RAISING ACHIEVEMENT AND CLOSING GAPS:

1
RAISING ACHIEVEMENT AND CLOSING GAPS Lessons
from Schools and Systems on the Performance
Frontier
Reading First Directors San Antonio, TX
April, 2008
2
First, some good news.

• After more than a decade of stagnant or growing
  gaps, we appear to be turning the corner.

3
NAEP Reading, 9 Year-OldsRecord Performance for
All Groups
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
4
NAEP Math, 9 Year-Olds Record Performance for
All Groups
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
5
NAEP Reading, 13 Year-Olds
6
NAEP Math, 13 Year-OldsIncreases and Record
Performance for All Groups
7
1996 NAEP Grade 4 Mathby Race/Ethnicity, Nation
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
8
2007 NAEP Grade 4 Mathby Race/Ethnicity, Nation
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
9
2007 State NAEP Results

• Had much the same message for many states.

10
Math

• Over last 7 years, Georgia cut number of students
  performing below basic at grade 4 by more than
  half, from 43 to 21
• Over last 7 years, Louisiana reduced number of
  low-income students below basic at grade 8 from
  68 to 47.
• Arkansas reduced number of students below basic
  at grade 8 by 16 points overall, and by 27 points
  for African Americans

11
Speaking of Arkansas
12
NAEP Grade 4 Math Scale Score Gains, Overall,
2000-2007
Rankings are for the 40 states with Overall data
in both 2000 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
13
NAEP Grade 4 Math Scale Score Gains, African
American, 2000-2007
Rankings are for the 32 states with African
American data in both 2000 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
14
NAEP Grade 4 Math Scale Score Gains, Poor,
2000-2007
Rankings are for the 40 states with Poor data in
both 2000 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
15
NAEP Grade 8 Math Scale Score Gains, Overall,
2000-2007
Rankings are for the 39 states with Overall data
in both 2000 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
16
NAEP Grade 8 Math Scale Score Gains, African
American, 2000-2007
Rankings are for the 28 states with African
American data in both 2000 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
17
NAEP Grade 8 Math Scale Score Gains, Poor,
2000-2007
Rankings are for the 39 states with Poor data in
both 2000 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
18
NAEP Grade 8 Writing Scale Score Gains, Overall,
1998-2007
Rankings are for the 33 states with Overall data
in both 1998 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
19
NAEP Grade 8 Writing Scale Score Gains, African
American, 1998-2007
Rankings are for the 27 states with African
American data in both 1998 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
20
NAEP Grade 8 Writing Scale Score Gains, Low
Income, 1998-2007
Rankings are for the 33 states with Low Income
data in both 1998 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
21
Clearly, much more remains to be done in
elementary and middle school

• Too many youngsters still enter high school way
  behind.

22
The same is NOT true of our high schools.
23
Achievement Flat or Declining in Reading, 17
year olds, NAEP
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress.
24
Achievement up in Math,17 year olds, NAEP
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress and
NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress.
25
Reading Students Entering High School Better
Prepared, But Leaving Worse
Total 288
Total 290
Source NCES, 1999. Trends in Academic Progress.
Data from Long Term Trend NAEP
26
And gaps between groups wider today than in 1990
27
NAEP Reading, 17 Year-Olds
21
29
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
28
NAEP Math, 17 Year-Olds
28
20
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
29
Why so much less progress in our high schools?

• Hormones?

30
If so, wed see the same pattern in other
countries.

• And we dont.

