© 2010 THE EDUCATION TRUST Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps Between Groups: Roles for Federal Policy

© 2010 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps Between Groups:Roles for Federal Policy


First, some good news.

After more than a decade of fairly flat achievement and stagnant or

growing gaps, we appear to be turning the corner.


Source:

4th Grade Reading:Record Performance with Gap Narrowing

1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

9 Year Olds – NAEP Reading

African American Latino White

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress, NCES*Denotes previous assessment format


Source:

4th Grade Math:Record Performance with Gap Narrowing

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

9 Year Olds – NAEP Math


Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore



Source:

8th Grade Reading: Recent Gap Narrowing for Blacks, Less for Latinos

1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290



Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore



Source:

8th Grade Math: Progress for All Groups, Some Gap Narrowing

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300



Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore



Bottom Line:

When we really focus on something, we make progress!


Clearly, much more remains to be done in elementary and middle school

Too many youngsters still enter high school way behind.


But at least we have some traction on elementary and middle school

problems.

The same is NOT true of our high schools.


Source:

Achievement Flat, Declining in Reading

1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

289285 286

17 Year Olds Overall - NAEP

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

NAEP Long-Term Trends, NCES (2004)


Source:

Achievement flat in math

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

304300 298

302 305 307 306 307 308 305 306

17-Year-Olds

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress* Denotes previous assessment format

© 2010 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2010 THE EDUCATION TRUST

And gaps between groups are mostly wider today than in late

eighties, early nineties


Source:

12th Grade Reading: No Progress, Gaps Wider than 1988

1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320



Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore



Source:

12 Grade Math: Results Mostly FlatGaps Same or Widening

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340



Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore


© 2010 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2010 THE EDUCATION TRUST

And no matter how you cut the data, our students aren’t doing well

compared to their peers in other countries.


Rankings are for the 26 OECD countries participating in PISA in 2000, 2003, and 2006.

PISA PerformanceU.S.A. Ranks Near Bottom, Has Fallen Since 2000

Subject 2000 Rank(out of 26)

Mathematics 17th

Science 13th

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2006 Results , http://www.oecd.org/

2003 Rank(out of 26)

22nd

Tied for 17th

2006 Rank(out of 26)

22nd

19th


A closer look at math


Source:

Of 29 OECD Countries, U.S.A. Ranked 24thFin

land

Kore

aNet

herla

nds

Japa

nCa

nada

Belgi

umSw

itzer

land

New Ze

aland

Aust

ralia

Czec

h Re

publ

icIce

land

Denm

ark

Fran

ceSw

eden

Aust

riaGe

rman

yIre

land

OECD

Aver

age

Slova

ck R

epub

licNor

way

Luxe

mbo

urg

Polan

dHu

ngar

ySp

ainUni

ted

Stat

esPo

rtuga

lIta

lyGr

eece

Turk

eyM

exico

300

350

400

450

500

550 2003 PISA - Math

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

PISA 2003 Results, OECD

U.S.A.


Problems are not limited to our high-poverty and high-minority

schools . . .


U.S. Ranks Low in the Percent of Students in the Highest Achievement Level (Level 6)

in Math

Bel

gium

Kor

ea

Japa

nF

inla

ndN

ethe

rland

sN

ew Z

eala

ndS

witz

erla

ndA

ustr

alia

Can

ada

Cze

ch R

epub

licIc

elan

dD

enm

ark

Sw

eden

OE

CD

Ave

rage

Aus

tria

Ger

man

yF

ranc

eS

lova

k R

epub

licN

orw

ay

Irel

and

Pol

and

Luxe

mbo

urg

Hun

gary

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Italy

Tur

key

Spa

inP

ortu

gal

Gre

ece

Mex

ico

0

2

4

6

8

10

Pe

rce

nt

of

Stu

de

nts

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/

http://www.oecd.org/


U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29 OECD Countries in the Math Achievement of the Highest-Performing Students*

Belg

ium

Japa

nKo

rea

Switz

erla

ndNe

ther

land

sNe

w Z

eala

ndFi

nlan

dAu

stra

liaCa

nada

Czec

h Re

pu...

Denm

ark

Swed

enGe

rman

yO

ECD

AVE.

..Au

stria

Icel

and

Fran

ceSl

ovak

Rep

u...

