POLICY REPORT: Is Texas Leading Its Peers and the Nation? Texas Decade Brief.pdfIs Texas Leading Its Peers and the Nation? A Decadal Analysis of Educational Data September, 2012 Julian

The Institute for Urban Policy Research & Analysis

POLICY REPORT:

Is Texas Leading Its Peers and the

Nation?

A Decadal Analysis of Educational Data

September, 2012

Julian Vasquez Heilig, Ph.D., The University of Texas at Austin

Su Jin Jez, Ph.D., California State University, Sacramento

Richard J. Reddick, Ed.D., The University of Texas at Austin

The Institute for Urban Policy Research & Analysis 2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7

Comparison States ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 1 Comparison States by 2010 Population by Race, and Ethnicity ........................................... 9 Table 2. Comparison States Property Taxes on Owner-Occupied Housing by State ................. 10 Table 3. Comparison States Public Elementary-Secondary Per Pupil Spending by State ....... 10

Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) ............................................................. 11 Figure 1. TAAS Exit Math: Percent meeting minimum standards (2000–2002). ........................ 11 Figure 2. TAAS Exit Reading: Percent meeting minimum standards (2000–2002). .................. 12

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) ..................................................... 12 Figure 3. TAKS Exit Math: Percent meeting minimum standards (2003–2009). ........................ 13 Figure 4. TAKS Exit English Language Arts: Percent meeting minimum standards (2003–2009)........................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Texas Education Agency Dropout .............................................................................. 14 Figure 5. Cohort dropout rates (2000–2010). ........................................................................................... 15

Texas Education Agency Graduation .......................................................................... 15 Figure 6. Cohort graduation rates (2000–2010). ..................................................................................... 16

Summary: Texas Education Agency Data ................................................................... 16

National Testing and NCES Data ................................................................................ 18

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) ................................................ 19 Table 4. 4th Grade NAEP Math by State ....................................................................................................... 19 Table 5. 4th Grade NAEP Reading by State ................................................................................................. 20 Table 6. National Rank: 4th Grade NAEP Math by State ........................................................................ 20 Table 7. National Rank: 4th Grade NAEP Reading by State .................................................................. 20 Table 8. 8th Grade NAEP Math by State ....................................................................................................... 21 Table 9. 8th Grade NAEP Reading by State ................................................................................................. 21 Table 10. National Rank: 8th Grade NAEP Math by State ..................................................................... 22 Table 11. National Rank: 8th Grade NAEP Reading by State ............................................................... 22 Table 12. 4th Grade NAEP Math Average Scale Score by State and Race/Ethnicity .................. 24 Table 13. 4th Grade NAEP Reading Average Scale Score by State and Race/Ethnicity ............ 25 Table 14. 8th Grade NAEP Math Average Scale Score by State and Race/Ethnicity .................. 26 Table 15. 8th Grade NAEP Reading Average Scale Score by State and Race/Ethnicity ............ 27

ACT ........................................................................................................................... 28 Table 16. Composite ACT by State .................................................................................................................. 28 Table 17. National Rank: Composite ACT by State .................................................................................. 29 Table 18. Percent Taking ACT by State ......................................................................................................... 29 Table 19. National Rank: % Taking ACT by State ..................................................................................... 29 Table 20. ACT Composite Score by State and Race/Ethnicity ............................................................. 30


SAT ........................................................................................................................... 31 Table 21. Composite SAT by State .................................................................................................................. 31 Table 22. National Rank: Composite SAT by State ................................................................................... 32 Table 23. Percent Taking SAT by State ......................................................................................................... 32 Table 24. National Rank: Percent Taking SAT by State.......................................................................... 32 Table 25. SAT Composite Score by State and Race/Ethnicity ............................................................. 33

NCES Data ................................................................................................................. 33

NCES Dropout Data ................................................................................................... 33 Figure 7. Public High School Event Dropout Rate for Grades 9-12 by Year and State: School years 2002-03 through 2008-09 ..................................................................................................................... 34 Table 26. National Rank: NCES Dropout Rate for Grades 9–12 .......................................................... 35 Table 27. NCES Dropout Rate Grades 9-12 (2008-09) ........................................................................... 35

NCES Graduation Data .............................................................................................. 35 Figure 8. Public High School Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR), by Year and State: School years 2002-03 through 2008-09 ......................................................................................... 36 Table 28. National Rank: NCES Public High School Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate .... 37 Table 29. NCES Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (2008-09) by Race/Ethnicity .............. 38

Summary: K-12 Outcomes ......................................................................................... 38

Higher Education Outcomes ...................................................................................... 39

NCES College Graduation Rates ................................................................................. 40 Figure 9. Texas Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by Year and Race/Ethnicity: 2002 through 2010 ............................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 10. 2010 Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by State and Race/Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 11. Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by Year and State: 2002 through 2010 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 12. African-American Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by Year and State: 2002 through 2010 .................................................................................................................................. 43 Figure 13. Latina/o Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by Year and State: 2002 through 2010 ........................................................................................................................................................... 44

