Politics, Policy and Improving Schools

Politics, Policy and Improving Schools

CRESST Annual ConferenceUCLA September, 2004

The Education Trust

Three Purposes

• Put students front and center;• Describe evolution and central

purposes of NCLB;• Show you some encouraging data.

1. Where we were in the run up to reauthorization

For two decades, not much progress in improving student

achievement.

High School Achievement: Math and Science

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999

Math

Science

Source: NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress.

HIGH SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT: READING AND WRITING

250

260

270

280

290

300

1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

READING

WRITING

Achievement Up in Math, 13 Year-Olds, NAEP

220230240250260270280290300

1973

1978

1982

1986

1990

1992

1994

1996

1999

Av

era

ge

Sc

ale

S

co

re

All

Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress (p. 108) Washington, DC: US Department of Education, August 2000

Achievement Flat in Reading 13 Year-Olds, NAEP

200

220

240

260

280

300

1971

1975

1980

1984

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1999

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re

All


What about different groups of students?

During seventies and eighties, much progress in

raising achievement among poor and minority

students.

Gaps Narrow 1970-88NAEP Reading 17 Year-Olds

200

300

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Ave

rage

Rea

ding

NA

EP

Sco

re

African American Latino White


Gaps Narrow 1973-86NAEP Math Scores, 13 Year-Olds

200

220

240

260

280

300

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999

Av

era

ge

Sc

ale

S

co

re



Between 1988-90, that progress came to a halt…and gaps began to widen

once again.


Gaps Narrow, Then Hold Steady

or Widen: NAEP Math Scores, 17 Year-Olds

250

350

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999Ave

rage R

eadin

g N

AE

P S

core


20 32

After 1988, Gaps Mostly Widen NAEP Reading,

17 Year-Olds

200

300

1971

1975

1980

1984

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1999

Ave

rage R

eadin

g N

AE

P S

core



21 31

Gaps Narrow, Then Hold Steady or Widen: NAEP Math Scores, 13 Year-

Olds

200

220

240

260

280

300

1973

1978

1982

1986

1990

1992

1994

1996

1999

Av

era

ge

Sc

ale

S

co

re



25 32

Gaps Narrow, Then Mostly Widen NAEP Reading, 13 Year-Olds

200

220

240

260

280

300

1971

1975

1980

1984

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1999

Avera

ge S

cale

Sco

re



18

29

Where are we now?

Where Are We Now? 4th Grade Reading All Students

2003

38

32

30

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Prof/ AdvBasicBelow Basic

Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Summary Data Tables

By Race/Ethnicity 4th Grade Reading 2003

61 57 53

26 31

27 29 31

35 32

12 14 16

39 37

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

100%

Afr.Am.

Latino NativeAm.

White Asian

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic

Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

By Family Income 4th Grade Reading 2003

56

25

29

34

15

41

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

100%

Poor Not Poor



Where Are We Now? 8th Grade Math All Students

2003

33

40

27

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Summary Data Tables

By Race/Ethnicity 8th Grade Math 2003

61 53 46

21 23

3236

38

43 35

7 11 1636 42

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

100%

Afr.Am.

Latino NativeAm.

White Asian

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic


AT END OF HIGH SCHOOL?

African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Do Math at Same Levels As White 13 Year-Olds

0%

100%

200 250 300 350

White 8th Graders African American 12th GradersLatino 12th Graders

Source: NAEP 1999 Long Term Trends Summary Tables (online)

2. THE EVOLUTION AND CENTRAL PURPOSES OF

NCLB

Historically, Three Key Roles:

• Looking out for students most likely to be left behind—poor and minority children, disabled students, language minorities;

• Providing extra resources to schools with concentrations of such children;

• Providing leadership to improve overall school quality.

Throughout seventies and eighties, resources provided

through programs like Chapter 1 seemed to be

working.

By the early ’90s, it was clear that the we needed a

renewed focus on equity and achievement gaps.

The 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act:

•More flexibility, more accountability

•Federal government would no longer ask HOW the money was spent, but whether all students were learning

The 1994 reforms required:

- Consistent state standards in reading and math

- Full participation, with reasonable adaptations/accommodations for disabled and LEP students

- States determined how much progress would be considered “adequate” for schools and districts

- Disaggregated data

What happened?

- Many states failed to implement law:- Assessments Not Developed- LEP students not included- Weak AYP with no focus on gap-closing- Disaggregated data unavailable in most

states

- Gaps kept growing

And we continued defining “quality” in education in the

same old ways.

