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


The EDifier

May 2, 2013

Improve college attainment rates: Invest in high school guidance counselors

A recent study by Caroline Hoxby and Christopher Avery hasn’t gotten a lot of media attention but is a must read. In fact, I just became aware of the study myself even though it was issued as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research back in December. Policymakers, educators, parents, and the general public should be made aware of this study because it has broad implications for narrowing gaps between low and higher income students.

What did the study find that was so important? It found that low-income high achieving students were less likely to not just attend a selective college but even apply to one as similar achieving higher income students. Instead, low-income high achieving students tend to attend non-selective two- or four-year colleges that have significantly lower instructional resources and graduation rates.

Why is this so important?  Too few low-income students go on to obtain a college degree. If more low-income students applied to more selective colleges that have greater instructional resources and higher graduations rates the college degree attainment gap between low- and high-income students would narrow. In the long-term the U.S. would likely climb up the international college graduation rate rankings as well.

You might be thinking low-income students may not attend more selective colleges because they cost more. This may be true if you compared sticker prices but the study found that if you take into account the difference in financial aid packages, many selective colleges would cost low-income students less than the non-selective colleges they wound up attending.

However, this isn’t likely to be common knowledge for many low –income students as many are the first in their families to attend college. This is why adults in their high schools need to help educate these students and their families about the college going process, particularly for those qualified to attend a selective college. Yet, when the national student to guidance counselor average is 350 to 1—likely much higher in many high poverty urban districts—it is nearly impossible for guidance counselors to find the time to ensure low-income high achieving students apply to selective schools.

This study provides more evidence of the importance of high school guidance counselors. As CPE found in our High School Rigor and Good Advice report last year, those students who meet regularly with counselors about college are more likely to succeed in college. The same report also found that those students who took more rigorous courses in high school were more likely to succeed in college as well. So, guidance counselors not only help low-income high achieving students by educating them about the college going process but by ensuring students take the rigorous courses they need to succeed in college.

Yes, getting more low-income students to complete a rigorous high school curriculum will increase the chances those students will attend and succeed in college. But this study shows that academic preparation can only go so far. If schools invest more in educating low-income students on the college going process by hiring more guidance counselors that will ensure students take rigorous courses and apply to higher quality colleges. Then the U.S. will likely see the college degree gap between low- and high-income students narrow and see the U.S. rise in the international college attainment rankings. – Jim Hull

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,college,Course taking,Demographics,High school,International Comparisons — Tags: , , — Jim Hull @ 11:32 am




March 14, 2013

Study examines links between the rigor of Algebra I and Geometry course content and test scores

The National Center for Education Statistics recently released a study examining the relationship between the rigor in Algebra I and Geometry courses high school students take and student test performance in those areas on the 12th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).  This study was spurred by positive findings from the 2005 NAEP  High School Transcript study, which found that in 2005 high school students earned more math credits, took higher level math courses, and obtained higher math course grades than in 1990. 

While it is certainly good news that more students are taking more math courses at higher levels and earning higher grades, it’s not clear whether students are taking courses that are truly rigorous or whether or not this uptick in math course enrollment is resulting in more student math achievement.  This study aims to answer that question.  The study was unable to actually observe classroom instruction in order to measure rigor; however, the researchers gained access to math textbooks used in 550 public schools, analyzing the rigor of the problems in the textbooks to determine how demanding classes are.  Previous studies have shown that math textbooks are closely related to math classroom instruction and serve as a good proxy for actual course rigor.  After coding the textbooks to determine whether or not they represented basic, intermediate, or advanced levels of rigor, the study matched those rigor levels to math NAEP scores to see if there’s a relationship. 

The overwhelming finding is there is a clear relationship between classroom rigor and NAEP scores.  Students in rigorous Algebra I courses and Geometry courses scored higher on NAEP than students in basic or intermediate courses.  On the other hand, the study also finds that the labeling of a course (i.e.-whether a course is regular or honors) often has little relationship to the true rigor offered in a course.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of the findings:

