Closing Achievement Gaps in California: What a New Generation of Teachers Needs to Know

2005 by The Education Trust-West

Closing Achievement Gaps in California: What a New Generation of Teachers Needs to

Know.

Claremont Graduate University Teacher Education Program

August 2006Russlynn Ali, Director - The Education Trust-West


Where Are We Now? US NAEP Long Term

Trends


Good News: Looking at National Long Term Trends,

Achievement Gaps for Younger Hispanic and African American Students Are Narrowing at the

Elementary Level.

But We’re Losing Traction in Middle School.


NAEP Reading, 9 Year-Olds:Record Performance for All

Groups

150

170

190

210

230

250

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rag

e S

cale

Sco

re

African American Latino White

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/


African American-White Gap Narrows to Smallest Size in History

NAEP Reading, 9 Year-Olds

150

170

190

210

230

250

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re

African American White

29 3526



Latino-White Gap Narrows to Smallest Size in History


150

170

190

210

230

250

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rag

e S

cale

Sco

re

Latino White

24 2821



NAEP Math, 9 Year-Olds: Record Performance for All

Groups

150

170

190

210

230

250

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rag

e S

cale

Sco

re




African American-White Gap Narrows to Smallest Size in History

NAEP Math, 9 Year-Olds

150

170

190

210

230

250

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re


25

2823



Latino-White Gap Narrows to Smallest Size in HistoryNAEP Math, 9 Year-Olds

150

170

190

210

230

250

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Ave

rag

e S

cale

Sco

re

Latino White

2126

17



8th GradeNAEP Reading, 13 Year-Olds

200

220

240

260

280

300

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re




But Gaps Getting Bigger in Middle School

Latino-White Gap NAEP Reading, 13 Year-Olds

200

220

240

260

280

300

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re

Latino White

21 23 24



African American-White Gap NAEP Reading, 13 Year-Olds

200

220

240

260

280

300

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re


18 29 22




200

220

240

260

280

300

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re




African American-White GapNAEP Math, 13 Year-Olds

200

220

240

260

280

300

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re


2532

26



Latino-White Gap NAEP Math, 13 Year-Olds

200

220

240

260

280

300

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re

Latino White

20 2423



Progress Stops in High School.



220

240

260

280

300

320

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re


21 29




220

240

260

280

300

320

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re


20 28



African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Do Math at Same Levels

As White 13 Year-Olds

0%

100%

200 250 300 350

Average Scale Score

Per

cent

of

Stud

ents

White 13 Year-Olds African American 17 Year-Olds Latino 17-Year Olds

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Long Term Trends


African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Read at Same Levels As

