Date post: | 16-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | britney-chapman |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Achievement Gaps in the SEDL Region: What Data Tell Us
Closing the Achievement Gap: School Resources and Beyond
SEDL Policy Forum 2004 September 27-28, 2004
Austin, Texas
Goals of This Session
• To describe the achievement gap in the five-state region
• To examine federal and state data that reveal the relationship between student achievement and demographics
• To build awareness of additional “gaps” relating to socio-economic resources and deficits that may impact student success
The Achievement Gap and SEDL Policy Work
SEDL’s policy unit creates and promotes research-based knowledge
for policy audiences to support improved student achievement for all
learners. The achievement gap is of particular interest to our work as:
1. a critical policy issue in SEDL’s
region
2. the basis of current federal NCLB policy
3. highlighting key features of our current research on resources and student achievement
SEDL Regional Educational Laboratory
• Serves Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
• Nationwide network of 10 labs
• Conducts research on what it takes to improve student achievement
• Examination of Resource Allocation in Education: Connecting Spending to Student Performance, completed in 2003
• Investigation of State Education Databases to Support Policy Research on Resource Allocation, currently in progress
• Does Teacher Salary Matter to Elementary and Middle School Achievement in High Need Areas?, to be completed in 2005
Four Study States: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Texas
SEDL Resource Allocation Research
What did We Learn From Our Research About Bringing Data-based Evidence to the Achievement Gap Problem?
• Socio-economic differences must be considered when addressing the achievement gap
• Measuring critical factors that influence educational outcomes is a challenge, especially with regard to whole-child well-being
• Data are improving our ability to identify achievement gap patterns from state to state
State-by-State Analysis of Socio-Economic and Achievement Data
Introductory page
DIVIDER PAGE
38%46% 49% 49% 52% 53%
8% 10%15%
9% 7%10%
U.S. OK TX LA AR NM
Poverty No Insurance
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
† at or Below 200% Poverty Level
SEDL Region Percent of Children Under Age 19, in Poverty†, and Without Health Insurance, Average for 2001, 2002, and 2003
29%37%
51%60%
66%
AR OK LA TX NM
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
SEDL Region Minority Student Enrollment Public Elementary and Secondary Schools 2002-2003
78% 80% 77%76%79%
62%
73%62%66%
69%62%
57%
74%
AR OK LA TX NM
White Black Hispanic
Source: National Center for Education Statistics†Hispanic student cohorts were too small to be included in rates for AR and OK.
SEDL Region Public High School Graduation Rate by State and Race† 2001
State-by-State Achievement Data
Introductory page
DIVIDER PAGE
64%71% 72%
30% 34%27%
46%43%34%
49%46%40%
1998 2002 2003
White Black Hispanic FRPL
Source: National Center for Education Statistics†NAEP reading tests were not administered for 1999, 2000, 2001.
Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Results†
Percent Scoring At or Above the Basic Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/ Reduced Priced Lunch, Arkansas
76%
59%49%
63%
0%
50%
100%
2004
White Black Hispanic FRPL
Source: Arkansas State Department of Education
Fourth-Grade State Literacy ResultsPercent Scoring At Proficient Level. Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Arkansas
Source: Arkansas State Department of Education
64% 69% 71%
35% 32%
39%38%
23%24%
39%39%31%
1998 2002 2003
White Black Hispanic FRPL
Source: National Center for Education Statistics†NAEP reading tests were not administered for 1999, 2000, 2001.
Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Results†
Percent Scoring At or Above the Basic Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Louisiana
101.4 104.6
79.76858.5
81.1
Fall 2003
White Black Hispanic Asian Am. Indian FRPLSource: Louisiana Department of EducationGPS based on 60% LEAP, 30% IOWA, 10% attendance/drop-out rate all grades tested
Subgroup Performance Scores (GPS)Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Louisiana
70% 69% 67%
38%
41%46%40%
25%25%23%
43%39%
1998 2002 2003
White Hispanic Am. Indian FRPL
Results for Blacks for 1998 36% and 2003 45%; no data for 2002Source: National Center for Education Statistics †NAEP reading tests were not administered for 1999, 2000, 2001.
Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Results†
Percent Scoring At or Above the Basic Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/ Reduced Priced Lunch, New Mexico
61.1 67.3
42 40.449.8 48.7
Spring 2004
White Black Hispanic Asian Am. Indian FRPL
Source: New Mexico Public Education Department
Fifth-Grade TerraNova ReadingMedian National Percentiles, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, New Mexico
69% 70%
36% 41%
73%
34%
48%50%39%
49%48%53%
1998 2002 2003
White Black Hispanic FRPL
Source: National Center for Education Statistics†NAEP reading tests were not administered for 1999, 2000, 2001.
Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Results†
Percent Scoring At or Above the Basic Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Oklahoma
80 8269 64
52 59
2003
White Black Hispanic Asian Am. Indian FRPL
Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education
Fifth-Grade Reading ResultsPercent Scoring At or Above the Satisfactory Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Oklahoma
78% 80%74%
43% 45%
50%48%
32%
44%54%
53%41%
1998 2002 2003
White Black Hispanic FRPL
Source: National Center for Education Statistics†NAEP reading tests were not administered for 1999, 2000, 2001.
Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Results†
Percent Scoring At or Above the Basic Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Texas
97 97 93 8887 90
2002
White Black Hispanic Asian Am. Indian FRPL
Source: Texas Education Agency
Fourth-Grade TAAS Reading ResultsPercent Passing, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Texas
What Do the Data Tell Us?
• According to the U.S. Census Bureau, regional child poverty rates are high compared to the U.S. rates, and the uninsured rate in Texas is almost double that of the 8% U.S. rate.
• High school graduation rates reveal that non-white subgroups are the least likely to graduate, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
• Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that the greatest achievement gaps in elementary-level reading exist between Black and White students, except in NM where it exists between Native Americans and Whites.
State-by-State Analysis of Achievement, Demographics, and Resources
Introductory page
DIVIDER PAGE
Data Used for the Maps
Data Sources• Common Core Data, National Center for Education Statistics
• U.S. Census Bureau
• State Departments of Education
Data Used for the Maps
Socio-Economic ConditionsStudent
poverty
Percent of students on free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL)
Minority enrollment
Percent of students who are non-white
Parent
education
Percent of population with children in public schools without a high school diploma
Public assistance
Percent of households with children in public schools with public assistance income
Data Used for the Maps
Student Achievement
Arkansas: Benchmark Exam, 4th grade, composite math/literary scaled score
Louisiana: LEAP, 4th grade, percent passing, math and English language arts
New Mexico: TerraNova, 4th grade, median composite score
Oklahoma: Core Curriculum Tests, 5th grade, percent at satisfactory or above, reading and math
Texas: TAAS, 4th grade, percent passing, reading and math
Data Used for the Maps
Resources
• Expenditures per pupil
AR: Total expenditures
NM: Net operating expenditures
OK: Total general fund expenditures
• Teacher salaries
TX: Teacher basepay
• Teacher quality
LA: Percent of classes taught by highly qualified teachers
(certified and teaching in-field)
Level Of AnalysisArkansas: 75 Counties
Louisiana: 66 School Districts
New Mexico: 89 School Districts
Oklahoma: 77 Counties
Texas: 254 Counties
Note: In AR, OK, and TX, district-level data were aggregated to the county level for ease of display
Data Used for the Maps
Mapping Process
To create the maps, SEDL researchers
• Computed correlations to find the strongest relationships between variables in each state
• Created ranges for each variable by dividing the school districts or counties in each state into 3 groups with an equal number of districts/counties in each group
Data Used for the Maps
AR Public Assistance
LA Parent Education
NM Minority Enrollment
OK Student Poverty
TX Minority Enrollment
LA Min. Enrol./Stud Pov.
TX Stud. Pov./Par. Educ.
NM Min. Enr./Stud. Ach.
AR Stud.Pov/Stud.Ach.
LA Stud.Pov/TchrQual
AR StudPov/Expend
TX Stud.Pov/TchrSal
LA StudAch/TchrQual
OK StudAch/Expend
NM StudAch/Expend
For Further Information
Celeste Alexander [email protected]
Debra Hughes Jones [email protected]
Diane Pan [email protected]
Zena Rudo [email protected]
Lotte Smith-Hansen [email protected]
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory
www.sedl.org