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 28, 2011

STEM for all

Filed under: 21st century education,High school,Report Summary — Tags: , , , , , , — Jim Hull @ 4:18 pm

You may not think of Advanced Manufacturing, Utilities and Transportation, and Mining when you think of working in a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) related field. But according to a report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce these are just some of the industries, historical providers of blue-collar, middle class jobs, that are now looking for STEM workers. And although overall jobs are disappearing from most of these industries there is actually a shortage of STEM workers in these fields.

There is also a supply shortage of more elite STEM occupations, such as scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists, but focusing on the shortage in these high-level occupations overshadows the fact that the demand for workers in STEM occupations is increasing at every level, not just the college-educated.

Yet the problem does not end there. Not only is there a shortage of workers in STEM occupations, but of even greater to concern is the fact there is a shortage of workers in non-STEM fields that require basic competency in STEM skills. Specifically, the report states:

“The concern for STEM shortages tends to focus on the possibility of an insufficient supply of STEM workers, but the deeper problem is a broader scarcity of workers with basic STEM competencies across the entire economy.”

Simply put, math and science education shouldn’t be limited to preparing top students for STEM careers. All students have the basic STEM skills they need to compete in a more technologically demanding job market. The good news from the report is that our K-12 system already produces enough talent in math and science to fill our need for traditional STEM workers.

Yet, 75 percent of these students do not go onto major in a STEM related field in college. To make matters worse, of the students who do start college with a STEM major, just 38 percent graduate with a STEM degree. Although our students are taking the math and science courses in high school to be prepared for STEM work, are those courses are rigorous enough to adequately prepare students for a career in a STEM-related field?  

Either way, the report highlights the fact STEM education should not be reserved for our best and brightest students. In the near future, STEM skills will be a basic requirement for many of the jobs our current students will be applying for. It’s imperative our schools provide all our students the rigorous math and science courses they need to compete in the 21st Century job market. – Jim Hull

To see what percent of jobs will be STEM jobs in your state by 2018, check this out.





October 24, 2011

How does the U.S. compare?

Filed under: Assessments,International Comparisons,Pre-k,preschool,Report Summary — Tags: , , , , — Jim Hull @ 4:32 pm

Comparing the performance of the U.S. education system to other countries is anything but straightforward. Take for example math. How well does the U.S. perform in math compared to other countries? You probably heard something along the lines of:

U.S. students scored below the international average in math and ranked 25th out of 34 industrialized countries.

But you also may have heard:

U.S. students scored above the international average in math and performed as well or better than all but five countries.

Each statement casts a dramatically different light on the state of our education system. Yet both statements are accurate. So what should you think about how U.S. students really compare internationally when the facts are so radically different? 

First, you should check out the Center’s Guide to international assessments. There you’ll find out that not all international assessments measure the same knowledge and skills or grade levels. You’ll also find out that the U.S. performance is not compared to the same countries in each of the assessments. So comparing relative achievement with averages and rankings, as in the statements above, can be misleading if you don’t know which countries the U.S. is being compared to.

For example, in our above statements the first is taken from the 2009 PISA results, which compared math literacy scores of U.S. 15 year-olds to that of 15 year-olds in 33 other industrialized countries. The second statement is taken from the 2007 TIMSS results, which compared math scores of U.S. 8th graders to that of 8th graders in 46 other countries, many of which are developing countries. As you can see, comparing the results is not exactly comparing apples to apples.

But such differences shouldn’t preclude you from making valid comparisons using the two assessments. As a matter of fact, not looking at both assessments would limit the knowledge you could gain. However, you need to do it correctly.

One such way is to compare countries similar to the U.S. that took part in each of the assessments. Comparing the so-called G8 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States) is one way to do it. These countries have similar economies, and most take part in each of the international assessments, so they make for a valid comparison.

With this in mind, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) recently released a report comparing U.S. education to that of the other G8 countries. Not only does the report compare achievement levels, but enrollment, expenditures, and attainment measures as well. The good thing about this report is that it is as close to an apples to apples comparison as you can get in comparing education systems internationally.

So how’d we do? One of the big points that stood out to me was the fact that less than half (47 percent) of U.S. 3 and 4 year-olds are in school compared to over 80 percent for all other G8 countries. So, in the countries we are in direct competition with economically, their students are getting a significant head start in their education.

This is significant because the NCES report also shows that the U.S. is outranked by other G8 countries not only on assessments but also in earning high school and college diplomas. Could it be that the U.S. is lagging, at least in part, because of the fact that so few of our 3 and 4 year olds are not in pre-school? The CPE research on pre-k certainly shows the power of quality pre-k programs to increase both achievement and future attainment levels of all students, especially disadvantaged students.

Yet in these tough economic times, public funds for pre-k are diminishing. Are we going to abandon a strategy that we know works, and that other countries seem to be using successfully? – Jim Hull





October 5, 2011

How does your district compare to Finland?

Filed under: International Comparisons,Public education,Report Summary,research — Tags: , , , — Jim Hull @ 8:24 pm

Last week the Web site Global Report Card (GRC) was launched by the George W. Bush Presidential Center. It enables the public to compare their school district’s academic performance in math and reading to that of students in 25 developed countries around the world, including top-achieving Finland, Canada, Japan, and Singapore.

Although the Web site is easy to use, actually making such comparisons is not. There are significant limitations in making fair comparisons of districts across states, never mind across countries. However, Jay Greene and Josh McGee, who created the GRC, have postulated that their comparisons of Boston to Finland (for example) are fair and reliable.

You can put me in the skeptical camp on this one. Not only are they comparing results across countries, they are doing it across grade levels as well. For U.S. school districts, they use scores from state assessments from all tested grades, which is grades 3 through 8 and 10th grade in most states. Other countries’ results are based on the international assessments in which they participated, which would at most include 4th, 8th and 10th grade in math and 4th and 10th grade in reading.

Keep in mind different assessments with significantly different purposes and given in different years were used in different grades and subjects. For example, 4th and 8th grade math scores are derived from TIMSS, which is designed specifically to measure how well students have learned what they were expected to be taught in school. Tenth grade reading and math scores come from PISA, which measures how well students can apply their math and reading knowledge to real life problems, no matter if they attained that knowledge in school or not. To add even more complexity to the comparisons, not all 25 countries participated in each of the assessments at each of the grade levels. Hence, districts’ results on their state assessments across multiple grade levels are compared to each country’s results across different assessments that not all comparable countries took part in.

You may remember I was skeptical in a post earlier this year of another report that compared the U.S. to other countries and that comparison was based on one grade level, in one year, on one assessment for each country. And then countries were only compared to U.S. states who had only taken one assessment, in one grade level, in one year. A far more straightforward comparison than the GRC, yet still statistically questionable.

Both report cards, however, attempt to make important comparisons that – if fair and reliable — would provide valuable information on how our students compare to their peers in other countries. Yet, we don’t know how reliable the comparisons actually are, especially at the district level, where smaller districts appear to have a distinct advantage over larger districts with similar demographics.

However, maybe the GRC with all its question marks will lead to accurate international comparisons at both the state and district levels. Because it really is an important question to answer whether our students in our best districts are as prepared as students in the highest performing countries. The answer could have a tremendous impact on the focus of our education reform efforts. – Jim Hull





« Newer Posts — Older Posts »
RSS Feed