Norw

ayHu

ngar

yLu

xem

bour

gIre

land

Pola

ndUn

ited

Stat

esSp

ain

Italy

Turk

eyPo

rtug

alGr

eece

Mex

ico

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

Ave

rage

Sca

le S

core

* Students at the 95th PercentileSource: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results , data available at




U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29OECD Countries in the Math Achievement of High-SES

Students

Belg

ium

Neth

erla

nds

Finl

and

Czec

h Re

pu...

Cana

daJa

pan

Kore

aSw

itzer

land

Aust

ralia

Germ

any

New

Zea

land

Fran

ceDe

nmar

kSw

eden

Aust

riaHu

ngar

yO

ECD

AVE.

..Sl

ovak

Rep

u...

Luxe

mbo

urg

Irela

ndIc

elan

dPo

land

Norw

ayUn

ited

Stat

esSp

ain

Port

ugal

Italy

Gree

ceTu

rkey

Mex

ico

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Ave

rage

Sca

le S

core




Problems not limited to math, either.


Science?


Finl

and

Can

ada

Japa

nN

ew Z

eala

ndA

ustra

liaN

ethe

rland

sR

epub

of K

orea

Ger

man

yU

nite

d K

ingd

omC

zech

Rep

ubS

witz

erla

ndA

ustri

aB

elgi

umIre

land

Hun

gary

Sw

eden

OE

CD

Ave

rage

Pol

and

Den

mar

kFr

ance

Icel

and

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Slo

vak

Rep

ubS

pain

Nor

way

Luxe

mbo

urg

Italy

Por

tuga

lG

reec

eTu

rkey

Mex

ico

300

350

400

450

500

550

Av

era

ge

Sc

ale

Sc

ore

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/

Higher than U.S. average Not measurably different from U.S. average Lower than U.S. average


Immigrants? The U.S.A. does have a larger percentage of immigrants and children of immigrants than most

OECD countries

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

2nd Generation 1st Generation

Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Results, table 4.2c, http://www.oecd.org/

U.S.A.


But ranks 21st out of 30 OECD countries when only taking into account native student* scores

PISA 2006 Science

Finl

and

Can

ada

New

Zea

land

Net

herla

nds

Ger

man

yJa

pan

Sw

itzer

land

Aus

tralia

Aus

tria

Kor

eaB

elgi

umU

nite

d K

ingd

omC

zech

Rep

ubS

wed

enLu

xem

bour

gIre

land

OE

CD

Ave

rage

Hun

gary

Fran

ceD

enm

ark

Pol

and

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Icel

and

Spa

inN

orw

ayS

lova

k R

epub

Italy

Por

tuga

lG

reec

eTu

rkey

Mex

ico

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Av

era

ge

Sc

ale

Sc

ore

U.S.A.

*Students born in the country of assessment with at least one parent born in the same countrySource: OECD, PISA 2006 Results, table 4.2c, http://www.oecd.org/


Even in problem-solving, something we consider an American strength…


Source:

U.S.A. Ranks 24th Out of 29 OECD Countries in Problem-Solving

Kore

aFin

land

Japa

nNew

Zeala

ndAu

stra

liaCa

nada

Belgi

umSw

itzer

land

Nethe

rland

sFr

ance

Denm

ark

Czec

h Re

publ

icGe

rman

ySw

eden

Aust

riaIce

land

Hung

ary

OECD

Aver

age

Irelan

dLu

xem

bour

gSlo

vak R

epub

licNor

way

Polan

dSp

ainUni

ted

Stat

esPo

rtuga

lIta

lyGr

eece

Turk

eyM

exico

350

400

450

500

550

6002003 PISA

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

PISA 2003 Results, OECD

U.S.A.


Only place we rank high?

Inequality.


*Of 29 OECD countries, based on scores of students at the 5th and 95th percentiles.

PISA 2003: Gaps in Performance Of U.S.15 Year-Olds Are Among the Largest of OECD

Countries

Rank in Performance Gaps Between Highest and Lowest Achieving

Students *

Mathematical Literacy 8th

Problem Solving 6th




Source:

Among OECD Countries, U.S.A. has the 4th Largest Gap Between High-SES and Low-SES Students

Fran

ceLu

xem

bour

gBe

lgium

Unite

d St

ates

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mSw

itzer

land

Czec

h Re

pub

Nethe

rland

sGe

rman

ySlo

vak R

epub

New Ze

aland

Aust

riaGr

eece

Hung

ary

Portu

gal

Swed

enOEC

D Av

erag

eAu

stra

liaSp

ainDe

nmar

kIre

land

Norw

ayM

exico Italy

Polan

dCa

nada

Turk

eyIce

land

Japa

nFin

land

Kore

a

350

400

450

500

550

6002006 PISA - Science

Gap

in A

vera

ge S

cale

Sco

re

PISA 2006 Results, OECD, table 4.8b

U.S.A.


