no longer expected to be proficient by 2014; instead, they are expected to make a certain amount of academic gains from year to year.

Sounds simple enough. Critics and proponents of NCLB alike have been pushing for the inclusion of a measurement of student growth since NCLB was enacted nearly a decade ago. However, back in 2002 less than a handful of states had the assessments and the data systems in place to measure how much academic gains individual student made from year to year. Now, thanks to NCLB, all states have the capacity to make such calculations. Almost all would agree that including such measures would greatly improve the fairness of any accountability system.  

Yet, incorporating student growth into a federal accountability system is not as straightforward as it seems. First of all, as my report Measuring Student Growth illustrates, there is no single method to measuring student growth. Choosing which method is best depends on the data available and how the data is going to be used. For example, a growth model, which identifies students who are not gaining as much as similar students, will look a lot different than a model that is used to identify students who gained enough in the past year to be on track to reach a certain benchmark such as being college and career ready when they graduate high school.

So before a growth model is used for accountability, policymakers need to state a clear purpose for what the growth data is to evaluate. For example, is the purpose to ensure schools are closing achievement gaps? Is the purpose to ensure all students are college or career ready by the end of high school? Or is it to identify schools where students are making fewer gains than students in schools with similar student populations?  For each of these questions, an adequate answer would require a different growth model.

Second of all, simply moving from a proficiency-based accountability system such as NCLB to a continuous improvement based system as proposed by Senator Harkin overlooks the fact that most state assessments are not designed to effectively measure student growth from grade to grade. Most states have developed their assessments to evaluate if a student is proficient or not proficient each year. As such, many state assessments are unable to reliably determine how much a student has learned from year to year, especially a student who scored at the very high or very low end of the test’s achievement scale. Yes, states can calculate a growth measure using the assessments they now have in place, but in many cases the result will not be as accurate as if the assessments were designed specifically to measure student growth.

These are just two major issues when it comes to including a growth measure for federal accountability. Yes, evaluating schools based on student growth is much fairer than how schools are currently evaluated under NCLB. But just simply including a growth measure does not automatically make it a better accountability system. Policymakers need to set a clear purpose for accountability systems and then incorporate a growth model that would best evaluates whether schools are meeting their goals. From what I know now about the Harkin bill, it is not clear whether the purpose is to ensure all students are college or career ready or if all students are making a year’s worth of gains. Without having a clear purpose for what to hold schools accountable for, adding a growth model will not be any fairer than NCLB. – Jim Hull





September 23, 2011

Are our top students being left behind?

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Public education,Report Summary — Tags: , , , , — Jim Hull @ 1:35 pm

It’s déjà vu all over again. Back in 2008 the Fordham Institute claimed in this report that our nation’s best students were being hurt by current education reform efforts, particularly NCLB. Fast forward to earlier this week where Fordham released another report to once again try to show that our education reforms are being targeted at our low performing students at the expense of our top students. The similarities don’t end with both studies examining the performance of high achieving students. In both reports Fordham’s conclusions don’t fit what their own data says.

In the 2008 study Fordham argued our top students were being left behind because their gains were not as large as the gains low performing students made post-NCLB. I argued then that their own data didn’t fit their claim. Once again, Fordham’s claim that our top students are being left behind doesn’t fit their own data. As a matter of fact, according to Fordham’s report the gap in math scores between low- (those scoring below 10th percentile) and high-performing (those score above the 90th percentile) did not significantly change as students moved from 3rd to 8th grade or from 6th to 10th grade. The good news is that all students made consistent gains. Unfortunately for low-performing students, their performance still lagged way behind. The story is a bit different in reading where gaps did close between the lowest and highest performing students. However, Fordham sees this gap closing as a negative even though high performing students continued to make significant gains between the 3rd and 8th grades.

Just as I argued in 2008, this is how gaps should be narrowed, where everyone improves but the lowest performers improve at a faster rate. However, Fordham didn’t agree with me then and I’ll safely assume they won’t agree with me now. We will just have to agree to disagree because I don’t believe the data shows our best students are being short changed simply because our lowest performers are making more progress than our highest performing students.

Now that doesn’t mean our schools or our education policies should focus solely on our lowest performing students. Educators and policymakers need to ensure that all students have an opportunity to reach their highest academic potential before they go onto college or the workplace. Yet, neither Fordham study provides compelling data that our schools are short changing our highest performing students.

Yes, educators and policymakers need to focus on our highest achieving students. International test scores show we have a much smaller proportion of advanced students than the leading countries such as South Korea and Finland. But the same international tests show we also have a much larger proportion of very low performers than most other industrialized nations. And students with such low achievement have little chance to go onto any sort of postsecondary education or find a good job that pays a living wage and offers benefits. So we need to at least sustain the gains our highest achievers are making since many will be our country’s future innovators, policymakers and business leaders. At the same time, we need to accelerate the gains our lowest achieving students are making so they at least have the minimal skills necessary to either go onto earn some sort of postsecondary degree/certificate or find a good job. Doing so is not a zero-sum game. If we provide our teachers with the training, resources, and support they need, they can improve the performance of all students. – Jim Hull





Older Posts »
RSS Feed