IMPROVING COLLEGE ACCESS AND SUCCESS: Lessons from Institutions on the Performance Frontier

1. IMPROVING COLLEGE ACCESS AND SUCCESS: Lessons from Institutions on the Performance Frontier Statewide Education Forum Baton Rouge, Louisiana February, 2007

2. You’ve come here today to talk together about how you can improve both access to and success within higher education in Louisiana. And, given the numbers, many of you are especially concerned about changing patterns for low-income students and African Americans.

3. At this meeting, you’ll be discussing mounting initiatives aimed at both overall increases and at cutting in half the gaps—in both access and success—that separate these students from other young Louisianans.

4. For some of you, at least, there’s a very big question: what does all of this have to do with me?

5. Isn’t improving college going and college success—especially among low-income and minority students—mostly about better high school preparation and more generous student financial aid?

6. Yes, these things matter and they matter a lot. But it turns out that what you do matters a lot, too.

7. This morning: • Review the data on achievement and attainment patterns, K-16; • Identify some institutions that are exceptions to those patterns; • Share what we’re learning from those institutions about action steps that really matter.

8. First, some good news. After more than a decade of fairly flat achievement and stagnant or growing gaps, we appear to be turning the corner.

9. NAEP Reading, 9 Year-Olds:Record Performance for All Groups Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source:National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

10. NAEP Math, 9 Year-Olds: Record Performance for All Groups Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source:National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

11. Bottom Line:When We Really Focus on Something, We Make Progress

12. Clearly, much more remains to be done in elementary and middle school Too many youngsters still enter high school way behind.

13. But at least we have some traction on these problems.

14. The Same is NOTTrue of High School

15. Age 17: Math and Science NAEP Long-Term Trends Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source: NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress and NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress.

16. Age 17: Reading and Writing NAEP Long-Term Trends Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source: NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress.

17. Gaps between groups wider today than in 1990

18. NAEP Reading, 17 Year-Olds 21 29 Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source:National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

19. NAEP Math, 17 Year-Olds 28 20 Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source:National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

20. Value Added in High School Declined During the Nineties

21. Value Added Declining in High School Math... Scale Score Growth, From Age 13 to Age 17 Note: Scale score gains reflect the difference between the scale scores of 17-year-olds and the scale scores of 13-year-olds four years prior. Source: NCES, 1999. Trends in Academic Progress. Data from Long Term Trend NAEP

22. ... Still Scale Score Growth, From Grade 8 to Grade 12 Note: Scale score gains reflect the difference between the scale scores of 12th Graders and the scale scores of 8th Graders four years prior. Source: NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde

23. Reading: Students Entering High School Better Prepared, But Leaving Worse Total= 288 Total= 290 Source: NCES, 1999. Trends in Academic Progress. Data from Long Term Trend NAEP

24. Hormones?

25. Students in Other Countries Gain far More in Secondary School TIMSS

26. PISA

27. PISA 2003:US 15 Year-Olds Rank Near The End Of The Pack Among 29 OECD Countries Source: NCES, 2005, International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics, Literacy and Problem Solving: 2003 PISA Results. NCES 2005-003

28. 2003: U.S. Ranked 24th out of 29 OECD Countries in Mathematics Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/

29. Problems are not limited to our high-poverty and high-minority schools . . .

30. U.S. Ranks Low in the Percent of Students in the Highest Achievement Level (Level 6) in Math Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/

31. U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29 OECD Countries in the Math Achievement of the Highest-Performing Students* * Students at the 95th Percentile Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/

32. U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29OECD Countries in the Math Achievement of High-SES Students Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/

33. Problems not limited to math, either.

34. PISA 2003: Problem-Solving, US Ranks 24th Out of 29 OECD Countries Source: NCES, 2005, International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics, Literacy and Problem Solving: 2003 PISA Results. NCES 2005-003

35. More than half of our 15 year olds at problem-solving level 1 or below. Source: OECD Problem Solving for Tomorrow’s World. 2004

36. One measure on which we rank high?Inequality!

37. PISA 2003: Gaps in Performance Of U.S.15 Year-Olds Are Among the Largest of OECD Countries *Of 29 OECDcountries, based on scores of students at the 5th and 95th percentiles. Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/

38. These gaps begin before children arrive at the schoolhouse door. But, rather than organizing our educational system to ameliorate this problem, we organize it to exacerbate the problem.

39. How? By giving students who arrive with less, less in school, too.

40. Some of these “lesses” are a result of choices that policymakers make.

41. Nation:Inequities in State and Local Revenue Per Student Source: The Education Trust, The Funding Gap 2005. Data are for 2003

42. Not Just K-12: In higher education, we spend less per student in the institutions where most low-income students start. Source: NCES Digest of Education Statistics, 2003

43. But some of the “lesses”–indeed, perhaps the most devastating ones—are a function of choices that educators make.

44. Choices we make about what to expect of whom…

45. Students in Poor Schools Receive ‘A’s for Work That Would Earn ‘Cs’ in Affluent Schools Source: Prospects (ABT Associates, 1993), in “Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes”, PES, DOE, 1997.

46. Choices we make about what to teach whom…

47. Fewer Latino students are enrolledin Algebra 1 in Grade 8 Source: CCSSO, State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education, 2005

48. Fewer Latino students are enrolledin Algebra 2 Source: CCSSO, State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education, 2001

49. And choices we make about Whoteaches whom…

50. More Classes in High-Poverty, High-Minority Schools Taught By Out-of-Field Teachers High povertyLow poverty High minority Low minority Note: High Poverty school-50% or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low-poverty school -15% or fewer of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. High-minority school - 50% or more of the students are nonwhite. Low-minority school- 15% or fewer of the students are nonwhite. *Teachers lacking a college major or minor in the field. Data for secondary-level core academic classes. Source: Richard M. Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania. Original analysis for the Ed Trust of 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey.