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

 

 





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 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 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





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