Performance of All Student Subgroups in Arkansas: Moving Beyond Achievement Gaps
description
Transcript of Performance of All Student Subgroups in Arkansas: Moving Beyond Achievement Gaps
Performance of All Student Subgroups in Arkansas: Moving
Beyond Achievement Gaps
Dr. Gary RitterJune 12, 2014
Bridging the Gap Symposium
2
Objectives of this Talk
1. Introduce statistics on achievement gaps
• Frame panel discussions
• Focus on effective strategies for educating disadvantaged students
2. Provide some thoughts on moving forward
3. Introduce OEP … I’ll start here
•AR Education Reports
• Policy Briefs
• Report Cards
• Newsletters
• Data Resources
www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/3
4
Accessing Publications through the OEPRefer to menu bar at the top left of the OEP homepage. www.officeforeducationpolicy.org
OEPublications leads to options such as Report Cards, Education Reports and Policy Briefs.
Remember to sign up for our weekly e-mail, OEP Web Links (OWL), to get updated on current education news across the state and nation.
Please e-mail [email protected] to sign up.Also, sign up for the OEP Blog at www.officeforedpolicy.com to receive alerts when the latest OEP Blog posts are published.
5
Refer to menu bar at the top left of the OEP homepage. http://www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/
Click on Arkansas School Data
Accessing Data Resources through the OEP
Arkansas School Data has multiple databases at both school and district levels.
6
Overview
1. Quick Lake View Background
2. Defining and Measuring the Gaps: Simple Task?
3. Description of OEP Report
4. Achievement Gaps in ARa. What is the Magnitude?
b. How have gaps changed over time?
c. How does AR compare to other states?
d. Gaps in other outcomes
5. Moving Forward?
7
AR School Funding Litigation• AR Constitution requires that the state provide a “general,
suitable and efficient system of free public schools.”– 1979 – Alma School District and 10 others file lawsuit over school
funding. Alma v. Dupree (1983) ruling: AR Supreme Court strikes down public school funding formula
– 1984 – AR raises sales tax by 1¢ to increase funding– 1992 – Lake View School District sues state over disparities in
school funding– 1994 – Pulaski County Chancery Court Judge rules in favor of Lake
View, finding finance system violates education adequacy & equity provisions of state Constitution
– 2001 – After Lake View case sent back, PC Judge again declares system inadequate and inequitable
– Nov. 2002 – AR Supreme Court upholds Lake View; mandates changes by January 2004 (new funding formula)
8
Post-Lake View: New Funding Formula
• Act 69, Act 108, Act 57 – funding changes– $5,400 per student in base funding; – Supplementary funding for specialized needs:
• $3,250 per student - alternative learning programs ;• $195 per student - English language learner; • Low income students
– $480 per student in districts (frl < 70%) – $960 per student in districts (70% < frl < 90%) – $1440 per student in districts (frl > 90%)
• $50 per student for professional development
• Key point progressive funding for disadvantaged students
9
Disadvantaged Student Changes?• More disadvantaged districts receiving more– Lowest wealth districts increased by 22%
(High Wealth 10%) – measured by property value– Highest poverty districts increased by 23%
(Low Poverty 19%) – measured by percent FRL
• Targeted funds went to:– Districts with more NSLA students– Districts with more non-white students– Districts with more students struggling on tests– Districts with declining enrollments
10
Per Pupil Expenditures by Poverty Rates
2003-04 2006-07 2012-13$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
$13,000
$6,144
$10,330
$6,455
$10,843
$6,807
$11,395
$6,728
$12,154
$7,290
$12,526
Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5
Least Poor Districts
Poorest Districts
Poorest Districts
have $12,526 per
pupil
Least poor have just
over $10,000
11
Per Pupil Expenditures by Percentage of Minority Students
2003-04 2006-07 2012-13$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
$13,000
$6,316
$11,469
$6,158
$11,094
$6,154
$11,248
$6,565
$11,654
$7,014
$11,773
Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5
Fewest Minority Students
Most Minority Students
Districts with most
minority students
have $11,773 per pupil.
Highest expenditures
since 2003
12
Defining and Measuring Achievement Gaps
• What?– Test scores– High School graduation rates– College completion
• For whom?– Arkansas: 36% minority students (21% black, 10% Hispanic)– Arkansas: 61% low-income students (frl)
• Compared to what?– Other states?– Gaps from prior years?
13
Measuring Achievement Gaps: Complications?
• Mind the GAP (only?): Often achievement gaps are presented without the context of performance and growth over time– For instance, a media outlet might report that “The GAP
between performance of rich and poor students across Arkansas decreased by 3 percentage points last year.” • Is this positive?• What if the gap was lower simply because the higher
performing group decreased its performance?
