GRA Presentation 2015 2
-
Upload
educationnc -
Category
Documents
-
view
542 -
download
1
Transcript of GRA Presentation 2015 2
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Copyright 2015 The Education Trust
Recent Trends in School Accountability
Natasha Ushomirsky
July 28, 2015
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
About Ed Trust
Who We Are What We do
The Education Trust works for the high academic achievement of all
students at all levels, pre-kindergarten through college, and
forever closing the gaps in opportunity and achievement that separate low-income students and students of color from other youth.
Research and policy analysis on patterns and practices that both cause and can eliminate these inequities.
Advocacy to share that knowledge and push for policies and practices that help to close gaps
Technical assistance to districts, states, and community-based organizations.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Goals for our time together
Set the context with data on current achievement trends
Discuss how school accountability fits into this context
Talk about recent and upcoming policy developments
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Let’s start with some good news.
After more than a decade of fairly flat achievement and stagnant or growing gaps in K-12, we appear to be turning the corner with our
elementary students.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Since 1999, large gains for all groups of students, especially students of color
1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008 2012150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
9 Year Olds – NAEP Reading
African American Latino White
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012”
*Denotes previous assessment format
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Since 1999, performance rising for all groups of students
1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008 2012160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
9 Year Olds – NAEP Math
African American Latino White
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012”
*Denotes previous assessment format
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Middle grades are up, too.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
© 2014 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Reading: Modest improvement and some gap closing over the last decade
1992* 1994* 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
236
250238
255265
275
National Public – Grade 8 NAEP Reading
African American Latino White
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
NAEP Data Explorer, NCES (Proficient Scale Score = 281)*Accommodations not permitted
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
© 2014 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Math: More improvement and gap narrowing.
1990* 1992* 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
236
263
245
271
269
293
National Public – Grade 8 NAEP Math
African American Latino White
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
NAEP Data Explorer, NCES (Proficient Scale Score = 299)
*Accommodations not permitted
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
These national trends are the result of the hard work and success of individual schools…
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2014 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source: California Department of Education
Laurel Street ElementaryCompton, CA
• 497 students in grades K-5• 78% Latino• 16% African American
• 87% Low Income • 61% Limited English Proficient
Note: Enrollment data are for 2011-12 school year.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2014 THE EDUCATION TRUST
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
666
715756
794834
888927
738 752 763 774 788 800 808
Students Overall - Academic Performance Index
Laurel Street California
Ba
se A
PI
Source: California Department of Education
Note: Base API incorporates student performance in English language arts, math, and science. The index ranges from 0-1000, with 800 serving as the statewide benchmark. California Base API includes Grades 2-6.
Improvement Over Time at Laurel Street Elementary
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2014 THE EDUCATION TRUST
All Stu
dent
s
Africa
n-Am
erica
n St
uden
ts
Latin
o St
uden
ts
Low-In
com
e St
uden
ts
Limite
d En
glish
Pro
ficient
Stu
dent
s
Stud
ents w
ith D
isabilities
500
600
700
800
900
1000 927881
941 929 938854
808739 763 759 756
662
Academic Performance Index
Laurel Street California
20
11
Ba
se A
PI
Source: California Department of Education
All Groups Outperforming the State at Laurel Street Elementary
Note: Base API incorporates student performance in English language arts, math, and science. The index ranges from 0-1000, with 800 serving as the statewide benchmark. California Base API includes Grades 2-6.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Elmont Memorial High SchoolElmont, New York
• 1,847 students in grades 7-12– 79% African American– 12% Latino– 8% Asian
• 32% Low Income
Source: New York State Education Department
Note: Data are for the 2012-2013 school year.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
High Performance by ALL Students at Elmont Memorial High School
Source: New York State Education Department
Overall African American
Hispanic Low Income0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100% 98% 98% 97% 97%
84%73% 74% 78%
Secondary Level Math (2013)
EMHSNew York
Perc
enta
ge P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
High Graduation Rates at Elmont Memorial High School
Overal
l
Africa
n American
Economica
lly Disa
dvantag
ed
Not Eco
nomically
Disadva
ntaged
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100% 96% 96%97% 96%
78%
64% 69%
85%
Graduation Rate, Class of 2013
ElmontNew York
Perc
enta
ge o
f 200
9 Fr
eshm
en G
radu
ating
in
Four
Yea
rs
Includes students who graduated by August 2013Source: New York State Education Department
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And gains aren’t limited to individual schools.