NCES College Student Outcomes and Characteristics ................................................. 45

Bachelor’s Degree Expectations ................................................................................ 45 Figure 14. Percent of Students who Expect to Complete at least a Bachelor’s Degree, by State and Race/Ethnicity: 2004 and 2008 .............................................................................................................. 45

Remedial Course-Taking ............................................................................................ 46 Figure 15. Percent of All Students who Ever Took a Remedial Course, by State & Year .......... 46 Figure 16. Percent of African American Students who Ever Took a Remedial Course, by State & Year ......................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 17. Percent of Latina/o Students who Ever Took a Remedial Course, by State & Year ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 18. Percent of White Students who Ever Took a Remedial Course, by State & Year ... 48

Hours Spent Studying ................................................................................................ 49 Figure 19. Hours Spent per Week on School Work Outside of Class Time, by State and Race/Ethnicity: 2008 ........................................................................................................................................... 49


Student Budget and Income ...................................................................................... 50 Figure 20. Student Budget as a Percent of Income, by State and Race/Ethnicity: 2004 and 2008 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 50

Applying for Financial Aid ......................................................................................... 51 Figure 21. Percent of All Students who Applied for Financial Aid, by State & Year ................... 51 Figure 22. Percent of African American Students who Applied for Financial Aid, by State & Year .............................................................................................................................................................................. 52 Figure 23. Percent of Latina/o Students who Applied for Financial Aid, by State & Year ....... 53 Figure 24. Percent of White Students who Applied for Financial Aid, by State & Year ............ 53 Figure 25. White Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by Year and State: 2002 through 2010 ........................................................................................................................................................... 54

Civic Engagement ...................................................................................................... 55 Figure 26. Percent of All Students who Registered to Vote, by State & Year ................................ 55 Figure 27. Percent of African American Students who Registered to Vote, by State & Year .. 56 Figure 28. Percent of Latina/o Students who Registered to Vote, by State & Year .................... 56 Figure 29. Percent of White Students who Registered to Vote, by State & Year .......................... 57 Figure 30. Percent of All Students who have Ever Voted, by State & Year ..................................... 58 Figure 31. Percent of African American Students who have Ever Voted, by State & Year ...... 58 Figure 32. Percent of Latina/o Students who have Ever Voted, by State & Year ........................ 59 Figure 33. Percent of White Students who have Ever Voted, by State & Year .............................. 59

Summary: Higher Education Outcomes ..................................................................... 60

Measuring Up: A Medal Count Analysis ..................................................................... 60 Table 30. Medal Count Guide ............................................................................................................................ 61 Table 31. Medal Count for K-12 and Higher Education Outcomes for Comparable Large States (2000-2010) ............................................................................................................................................... 61 Table 32. Medal Count Totals for K-12 and Higher Education ........................................................... 65

Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 65

References ................................................................................................................ 69


Executive Summary

As test-based accountability commenced in Texas in the 1990s, publicly reported

achievement gains across grade levels conjoined with increases in high school graduation

rates and decreases in dropout rates brought nationwide acclaim to the Texas

accountability “miracle.” Yet, while accountability’s theory of action intuitively seemed

plausible, at the point of NCLB’s national implementation, the “Texas Miracle” was the

primary source of evidence fueling the notion that accountability positively impacted the

long-term success of low-performing students and the schools that served them. The

success of the Lone Star State’s accountability policy in the midst of the Texas Miracle

has been debated vociferously in the literature. Yet the question remains: has Texas

improved student outcomes over the long term? How have changes in student outcomes

been reflected on state-released and national data? In this report we examine state-

released K-12 and higher education data in conjunction with data from national sources

to compare Texas with the other most populous states and also rank the Lone Star State

relative to all other states in the nation over the past decade.

The Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)

and Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) exit exam data show that

African American and Latina/o students apparently made dramatic achievement gains

and narrowed the achievement gaps during the TAAS and TAKS eras. Notably, these

gains appear to be reflected in the national NAEP test scores as Texas had the highest 4th

grade and 8th

grade NAEP scale scores relative to its peer states of New York and

California for African Americans and Latina/os.

However, while the achievement gap closes, overall student performance lags. This is

not unique to Texas; each of the most populous states performed worse over the past

decade relative to other states in the nation. Texas dropped 21 spots in 4th

grade math,

four spots in 4th

grade reading, and eight spots in 8th

grade reading. The only bright spot

was that Texas improved its standing by the end of the decade in 8th

grade math, moving

from 22nd

to 18th

.

Education policy has not only focused on academic achievement, as measured by test

scores, but has also focused on drop out and graduation rates. Despite about 15 years of

high-stakes testing and accountability policy, dropout rates and graduation rates for

African Americans in Texas do not appear to have improved; in fact, if data from

independent empirical sources noted in the report are to be believed, the situation has

worsened.

