| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EDUCATION WEEK: October 1, 2009 Report Finds Achievement Gap Continuing to Narrow, By Stephen Sawchuk
"Achievement gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students on state tests have narrowed in many instances over the past decade—continuing a trend that appears to have been bolstered in the 1990s by the standards-based-reform movement, concludes a wide-ranging analysis released today..."
EDUCATION WEEK, Published Online: October 1, 2009
Algebra 2 Test Yields Poor Results in Year II
"States that voluntarily took part in a demanding test of advanced algebra skills, given for a second straight year, again saw large proportions of their students struggle with that math content.Yet the test’s sponsors cite the effort as evidence of states’ willingness to band together to create common assessments—a possibility that interests many policymakers—even when the test results are unflattering..."
EDUCATION WEEK: October 1, 2009
Report Finds Achievement Gap Continuing to Narrow, By Stephen Sawchuk
Achievement gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students on state tests have narrowed in many instances over the past decade—continuing a trend that appears to have been bolstered in the 1990s by the standards-based-reform movement, concludes a wide-ranging analysis released today.
The study from the Center on Education Policy analyzes the achievement gap between low-income students and their peers, and between minority and white students, using test data from all 50 states collected from 2002 through 2008.
Viewing those gaps through a variety of lenses, the report finds that, on the whole, the disparities appear to be narrowing because of the accelerated achievement of lower-performing groups, not slower progress by high-achieving groups. Nevertheless, achievement gaps continue to remain as large as 20 percentage points or more in some states, the report indicates.
“By no means are we saying that we’re in nirvana; there’s a long way to go,” said Jack Jennings, the president of the Washington-based research group. “But as a nation, if we ask schools to narrow the achievement gap and that’s what the schools are doing, we should give them credit for it.”
The report does not provide any insight into whether the federal No Child Left Behind Act accelerated—or hindered—progress in closing the gaps. Much of the historical narrowing of achievement gaps predates the nearly 8-year-old law, and the study design does not account for the multitude of factors, such as changes to instruction or accountability policies, that may have influenced student progress during that time.
Parsing the Data
For the analysis, the group’s third report this year on test-score trends, the CEP collected information about student performance in mathematics and reading generated from the NCLB-required assessments in all 50 states at grade 4, at one middle school grade—usually 8—and at one high school grade.
The group examined the progress of subgroups of low-income students compared with more-advantaged ones, as well as the progress of white, black, Latino, and Native American students in the states. It included only those trend lines that incorporated three or more years of data on the same exam.
Across all the subgroups, grade levels, and subjects studied, 74 percent of the trend lines show the gaps in the percentage of students scoring at the “proficient” level narrowing, while 23 percent show them widening.
For the trend lines that show black-white score gaps narrowing, the percentage of students who were proficient grew at a faster rate for the African-American subgroup than for the white subgroup in 142 of the 153 cases.
Even where gaps widened, the report states, both groups tended to improve, but the comparison group of white or more-affluent students improved more than the subgroup, a phenomenon Mr. Jennings likened to “all boats rising with the tide.”
Overall, the gaps narrowed more often for the black and Latino subgroups than for the Native American or low-income ones.
The report also looks at raw changes in test scores among the subgroups. Viewing the gaps from this additional perspective is crucial, the report states, because counts of “percentage proficient” do not provide information about the performance of students who score above or below proficient.
Additionally, achievement gaps can appear to be wider or narrower depending on where states decide to set the cut-off score that determines when a student has reached the proficient level of mastery, the report says.
Of the 579 trend lines studied according to this broader methodology, score gaps were seen to narrow only 58 percent of the time. In 37 percent of those cases, the discrepancies widened.
The report notes that the overall phenomenon of narrowing gaps appears consistent with long-term data from national assessments in reading and math, which show low-income and minority students narrowing the gap with their more-advantaged and white peers since the early 1970s. Gaps widened again in the 1980s, only to appear to begin closing again after 1999, the national data show.