We’ve seen real progress in some districts and states as well.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But despite these gains, we’ve still far from where we need to be, especially for our low-income students and students of color.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
© 2014 THE EDUCATION TRUST
2013 NAEP Grade 4 Reading
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
33%
33%
34%
Students Overall - National Public
Proficient/AdvancedBasicBelow Basic
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dent
s
National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Africa
n American
Latino
White
American In
dian/Alaska
Native
Asian/P
acific I
slander
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
50% 48%
21%
48%
21%
32% 33%
34%
30%
28%
17% 19%
45%22%
51%
By Race/Ethnicity – National Public
Proficient/AdvancedBasicBelow Basic
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dent
s
National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
2013 NAEP Grade 4 Reading
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
© 2014 THE EDUCATION TRUST
2013 NAEP Grade 8 Math
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
27%
39%
34%
Students Overall - National Public
Proficient/AdvancedBasicBelow Basic
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dent
s
National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
© 2014 THE EDUCATION TRUST
2013 NAEP Grade 8 Math
Lower Income Higher Income0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
39%
14%
41%
36%
20%
49%
By Family Income – National Public
Proficient/AdvancedBasicBelow Basic
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dent
s
National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But least we have some traction on elementary and middle school problems.
The same is NOT true of our high schools.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Achievement is flat in reading for students overall.
1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 2012240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
17-Year-Olds Overall - NAEP
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
NAEP Long-Term Trends, NCES (2004)
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2014 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And despite earlier improvements, gaps between groups haven’t narrowed much
since the late 80s and early 90s.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Math: Not much gap closing since 1990.
1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008 2012240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
17 Year Olds – NAEP Math
African American Latino White
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012”
*Denotes previous assessment format
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
There is a lot we need to do to improve these outcomes
• We need to eliminate resource inequities • We need to better train, recruit and support our teachers and school
leaders• We need to ensure that all students get access to rigorous and
engaging learning opportunities• We need to better integrate services so that students get the
supports they need inside and outside of school.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
So, how does accountability fit into all of this?
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Before we go any further, let’s to make sure we’re on the same page
• People mean lots of things when they say “accountability.”• We use this term to refer to the policies for measuring and holding
schools responsible for student performance, rewarding those that are serving all of their students well and prompting improvement in those that are not.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Accountability systems in and of themselves don’t improve student achievement
Only the hard work of teachers and principals can do that.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But good accountability systems can and should help set the conditions that enable improvement to happen.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
How?• By sending a clear signal about what is expected of our education
system; • By prompting and supporting improvement where improvement is
needed; and• By providing information to parents, educators, and community
members about how their schools are doing.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
School Accountability in Recent Years
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Policy Context: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
• Originally passed in 1965, ESEA is the main federal education law in the U.S. • ESEA set up the Title I program, which currently provides more than $14 billion
dollars to states to support the education of disadvantaged students. The law also indicates what states have to do as a condition of receiving Title I funds.
• There have been many iterations of ESEA since the 1960s, and the law has changed a lot over time• Initially – lots of requirements related to inputs (how money could be used, etc.)• Starting in 1994 – More flexibility regarding how money could be used, but an
expectation of improved outcomes. • The latest version of ESEA is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Policy Context: No Child Left Behind
Big step forward on expectations and transparency: • For the first time, set expectation that in order to be considered a good
school, the school had to be serving all groups of students well. • Required reporting of student assessment results (and later graduation rates)
by student group.• Research has shown that this focus makes a real difference for students –
especially for low-income students and students of color.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Policy Context: No Child Left Behind
• But the law had a number of shortcomings– Goal of 100% proficiency by 2014 wasn’t based in evidence of what’s
possible.– States could – and did – set vastly different expectations for what students
need to know and be able to do.– Too blunt: No differentiation between schools that were missing
expectations for all groups by a lot, and those missing them for one group by a bit.
– Insufficient attention to resources and supports.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Policy Context: ESEA Flexibility, or Waivers• In 2011, when Congress was unable to reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, the Obama administration offered states the opportunity to apply for waivers from some of the more onerous requirements of NCLB.
• The waivers gave states more flexibility in:– Setting goals for schools– Using additional indicators (other than state assessments and graduation rates)– Identifying which schools need additional support/intervention– Defining what those supports/interventions should be
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Advances in accountability policy under the waivers
• Ambitious, but achievable goals• Accountability for additional important indicators, like science and
social studies performance, ACT performance• Accountability for academic growth over time in addition to
proficiency• Greater differentiation among different types of schools• Targeted supports and interventions to the lowest performers
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Areas of Concern: The Equity Perspective
Many states shifted away from focusing on outcomes of all groups of students. Some common trends: Student groups lumped together into “Supergroups” School determinations − such as an A-F grade – that are not based on
performance of individual groups of students Defined interventions in the lowest-performing schools only
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
What’s the impact of these decision?
