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

aNe

ther

lands

Japa

nCa

nada

Belgi

umSw

itzer

land

New

Zeala

ndAu

stra

liaCz

ech

Repu

blic

Icelan

dDe

nmar

kFr

ance

Swed

enAu

stria

Germ

any

Irelan

dOE

CD A

vera

geSlo

vack

Rep

ublic

Norw

ayLu

xem

bour

gPo

land

Hung

ary

Spain

Unite

d St

ates

Portu

gal

Italy

Gree

ceTu

rkey

Mex

ico

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

Belg

ium

Kore

aJa

pan

Finl

and

Net

herla

nds

New

Zea

land

Switz

erla

ndAu

stra

liaC

anad

aC

zech

Rep

ublic

Icel

and

Den

mar

kSw

eden

OEC

D A

vera

geAu

stria

Ger

man

yFr

ance

Slov

ak R

epub

licN

orw

ayIre

land

Pola

ndLu

xem

bour

gH

unga

ryU

nite

d St

ates

Italy

Turk

eySp

ain

Portu

gal

Gre

ece

Mex

ico

0

2

4

6

8

10

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

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

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

* 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

StudentsBe

lgiu

mNe

ther

land

sFi

nlan

dCz

ech

Repu

...Ca

nada

Japa

nKo

rea

Switz

erla

ndAu

stra

liaGe

rman

yNe

w Z

eala

ndFr

ance

Denm

ark

Swed

enAu

stria

Hung

ary

OEC

D AV

E...

Slov

ak R

epu.

..Lu

xem

bour

gIre

land

Icel

and

Pola

ndNo

rway

Unite

d St

ates

Spai

nPo

rtug

alIta

lyGr

eece

Turk

eyM

exic

o

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

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



Problems not limited to math, either.


Science?


Finla

ndCa

nada

Japa

nNe

w Ze

aland

Aust

ralia

Neth

erlan

dsRe

pub

of K

orea

Ger

man

yUn

ited

King

dom

Czec

h Re

pub

Switz

erlan

dAu

stria

Belgi

umIre

land

Hung

ary

Swed

enO

ECD

Aver

age

Polan

dDe

nmar

kFr

ance

Icela

ndUn

ited

Stat

esSl

ovak

Rep

ubSp

ainNo

rway

Luxe

mbo

urg

Italy

Portu

gal

Gre

ece

Turk

eyM

exico

300

350

400

450

500

550

Ave

rage

Sca

le S

core

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%

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s

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

Finla

ndCa

nada

New

Zeala

ndNe

ther

lands

Ger

man

yJa

pan

Switz

erlan

dAu

stra

liaAu

stria

Kore

aBe

lgium

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mCz

ech

Repu

bSw

eden

Luxe

mbo

urg

Irelan

dO

ECD

Aver

age

Hung

ary

Fran

ceDe

nmar

kPo

land

Unite

d St

ates

Icela

ndSp

ainNo

rway

Slov

ak R

epub Italy

Portu

gal

Gre

ece

Turk

eyM

exico

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Ave

rage

Sca

le S

core

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

nNe

w Ze

aland

Aust

ralia

Cana

daBe

lgium

Switz

erlan

dNe

ther

lands

Fran

ceDe

nmar

kCz

ech

Repu

blic

Germ

any

Swed

enAu

stria

Icelan

dHu

ngar

yOE

CD A

vera

geIre

land

Luxe

mbo

urg

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Norw

ayPo

land

Spain

Unite

d St

ates

Portu

gal

Italy

Gree

ceTu

rkey

Mex

ico

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



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

Neth

erlan

dsGe

rman

ySlo

vak R

epub

New

Zeala

ndAu

stria

Gree

ceHu

ngar

yPo

rtuga

lSw

eden

OECD

Ave

rage

Aust

ralia

Spain

Denm

ark

Irelan

dNo

rway

Mex

ico 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 Attainment

Cana

da

Japa

nUn

ited

Stat

es

Finl

and

Denm

ark

Norw

ayAu

stra

liaKo

rea

Icel

and

Neth

erla

nds

Belg

ium

Swed

en

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mIre

land

Switz

erla

ndSp

ain

Luxe

mbo

urg

New

Zeal

and

Fran

ce

Ger

man

yG

reec

eAu

stria

Hung

ary

Pola

ndM

exico

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

Czec

h Re

publ

ic Ita

lyPo

rtuga

l Tu

rkey

05

101520253035404550 Chart Title

Perc

ent o

f Adu

lts A

ges

25-6

4 w

ith A

s-so

ciat

es D

egre

e or

Hig

her

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 higherCa

nada

Ja

pan

Kore

aNo

rway

Irela

ndBe

lgiu

mDe

nmar

k Sp

ain

Fran

ce

Unite

d St

ates

Au

stra

liaFi

nlan

dSw

eden

Lu

xem

bour

g Ic

elan

dNe

ther

land

s

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

mSw

itzer

land

New

Zeal

and

Pola

ndG

reec

eG

erm

any

Aust

riaHu

ngar

y Po

rtuga

l M

exico

Slov

ak R

epub

licIta

ly

Czec

h Re

publ

ic Tu

rkey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

enta

ge (A

ges

25-3

4) w

ith

Ass

ocia

tes

Deg

ree

or H

ighe

r


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

Cana

da

Norw

ayPo

rtuga

l Sw

eden

De

nmar

k Au

stra

liaIc

elan

dUn

ited

King

dom

Gre

ece

Neth

erla

nds

Italy

Mex

icoFi

nlan

dNe

w Ze

alan

d Hu

ngar

y Tu

rkey

Au

stria

Switz

erla

ndSl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Czec

h Re

publ

ic Un

ited

Stat

es

Ger

man

y

-505

10152025303540

Diff

eren

ce in

Per

cent

age

of W

orkf

orce

w

ith A

ssoc

iate

s D

egre

e or

Hig

her:

A

ges

25-3

4 C

ompa

red

to 4

5-54


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

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