An Exaggerated Reading?
Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, questioned why the narrowing gaps don’t appear to show up on the long-term-trend National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Data from the most recent administration, for instance, show gains among many subgroups of students from 2004 to 2008 in reading at three age levels, but the gains were not enough to significantly close score gaps. Additionally, Mr. Fuller pointed to a 2008 report
State test results may be more responsive to small improvements among students on relatively low-level skills, thus exaggerating the apparent narrowing of gaps, he contended.
“[The report] admits that when you use average scores, you don’t see nearly as much progress, and I think that confirms that part of the progress on the percent-proficient measure is because the proficiency bar is set so low,” he said.
But Mr. Jennings offered an alternative explanation for the better results on the state measures.
“Before 2002, there wasn’t much testing in the country; after 2002, there’s bucketloads,” he said. “Students are tested a lot now, and in a way, there’s almost test fatigue. The tests they’re going to pay attention to are the state accountability tests, not NAEP.”
Vol. 29, Issue 06
Subgroup Achievement and Gap Trends —
K-12 enrollment — 1,271,481
The raw data used to develop these state profiles, including data for additional grade levels and years before 2002, can be found on the CEP Web site at www.cep-dc.org. Click on the link on the left for State Testing Data. Below the name of the report, click on the link for View State Profiles and Worksheets. Scroll down the page, and click on the Worksheet links for any state.
Subgroup Achievement Trends and Gap Trends — Key Findings
Summary
This year the Center on Education Policy analyzed data on the achievement of different groups of students in two distinct ways. First, we looked at grade 4 test results to determine whether the performance of various groups improved at three achievement levels—basic and above, proficient and above, and advanced. Second, we looked at gaps between these groups at the proficient level across three grades (grade 4, grade 8 in most cases, and a high school grade). These two types of analyses show whether elementary school achievement has generally gone up for different groups of students and whether achievement gaps at different grade levels have narrowed, widened, or stayed the same.
At grade 4, all the major student groups in
Subgroup trends by achievement level at grade 4
·
· Math: The five subgroups analyzed made moderate-to-large gains in math at the proficient-and-above and advanced levels. Gains were notably large for African American and low-income students at the proficient-and-above level.
Gap trends at three grade levels
· General trend: With just one exception, achievement gaps for African American, Latino, and low-income students narrowed in reading and math at the elementary and high school levels. The exception was for African American students in grade 11 reading, where the gap narrowed according to average test scores but remained the same according to percentages scoring proficient.
· Progress: Notable progress in closing achievement gaps was made by African American students and low-income students in grade 4 math.
EDUCATION WEEK, Published Online: October 1, 2009
Algebra 2 Test Yields Poor Results in Year II
By Sean Cavanagh States that voluntarily took part in a demanding test of advanced algebra skills, given for a second straight year, again saw large proportions of their students struggle with that math content.
Yet the test’s sponsors cite the effort as evidence of states’ willingness to band together to create common assessments—a possibility that interests many policymakers—even when the test results are unflattering.
At least 80 percent of students in all 13 states that participated in the exam this spring failed to meet the test’s threshold for being repared for entry-level college math. That poor showing mirrored the results from last year, when the Algebra 2 test was first piloted. Four states also took part in a separate Algebra 1 test this year, and the scores were also weak.
Officials from Achieve, the Washington organization that arranged the test and released the results today, were not surprised, citing the test’s difficulty.
But as policymakers around the country weigh the concept of setting common standards and assessments across states, Achieve officials say the exams reflect states’ interest in crafting multistate exams with very demanding content.
Despite seeing low test scores in the first year of the Algebra 2 test, “these states have stayed the course,” the authors say in a report on the results. “No state alone could do what the [group of states] have managed together.”
Interest in common multistate tests has risen in recent months. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said he will set aside $350 million from the education-related pool of stimulus aid in the Race to the Top Fund to help states devise shared assessments. If states combine their efforts, they could create more effective tests across subjects at a lower cost, Mr. Duncan argues. ("Duncan Unveils Details on Race to the Top Aid," June 15, 2009.)
