Closing Achievement Gaps: Research-Based Lessons for Educators Joseph Murphy Vanderbilt University...
-
Upload
jessica-brooks -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
1
Transcript of Closing Achievement Gaps: Research-Based Lessons for Educators Joseph Murphy Vanderbilt University...
Closing Achievement Gaps: Research-Based Lessons for
Educators
Joseph Murphy
Vanderbilt [email protected]
(615) 322-8038
NAEP Long-Term Math (Age 13)
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004
Ave
rage
s WhiteBlackHispanic
(46) (42) (34) (25) (27) (29) (29) (29) (32) (26)
Year (Gap)
NAEP Main Math (Grade 8)
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007
Ave
rage
s
White
Black
Hispanic
(33) (40) (41) (40) (35) (34) (31)
Year (Gap)
NAEP Long-Term Reading (Age 13)
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004
Ave
rage
s White
Black
Hispanic
(36) (31) (27) (18) (20) (28) (31) (32) (29) (22)
Year (Gap)
NAEP Main Reading (Grade 8)
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
1992 1994 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007
Ave
rage
s
White
Black
Hispanic
(29) (30) (26) (27) (26) (28) (26)
Year (Gap)
NAEP Long-Term Math (Age 17)
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004
Ave
rage
s White
Black
Hispanic
(40) (38) (32) (29) (21) (26) (26) (27) (32)
(28)
Year (Gap)
NAEP Math (Grade 12)
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
1990 1992 1996 2000
Ave
rage
s
White
Black
Hispanic
(32) (29) (31) (33)
Year (Gap)
(52) (50) (31) (21) (30) (36) (30) (29) (31) (29)
Year (Gap)
NAEP Long-Term Reading (Age 17)
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004
Ave
rage
s
White
Black
Hispanic
NAEP Reading (Grade 12)
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
1992 1994 1998 2002 2005
Ave
rage
s White
Black
Hispanic
(23) (29) (26) (25) (25)
Year (Gap)
Calculus AB (AP Exam)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Ave
rage
s
White
Black
PuertoRican
(.85) (.96) (.97) (.99) (1.06) (1.07) (1.11) (1.10) (1.08) (1.11) (1.14)
Year (Gap)
Calculus BC (AP Exam)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Ave
rage
s White
Black
Puerto Rican
(.76) (.78) (.80) (.86) (.85) (.82) (.89) (.74) (.97) (.75) (1.03)
Year (Gap)
English Language (AP Exam)
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Ave
rage
s White
Black
PuertoRican
(.79) (.87) (.84) (.96) (.91) (.91) (.84) (.89) (.93) (.89) (.96)
Year (Gap)
English Literature (AP Exam)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Ave
rage
s White
Black
Puerto Rican
(.90) (.87) (1.42) (.98) (.90) (.97) (.92) (.94) (1.02) (1.02) (.78)
Year (Gap)
SAT Mathematics
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
1987
1991
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Ave
rage
s
White
Black
Hispanic
(103) (103) (105) (105) (111)
Year (Gap)
SAT Critical Reading/Verbal
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
1987
1991
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Ave
rage
s
White
Black
Hispanic
(96) (92) (96) (99) (98)
Year (Gap)
ACT Composite Score Trends
15
17
19
21
23
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Ave
rage
s White
Black
Hispanic
(4.3) (4.4) (4.6) (4.7) (5.2)
Year (Gap)
High School Completion
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
Per
cen
t
White
Black
Hispanic
(23.0) (17.2) (14.1) (12.5) (9.8) (6.1) (7.0) (9.8) (5.8) (5.4) (6.3) (4.5)
Year (Gap)
Drop-Out Rates (CPS)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
Per
cent White
Black
Hispanic
(9.0) (11.5) (8.3) (7.0) (4.5) (3.7) (4.2) (5.9) (5.7) (5.3) (4.8) (4.4)
Year (Gap)
B.A. Completion
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
Per
cent
WhiteBlackHispanic
(12.2) (15.3) (13.8) (13.4) (11.6) (13.4) (13.7) (16.2) (13.4) (16.5) (15.2) (17.4)
Year (Gap)
Individual: Educational Attainment
• Increased chance of falling behind in school
• Higher dropout rate• Reduced enrollment in college• Less likelihood of college degree
“Over a third of the low SES group and just 3 percent of the high group are ‘permanent dropouts,’ meaning high school dropouts who at approximately age 22 still lack high school certification of any type. Whereas almost 60 percent of the high SES group attended a four-year college by age 22, just 7 percent low SES youth did.” (Alexander, et al., 2007)
“Horribly, NAEP data indicate that, on average, Black students are leaving high school ‘with less mathematical knowledge than white 8th graders possess.’” (Hughes, 2003)
The gap has shifted from being an indicator of educational inequality to a direct cause of socioeconomic
inequality.
Society: Economic
• Reduced economic competitiveness• Lower standard of living• Impediment to productivity and
performance• Contribution to decline in economic
health
• If the minority-white gap had been closed between 1983 and 1998: • GDP would have been $310 - $525 billion
higher (2 - 4% of GDP) in 2008 dollars
• If the SES gap had been closed between 1983 and 1998:• GDP would have been $400 - $600 billion
higher (3 - 5% of GDP) in 2008 dollars
Society: Social Well-Being
• Reinforces social inequality and exacerbates social justice problems
• Reduces ties that bind society• Damages political fabric of democracy
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(Preschool)
Period A
(Age 0-5)
(K – 5)
Period B
( Age 6 – 11)
(6 – 12)
Period C
(Age 12 – 18)
4
3
2
1
2
1
3
2
1
Summer
K – 1
Summer
1 – 2
Summer
2 – 3
Summer
3 – 4
Summer
4 – 5
social policy
schooling
schools have a part to play.
Much of the solution is to be found in factors external to the school, but
Deep-Seated, Long-Standing, Hard-to-Solve Problem
• Historically not a front-burner issue
• An unwillingness to see the issue in ethical terms
• A reluctance to re-set priorities and re-allocate resources
Since low-income and minority
students are more school-
dependent than their more
advantaged peers, there is
potential for schools to help
solve the problem.
What School Dependency Means
• These youngsters are more advantaged in general when schools do things well
• These youngsters are more disadvantaged in general when schools do not do things well
Better instruction
Stronger culture(academic press)
Lower class size
More personalization
Greater curricular rigor
Academic and Environmental Factors Need to be Addressed in Tandem
• Instructional program• Culture
“Ultimately, programs that rely entirely on increasing academic standards without parallel attention to social-emotional factors associated with achievement motivation and performance will be less likely to improve student achievement outcomes.” (Becker and Luther, 2002)
We need to concentrate on those
factors that disproportionately
advantage low-income and
minority students.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
factors disproportionately advantage low-income and minority students
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
factors help all students the same
• Preschool programs• Cooperative instructional strategies• Smaller class sizes• Quality instruction• Co-curricular/extra curricular activities• More rigorous courses• Placement in high SES schools (school composition)• Minority teachers/working class teachers• Parent help with homework• Protective, supportive, risk-free environment• Service learning• High teacher expectations
Smaller Class Size• Ferguson, 1998• Finn, 1998• Finn & Achilles, 1990• Grissmar, 1998
• Kruger & Whitmore• Rothstein, 2004• Slavin & Madden, 2006
• More beneficial for minority than non-minority students
• Largest for disadvantaged students
• Greater for students attending inner-city schools
Quality Instruction
“The impact of the teacher is far greater for minority students…Good teachers can have a differentially positive effect on minority students.” (Singham, 2003)
Curricular Rigor• Minority and low-income students see to benefit
more than others from stronger course requirements. (Thompson, 2002)
• Content standards have a positive effect on average achievement; the gains [are] especially large more minority students. (Harris & Hertert, 2006)
• The gains from taking a more demanding mathematics curriculum are even greater for African American and Latino students than for white students. (Thompson & O’Quinn, 2001)
Service Learning• “Service learning may be especially attractive to
principals of low SES schools, in part because it may be related to higher achievement generally and to smaller achievement gaps between higher and lower income students.” (Scales, et al., 2006)
• “[C]ommunity service appears to be related to a smaller achievement gap between students from lower and higher income backgrounds. Moreover, experiencing service-learning for at least a few weeks appears to be related to a smaller gap in most academic outcomes between low and high-SES students.” (Scales, et al., 2006)
All factors are not equal in closing the gap.