White 13 Year-Olds

0%

100%

150 200 250 300 350

Average Scale Score

Per

cent

of

Stud

ents

White 13 Year-Olds African American 17 Year-Olds Latino 17 Year-Olds

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Long Term Trends


A National Crisis: The Nation is Losing Standing in the

Global Economy. Program for International

Student Assessment


Students in Other Countries Gain far More in

Secondary School TIMSS


PISA


U.S. Ranking* Among OECD Countries has Remained the Same or Dropped between

2000 and 2003

2000 2003Math- Space and Shape

21 22

Math- Change and Relationships

16 20

Reading 14 14

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

*Ranking out of 26 OECD Countries


2003: U.S. Ranked 24th out of 29 OECD Countries in Mathematics

300

350

400

450

500

550

Fin

lan

dK

ore

aN

eth

erla

nds

Japa

nC

ana

daB

elgi

um

Sw

itzer

land

New

Ze

ala

ndA

ustr

alia

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

Icel

and

Den

mar

kF

ranc

eS

wed

en

Aus

tria

Ger

man

yIr

ela

ndO

EC

D A

vera

geS

lova

ck R

epu

blic

Nor

way

Luxe

mbo

urg

Pol

and

Hun

gar

yS

pain

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Por

tuga

l

Italy

Gre

ece

Tu

rkey

Mex

ico

Ave

rag

e S

cale

Sco

re

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


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

0

2

4

6

8

10

Bel

giu

m

Kor

ea

Japa

nF

inla

nd

Net

her

land

sN

ew Z

eal

and

Sw

itzer

land

Aus

tral

iaC

ana

daC

zech

Re

pub

licIc

ela

ndD

enm

ark

Sw

ede

nO

EC

D A

vera

geA

ustr

iaG

erm

any

Fra

nce

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Nor

way

Ire

land

Pol

and

Luxe

mbo

urg

Hun

gar

yU

nite

d S

tate

s

Italy

Tu

rkey

Spa

inP

ortu

gal

Gre

ece

Mex

ico

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents



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

Performing Students*

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

Bel

giu

mJa

pan

Kor

ea

Sw

itzer

land

Net

her

land

sN

ew Z

eal

and

Fin

lan

dA

ustr

alia

Can

ada

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

Den

mar

kS

wed

en

Ger

man

yO

EC

D A

VE

RA

GE

Aus

tria

Icel

and

Fra

nce

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Nor

way

Hun

gar

yLu

xem

bour

gIr

ela

ndP

olan

dU

nite

d S

tate

sS

pain

Italy

Tu

rkey

Por

tuga

lG

reec

eM

exic

o

Ave

rag

e S

cale

Sco

re

* Students at the 95th PercentileSource: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results , data available at http://www.oecd.org/


U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29OECD Countries in the Math

Achievement of High-SES Students

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Bel

giu

mN

eth

erla

nds

Fin

lan

dC

zech

Re

pub

licC

ana

daJa

pan

Kor

ea

Sw

itzer

land

Aus

tral

iaG

erm

any

New

Ze

ala

ndF

ranc

eD

enm

ark

Sw

ede

nA

ustr

iaH

ung

ary

OE

CD

AV

ER

AG

ES

lova

k R

epub

licLu

xem

bour

gIr

ela

ndIc

ela

ndP

olan

dN

orw

ayU

nite

d S

tate

sS

pain

Por

tuga

lIta

lyG

reec

eT

urk

eyM

exic

o

Ave

rag

e S

cale

Sco

re



Our 15-year-olds have a worse average scale score in

mathematics than most of their international peers.

Source: OECD Problem Solving for Tomorrow’s World. 2004

Closest Competitor?

Latvia.


Problems not limited to math, either.


PISA 2003: Problem-Solving, US Ranks 24th Out of 29 OECD

Countries

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Kor

ea

Fin

lan

dJa

pan

New

Ze

ala

ndA

ustr

alia

Can

ada

Bel

giu

mS

witz

erla

ndN

eth

erla

nds

Fra

nce

Den

mar

kC

zech

Re

pub

licG

erm

any

Sw

ede

nA

ustr

iaIc

ela

ndH

ung

ary

OE

CD

Ave

rage

Ire

land

Luxe

mbo

urg

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Nor

way

Pol

and

Spa

inU

nite

d S

tate

sP

ortu

gal

Italy

Gre

ece

Tu

rkey

Mex

ico

Ave

rag

e S

cale

Sco

re

Source: NCES, 2005, International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics, Literacy and Problem Solving: 2003 PISA Results.NCES 2005-003


More than half of our 15 year olds at problem-solving level

1 or below.



More than half of our 15 year olds at problem-solving level

1 or below.Just ahead of us?

Russia and Latvia



One measure on which we rank high?

Inequality!


Performance Of U.S. 15 Year-Olds Highly Variable

8Mathematical Literacy

PISA 5th-95th Gap Rank*

Source: OECD, Learning for Tomorrow’s World: First Results From PISA 2003.

*Of 29 OECD countries

Problem Solving 6

Reading 8


How Does California Compare?

