Leaders Impacting the GGap

Leaders Impacting the GGap

Dr. Jonathan A. PluckerCAGT Leadership Breakfast

October 11, 2011

1

2

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

3

http://ceep.indiana.edu/

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

4

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

5

Why Should We Care?

• Life prospects of students from disadvantaged backgrounds

• International Competitiveness• 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?

6

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)

8

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

WhiteBlac

k

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 9

2009 NAEP Reading Results

• There are also large excellence gaps in Reading for FARM, Black, Hispanic, and ELL students

FARM

Non-FARM

WhiteBlac

k

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 10

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.”

11

Trends

• Using the NAEP you can track progress since at least 2003 (since the passage of NCLB)

• The best method is to look at the differences in performance among students at the 90th percentile.

• The scenario we want is for all groups to be experiencing growth, but for underperforming populations to improve faster.

12

% Advanced in Math Grade 4

13

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

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.

14

NAEP Math Grade 4 Gap Trends

15

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 Reading Grade 4 Gap Trends

16

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


NAEP Reading Grade 8 Gap Trends

17

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


Other Signs of Low Performance

• Even if we didn’t care about gaps, there is still a major problem with the performance of even the highest-achieving students from disadvantaged groups

• The top 10% of low income and minority students are still well below the Advanced cut score

18

90th Percentile Scores, Math Grade 8

19

1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009250.0

260.0

270.0

280.0

290.0

300.0

310.0

320.0

330.0

340.0

350.0

FARM Black Hispanic 2009 Cut Score

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.

20

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)

21

Achievement vs. Excellence Gaps, FARM students 2003-2009

22

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.

23

Reading G8 90th Percentile Trends

24

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

25

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

26

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.

27

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

28

7

6


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


29

8

10


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


30

7 8

CSAP Grade 4 Math

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


31

2023

CSAP Grade 7 Math

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


32

13

22

CSAP Grade 10 Math

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


33

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

34

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

35

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

36

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

37

BUT WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

38

What is the Federal Government Doing?

39

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

40

% Advanced Math Grade 4 State vs. NAEP

41

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

2629

58

27

32

16

3 4

15

7 69

1 1

9

2 1

6

0 2

7

20

StateNAEP

Leadership Breakfast Questions

• What have you done to address the needs of high ability students?

• What have you done to move more students into the advanced category?

• What are some things you could try to address the presence of excellence gaps?

• What are the biggest impediments to you doing something about excellence gaps tomorrow?

42

Excessively ProvocativeClosing Thought

There is no naturaladvocacy group foradvanced students.

48Congressional aide example.

http://ceep.indiana.edu/mindthegap

49

CEEP Contact Information:

Jonathan Plucker, Ph.D.Director

1900 East Tenth StreetBloomington, Indiana 47406-7512812-855-4438Fax: 812-856-5890

http://ceep.indiana.edu

50

http://ceep.indiana.edu/

Documents

Leaders Impacting the GGap