31
PISA 2003 US 15 Year-Olds Rank Near The End Of
The Pack Among 29 OECD Countries
Source NCES, 2005, International Outcomes of
Learning in Mathematics, Literacy and Problem
Solving 2003 PISA Results. NCES 2005-003
32
2003 U.S. Ranked 24th out of 29 OECD Countries
in Mathematics
Source Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data
available at http//www.oecd.org/
33
Problems are not limited to our high-poverty and
high-minority schools . . .
34
U.S. Ranks Low in the Percent of Students in the
Highest Achievement Level (Level 6) in Math
Source Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data
available at http//www.oecd.org/
35
U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29 OECD Countries in the
Math Achievement of the Highest-Performing
Students
Students at the 95th Percentile
Source Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data
available at http//www.oecd.org/
36
U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29OECD Countries in the
Math Achievement of High-SES Students
Source Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data
available at http//www.oecd.org/
37
PISA 2006 Science Of 30 OECD Countries, U.S.A.
Ranked 21st
U.S.A.
Source NCES, PISA 2006 Results,
http//nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/
38
Even in problem-solving, something we consider an
American strength
39
PISA 2003 Problem-Solving, US Ranks 24th Out of
29 OECD Countries
Source NCES, 2005, International Outcomes of
Learning in Mathematics, Literacy and Problem
Solving 2003 PISA Results. NCES 2005-003
40
One measure on which we rank high?Inequality!
41
PISA 2003 Gaps in Performance Of U.S.15
Year-Olds Are Among the Largest of OECD Countries
Of 29 OECD countries, based on scores of
students at the 5th and 95th percentiles.
Source Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data
available at http//www.oecd.org/
42
Among OECD Countries, U.S.A. has the 4th Largest
Gap Between High-SES and Low-SES Students PISA
2006 Science
U.S.A.
Source OECD, PISA 2006 Results, table 4.8b,
http//www.oecd.org/
43
These gaps begin before children arrive at the
schoolhouse door.

• But, rather than organizing our educational
  system to ameliorate this problem, we organize it
  to exacerbate the problem.

44
How?

• By giving students who arrive with less, less in
  school, too.

45
Some of these lesses are a result of choices
that policymakers make.
46
NationInequities in State and Local Revenue Per
Student
Source The Education Trust, The Funding Gap
2005. Data are for 2003
47
But some of the most devastating lesses are a
function of choices that we educators make.
48
Choices we make about what to expect of whom
49
Students in Poor Schools Receive As for Work
That Would Earn Cs in Affluent Schools
Source Prospects (ABT Associates, 1993), in
Prospects Final Report on Student Outcomes,
PES, DOE, 1997.
50
Choices we make about what to teach whom
51
African American, Latino Native American high
school graduates are less likely to have been
enrolled in a full college prep track
percent in college prep
Full College Prep track is defined as at least 4
years of English, 3 years of math, 2 years of
natural science, 2 years of social science and 2
years of foreign language
Source Jay P. Greene, Public High School
Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the
United States, Manhattan Institute, September
2003. Table 8. 2001 high school graduates with
college-prep curriculum.
52
And choices we make about Whoteaches whom
53
More Classes in High-Poverty, High-Minority
Schools Taught By Out-of-Field Teachers
High poverty Low poverty
High minority Low minority
Note High Poverty school-50 or more of the
students are eligible for free/reduced price
lunch. Low-poverty school -15 or fewer of the
students are eligible for free/reduced price
lunch. High-minority school - 50 or more of
the students are nonwhite. Low-minority school-
15 or fewer of the students are nonwhite.
Teachers lacking a college major or minor in the
field. Data for secondary-level core academic
classes. Source Richard M. Ingersoll, University
of Pennsylvania. Original analysis for the Ed
Trust of 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey.
54
Poor and Minority Students Get More
Inexperienced Teachers
High poverty Low poverty
High minority Low minority
Teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience.
Note High poverty refers to the top quartile of
schools with students eligible for free/reduced
price lunch. Low poverty-bottom quartile of
schools with students eligible for free/reduced
price lunch. High minority-top quartile those
schools with the highest concentrations of
minority students. Low minority-bottom quartile
of schools with the lowest concentrations of
minority students
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
Monitoring Quality An Indicators Report,
December 2000.
55
Results are devastating.

• Kids who come in a little behind, leave a lot
  behind.

56
By the end of high school?
57
African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Do Math
at Same Levels As White 13 Year-Olds
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
58
African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Read at
Same Levels As White 13 Year-Olds
Note Long-Term Trends NAEP
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress
59
What Can We Do?
60
An awful lot of educators have decided that we
cant do much.
61
What We Hear Many Educators Say

• Theyre poor
• Their parents dont care
• They come to schools without breakfast
• Not enough books
• Not enough parents . . .

