Excellence Gap Research in the U.S.: A 20-year Perspective

Dr. Jonathan A. PluckerFebruary 18, 2012

AAAS Annual MeetingVancouver, British Columbia

1

2

What is the Excellence Gap?

• There has been a lot of focus on minimum competency achievement gaps– the overall average gaps at low to medium levels of

performance between demographic groups• Comparatively little attention to gaps in performance among

high ability students– In a good educational system we should see both equity

AND excellence– Plenty of evidence this can happen

4

Super Awesome Quote!

• Education systems that fail to develop the potential of students from every background can make claims to neither excellence nor equity, neither quality nor equality.

5

Why Should We Care?

• Life prospects of students from disadvantaged backgrounds

• Equity of the Educational System– Shouldn’t there be roughly the same

percentage of high-performing students from every background?

• Is minimum competency really enough?• International Competitiveness & Pipeline Issues

6

A Widening Excellence Gap

TIMSS may be a better international assessment on which to base policy, since it samples by grade and not age and is similar in many ways to NAEP.

Both in absolute and relative terms, it is clear the U.S. is at a huge disadvantage.

1995 1999 2003 20070

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Percent Scoring at Advanced Benchmark on TIMSS Grade 8 Math

Singapore

Korea

Taiwan

Japan

England

Russia

U.S.

45%!

Not45%!

Measuring the Excellence Gap

Percent Scoring at the Highest Level For example …

Free and Reduced Lunch (FARM) : 6% AdvancedNon-Free and Reduced Lunch (Non-FARM) : 15% Advanced15% - 6% = Excellence Gap of 9%

Can also measure using scores at a given high percentile, say the student at the 90th percentile (better for statistical reasons when tracking trends)

8

Excellence Gaps Using the NAEP

• The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scored on a 0-500 point scale

• Roughly every two years by the U.S. Department of Education

• Performance Levels are Determined by Cut-Scores (Basic, Proficient, Advanced)

• Built on framework similar to TIMSS

9

2011 NAEP Math Results

Male

Female

White

Black

Hispan

icAsia

n

N.Amer. ELL

non-ELL Full

Reduced

Free

0

5

10

15

20

25

86

9

1 2

19

2 1

7

11

42

97

11

2 3

22

31

9

13

52

Grade 4 Grade 8

10

2011 NAEP Reading Results

Male

Female

White

Black

Hispan

icAsia

n

N.Amer. ELL

non-ELL Full

Reduced

Free

02468

1012141618

79

11

23

17

4

1

9

13

422

5 5

1 1

8

20

45

21

Grade 4 Grade 8

11

Summary of 2011 NAEP

• There are large gaps in the advanced achievement of under-represented groups relative to their peers on multiple assessments

Race, Socioeconomic Status, English Language Learners

• These populations are growing as a share of all students

• These high potential students cannot “take care of themselves.”

12

TRENDS

13

1996

2000

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2.93.2

5.5

6.8

7.6

8.2

9.0

0.1 0.2 0.40.6 0.8 0.9 1.1

0.2 0.81.3 1.5 1.4

1.9

WhiteBlackHispanic

% Advanced in Math Grade 4

14

NCLB

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 20110.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

3.43.7

4.3 4.13.8 3.8

4.7

0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7

0.7 0.60.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0

3.3

3.8

5.4 5.65.1

6.1

7.8

WhiteBlack HispanicAsian

% Advanced in Reading Grade 8

15

NCLB

Trends in Reading Grade 4at the 90th Percentile

1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

WhiteBlackHispanic

28.2

24.4

20.6

23.0

Long-Term Trends in the Excellence Gap

• If we go back before the passage of NCLB, there isn’t much evidence that the gaps are shrinking – many have become much larger.

• In 2009 and 2011 the numbers for ELL students were especially discouraging, giving back most if not all previous gains over the last dozen years.

17

NAEP Math Grade 4 Gap Trends

18

1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 20090.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

FARM GapWhite-Black GapWhite-Hispanic GapELL Gap

Roughly 2-3 grade levels.

NAEP Math Grade 8 Gap Trends

19

1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 20090.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

FARM GapWhite-Black GapWhite-Hispanic GapELL Gap

NAEP Reading Grade 4 Gap Trends

20

1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 20090.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

FARM GapWhite-Black GapWhite-Hispanic GapELL Gap

NAEP Reading Grade 8 Gap Trends

21

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 20090.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

FARM GapWhite-Black GapWhite-Hispanic GapELL Gap

Worse Than It Looks

• In many cases there has been very little change in overall performance

• Some gaps have shrunk because white or non-FARM scores have declined

• At the present rate, it would take decades (if ever) for the gaps to close.

22

Projected Trends in Reading Grade 4

19982000

20022003

20052007

20092011

20132015

20172019

20212023

20252027

20292031

20332035

20372039

20412043

20452047

20492051

20532055

20572059

2061210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

WhiteBlackHispanic

2051 2060

More Evidence for the Excellence Gap

24

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

% of Tests Receiving a 4 or 5 on AP Exams

BlackWhiteHispanic

Not “underrepresented”?