  • Graduates in rigorous Algebra I courses and Geometry courses score higher on NAEP.
    • Algebra I rigor level with corresponding NAEP scores (10 points is roughly equivalent to a year’s worth of learning):
      • Beginner: 137 points
      • Intermediate: 143
      • Rigorous: 146
    • Geometry rigor level with corresponding NAEP scores:
      • Beginner: 148
      • Intermediate: 152
      • Rigorous: 159
  • School course titles often do not truly represent the level of rigor a course offers.
    • 73% of students who took an honors Algebra I course actually received an intermediate Algebra I course.
    • In fact, a higher percentage of students in a regular class received a rigorous course than those in courses labeled “honors”
      • Regular title, but curriculum was rigorous: 34%
      • Honors title, but curriculum was rigorous: 18%
    • In Geometry classes, only 33% of courses title honors were actually rigorous, while 62% were intermediate, and the rest were basic.
  • Generally, about two-thirds of an Algebra I or Geometry course covers core content; the rest is a review of lower level material or a preview of higher level material.
  • Most students, regardless of race or course title, took an intermediate level Algebra I course.
    • 54% of high school students took an intermediate Algebra I course, while 14% had a beginner course, and 32% had a rigorous course.
  • Most students, regardless of course title, took an intermediate level Geometry course.
    • Classes titled “Informal”: 54% had an intermediate course (30% basic, 14% rigorous)
    • Classes titled “Regular: 68% had an intermediate course (11% basic, 19% rigorous)
    • Classes titled “Honors”: 62% had an intermediate course (4% basic, 33% rigorous)
  • While racial differences weren’t present in differences in rigor level for all other courses, racial differences were present for Honors Geometry rigor levels.
    • 37% of white students had a rigorous Honors Geometry course, while 21% of Black graduates and 17% of Hispanic graduates had a rigorous Honors Geometry course.
  • While a higher level of rigor in a Algebra I or Geometry course resulted in higher NAEP scores, white graduates still scored higher than Black or Hispanic graduates on the Algebra I and Geometry portion of NAEP, regardless of the rigor level of their math test:
    • White students rigor level of Algebra I and Geometry course and corresponding NAEP scores:
      • Algebra I
        • Basic: 142
        • Intermediate: 148
        • Rigorous: 151
      • Geometry
        • Basic: 155
        • Intermediate: 159
        • Rigorous: 165
    • Black students rigor level of Geometry course and corresponding NAEP scores:  
      • Algebra I
        • Basic: 128
        • Intermediate: 129
        • Rigorous: 134
      • Geometry
        • Basic: 120
        • Intermediate: 129
        • Rigorous: 133
    • Hispanic students rigor level of Geometry course and corresponding NAEP scores:
      • Algebra I
        • Basic: 127
        • Intermediate: 132
        • Rigorous: 132
      • Geometry
        • Basic: 140
        • Intermediate: 138
        • Rigorous: 138

 

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Course taking,instruction,NAEP,Report Summary,research — Jim Hull @ 3:06 pm




March 7, 2013

John Stossel, funky charts and Simpson’s paradox

John Stossel was on Fox and Friends this morning to promote an upcoming show about public schools. Remember, this is the guy who gave us Stupid in America – his ABC documentary from a few years back about our allegedly failing schools. During his segment, he claimed that “America has tripled spending, but test scores haven’t improved.”  The culprits? Teachers unions, school boards and other unnamed bureaucrats. Viewers were then shown a graph that indeed featured a flat line representing test scores over 40 years (improvement 1 point) with a second line escalating to $149,000 over the same period. The source was given as NCES. This got my fact-checking synapses sparking.

While I could not find the exact graph they showed on TV, Stossel did post this rather snazzy display on his blog with the same data:

Go ahead and take a moment to admire the work of the Fox News graphics department. Ok, now let’s talk data. This chart shows scores for three subjects (math, reading and science) and dollar figures (the “cost of education”) from 1970 to 2010. While not noted, I’m assuming the data source is still NCES.

This may get a little wonky, but stay with me.  NCES reports trend data over four decades for only two tests:  the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Long-Term Trends (LTT) and the SAT. NCES also has international test scores, but that data only goes back to the 1990s so that couldn’t be what Stossel used.  The SAT does not assess science, which leaves NAEP LTT as the only possibility. It’s not a perfect match. The last NAEP LTT administration was in 2008 although Stossel’s chart shows data to 2010. But I’m going to assume that he fudged a little on the timeframe because nothing else qualifies.

NAEP LTT is given to a representative sample of students age nine, 13 and 17. I’m also going to assume that his analysis is based on 17-year-olds because the data matches his in reading and comes closest in math (more on this later).  Between 1971 and 2008, LTT reading scores for 17-year-olds have been relatively flat, posting an increase of just 1 point (not 1% as shown on Stossel’s chart, but we’ll blame the designer for that common mistake).  Here’s what it looks like:

Now let’s have some fun. Let’s look at the same test scores disaggregated by race and ethnicity:

Note that every group improved more than the overall score did: White 17-year-olds by 2 points with their Black and Hispanic classmates gaining a whopping 25 and 17 points respectively. This gives me a chance to talk about Simpson’s paradox.  The paradox occurs when “a trend that appears in different groups of data disappears when these groups are combined, and the reverse trend appears for the aggregate data.”  In this case, the overall trend for 17-year-olds is flat while each group gained, some groups by a lot. The reason is that the distribution of racial/ethnic groups has changed significantly between 1975 and 2008. Here is the distribution of the NAEP samples for the two years:

The proportion of Black and Hispanic 17-year-olds is larger while the proportion of White students in 2008 is 25 percentage points lower than it was in 1975. Even though Black and Hispanic performance also increased by a lot, they were still lower-performing than their White peers in 2008. Thus, all groups gain, but when their performance is combined the overall trend is flat.

