Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
22 nd Annual Washington State Assessment Conference PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
22 nd Annual Washington State Assessment Conference

22 nd Annual Washington State Assessment Conference

106 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

22 nd Annual Washington State Assessment Conference

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. IMPROVING ACHIEVEMENT AND CLOSING GAPS BETWEEN GROUPS: Lessons from Schools and Districts on the Performance Frontier 22nd Annual Washington State Assessment Conference Seattle, WA December, 2006

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. African American-White Gap Narrows to Smallest Size in HistoryNAEP Reading, 9 Year-Olds 26 35 29 Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source:National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

  5. Latino-White Gap Narrows to Smallest Size in HistoryNAEP Reading, 9 Year-Olds 21 28 24 Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source:National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

  6. 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

  7. African American-White Gap Narrows to Smallest Size in HistoryNAEP Math, 9 Year-Olds 23 28 25 Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source:National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

  8. Latino-White Gap Narrows to Smallest Size in HistoryNAEP Math, 9 Year-Olds 17 26 21 Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source:National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

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

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

  11. But the bigger problem is that we’re not really building on these successes in the upper grades.

  12. Achievement Flat in Reading 13 Year-Olds, NAEP Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress (p. 107) Washington, DC: US Department of Education, August 2000

  13. Achievement Flat or Declining in Reading, 17 year olds, NAEP Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source: NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress.

  14. Math? At first blush, appears to be trending upwards.

  15. Achievement Up in Math, 13 Year-Olds, NAEP Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress (p. 108) Washington, DC: US Department of Education, August 2000

  16. Achievement up in Math,17 year olds, NAEP Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP Source: NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress and NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress.

  17. But Value Added in Middle and High School Math Actually Declined During the Nineties

  18. Value Added Declining in Middle School Math... Age 9-13 Growth Source: NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress

  19. 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

  20. ... 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

  21. Gaps between groups wider today than in 1990

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

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

  24. Hormones?

  25. If so, we’d see the same pattern in other countries. And we don’t.

  26. Looking across the Grades?2003 TIMSS and PISA Math (US only compared with countries that participated in all three assessments TIMSS 4+8 and PISA)

  27. 2003TIMSS Grade 4 Math Source: American Institutes For Research, November 2005, Reassessing U.S. Mathematics Performance: New Findings from the 2003 TIMSS and PISA

  28. 2003TIMSS Grade 8 Math Source: American Institutes For Research, November 2005, Reassessing U.S. Mathematics Performance: New Findings from the 2003 TIMSS and PISA

  29. PISA 2003Mathematics, 15-Year-Olds Source: American Institutes For Research, November 2005, Reassessing U.S. Mathematics Performance: New Findings from the 2003 TIMSS and PISA

  30. The U.S. Ranks Low Among Participating Countries in Each of the International Math Assessments Given in 2003 Average Average Average US US US Note: Countries in this analysis participated in all three of these assessments. Source: American Institutes For Research, November 2005, Reassessing U.S. Mathematics Performance: New Findings from the 2003 TIMSS and PISA

  31. Let’s take a closer look at our 15 year olds.

  32. A few years ago, we got a wake up call when the 1999 PISA results were published.

  33. US 15 Year-Olds Rank Near Middle Of The Pack Among 32 Participating Countries: 1999

  34. The new ones?

  35. 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

  36. A closer look at math?

  37. 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/

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

  39. 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/

  40. 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/

  41. 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/

  42. Problems not limited to math, either.

  43. 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

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

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

  46. 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/

  47. 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.

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

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

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