Achievement Gaps in the SEDL Region: What Data Tell Us

Closing the Achievement Gap: School Resources and Beyond

SEDL Policy Forum 2004 September 27-28, 2004

Austin, Texas

Goals of This Session

• To describe the achievement gap in the five-state region

• To examine federal and state data that reveal the relationship between student achievement and demographics

• To build awareness of additional “gaps” relating to socio-economic resources and deficits that may impact student success

The Achievement Gap and SEDL Policy Work

SEDL’s policy unit creates and promotes research-based knowledge

for policy audiences to support improved student achievement for all

learners. The achievement gap is of particular interest to our work as:

1. a critical policy issue in SEDL’s

region

2. the basis of current federal NCLB policy

3. highlighting key features of our current research on resources and student achievement

SEDL Regional Educational Laboratory

• Serves Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas

• Nationwide network of 10 labs

• Conducts research on what it takes to improve student achievement

• Examination of Resource Allocation in Education: Connecting Spending to Student Performance, completed in 2003

• Investigation of State Education Databases to Support Policy Research on Resource Allocation, currently in progress

• Does Teacher Salary Matter to Elementary and Middle School Achievement in High Need Areas?, to be completed in 2005

Four Study States: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Texas

SEDL Resource Allocation Research

What did We Learn From Our Research About Bringing Data-based Evidence to the Achievement Gap Problem?

• Socio-economic differences must be considered when addressing the achievement gap

• Measuring critical factors that influence educational outcomes is a challenge, especially with regard to whole-child well-being

• Data are improving our ability to identify achievement gap patterns from state to state

State-by-State Analysis of Socio-Economic and Achievement Data

Introductory page

DIVIDER PAGE

38%46% 49% 49% 52% 53%

8% 10%15%

9% 7%10%

U.S. OK TX LA AR NM

Poverty No Insurance

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

† at or Below 200% Poverty Level

SEDL Region Percent of Children Under Age 19, in Poverty†, and Without Health Insurance, Average for 2001, 2002, and 2003

29%37%

51%60%

66%

AR OK LA TX NM

Source: National Center for Education Statistics

SEDL Region Minority Student Enrollment Public Elementary and Secondary Schools 2002-2003

78% 80% 77%76%79%

62%

73%62%66%

69%62%

57%

74%

AR OK LA TX NM

White Black Hispanic

Source: National Center for Education Statistics†Hispanic student cohorts were too small to be included in rates for AR and OK.

SEDL Region Public High School Graduation Rate by State and Race† 2001

State-by-State Achievement Data

Introductory page

DIVIDER PAGE

64%71% 72%

30% 34%27%

46%43%34%

49%46%40%

1998 2002 2003

White Black Hispanic FRPL

Source: National Center for Education Statistics†NAEP reading tests were not administered for 1999, 2000, 2001.

Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Results†

Percent Scoring At or Above the Basic Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/ Reduced Priced Lunch, Arkansas

76%

59%49%

63%

0%

50%

100%

2004

White Black Hispanic FRPL

Source: Arkansas State Department of Education

Fourth-Grade State Literacy ResultsPercent Scoring At Proficient Level. Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Arkansas

Source: Arkansas State Department of Education

64% 69% 71%

35% 32%

39%38%

23%24%

39%39%31%

1998 2002 2003

White Black Hispanic FRPL

Source: National Center for Education Statistics†NAEP reading tests were not administered for 1999, 2000, 2001.

Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Results†

Percent Scoring At or Above the Basic Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Louisiana

101.4 104.6

79.76858.5

81.1

Fall 2003

White Black Hispanic Asian Am. Indian FRPLSource: Louisiana Department of EducationGPS based on 60% LEAP, 30% IOWA, 10% attendance/drop-out rate all grades tested

Subgroup Performance Scores (GPS)Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Louisiana

70% 69% 67%

38%

41%46%40%

25%25%23%

43%39%

1998 2002 2003

White Hispanic Am. Indian FRPL

Results for Blacks for 1998 36% and 2003 45%; no data for 2002Source: National Center for Education Statistics †NAEP reading tests were not administered for 1999, 2000, 2001.

Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Results†

Percent Scoring At or Above the Basic Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/ Reduced Priced Lunch, New Mexico

61.1 67.3

42 40.449.8 48.7

Spring 2004

White Black Hispanic Asian Am. Indian FRPL

Source: New Mexico Public Education Department

Fifth-Grade TerraNova ReadingMedian National Percentiles, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, New Mexico

69% 70%

36% 41%

73%

34%

48%50%39%

49%48%53%

1998 2002 2003

White Black Hispanic FRPL

Source: National Center for Education Statistics†NAEP reading tests were not administered for 1999, 2000, 2001.

Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Results†

Percent Scoring At or Above the Basic Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Oklahoma

80 8269 64

52 59

2003

White Black Hispanic Asian Am. Indian FRPL

Source: Oklahoma State Department of Education

Fifth-Grade Reading ResultsPercent Scoring At or Above the Satisfactory Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Oklahoma

78% 80%74%

43% 45%

50%48%

32%

44%54%

53%41%

1998 2002 2003

White Black Hispanic FRPL

Source: National Center for Education Statistics†NAEP reading tests were not administered for 1999, 2000, 2001.

Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading Results†

Percent Scoring At or Above the Basic Level, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Texas

97 97 93 8887 90

2002

White Black Hispanic Asian Am. Indian FRPL

Source: Texas Education Agency

Fourth-Grade TAAS Reading ResultsPercent Passing, Race/Ethnicity, Free/Reduced Priced Lunch, Texas

What Do the Data Tell Us?

• According to the U.S. Census Bureau, regional child poverty rates are high compared to the U.S. rates, and the uninsured rate in Texas is almost double that of the 8% U.S. rate.

• High school graduation rates reveal that non-white subgroups are the least likely to graduate, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

• Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that the greatest achievement gaps in elementary-level reading exist between Black and White students, except in NM where it exists between Native Americans and Whites.

State-by-State Analysis of Achievement, Demographics, and Resources

Introductory page

DIVIDER PAGE

Data Used for the Maps

Data Sources• Common Core Data, National Center for Education Statistics

• U.S. Census Bureau

• State Departments of Education

Data Used for the Maps

Socio-Economic ConditionsStudent

poverty

Percent of students on free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL)

Minority enrollment

Percent of students who are non-white

Parent

education

Percent of population with children in public schools without a high school diploma

Public assistance

Percent of households with children in public schools with public assistance income

Data Used for the Maps

Student Achievement

Arkansas: Benchmark Exam, 4th grade, composite math/literary scaled score

Louisiana: LEAP, 4th grade, percent passing, math and English language arts

New Mexico: TerraNova, 4th grade, median composite score

Oklahoma: Core Curriculum Tests, 5th grade, percent at satisfactory or above, reading and math

Texas: TAAS, 4th grade, percent passing, reading and math

Data Used for the Maps

Resources

• Expenditures per pupil

AR: Total expenditures

NM: Net operating expenditures

OK: Total general fund expenditures

• Teacher salaries

TX: Teacher basepay

• Teacher quality

LA: Percent of classes taught by highly qualified teachers

(certified and teaching in-field)

Level Of AnalysisArkansas: 75 Counties

Louisiana: 66 School Districts

New Mexico: 89 School Districts

Oklahoma: 77 Counties

Texas: 254 Counties

Note: In AR, OK, and TX, district-level data were aggregated to the county level for ease of display

Data Used for the Maps

Mapping Process

To create the maps, SEDL researchers

• Computed correlations to find the strongest relationships between variables in each state

• Created ranges for each variable by dividing the school districts or counties in each state into 3 groups with an equal number of districts/counties in each group

Data Used for the Maps

AR Public Assistance

LA Parent Education

NM Minority Enrollment

OK Student Poverty

TX Minority Enrollment

LA Min. Enrol./Stud Pov.

TX Stud. Pov./Par. Educ.

NM Min. Enr./Stud. Ach.

AR Stud.Pov/Stud.Ach.

LA Stud.Pov/TchrQual

AR StudPov/Expend

TX Stud.Pov/TchrSal

LA StudAch/TchrQual

OK StudAch/Expend

NM StudAch/Expend

For Further Information

Celeste Alexander calexan@sedl.org

Debra Hughes Jones djones@sedl.org

Diane Pan dpan@sedl.org

Zena Rudo zrudo@sedl.org

Lotte Smith-Hansen lsmith@sedl.org

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory

www.sedl.org