BUT THEY KEEP TELLING US THERE’S A RISING TIDE …

25

A Distinct Problem

• The Excellence Gap is not the same phenomenon as the achievement gap

• Although achievement gaps are somewhat larger than excellence gaps, there are also closing more quickly and consistently

• This is especially true for lower-income students during the NCLB era

• (not that we’d call the rate achievement gaps are closing fast)

26

Achievement vs. Excellence Gaps, FARM students 2003-2009

27

Math 4

Math 8

Reading 4

Reading 8

-2 -1 0 1 2

90th Percentile All Students

A Complicated Story

• Focusing on race or income in isolation can give a misleading picture– Interaction of race & income– Changes in composition

• For example the decline in Reading Grade 8 scores among White and FARM students since 2003 is almost entirely due to lower scores among lower-income Whites.

28

Reading G8 90th Percentile Trends

29

2003 2005 2007 2009270.0

275.0

280.0

285.0

290.0

295.0

300.0

305.0

310.0

315.0

320.0

White FARMWhite Non-FARMBlack FARMBlack Non-FARMHispanic FARMHispanic Non-FARM

Poor white students performing at similar levelsto not-poor Hispanic and Black students

( )

SO IT’S ALL ABOUT POVERTY THEN?

30

2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 20110

2

4

6

8

10

12

8

11

9

1110

9

23 3 3 3

3

5

7

3

5

45

WhiteBlackHispanic

NAEP Grade 4 Reading – DOD Schools

31

8% 6%

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

32

• The “excellence underclass” will soon be the majority of students in most states–It already is in many states.

• A culture that values talent in all students is of unestimable benefit to everyone.

33

BUT WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

34

What is the Federal Government Doing?

35

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

3,000

5,000 6,500 6,500

6,500

7,500

11,250 11,177 11,111 11,022

9,596

7,597 7,463

10,000

7,000 6,600

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Federal Appropriation for Javits Gifted and Talented Education

Appropriated Proposed by President

Years

Appr

opria

tion

in th

ousa

nds o

f dol

lars

<-- NCLB enacted

What are States Doing?

• Although some states have adopted a mandate to identify and serve gifted students and have appropriated money to do so:– Gifted education funds are very vulnerable due to the

fiscal climate– Most gifted education funding and policy is still carried out

at the state level, with a major effect on equity– There is no evidence that ANY state has figured out a way

to address Excellence Gaps, and many states have laughably low criteria for what constitutes an Advanced student

36

% Advanced Math Grade 4 State vs. NAEP

37

White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic White Black HispanicCalifornia Pennsylvania Indiana Maine

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

53

26

29

58

27

32

16

3 4

15

7 6

9

1 1

9

2 1

6

02

7

20

StateNAEP

Recommendation #1

• Make Closing the Excellence Gap a State and National Priority– Expose people to the data– That which is not visible is by definition

invisible.• Stop pretending the U.S. is “post-racial” or

“beyond class distinctions”– Much criticism of G/T programs is deserved.

38

Recommendation #2

• Policymakers and educators should ask two questions:– How will this impact advanced students?– How will this help more students perform at

advanced levels?

39

Recommendations #3 and #4

• Acknowledge That Both Minimum Competency and Excellence Can be Addressed At the Same Time– Other countries acknowledge this, why

can’t we?• Set Realistic Goal to Shrink Gaps

– We’re not getting every subgroup to 10% advanced in every content area any time soon.

40

Recommendations #5 and #6

• Determine the Appropriate Mix of Federal, State, Local Policies and Interventions– Federal mandate probably not a good thing– Federal research role probably a very good

thing• Use things that we know work well

– Grouping, acceleration, identification PD

41

Recommendations #7, #8, and #9

• Include the Performance of Advanced Students in Discussions of Common Standards

• Address the “Low-Hanging Policy Fruit” Immediately– Early graduation and financial aid

• Conduct More Research on Advanced Learning and Talent Development– How to address stereotype threat?

42

Future Excellence Gap Work

• Second edition of report in March 2012• Special report on science excellence gaps in

near future• Special report on the experiences of gifted

black males around August 2012• Report on NAEP excellence gaps in major

urban areas around this time next year.

44

Excessively ProvocativeClosing Thought #1

The U.S. has created a great context in which to be

talented, but it is very bad at developing talent.

45

Excessively ProvocativeClosing Thought #2

There is no naturaladvocacy group foradvanced students.

46

ceep.indiana.edu/mindthegap

47

CEEP Contact Information:

Jonathan Plucker, Ph.D.Director

1900 East Tenth StreetBloomington, Indiana 47406-7512812-855-4438Fax: 812-856-5890jplucker@indiana.edu

http://ceep.indiana.edu

48