14
Measuring Achievement Gaps• The top method
is the most favorable way for a gap to decrease
• But we might also see a similar gap decrease from the bottom example (not nearly as positive)
15
(Gap) Looks can be deceiving …
2000 20100
20
40
60
80
100
7565
50 45
Rich Students Poor Students
2000 20100
20
40
60
80
100
75
96
50
70
Rich Students Poor Students
• School at right saw GAP decrease by 5 pts (from 25 pts in 2000 to only 20 pt gap in 2010)
• School below saw GAP increase by 1 pt. (from 25 pts to 26 pts. )
Both schools started at the same spot in the year 2000 … which school made better progress for all student groups?
16
Different metrics different answers?
• Perhaps better to consider performance and growth of each group over time rather than simply look at gaps.
• More confusion scale score averages versus proficiency levels
• Just viewing % proficient ignores all movement above and below 250.
Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
Scale Scores 150 200 235 250 275 325 350 400
Key Takeaway: It’s not straightforward or obvious!
17
• Recently released report for the Commission
• Examines performance of AR students over time
• NAEP and benchmark
• Subgroups and achievement gap analyses
• Visit and download at OEP!
18
Achievement Gaps in Arkansas:How big are the gaps and are they growing?
19
Data
• Student Subgroups– By race (black, Hispanic, white)– By income (free lunch eligible v. not)
• Student Achievement Measured by:– NAEP: “The Nation’s Report Card” (2000 thru 2013)
• Grade 4 and 8• Math and literacy
– Arkansas Benchmark Tests (2005-06 thru 2012-13)• Grade 3- 8 • Math and literacy
20
Gap Report: Many Sights to See
21
NAEP Results for Arkansas, 2013
• Scale Score Differences (proficiency %)
• Differences are substantial (AR SD ~= 80 points)• Black-white gap is largest, then income gap• Math grade 8 gaps largest
Black-White Gap Hispanic-White Gap
Income Gap
Math Grade 4 -23 (-30%) -12 (-16%) -19 (-28%)Math Grade 8 -31 (-25%) -22 (-14%) -25 (-27%)Literacy Grade 4 -26 (-23%) -15 (-14%) -24 (-24%)Literacy Grade 8 -25 (-25%) -13 (-16%) -22 (-24%)
22
NAEP Results for Arkansas, change over time from 2000 to 2013
• As mentioned earlier … scale scores and proficiency percentages can tell different stories
23
NAEP: Over Time• Arkansas growth over time – in scale scores (% proficient in parentheses)
– Math: 2000 to 2013– Literacy: 2002 to 2013
• Greater gains in math than literacy; not obvious whether disadvantaged students are gaining more
*2005 to 2013
Black Hispanic* White Low-Income
Non-Low-Income
Math Grade 4 +29 (+15%) -1 (0%) +21 (+29%) +27 (+23%) +23 (+35%)Math Grade 8 +28 (+7%) +8 (+1%) +18 (+15%) +18 (+9%) +23 (+25%)Literacy Grade 4 +8 (+7%) +7 (+8%) +4 (+5%) +7 (+5%) +6 (+8%)Literacy Grade 8 +6 (+6%) +6 (+8%) +2 (+3%) +3 (+2%) +7 (+9%)
24
NAEP: Grade 4 Math – Scale Scores
• Black students grew more than white;
• Gap decreased over time between black and white students
25
NAEP: Grade 4 Math - % Proficient• Gap between
black and white students increased when measured by % proficiency
• - but decreased when measured by scale scores
• Note: opposing answers both correct!
• Nevertheless, gaps are large.
26
NAEP Math - Summary• In 4th and 8th grade, Arkansas’ subgroups experienced positive
growth in performance between 2000 and 2013 on proficiency levels and scale score points. – Black–white achievement gap grew in respect to the proficiency
percentages• +14 percentage points in 4th grade• +8 percentage points in 8th grade
– However, in respect to scale score points, the gap between black and white students slightly decreased • -8 scale score points in 4th grade• -10 scale score points in 8th grade
• Thus, black students experienced growth, but not large enough to cross NAEP threshold
27
NAEP Math – Low Income Students
• 4th grade and 8th grade: the gap between non-low-income and low-income students widened, in terms of proficiency percentages, from 2000 to 2013– However, in 4th grade, the average scale score for low-
income students (+27 scale score points) increased more than did the average scale scores for non-low-income students (+23 scale score points).
28
NAEP Literacy
• 4th grade and 8th grade: racial achievement gaps slightly decreased over time
• 4th and 8th grade: the gap between non-low-income and low-income students widened,
29
ArkansasBenchmark Data
** allows for greater digging
30
Benchmark Math
• Gap decreased over time
• Ceiling effects related to proficiency rates
31
Benchmark Literacy• Gap
decreased over time
• Ceiling effects
32
Racial Gaps: Percentile Rankings
33
Income Gaps: Percentile Rankings
34
Summary of Gaps in AR
• Regardless of exam:– Black-white gap is the largest, followed by income gap,
followed by Hispanic-white gap – Each of these gaps appear to have decreased over
time (slightly)
• Because proficiency percentages can mask gains at the upper and lower-end, it may be best to consider these questions in terms of performance of the average student on the entire distribution.