2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress


California Ranks Low Compared to Other States on NAEP – 4th Grade

ReadingAll 4th Grade Students - 2005 NAEP Reading

Average Scale Scores From Highest to Lowest

231

207

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

Source: NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2005


California’s Ranking on NAEP – 8th Grade Reading

All 8th Grade Students - 2005 NAEP Reading

274

250

220

230

240

250

260

270

280



Even when statistical significance is taken into account, almost every other state does better than California in 8th grade reading



And Our Achievement Gaps Are Larger Than Many Other States

2005 NAEP Grade 8 Reading, Latino-White Average Scale Score GapFrom Smallest Gap to Largest Gap

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mis

so

uri

Iow

a

Flo

rid

a

Wy

om

ing

Ala

sk

a

Ma

ryla

nd

Vir

gin

ia

Ark

an

sa

s

Ok

lah

om

a

Mic

hig

an

Ind

ian

a

Ha

wa

ii

Illin

ois

Ne

w M

ex

ico

No

rth

Ca

rolin

a

Ne

va

da

De

law

are

Ge

org

ia

Ida

ho

Te

xa

s

Uta

h

Ore

go

n

Ka

ns

as

Wa

sh

ing

ton

Na

tion

al P

ub

lic

Wis

co

ns

in

Ca

lifo

rnia

Ari

zo

na

Co

lora

do

Ne

bra

sk

a

Ne

w Y

ork

Pe

nn

sy

lva

nia

Ne

w J

ers

ey

Oh

io

Co

nn

ec

ticu

t

Min

ne

so

ta

Rh

od

e I

sla

nd

Ma

ss

ac

hu

se

tts

Dis

tric

t o

f C

olu

mb

ia

25



Are California’s low achievement levels due to our

demographics?


White 8th Grade Students - 2005 NAEP ReadingAverage Scale Score (White) From Highest to Lowest

301

264

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

CA’s White Students Are Scoring Below White Students in Many Other States.



California’s Non Low-Income Students Do Better Than Non Low-Income Students in Only Three

Other States.Non-Low-Income 8th Grade Students - 2005 NAEP ReadingAverage Scale Score (Non-Low-Income) From Highest to Lowest

280

262

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

280

285



On Our Own Assessments?


ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CST

All Students 2006

23

28

49

26

32

41

40

24

36

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

4th Grade 8th Grade 11 Grade

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic


MATH CSTAll Students 2006

22

24

54

42

32

26

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

4th Grade 8th GradeGeneral Math*

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic

*General Math – Tests Grades 6 & 7 Standards

Source: California Department of Education, 2005


ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS4th Grade, By Ethnicity

CST 2006

32 3111 10

32 33

20 17

37 35

69 73

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Black Latino White Asian

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic


ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS4th Grade, By Economic

StatusCST 2006

32

33

35

10

20

70

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

EconomicallyDisadvantaged

Non-Economically

Disadvantaged

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic


MATH4th Grade, By Ethnicity

CST 2006

35 2912 6

2728

1912

38 43

6881

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic


MATH4th Grade, By Economic

StatusCST 2006

30

28

42

11

18

71

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Non-Economically

Disadvantaged

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic


MATH4th Grade, By English

ProficiencyCST 2006

34

30

36

314

83

16

21

63

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

EnglishLearner

RedesignatedEnglishFluent

Proficient

FluentEnglish andEnglish Only

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic



CST 2006

37 36

13 13

36 38

25 24

27 25

62 62

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic



StatusCST 2006

38

37

25

15

27

58

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Non-Economically

Disadvantaged

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic


MATH*8th Grade, By Ethnicity

CST 2006

56 51

28 22

29 32

3331

16 1838

48

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic



MATH*8th Grade, By Economic

StatusCST 2006

51

31

17

31

33

37

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Non-Economically

Disadvantaged

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic



MATH*8th Grade, By English

ProficiencyCST 2006

63

27

10

26

40

34

35

34

31

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

EnglishLearner

RedesignatedEnglishFluent

Proficient

FluentEnglish &

English Only

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic



African American and Latino 7th graders read at about the level of White 3rd

graders680

643 644640

575

600

625

650

675

White 3rd Grade White 7th Grade Black 7th Grade Latino 7th Grade

CA

T/6

re

ad

ing

sc

ore

(2

00

5)

CAT/6 2006


Low-Income 7th graders read at about the level of Non Low-Income 3rd graders

677

643638

575

600

625

650

675

Non-Poor 3rd Grade Non-Poor 7th Grade Poor 7th Grade

CA

T/6

re

ad

ing

sc

ore

(2

00

5)

CAT/6 2006



CST 2006

56 53

28 24

23 26

2221

21 21

50 55

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic




StatusCST 2006

54

25

21

31

23

46

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Non-Economically

Disadvantaged

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic


2006 Algebra I CST (Grades 8-11)

By Ethnicity

70 64

38

2023

28

25

11 1433

23

53

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Column 4Prof/ AdvBasicBelow Basic


2006 Geometry CST (Grades 8-11)

By Ethnicity

71 64

32 24

2024

32

25

9 12

3652

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic


Are Achievement Gaps Closing?