We used to make up for this by sending far more of our students

to college—but no longer.


U.S: 3rd Out of 30 OECD Countriesin Overall Postsecondary AttainmentC

anad

a Ja

pan

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Fin

land

Den

mar

k N

orw

ayA

ustr

alia

Kor

eaIc

elan

dN

ethe

rland

sB

elgi

umS

wed

en

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Irel

and

Sw

itzer

land

Spa

inLu

xem

bour

g N

ew Z

eala

nd

Fra

nce

Ger

man

yG

reec

eA

ustr

iaH

unga

ry

Pol

and

Mex

ico

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Italy

Por

tuga

l T

urke

y

05

101520253035404550 Chart Title

Per

cen

t o

f A

du

lts

Ag

es 2

5-64

wit

h A

s-so

ciat

es D

egre

e o

r H

igh

er

Source: 2007 OECD Education at a Glance, www.oecd.org/edu/eag2007. Note: data is for 2005.

United States (38%)


U.S. tied for 9th out of 30 OECD nations in the percentage of younger workers with an associates

degree or higherC

anad

a Ja

pan

Kore

aN

orw

ayIre

land

Belg

ium

Den

mar

k Sp

ain

Fran

ce

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Aust

ralia

Finl

and

Swed

en

Luxe

mbo

urg

Icel

and

Net

herla

nds

Uni

ted

King

dom

Switz

erla

ndN

ew Z

eala

nd

Pola

ndG

reec

eG

erm

any

Aust

riaH

unga

ry

Portu

gal

Mex

ico

Slov

ak R

epub

licIta

ly

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Turk

ey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pe

rce

nta

ge

(A

ge

s 2

5-3

4)

wit

h

As

so

cia

tes

De

gre

e o

r H

igh

er


United States (39%)


U.S. is one of only two OECD nations where today’s young people are not better educated than their

parentsKo

rea

Fran

ce

Irela

ndSp

ain

Luxe

mbo

urg

Japa

nPo

land

Belg

ium

Can

ada

Nor

way

Portu

gal

Swed

en

Den

mar

k Au

stra

liaIc

elan

d

Uni

ted

King

dom

Gre

ece

Net

herla

nds

Italy

M

exic

oFi

nlan

dN

ew Z

eala

nd

Hun

gary

Tu

rkey

Au

stria

Switz

erla

nd

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Ger

man

y

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Dif

fere

nc

e i

n P

erc

en

tag

e o

f W

ork

forc

e

wit

h A

ss

oc

iate

s D

eg

ree

or

Hig

he

r:

Ag

es

25

-34

Co

mp

are

d t

o 4

5-5

4


United States (0)


Current federal efforts aimed directly at reversing these trends

• Focused on “college and career readiness;”• Driving toward 2020 goal to regain world

leadership in postsecondary attainment.


Past federal focus

• Look out for the students most likely to be bypassed in improvement efforts by states, locals (poor, minorities, students with disabilities, English language learners);

• Promote “excellence, higher standards for all.”


Put Those Two Together:Key Roles for Federal Policy

• Get more kids to school ready;• Provide extra resources for schools serving

concentrations of poor children, language minorities, students with disabilities;

• Press states, districts, schools to expect more of such students;

• Push, press, lead, cajole states, districts, schools to attack the problems they are reluctant to face (provide leverage).


Race to the Top

• College-ready standards and assessments;• Effective teachers and leaders;• Data Systems;• School Turnaround.


Download These Slides

1250 H Street N.W. Suite 700Washington, D.C. 20005202/293-1217

www.edtrust.org

This November, Take Charge of Change. Join us November 4-6 in Arlington, VA for our

National Conference,

Taking Charge of Change: Effective Practices to Close Gaps and Raise Achievement.”

Documents

© 2010 THE EDUCATION TRUST Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps Between Groups: Roles for Federal Policy