62
But if they are right, why are low-income
students and students of color performing so much
higher in some schools
63
Keith L. Ware ElementaryFort Riley, KS
64
Keith L. Ware ElementaryFort Riley, KS

• 529 students in grades K-5
• 18 African American
• 7 Latino
• 79 Low-Income

Source Kansas Department of Education,
http//online.ksde.org/rcard/index.aspx
65
High Achievement for Allat Ware Elementary, 2007
Source Kansas Department of Education,
http//online.ksde.org/rcard/index.aspx
66
Ware Elementary Exceeding Standards Low-Income
Students Grade 4 Math (2007)
Source Kansas Department of Education,
http//online.ksde.org/rcard/index.aspx
67
University Park Campus School
68
University Park Campus SchoolWorcester,
Massachusetts

• 220 Students in Grades 7-12
• 9 African American
• 18 Asian
• 35 Latino
• 39 White
• 73 Low-Income

Source Massachusetts Department of Education
School Profile, http//profiles.doe.mass.edu/
69
University Park Results 2004

• 100 of 10th graders passed MA high school exit
  exam on first attempt.
• 87 passed at advanced or proficient level.
• Fifth most successful school in the state,
  surpassing many schools serving wealthy students.
  

70
Very big differences at district level, tooeven
in the performance of the same group of
students.
71
There is a 19 point gap between Poor African
American 4th graders in the District of Columbia
and Boston (roughly equivalent to 2 years worth
of learning)
SOURCE U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial Urban
District Reading Assessment.
72
There is a 28 point gap between Poor African
American 8th graders in Los Angeles and Houston
(roughly equivalent to 3 years worth of learning)
SOURCE U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial Urban
District Reading Assessment.
73
Scale Score
There is an 18 point gap between Los Angeles
and Houston (equivalent to almost 2 years worth
of learning)
SOURCE U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002 Trial Urban
District Reading Assessment.
74
Bottom LineAt Every Level of Education, What We
Do Matters A Lot!
75
What do we know about the anatomy of success?
76
1. They focus on what they can do, rather than
what they cant.
77
Some schools and districts get all caught up in
correlations.
78
Spend endless time tracking

• Percent of babies born at low-birthweight
• Percent of children born to single moms
• Percent of children in families receiving
  government assistance
• Education levels of mothers and

79
The leaders in high-performing high poverty
schools and districts dont do that.

• They focus on what they can do, not on what they
  cant.

80
Some of our children live in pretty dire
circumstances. But we cant dwell on that,
because we cant change it. So when we come
here, we have to dwell on that which is going to
move our kids.

• Barbara Adderly, Principal,
• M. Hall Stanton Elementary, Philadelphia

81
2. They dont leave anything about teaching and
learning to chance.
82
An awful lot of our teacherseven brand new
onesare left to figure out on their own what to
teach and what constitutes good enough work.
83
Result? A System That

• Doesnt expect very much from MOST students and,
• Expects much less from some types of students
  than others.

84
A Work in Poor Schools Would Earn Cs in
Affluent Schools
Source Prospects (ABT Associates, 1993), in
Prospects Final Report on Student Outcomes,
PES, DOE, 1997.
85
No, say the states. They are supposed to teach
to standards!
86
Sample Language Arts StandardGrade 9

• The student will develop and apply expansive
  knowledge of words and word meanings to
  communicate.

87
Sample Language Arts StandardGrade 10

• The student will develop and apply expansive
  knowledge of words and word meanings to
  communicate.

88
Sample Language Arts StandardGrade 11

• The student will develop and apply expansive
  knowledge of words and word meanings to
  communicate.

89
Sample Language Arts StandardGrade 12

• The student will develop and apply expansive
  knowledge of words and word meanings to
  communicate.

90
Sample History Standard

• Students understand how science, technology and
  economic activity have developed, changed and
  affected societies throughout history.

91
What does this do?Leaves teachers entirely on
their own to figure out what to teach, what order
to teach it in, HOW to teach itand to what level.
92
Students can do no better than the assignments
they are given...
93
High Performing Schools and Districts

• Have clear and specific goals for what students
  should learn in every grade, including the order
  in which they should learn it
• Provide teachers with common curriculum,
  assignments
• Have regular vehicle to assure common marking
  standards
• Assess students every 4-8 weeks to measure
  progress
• ACT immediately on the results of those
  assessments.