We’ve Made Some Progress, Especially in the Early Grades

But Some Progress Cannot Be Considered

Enough


English Language Arts CST 4th Grade, Poverty Gap

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2004 2005 2006

Poor

Not Poor3235



English Language Arts CST 8th grade, Poverty Gap

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2004 2005 2006

Poor

Not Poor28

33



English Language Arts CST 8th grade, Black-White Gap

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2004 2005 2006

Black

White30

35



English Language Arts CST8th grade, Latino-White Gap

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2004 2005 2006

Latino

White32

37



Algebra I CST Grades 8-11 Latino-White Gap

0

20

40

60

80

100

2003 2004 2005 2006

Latino

White

19 16 Source: California Department of Education, 2006


Early Gains are Lost in Secondary Schools, Yet the Stakes are High.


Estimated Cumulative Passing Rates for the Class of 2007 – All Students

77 75

89 88

0

20

40

60

80

100

English-Language Arts Math

Percent Passed in 10th Grade Estimated Percent Passed by End of 11th Grade



Estimated Cumulative Passing Rates for the Class of 2007 – English Language

ArtsBy Ethnicity

6674

85 86

6774

8783 89 94 9583 89 96

0

20

40

60

80

100




Estimated Cumulative Passing Rates for the Class of 2007 – English Language

ArtsOther Sub-Groups

7766

4738

8981

6756

0

20

40

60

80

100

All Students Low-Income Students English Learners Special EducationStudents




Estimated Cumulative Passing Rates for the Class of 2007 - Math

By Ethnicity

5872

89 85

65 7286

7686 97 95

82 88 95

0

20

40

60

80

100




Estimated Cumulative Passing Rates for the Class of 2007 - Math

Other Sub-Groups

7565

54

37

8881

74

54

0

20

40

60

80

100

All Students Low-IncomeStudents

English Learners Special EducationStudents




Sample ELA Question on CAHSEE

Fill in the blank: _______________ going to be late if they

don’t hurry.

• They’re • Their • There • They’ll

Source: How Hard is the Exit Exam? EdSource, February 2006.


Sample Math Question on CAHSEE

Some students attend school 180 of the 365 days in a year. About what part of the year do they attend school?

A) 18%B) 50%C) 75% D) 180%

Source: How Hard is the Exit Exam? EdSource, February 2006.


With the right supports,students soar.


CAHSEE, Class of 2006as of January 2006

69

52

82

36

69

89

8082

56

9694

8082

55

0102030405060708090

100

Initial Pass Rates10th grade Class of

'06

by 11th grade Classof '06

As of J anuary 2006Class of '06

per

cen

t p

asse

d

All Black Latino White Asian English Learners Low-Income

Source: Wise, L., et al., Independent Evaluation of the CAHSEE, 2006 HumRRO


Is it fair to require students to pass the CAHSEE in order

to graduate?

What about alternative assessments?


3%

41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Lowest-Poverty Schools (0-10%) Highest-Poverty Schools(91-100%)

Average Percent of New Jersey general education students graduating via alternative assessment, 2004

Source: EdTrust-West analysis of NJ Department of Education and schoolmatters.com data, 2005

If we don’t hold the line on standards, we run the risk of creating devastating unintended

consequences… Alternatives to the High School Exit Exam?