Some have more power to reduce discrepancies.
• Opportunity to learn• Quality instruction
ninth grade academy
summer support, grades 8 and 9
acceleration + remediation design
extra services…double sessions
service learning
co-curricular involvement
after school tutoring program
master teachers
faculty advisors extended schooling
Later:
• Problems are harder• Problems are more entrenched• Problems are less malleable• Problems have infected multiple domains
(e.g., reading problem motivation engagement); an early problem of 1
or 2 things becomes a later problem of 5 or 6 things
Some factors carry more weight in certain periods
of the school career.
• High teacher expectations are more powerful in PreK-4
• High personalization is more powerful in grades 8-12
Quality Instruction (concept portrait)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Units of Benefit
Grades
instruction units added 2 5 9
eighth grade eighth & ninth gradeseighth, ninth, & tenth
grades
lesson #1 lesson #2
instruction learning instruction
problem
arises
lesson #1 lesson #2
instruction learning instruction
problem
arises
Use of Categories
• Lumping minorities together• Aggregating diverse groups within categories• Ignoring individual differences
move: enhance accountability via testing
strategy: move most effective teachers to “tested” grades
consequences: ???
move: enhance academic rigor
strategy: detrack
consequence: ???
move: create culturally responsive culture
strategy: establish AA center/club
consequence: ???
Costs as well as benefits of gap reduction strategies
need to be weighed.
Ninth grade academy? Salary supplement for teachers working in schools with high concentrations of low-income students? Additional AP courses?
0
1.2
2.4
3.8
0
0.6
1.2
2.4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
K 1 2 3
Years of School
Gra
de
Eq
uiv
alen
t Ach
ieve
men
t
WhiteBlack
gap .6 1.2 1.4
VALUE ADDED
0.6
1.2
1.6
0.4
0.8
1.3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
K 1 2 3
Years of School
Gra
de
Equ
iva
lent
Ach
ieve
men
t
WhiteBlack
gap .2 .4 .3
LEVEL
Relative vs. Absolute Change
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
8 12
Grade Level
Gra
de-
Lev
el E
qu
ival
ent
white
black
Absolute 3.0 3.5 +.5Relative
• Rate of change: black
60%white
44%• Black achievement as % of white achievement 63% 70%
ACTIONS
FocusEnhancement Actions Barrier-Removal Actions
Help All Equally Help Low-SES More Help All Equally Help Low-SES More
All Students
[1]
• Align curriculum• Deepen PD for Teachers
[2]• Provide academic summer school• Use cooperative learning strategies• Raise teacher expectations• Add time to school day
[3] [4]• Detrack• Re-culture discriminatory discipline culture• Remove transportation barriers for more co-curricular opportunities• Reduce class size
Targeted Students
[5] [6]
• Provide supplemental tutoring• Target additional instructional time• Form cultural similar clubs (AA)
[7] [8]• Remove barriers that prevent parents from participating with school
I. Introduction
A. Starting point
B. Frames of investigation1. Categorical
2. Theoretical
3. Core framea) family/society (non-school)
b) school
4. Our frame
a) SES
b) family
c) community
d) individual factors
e) peers
f) racial discrimination
g) ???
h) schooling