college preparatory curriculum for all lessons learned from chicago elaine allensworth with...

College Preparatory Curriculum for All

Lessons Learned from Chicago

Elaine Allensworth

with TakakoNomi and Nicholas Montgomery at the Consortium on Chicago School Research

and Valerie Leeat the University of Michigan

Funded by the Institute for Education Sciences and the National Science Foundation

Movement for More Rigorous Course Requirements

Criticisms of low high school academic standards

Recognition of need to improve college-readiness

Requires a dramatic change in schooling

Strategy based on research tying coursework to learning

Students in schools with stronger curricula learn more; equity is better

Students in higher tracks perform better than students in lower tracks

Students with advanced coursework do better in intro college courses

But prior research may not be applicable to a universal

mandateStudents selecting higher level classes are different than others

More motivated, with better support

Schools offering higher level classes are qualitatively different than others

More likely to be college-focused in other ways

Mandates are different than bottom-up decisionsIssues of school, teacher and student capacity

Chicago was an early adopter of the core curriculum

Required a college-prep curriculum for all students, beginning in 1997

Three years of math • Algebra in 9th grade, followed by geometry and algebra II• Previously 2 years were required; many students took remedial math

in 9th grade

Four years of English• English I through English IV• Previously many students took remedial English in 9th grade

Three years of social science• World studies, U.S. History and an elective• Previously 3 years required of any social studies course

Three years of lab science • Earth or Environmental Science; Biology; Chemistry or Physics• Previously 1 year required

The Chicago ContextThird largest school system in the U.S.

Over 85% students eligible for free/reduced priced lunch

Racial composition mostly minority50% African-American38% Latino9% White3% Asian

Before the policy:

Graduation rates were at 51%

More than half of entering ninth graders failed at least one course

The policy changed…

• What courses students took– e.g., algebra instead of remedial math

• How many core classes students took– e.g., 3 years of science instead of one

• The composition of students in college prep classes

Study 1.The effects of ending remedial

coursework in ninth grade English and math

Algebra enrollment increased immediately with the policy

Only students with below-average skills were affected

Lowest Low Average High0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

64

88

96 98

9197 99 99

Enrollment in Ninth Grade Algebra by Incoming Math Scores

Pre-Pol-icy

Post-Pol-icy

Incoming Math Test Scores

Pe

rce

nt

of

Stu

de

nts

En

roll

ed

in

Alg

eb

ra

English I enrollment increased with the policyStudents with average-skills and low-skills were affected

Lowest Low Average High0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

45

59

77

9293 94 96 98

Enrollment in Ninth Grade English I by Incoming Reading Scores

Pre-Pol-icy

Post-Pol-icy

Incoming Reading Scores

Pe

rce

nt

of

Stu

de

nts

En

roll

ed

in

En

gli

sh

10

Students Eligible for Special Education Were Most Affected by the Policy

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pre-Policy(1996)

Post-Policy(2000)

Special education students

Students w/o disabilities

College Prep Course Enrollment, Pre- and Post-Policy

11

Slight racial-ethnic gaps in college-prep coursework diminished with the policy

College-Prep Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity 9th Graders not receiving special education services

English Math

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pre-Policy(1996)

Post-Policy(2000)

African American Latino White Asian

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pre-Policy(1996)

Post-Policy(2000)

12

Equity in coursework improved…

What happened to achievement?

13

More students earned credit in Algebra or English Ibut failure rates increased and test scores did not improve

Change in Math Outcomes

Credit in Algebra I or

HigherMath Course

FailureCourse

Absences

Math grades (4 pt.)

Test Scores

Lowest Skilled 8.8% 7.7% 2.24 -0.15 0.63Low Skilled 7.4% 3.6% 2.40 -0.07 0.13Average 1.0% 1.3% 3.14 -0.01 -0.17Highly Skilled -0.4% 1.2% 1.67 0.10 0.50

Change in English Outcomes

Credit in English 1

English Course Failure

Course Absences

English grades (4 pt.)