Clearly, no one would argue that an achievement gap, though improving, is acceptable and we can move on to other things. But it’s just as absurd to look at these gains and find evidence of failing schools, as Stossel does.  And the absurdity doesn’t end there. Stossel, in turns out, is a master cherry picker of data. Let’s look at the rest of NAEP Long Term Trends:

  • Reading, 13-year-olds, 1971-2008: Overall scores +12; Black students +23; Hispanic +24.
  • Reading, 9-year-olds, 1971-2008: Overall +5; Black +21, Hispanic +10.
  • Mathematics, 17-year-olds, 1978 (first year tested)-2008: Overall +6, Black +19, Hispanic +17.
  • Mathematics, 13-year-olds, 1978-2008: Overall +17, Black +32, Hispanic +17.
  • Mathematics, 9-year-olds,  1978-2008: Overall +24, Black +32, Hispanic +30.

Notice a pattern?  If one were to apply Stossel’s grossly oversimplified analysis of education cost to scores — and I’m not saying you should — but if you did, you would have to say our public schools are producing a return on our investment.   Then again, how he got those cost figures is another topic for another day.

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Data,Demographics,Public education — Tags: , , , — Patte Barth @ 2:46 pm




December 13, 2012

Catching up is hard to do

NCLB called on public schools to close achievement gaps, and that focus is one thing that’s not likely to change whenever Congress gets around to reauthorizing ESEA. However, a new study by ACT shows how long the odds are for low-achieving 4th and 8th graders to eventually graduate college-ready, which should make us think about how to go about gap closing.

ACT has once again mined its considerable databases to track the progress of students as they moved from 4th to 12th grades in order to find out how many ended up “college ready.”  ACT grouped students by three achievement levels: on track to college-readiness, off track, and far off track. Here’s what they found about 8th graders’ chances:

This table means that only 10 percent of students who were far off track in 8th grade were college ready in reading by 12th grade. The analysts further found that African American and Hispanic 8th graders were twice as likely to be “far off track” than their white classmates.  Similar patterns were evident among 4th graders, too.

If there’s a silver lining in this news, it’s this: “Far off” students who attended the top 10 percent of schools were about three times as likely to become college-ready.  In reading, for example, 28 percent of “far off” 8th graders in the top schools had become college-ready by the time they were seniors compared to the overall average of 10 percent.

This shows us that there are things schools can do to reverse the downward trajectory of low achievement. At the same time, though, it underscores how hard it is to break these trends after 4th grade. As if we still needed another argument for starting early with high-quality pre-k, ACT has surely given us one.  But they also provide evidence for never giving up on kids and their capacity to learn to high levels, even in high school.

A note on methodology: ACT’s college-ready benchmark is the score at which students have a 75 percent chance of earning a C or better and a 50 percent chance of earning a B or better in the relevant college freshman course.   Their database has data for students in a half dozen states who take the ACT series of aligned tests at 4th, 8th and end of high school. You can find their report “Catching up to college and career readiness” — and I encourage you to do so — at www.act.org.

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,college — Tags: , , , , , — Patte Barth @ 3:55 pm




October 26, 2012

One school’s open-enrollment AP experiement

In our recent report High school rigor and good advice: Setting up students to succeed, we found that one way to give high school students the tools necessary to succeed and persist in college is to have them enroll in rigorous Advanced Placement (AP) classes, no matter their level of achievement. Now one school is putting the theory to test. Woodside High, an arts magnet school about an hour outside of Richmond, VA, is trying out open-enrollment AP classes. Any student, regardless of their class year or GPA, is allowed to enroll in an AP class.

A report released earlier this year by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights found that only 29% of schools with a high number of minority students offered classes as advanced as Calculus. For Woodside High, which is about 70% minority, an effort to get students into AP classes will help it compete with schools in neighboring and more affluent areas.

Some common criticisms of open-enrollment AP courses are that lower-achieving students will get completely overwhelmed, or that it’s unfair to higher-achieving students to have to cater to those who might not be able to handle advanced courses. The teachers and administrators at Woodside understand that, but as Meg Wiggins, an AP Biology teacher, says, “People need to strive to do things that are meaningful and good and hard. The more kids you can convince to do tougher things, the better off your society will be.” As is common at many schools, some students at Woodside believed that only cream-of-the-crop students could do well in AP classes, and thus completely dismissed them. As part of the effort to get more students into AP courses, Principal Sean Callendar pushed the issue with parents, and the school offered tutoring sessions to students who were struggling to keep up in the AP courses.

The results? Since starting open enrollment, Woodside has seen a 75% increase in the number of students taking advanced math and science courses. Though many students end up getting only a 1 or 2 (and thus no college credit) on the end-of-course AP exams, as our study showed what really matters is that students simply get use to rigorous coursework and the kind of conceptual thinking taught in AP courses that will help them succeed should they go on to college. Hopefully many more schools will follow Woodside in the future.  — Ashwini Yelamanchili

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Course taking,High school — Ashwini @ 12:16 pm




Older Posts »
RSS Feed