94
3. Kids Who are Behind Get Extra Instruction
95
Most folks dont think too creatively about time.
General view Beyond our control.
96
The Full Year Calendar
97
Less Summer Vacation
98
Less Weekends, Holidays, Summer Vacation
99
Less Professional Development Days Early
Dismissal/Parent Conferences
100
Less Class Picnic, Class Trip, Thanksgiving
Feast, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hannukkah, Awards,
Assembles, Concerts
101
Less State and District Testing
102
Calendar Analysis Bottom Line

• Roughly 13-15 Eight-Hour Days Per Subject Per
  Year

103
Thats not all.

• Looking at the schedule.

104
Instructional Time Per Course
105
Bottom Line

• Students who take, say, math or English in 6
  period day schedule, get one full year of
  additional instruction over those who take 4
  years in block schedule.

106
Not just about how much time. Important how it
is used.
107
Take, for example, the matter of secondary
reading.

• Kids who arrive behind in readingoften simply
  assigned to courses that dont demand much
  reading.

108
Average High School Percent of Instructional
Time in Reading Intensive Courses
109
Surprise Gaps Grow.
110
Higher Performing High Schools

• Behind students spend 60 additional hours (25
  more time) over 1 year in reading related
  courses)
• Behind students get 240 additional hours over
  4 years!

111
In other words, high performing schools both
maximize time and dont leave its use to chance.
112
4. Good schools know how much teachers matter,
and they act on that knowledge.
113
Students in Dallas Gain More in Math with
Effective Teachers One Year Growth From 3rd-4th
Grade
Source Heather Jordan, Robert Mendro, and Dash
Weerasinghe, The Effects of Teachers on
Longitudinal Student Achievement, 1997.
114
LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS IN TN GAIN MORE WITH
EFFECTIVE TEACHERS One Year Growth
Sanders and Rivers, Cumulative and Residual
Effects of Teachers on Future Academic
Achievement, 1998.
115
Cumulative Teacher Effects On Students Math
Scores in Dallas (Grades 3-5)
Beginning Grade 3 Percentile Rank 57
Beginning Grade 3 Percentile Rank 55
Source Heather Jordan, Robert Mendro, and Dash
Weerasinghe, The Effects of Teachers on
Longitudinal Student Achievement, 1997.
116
Good teachers matter a lot.

• But some groups of kids dont get their fair
  share of quality teachers.

117
More Classes in High-Poverty, High-Minority
Schools Taught By Out-of-Field Teachers
High poverty Low poverty
High minority Low minority
Note High Poverty school-50 or more of the
students are eligible for free/reduced price
lunch. Low-poverty school -15 or fewer of the
students are eligible for free/reduced price
lunch. High-minority school - 50 or more of
the students are nonwhite. Low-minority school-
15 or fewer of the students are nonwhite.
Teachers lacking a college major or minor in the
field. Data for secondary-level core academic
classes. Source Richard M. Ingersoll, University
of Pennsylvania. Original analysis for the Ed
Trust of 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey.
118
Poor and Minority Students Get More
Inexperienced Teachers
High poverty Low poverty
High minority Low minority
Teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience.
Note High poverty refers to the top quartile of
schools with students eligible for free/reduced
price lunch. Low poverty-bottom quartile of
schools with students eligible for free/reduced
price lunch. High minority-top quartile those
schools with the highest concentrations of
minority students. Low minority-bottom quartile
of schools with the lowest concentrations of
minority students
Source National Center for Education Statistics,
Monitoring Quality An Indicators Report,
December 2000.
119
These differences even occur WITHIN same school
120
High performing schools and districts dont let
this happen.

• They
• work hard to attract and hold good teachers
• make sure that their best are assigned to the
  students who most need them and,
• they chase out teachers who are not good enough
  for their kids.

121
Download this presentation on Education Trust
website! www.edtrust.org In addition, the
complete presentation can be found at OUR
Co-ops website www.oursc.k12.ar.us