Test Scores

Lowest Skilled 35.8% 4.1% 1.15 -0.15 -0.61Low Skilled 28.2% 4.0% 1.46 -0.11 -0.64Average 11.7% 2.1% 2.11 -0.06 -0.54High Skilled -3.2% 2.6% 1.70 -0.07 -1.11

Numbers in bold are significantly different post-policy compared to pre-policy.

What happened to coursework by the end of high school?

Study 2. A close look at science coursework

Science Graduation Requirements• Pre-1997

– 1 year of science– No content specified

• Beginning in the 1997-98 school year– 3 years of science– Content specified:

• Earth or Environmental• Biology/Life science• Chemistry or Physics

The requirements led to a large increase in students completing three years of science

Pre-policy: 25%

Post-policy: 48%

Among graduates:

44%

Among graduates: 86%

But students mostly earned Cs and DsAnd students with low grades show little learning

Pre-policy: 25%

Post-policy: 48%

Among graduates: 44%

Among graduates: 86%

The policy led more students to take chemistry or physics, but fewer to take both

Graduates

Highest level of college-prep science completed by high school graduatesControlling for student background

What happened to high school graduation and college-going?

Graduation rates declined with the policy

Percent of students graduating from high school in 5 years

All students

Policy Year

High school graduates were slightly less likely to go to college with the policy

Percent of graduates in each cohort attending a 4-year college after graduation

Controlling for student background

Policy

College persistence rates did not increase with graduation requirements

Percent of students remaining in college for two years

Policy

Why didn’t we see more positive effects?• The policy focused on WHAT students were exposed

to, but they were poorly engaged in that material• Teachers often lack strategies for engaging students with

weak behavioral skills• Instructional quality and classroom climate matter at least

as much as curriculum

• The curricular policy led schools to change the way they grouped/tracked students, with greater demands on teachers and staffing and students– Required teachers to adjust to teaching mixed-ability

classrooms with more attendance & disciplinary problems

– Schools lacked staff for expanded higher-level science and math; led to a decline in curricular rigor for top students

– More demanding work for students with the weakest skills, including students with disabilities—but no extra support

More recent Chicago policies build on the 1997 requirements…

Double-period algebra for students entering high school with below-average skills

• Low-skill students received twice as much instruction, and their teachers received training and resources

• Concentrated together students with attendance/behavior problems

• Instructional quality improved dramatically• Academic demands did not decline• Test scores improved substantially• Grades did not change

• High-skill students took algebra without low-skill peers, OR with low-skill peers receiving extra instruction

• Academic demand increased• Test scores improved• Grades declined

Better monitoring of students’ grades and attendance for early

intervention• Research shows that– Grades are the best predictors of graduation, learning gains,

college entrance & persistence

– Grades are primarily determined by effort (more so than by skills)

– Attendance is the strongest determinant of course failure

• CPS has responded with– Warning lists based on current grades/attendance

– Guides for using data on student performance

• Teacher teams that look at student grades/attendance across classes

Better monitoring of the path to college

• Lists of FASFA completion• Postsecondary counselors

– Match to schools with better financial aid, fewer part-time students

– Emphasize the importance of high grades, behavioral skills

• Some attention to upper-division courses– Expansion of AP/IB classes in some schools

ConclusionsCurricular reforms affect the content students receive

Coursework is a first step: without the requirements, many students took very little core coursework

Equity in coursework improved with the requirements

Expectations changed

• Increased coursework does not necessarily improve achievement or later outcomesCoursework matters little without engagement: we need to focus on students’ academic behaviors and the quality of instruction

Curricular reforms affect classroom composition and instructional environmentThese changes require school and teacher capacity to respond

Students with low abilities & disabilities and their teachers need support

Students with high and average abilities may be affected by policies that appear to be aimed at low-ability students

• For more information go to:ccsr.uchicago.edu