35
Summary of Test Performance
Average black student score 33rd %ile
Average low-income student score 41st %ile
Average Hispanic student score 46th %ile
Average white student score 56th %ile
Average non-poor student score 65th %ile
36
How does AR performance and AR achievement gaps compare to US and surrounding states?
37
NAEP Assessment 2013
Arkansas compared to surrounding states
Black Hispanic White Low-Income
Non-Low-Income
Math Grade 4 +1 +3 0 +3 +1Math Grade 8 -5 -1 -1 -1 +1Literacy Grade 4 -1 +3 0 +3 0Literacy Grade 8 -2 -2 -2 0 +2
38
NAEP – from 2000 to 2013Arkansas Scale score growth over time (compared to surrounding states)
– Math: 2000 to 2013– Literacy: 2002 to 2013
– In nearly every AR students have grown more than peers (stronger relative gains in math)
*2005 to 2013
Black Hispanic* White Low-Income
Non-Low-Income
Math Grade 4 +29 (+17) -1 (+1) +21 (+16) +27 (+18) +23 (+17)Math Grade 8 +28 (+19) +8 (+11) +18 (+12) +18 (+17) +23 (+14)Literacy Grade 4 +8 (+8) +7 (+9) +4 (+3) +7 (+4) +6 (+7)Literacy Grade 8 +6 (+4) +6 (+7) +2 (+2) +3 (+4) +7 (+3)
39
What About Other Measures?
2011-12 Arkansas
2011-12 US
Overall 84% 80%Black 78% 69%Hispanic 78% 73%White 87% 86%Low-income
79% 72%
High School Graduation Rates – Gaps?
40
What Next? 5 Implications of Gap Report
1. Technical / Statistical:
• These “gaps” don’t really matter• Don’t focus only on gaps• Gaps can be “closing” in unfavorable ways• Alternative measurement strategy could be
school grade = average of overall scores and subgroup scores– Include a “penalty” for gap and a “bonus” for growth
41
What Next? 5 Implications of Gap Report
2. Philosophical / Political:
• These gaps really matter• Therefore:– Don’t slay the messenger! We have to be able to discuss
these uncomfortable issues.– Yes … test scores are not everything, but they are
meaningful (do any of us believe that these scores are wrong – we’re actually serving all kids well?)
– College grad rates for poorest quartile = 11%; – 82% for kids from top quartile
42
What Next? 5 Implications of Gap Report
3. Political / Political:
• These gaps really matter• Therefore: don’t pick teams!– This matters too much for real students for us to dismiss
strategies based on who developed them.• Traditional educators should learn from charters• Republicans should accept Democrat ideas
– We should focus on the outcomes of the strategy, not the affiliation of the spokesman
– We should tone down the vitriol
43
What Next? 5 Implications of Gap Report
4. Evaluation:
• These gaps really matter• Therefore: it is imperative that we figure out what
works.• Innovate and Evaluate
– Innovate … because we clearly haven’t figured out what works yet
– Evaluate… because we shouldn’t just trust the claims of “we know it works” from well-meaning program staff
– PS: I mean really evaluate!
44
What Next? 5 Implications of Gap Report
5. Take Action Steps:
• These gaps really matter• Therefore: it is imperative that those of us in schools need to
understand the gaps in our schools• Find and scrutinize subgroup level data
– Larger districts… in house– Smaller districts… seek out OEP or others– Do this every year and share the information (silence will not help!)– Then – innovate, and check data again– Conclude with case that shows it can be done
45
• 2010 Report examining high-growth schools in Arkansas
46Arkansas Rogers Grace Hill
0102030405060708090
100
64
76 7566
80 82
2010 SAT-10 NCE
Read Math
2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
102030405060708090
100
59 63
7886
91
5247
63 6581
Benchmark
GH Math GH LitArk Math Ark Lit
Grace Hill Elementary
Arkansas Rogers Grace Hill0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Student De-mographics
White BlackHispanic Other Minority
GH FRL: 87% Enroll: 461Ark FRL: 59%
Math Lit Math Lit Math Lit2008 2009 2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
81
61
90
67
94
87
76
66
85
70
90
78
Hispanic vs. White
Hispanic White
Arkansas
+5-5
Math Lit Math Lit Math Lit2008 2009 2010
0102030405060708090
100
6252
65 6173
6777 73
80 76 78 79
Hispanic White
+5
-3
+4+9
-15 -21 -15 -15 -5 -12
Outperformed all state subpopulations!
Questions?
http://www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/