The secretary has also voiced support for an ongoing effort to establish common standards and assessments led by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association. Forty-eight states have joined that project. Achieve, which was formed by governors and business leaders in the mid-1990s, is a partner in that venture. ("Revised Draft of 'Common Core' Standards Unveiled," Sept. 21, 2009.)
Some have questioned whether states will resist taking part in shared assessments, out of fear that their students will fare poorly. But Achieve’s president, Michael Cohen, said the algebra endeavor showed that was not so.
“This really is a race to the top,” Mr. Cohen said in an interview. “In this environment, this should be heartening.”
The pilot test grew out of the work of Achieve’s American Diploma Project, a network of 35 states that are working together to raise high school academic standards. Fifteen of those states formed an “assessment consortium” to devise Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 end-of-course exams.
On-Campus Expectations
Student 'Mastery' of Algebra 2
Only in rare instances did more than a quarter of students reach the “mastery” level on Algebra 2 content.
SOURCE: American Diploma Project
Thirteen states took part in the Algebra 2 test this year: Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. In addition, Kentucky, New Jersey, Ohio, and Rhode Island piloted the first Algebra 1 test this year. Participation in both tests varied enormously. On the Algebra 2 exam, for instance, fewer than 400 students were tested in Rhode Island, while 45,000 took part in Indiana.
No comparisons between last year’s and this year’s scores are available, because very different populations of students were tested, and Achieve did not have a valid method of comparing results, Mr. Cohen said. In addition, the two sets of scores were reported differently. Last year’s results were based on the percent of items answered correctly; this year’s were reported in three performance categories: “well-prepared,” “prepared,” and “not prepared.”
Success in Algebra 2 is widely regarded as a sign of a student’s preparation for college-level math. Achieve’s performance standards were based on research studies and advice from state officials, college math faculty, and others.
More than four-fifths of students in all participating states wound up in the not-prepared category in Algebra 2. Massachusetts had the highest share of students scoring in the combined well-prepared and prepared categories, at 19 percent, though fewer than 600 students were tested. North Carolina was among the highest-scoring states, with 18 percent of its 2,551 tested students scoring in those categories. Indiana, which tested more students than any state, saw 17 percent reach either the well-prepared or prepared mark.
Minnesota, which has fared well on federally administered tests, had only 6 percent of students in the top two categories, though only 1,164 students were tested in Algebra 2.
In Algebra 1, Achieve judged students’ performance in four categories: “advanced,” “proficient,” “basic,” and “below basic.”
Of the four participating states, Kentucky had the highest percentage of students reaching proficient in Algebra 1, at 21 percent, though only 520 students took the test. Rhode Island, where 2,416 students took part, had just 8 percent reach proficiency. At least 54 percent of students in all four states scored below basic.
William McCallum, a mathematics professor at the University of Arizona, in Tucson, said in an e-mail that poor scores were to be expected on a test that sought to gauge students’ “mastery” of difficult math. He questioned whether the Achieve exam had too narrow a focus on college math preparation, as opposed to math needed for work and life.
One factor in the low scores, he added, could have been that students did not take the exam as seriously as they would high-stakes test—which Mr. Cohen acknowledged was a possibility. Even so, Mr. McCallum said, the proportion of struggling students “shouldn’t be as high as it is here.”
College math standards are not as uniform as they might seem, observed Mr. McCallum, who directs his university’s math department. Many college faculty regard calculus or precalculus as the first authentic college-level math courses—a point of view that seems reflected in Achieve’s test, he said.
Yet many college math departments also offer less-demanding math classes with titles such as “college algebra,” Mr. McCallum said, which are taught for credit by part-time or contract faculty.
“Colleges send mixed messages to students about what is expected,” he said. “I think the Achieve Algebra 1 and 2 tests could be very useful, if they lead to serious conversations between schools and universities about this.”
Vol. 29, Issue 06
