the colorado excellence gap
DESCRIPTION
The Colorado Excellence Gap. Dr. Jonathan A. Plucker CAGT Annual Conference October 11, 2011. “Two Subways, Dad.”. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The Colorado Excellence Gap
Dr. Jonathan A. PluckerCAGT Annual Conference
October 11, 2011
1
2
“Two Subways, Dad.”
3
Center for Evaluation andEducation Policy (CEEP)
• CEEP promotes and supports rigorous program evaluation and nonpartisan policy research primarily, but not exclusively, for education, human service and non-profit organizations.
• In the area of K-12 education policy, CEEP’s mission is to help inform, influence and shape sound policy through effective, nonpartisan research and analysis.
• For more information about CEEP, go to: http://ceep.indiana.edu
4
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
5
Super Awesome Quote!
• Education systems that fail to develop the potential of students from every background can make claims to neither quality nor equality.
6
Recent Fordham Study
• 57% of 90th percentile students in ES/MS math (G3-G8) stayed “high fliers” using NWEA data.
• As did 56% in reading.• At MS/HS level, 70% were “high fliers” throughout the study
in math, 52% in reading.• Students moved from the 50th-89th percentiles into the High
Flier range more often than students dropped down.• Growth was similar for all achievement groups, except for
slower growth in reading for the High Fliers• See edexcellence.net
7
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
8
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)
10
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)– Math Grade 4: 282– Math Grade 8: 333– Reading Grade 4: 268– Reading Grade 8: 323
11
2009 NAEP Math Results
• In both Grade 4 and 8, a much smaller percentage of low-income, minority, and English-Language learner students score at the “Advanced” level on the NAEP
FARM
Non-FARM
White
Black
Hispan
ic ELL
Non-ELL0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1.5
9.8
8.2
0.9 1.40.600000000000001
6.5
2
11.610.7
1.21.8
0.5
8.3
Math Grade 4 Math Grade 8 12
2009 NAEP Reading Results
• There are also large excellence gaps in Reading for FARM, Black, Hispanic, and ELL students
FARM
Non-FARM
White
Black
Hispan
ic ELL
Non-ELL0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2.3
11.7
10.5
1.92.6
0.5
8.4
0.600000000000001
3.9 3.8
00.8
0
2.9
Reading Grade 4 Reading Grade 8 13
Summary of 2009 NAEP
• There are large gaps in the advanced achievement of under-represented groups relative to their peers on multiple assessments
Race/EthnicitySocioeconomic StatusEnglish Language Learners
• These populations are growing as a share of all students
• These high potential students cannot “take care of themselves.”
14
TRENDS
15
% Advanced in Math Grade 4
16
1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 20090
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2.93.2
5.5
6.8
7.6
8.2
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.60.8 0.90.8
1.3 1.5 1.4
WhiteBlackHispanic
NCLB
BAD
GOODNOTGREAT
APOCALYPTICALLYBAD
EMBARRASSINGLYHORRIBLE
% Advanced in Reading Grade 8
17
1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 20090
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.43.7
4.34.1
3.8 3.8
0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0
0.7 0.60.8 0.8 0.7 0.8
WhiteBlackHispanic
NCLB
BAD
APOCALYPTICALLY BAD
EMBARRASSINGLY HORRIBLE
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
• In 2009 the numbers for ELL students were especially discouraging, giving back most if not all previous gains over the last dozen years.
19
NAEP Math Grade 4 Gap Trends
20
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
21
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
22
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
23
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.
24
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
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
Rising tide?
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
( )
More Evidence for the Excellence Gap
30
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”
What About Colorado?
• Like the rest of the U.S., Colorado has substantial achievement gaps among advanced students …
• … but better than average absolute performance
31
CO NAEP Percent Advancedin Reading Grade 4 - 2009
FARM White Black Hispanic Male Female0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
3
14
5
3
8
13
2
10
2 2
6
9 COU.S.
32
Good! Not so good
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
2
4
6
8
10
12
White Black Hispanic
CSAP Grade 4 Reading
33
7
6
CSAP Grade 7 Reading
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
White Black Hispanic
34
8
10
CSAP Grade 10 Reading
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
White Black Hispanic
35
7 8
CSAP Grade 4 Math
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
White Black Hispanic
36
2023
CSAP Grade 7 Math
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
White Black Hispanic
37
13
22
CSAP Grade 10 Math
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
White Black Hispanic
38
3
6
CSAP Grade 4 Readingby Lunch Status
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
2
4
6
8
10
12
FARM non-FARM
39
6 6
CSAP Grade 4 Math by Lunch Status
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
FARM non-FARM
40
2126
U.S. vs. ColoradoStandards for Advanced
• Colorado has lower standards for qualifying as an advanced level of achievement.
• A good example is Math Grade 4
41
CO State Test vs. NAEP Percent Advanced Grade 4 Math - 2009
White Hispanic0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
36
1311
3
CONAEP
42
% Advanced Math Grade 4 State vs. NAEP
43
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
BUT WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?
44
What is the Federal Government Doing?
45
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
46
% Advanced Math Grade 4 State vs. NAEP
47
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.
48
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?
49
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.
50
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
51
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?
52
Future Excellence Gap Work
• Second edition of report around February 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.
53
Excessively ProvocativeClosing Thought
There is no naturaladvocacy group foradvanced students.
54Congressional aide example.
http://ceep.indiana.edu/mindthegap
55
CEEP Contact Information:
Jonathan Plucker, Ph.D.Director
1900 East Tenth StreetBloomington, Indiana 47406-7512812-855-4438Fax: 812-856-5890
http://ceep.indiana.edu
56