Example: New Jersey


79%71%

77%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Central High, Newark 99% Black & Latino

52% poor

West Side, Newark 99% Black & Latino

58% poor

Woodrow Wilson, Camden95% Black & Latino

62% poor

Average Percent of NJ general education students graduating via alternative assessment, 2004

State Average

14.9%

Source: EdTrust-West analysis of NJ Department of Education and schoolmatters.com data, 2005

In New Jersey’s large urban high schools…


A lawsuit of this nature projects an image of "dumbing down" for those that cannot

comprehend nor compete and in the public mind those are Latino and African-American

students.”

- Sacramento Citizen, Latino Male


"If you can't pass this test, you're not ready to go on in life, to

college or to achieve your goals," she said. "We should be there

academically…"

- Sophomore Lynsey Davis, Palm Springs High School

Source: “Exit exam tests students, schools”, The Desert Sun, March 20, 2006


Far too many never get to the end of high school in the

first place. (And that’s a problem that pre-dates

CAHSEE.)


California’s Latino & African-American Students Graduate From High School In

Fewer Numbers Than Their Peers9th graders who graduated four years later, class of 2004

81%

56%

89%

69%58%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

AllStudents

AfricanAmerican

Asian Latino White

Source: Education Trust-West Analysis of CDE data, using the Manhattan Institute methodology


Overall, California ranks 32nd when it comes to high school graduation rates.

Graduation Rates - 2000-01

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NE

W J

ER

SE

YID

AH

ON

OR

TH

DA

KO

TA

SO

UT

H D

AK

OT

AM

INN

ES

OT

AU

TA

HIO

WA

WIS

CO

NS

INV

ER

MO

NT

NE

BR

AS

KA

MO

NT

AN

AC

ON

NE

CT

ICU

TP

EN

NS

YL

VA

NIA

MA

RY

LA

ND

ILL

INO

ISK

AN

SA

SM

ICH

IGA

NN

EW

HA

MP

SH

IRE

VIR

GIN

IAO

RE

GO

NR

HO

DE

IS

LA

ND

MIS

SO

UR

IIN

DIA

NA

WY

OM

ING

MA

INE

MA

SS

AC

HU

SE

TT

SO

HIO

WE

ST

VIR

GIN

IAA

RK

AN

SA

SO

KL

AH

OM

AC

OL

OR

AD

OC

AL

IFO

RN

IAA

RIZ

ON

AH

AW

AII

KE

NT

UC

KY

DIS

TR

ICT

TE

XA

SL

OU

ISIA

NA

DE

LA

WA

RE

AL

AS

KA

NO

RT

H C

AR

OL

INA

WA

SH

ING

TO

NA

LA

BA

MA

NE

W Y

OR

KN

EW

ME

XIC

OM

ISS

ISS

IPP

IT

EN

NE

SS

EE

GE

OR

GIA

NE

VA

DA

FL

OR

IDA

SO

UT

H C

AR

OL

INA

69%

Source: Losing Our Future: How Minority Youth Are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis, Harvard Civil Rights Project & Urban Institute, 2004 – Uses the Cumulative Promotion Index.


California’s High School Seniors Enroll in 4-Year Colleges at Lower Rates than Most

Other States.Only Mississippi sends a smaller percentage of its

students to 4-year colleges.

2329

47

33

46

37

05

101520253035404550

Per

cent

of

9th g

rade

enr

ollm

ent

Source: CA Educational Opportunity Report 2006: Roadblocks to College, UC Accord, UCLA IDEA


EVEN FOR THOSE WHO MAKE IT TO COLLEGE,

GAINS IN COLLEGE COMPLETION ARE NOT PROPORTIONATE WITH

GAINS IN COLLEGE ATTENDANCE.

Once they arrive, low-income students and students of

color less likely to succeed.


College Going vs. Completion of BA or Higher, Whites

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

White College-Going White Completion

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, October Current Population Surveys, 1972-2000, in US DOE, NCES, The Condition of Education 2002, p.166 and 174.

19

10


College Going vs. Completion of BA or Higher, Blacks

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Black BlackCompletion


21

7


College Going vs. Completion of BA or Higher, Hispanics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Hispanic Hispanic Completion


?? ##!!!


Some institutions do better than others.