To better understand the signals that accountability systems are currently sending about group outcomes, we analyzed student performance data
from three states – Florida, Minnesota and Kentucky.
In each state, we asked:
“How are schools that earn the highest accountability rating, as well as lower ratings, performing for all students? How about for low-
income students and students of color?”
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
For full results, see our brief“Making Sure All Children Matter:
Getting School Accountability Signals Right,”
at:http://www.edtrust.org/dc/publication/all_children_matter
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Key finding: Right now, school ratings are not telling us much about how schools are performing for individual groups of students.
• In each state, schools are getting top ratings despite low performance for some groups. • Top rated schools often perform similarly for their low-income students and students of
color as middling to low-rated schools do for their white and higher income peers. • In many top-rated schools, performance of some historically underserved groups is
declining. • Student growth data also don’t sufficiently counter the patterns we see in proficiency
results.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Why advocates, and others, are concerned about this
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
1. We cannot close achievement gaps on the backs of low-performing schools alone
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
2. It’s a question of transparency
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Transparency for Parents
• Many parents make decisions about where to send their child to school in part based on that school’s accountability rating. Unfortunately, current accountability systems aren’t telling all parents the same thing – an “A” school for one child may be a “C” for another.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Three “A” Schools: Reading
Reading Proficiency
RatesAll students: 73%White: 89%Hispanic: 48%African American: 19%Low Income: 41%Students w/IEPs: 7%
All students: 61%White: 95%Hispanic: 83%African American: 26%Low Income: 30%Students w/IEPs: 11%
Reading Proficiency Rates
School 2 School 3
Note: This elementary school is approximately 20% African American, 10% Hispanic, and 40% Low-Income
Note: This middle school is approximately 50% African American,
5% Hispanic, and over 50% Low-Income
Reading Proficiency Rates
All students: 71%White: 77%Hispanic: 74%African American: 60%Low Income: 65%Students w/IEPs: 40%
School 1
Note: This elementary school is approximately 30% African American, 40%
Hispanic, and over 50% Low-Income
Source: Florida Department of Education, 2014
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Transparency for Educators• Educators gauge progress in part based on these systems. A high
rating despite low performance for some groups paints a false picture of success and allows some students to get overlooked.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
What’s happening now?
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
1. Waiver Renewal Process
• States have to apply to U.S. Department of Ed to renew their ESEA waiver.
• Waiver renewal guidelines include additional requirement: That states can no longer allow schools to get the top accountability rating if they have big gaps that are not closing.
• Requirement is step in the right direction, but should be floor, not ceiling.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
2. ESEA Reauthorization
• We are closer than we’ve been in 14 years to rewriting NCLB– Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have passed
their versions of a revised ESEA.– Next step is for the two bills to get combined into one (conference process).
Then the final bill has to pass both the House and Senate, and be signed by the President.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
What’s in these bills?• Both bills require states to set standards and to administer assessments aligned with those
standards. They also require states to report assessment results by student group. • Both give states flexibility to use additional indicators in their accountability systems• But both bills – especially the House version – are weak when it comes to holding schools
and districts accountable for how they are doing for historically underserved students. – Both bills require states to create school ratings systems that take the performance of student groups into
account. – But neither bill requires any action when schools aren’t doing well for one or more groups.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Why is this a problem?
• Our education system is nowhere close to where it needs to be when it comes to giving all students the learning opportunities they need to succeed. This is not the time to stop demanding that they get those opportunities.
• There’s a long history of inaction on the part of some states. Moreover, without stronger subgroup accountability requirements, state leaders will lose important political cover.
• Given the more than $14 billion investment in Title I, the federal government has an obligation to expect results.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
What’s being done about it?
• Our coalition of civil rights, business and disability organizations had been working hard to add an amendment demanding stronger subgroup accountability to the Senate bill.
• Amendment failed, but got the votes of all but two Democrats, as well as one Republican senator. This sends a clear message that the accountability issue will need to be addressed during the conference process.
• We will continue to fight for greater subgroup accountability in federal law. Regardless of what happens in ESEA though, a lot of decisions about accountability will happen at the state level.
• This means that the work you do in supporting your states will be absolutely critical to ensuring that there is a continued push for greater equity.
© 2015 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Questions and Contact Information
1250 H Street N.W. Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20005
202/293-1217
Stay connected with The Education Trust online:
www.edtrust.org
www.twitter.com/edtrust www.facebook.com/edtrust
Natasha [email protected]