A few examples…

Abraham Lincoln Middle School Alachua County,

Florida• 31% White• 59% African American• 57% Low Income• An “A” school under the Florida

accountability model

Source: Florida Department of Education, http://web.fldoe.org.

Achievement Gaps at Lincoln2002-03 Reading

52

90

22 22

0

20

40

60

80

100

All White African

American

Low

Income

Pe

rce

nt

Pro

fic

ien

t

Source: Florida Department of Education, http://web.fldoe.org

AYP Target= 31%

Alexis I du Pont High SchoolRed Clay, Delaware

• 49% White• 24% African American• 21% Latino• 31% Low Income• Named “One of America’s Best

High Schools” by Newsweek Magazine

Source: Delaware Department of Education, http://www.doe.state.de.us

Newsweek Magazine, June 2, 2003

Achievement Gaps at du Pont2003 English/Language Arts 10th

Grade

66

43

18

87

32

0

20

40

60

80

100

All African

American

Latino White Low

Income

Perc

ent P

rofic

ient

AYP Target= 57%Source: Delaware Department of Education, http://www.doe.state.de.us

While the black, brown and poor kids in these schools

were effectively hidden from public view, they were not

hidden from Congress.

Prior to 2000 elections, democratic leadership

determined to do something about this.

Target: Accountability Systems

Then came the 2000 elections:

• A new president committed to “Texas style accountability”;

• Joined with key democratic leaders;• Pressed republican members to

come along.

• Bottom line: A very different politics.

3. It’s easy to focus on problems created by the

law

Three benefits

• Schools a lot more focused on the “hidden kids” than ever before;

• Creating a treasure trove of data validating how much schools matter; and,

• Laying the foundation for next-generation approaches, including value-added…

Dateline: North Carolina

18 June 2003

North CarolinaRaising Achievement, Closing Gaps

Grade 4 Reading

0

20

40

60

80

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Perc

en

t P

rofi

cie

nt

African American

White

28

1825

Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, http://www.ncpublicschools.org

Charlotte-MecklenburgRaising Achievement, Closing Gaps

Grade 3 Math

0

20

40

60

80

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Perc

en

t P

rofi

cie

nt

African American

Latino

White

4035

19


Chapel Hill-CarrboroRaising Achievement, Closing Gaps

Grade 3 Math

0

20

40

60

80

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Perc

en

t P

rofi

cie

nt

African American

White

4139

17


Education leaders see a clear link between the jump in test scores and the federal mandate to push schools to look past their overall score averages to the performance of their lowest-scoring students.

“Schools are really buckling down under the pressure of No Child Left Behind.”

- The News and Observer.

Tandra Batchelor-Mapp, principal of Glendale-Kenly Elementary School in Johnson County, said her school stepped up efforts to encourage parent participation while requiring more extra help and tutoring for struggling students. “No Child Left Behind was a major factor,” Batchelor-Mapp said. “We want our students and parents to be proud of our school.”- The News and Observer.

Black third-graders in Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools made a 24 point gain in math from last year and an 11 point gain in reading, more than double the progress reported for all students. Diane Villwock, testing director for Chapel Hill Carrboro schools, said schools focused heavily on students whose performance was below grade level, particularly minority students.

- The News and Observer.

Source: Education Trust analysis of data from National School-Level State Assessment Score Database (www.schooldata.org).

Poverty vs. Achievement in Kentucky Elementary Schools

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent FRPL

Ele

me

nta

ry M

ath

Per

ce

nti

le S

co

re

http://www.schooldata.org/



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent FRPL

Ele

me

nta

ry M

ath

Pe

rce

nti

le S

co

re


Source: Education Trust analysis of data from National School-Level State Assessment Score Database (www.schooldata.org).Data are from 2002.

Poverty vs. Achievement in Michigan Elementary Schools

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent Low-Income Students

Pe

rce

nt

4th

Gra

de

rs M

ee

tin

g S

tan

da

rd i

n M

ath


Also, more states, districts now moving toward…

• Benchmark assessments to inform instruction;

• Value added analyses to measure growth; and,

• Other new ways of using assessments for improvement.

The Education Trust

For More Information . . .www.edtrust.org202-293-1217

Politics, Policy and Improving Schools

Documents

Transcript of Politics, Policy and Improving Schools