Graduation Rates at CSU SchoolsLatino vs. White

Source: CollegeResults.org (www.edtrust.org)


Graduation Rates at CSU SchoolsAfrican-American vs. White



Graduation Rates at UC Schools

Latino vs. White



Graduation Rates at UC Schools

African American vs. White



Minority Students Require More Remediation at CSU

64%61% 59%

26%

45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

African Amer. Latino Asian White All Students

Percentage of all CSU Freshmen Requiring Remediation in English, Fall 2005

Source: CSU, Analytic Studies Unit, 2005. http://www.asd.calstate.edu/performance/proficiency.shtml


Minority Students Require More Remediation at CSU

63%

51%

30%25%

36%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

African Amer. Latino Asian White All Students

Percentage of CSU Freshmen Requiring Remediation in Math, Fall 2005

Source: CSU, Analytic Studies Unit, 2004. http://www.asd.calstate.edu/performance/proficiency.shtml


Students Requiring Remediation in College Earn Bachelor’s Degrees at Lower

Rates

Earned BA

No Remedial Courses 70%

Any Remedial Courses 49%

Source: Clifford Adelman, U.S. Department of Education, The Toolbox Revisited, 2006.

Based on students who attended a four-year institution at any time in their education.


Now, the Most Important Questions. . .

Does it have to be this way?

And What Can YOU Do About It?


#1: Neither Make Nor Tolerate Excuses. Get the

Data Out and Take Responsibility for Student

Learning.


Only 26% of High School Teachers Believe All Students Should be Held to

Same Standard

Source: Ready for the Real World: Americans Speak on High School Reform, ETS, 2005

34%

60%59%

26%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

K-12 Parents High School Teachers

We shouldn't expect disadvantaged students to reach the same level ofperformance on standardized tests

All students should be held to same standard


Low Expectations

Low Level Assignments/Instruction

Poor Test Results

Less Challenging

Courses

Underlying Everything Is the Cycle of Low Expectations


#2. Think very hard about how to deploy their

resources…both people and time.


School Size Matters


4-State Study:

Small Schools Reduce “Power” of Poverty by

30-50%

Source: Rural Community Education Trust, 2/2000


Why These Effects?

• ACADEMIC FOCUS/PURPOSE PERVADES EVERYTHING;

• STUDENTS MORE ACTIVELY ENGAGED WITH SCHOOL;

• RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ADULTS MORE COLLEGIAL

Source: Small Schools, Big Imaginations 1998


But small alone is not enough. . .


Take, for example, the matter of reading.

Kids who arrive behind in reading…often simply assigned to courses that don’t demand much

reading.


Average High School: Percent of Instructional Time in Reading Intensive Courses

Below Grade Level Students

On Grade Level Students

Advanced Students

24% 29% 35%


Surprise: Gaps Grow.


– “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!

Higher Performing High Schools:


In other words, use of instructional time not left to

chance.


There is also the matter of how we deploy our people.

9th Grade Bulge:Largely about “poor

preparation” and “difficult transitions?”


One Colorado High School: Student/Teacher Ratio by

GradeGrade 9th 10th 11th 12th

Average number of students per

teacher

30.3 16.7 11.6 12.1

Source: Jovenes Unidos & Padres Unidos; March, 2004.


Same Colorado High School:Counselor Deployment by

GradeGrade 9th 10th 11th 12th

Number of Counselors

1 1 1 1

Number of Students

572 366 309 213

Source: Jovenes Unidos and Padres Unidos; March, 2004


Is this school structured around student, or adult

needs?


Most of us think of semester- or year-long increments to

teach kids what they need to learn, but...


The Full Year Calendar

USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL TIMEAnalysis of One California Urban Middle School Calendar

Source: Ed Trust – West analysis of the master schedule of an unnamed school in CA


Less Summer Vacation



Less Weekends, Holidays, & Summer Vacation



Less Professional Development Days & Early Dismissal/Parent Conferences



Less Class Picnic, Class Trip, Thanksgiving Feast, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah,

Awards, Assembles, & Concerts



Less State and District Testing and Other Non-Instructional Time


Documents

Closing Achievement Gaps in California: What a New Generation of Teachers Needs to Know