Another important question is whether Texas’ early grade performance on standardized

tests relative to peer states also transferred to college entrance exams. Overall ACT

composite scores were highest in New York (ranked 4th

), followed California (15th

) and

then Texas (33rd

). For African Americans and Latina/os, New York students had the

highest ACT composite scores followed by California, then Texas. For the SAT, we

found that California had the highest scores followed by Texas and then New York. Only


California increased their SAT composite scores (2 points) over the last decade with

other two states showing decreases New York (-17 points) and Texas (-4 points). In terms

of national rank, California’s SAT rank held steady at 35th

in the nation followed by

Texas (44th

) and New York (47th

). In 2009, for African Americans and Latina/os, Texas

had the highest SAT composite scores for Latinos amongst peer states, while California

had the highest composite scores for African Americans. Therefore, in sum, Texas

apparent success in the state-level data released to the public and NEAP scores in

elementary and middle school is largely not reflected in composite SAT or ACT scores—

except for Latina/os.

These results beg the question: Why, considering in the past 20 years of high-stakes

testing and accountability policy in the state, have these policies not produced more

competitive NAEP scores relative to the nation and greater levels of college readiness in

Texas relative to peer states and all other states? Considering that the ultimate goal of our

schools is frequently framed as college and career readiness by the legislature, it appears

that our current system is not meeting those goals, but state-mandated tests (TAAS,

TAKS, STAAR— even NAEP) are instead providing us a false sense of security

regarding achievement our schools.

In terms of higher education outcomes, Texas, in comparison to its peer states, finds itself

generally surpassing California, but trails New York in virtually all outcomes. New

York’s performance on higher education measures suggests that policies in that state are

generally assisting African American and Latina/o students in closing the gaps. New

York students generally surpassed California and Texas students on every measure, save

one very significant exception: New York students allocated far greater amounts of their

income toward higher education costs. While this finding is troubling to an extent,

students’ aspirations towards higher education, as well as the amount of time they spend

outside of class devoted towards studying is noteworthy. Higher education remediation

measures are a category that none of the comparison states can truly boast about. In

California, New York, and Texas, all three states reported that approximately half of all

African American and Latina/o students had taken remedial courses. This speaks to the

inequity of educational opportunities before students get to college.

In conclusion, while Texas typically performs in the middle between New York and

California on the K-12 and higher education measures, the state is seeing more trends of

decline and stasis than growth between 2000 and 2010 relative to all states in the nation.

To promote college and career readiness, policymakers need more policy research to help

them pinpoint problems and potential solutions. This report is an example of the

beginning of research that illuminates public issues in education but much more is

necessary. The analyses in this report find indicate that Texas must stop depending solely

on high-stakes testing as a measuring stick of the state’s educational progress and get

serious about funding our schools (K-12 and higher education) relative to other states in

the nation. California, in this instance, may serve as a bellwether demonstrating the

catastrophic effects of extended divestment in education.


Introduction

To address long-standing gaps between minority and majority student

achievement, the Texas Legislature enacted Texas Senate Bill 7 (1993), the incipient

statute for the creation of the Texas public school accountability system to rate school

districts and evaluate campuses.i As presaged in the Houston Independent School District

in the late 1990s and championed by President George W. Bush as the “Texas Miracle”

(Anderson, 2009), the prevailing theory of action underlying Texas-style high-stakes

testing and accountability ratings is that schools and students held accountable to these

measures automatically will increase educational output as educators try harder, schools

will adopt more effective methods, and students will learn more (Vasquez Heilig &

Darling-Hammond, 2008). Supporters of high-stakes testing and accountability believed

that pressure to improve test scores would produce genuine gains in student achievement

(McNeil, 2005).

McNeil (2005) related that Texas-style high-stakes testing and accountability

policy, by force of federal law, has become the driving education policy for the entire

nation with the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as

the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Former President Bush and former Secretary of

Education Rod Paige, two primary arbiters of NCLB, lassoed their ideas for federal

education policy from Texas. NCLB replicated the Texas model of accountability by

injecting public rewards and sanctions into national education policy and ushered in an

era where states and localities are required to build state accountability systems on high-

stakes assessments, namely standardized tests. The centerpiece of NCLB requires that


schools and districts meet the federally established goal of Adequate Yearly Progress

(AYP) associated with minimum levels of improvement on high-stakes testing

assessments for demographic subgroups or face federal sanctions and penalties.

NCLB-encouraged accountability policies are increasingly considering tests as the

basis of decisions that determine the progression of children through school, access to

education, student achievement progress, and the amount of resources a school receives

to educate students. Considering that Texas has travelled down the road of high-stakes

testing and accountability for nearly two decades, understanding if high-stakes testing

and accountability policies have improved education relative to other comparable states

over the past decade is an important investigation, and hitherto ignored.

As test-based accountability commenced in Texas, publicly reported achievement

gains across grade levels conjoined with increases in high school graduation rates and

decreases in dropout rates brought nationwide acclaim to the Texas accountability

“miracle” (Haney, 2000). Yet, while accountability’s theory of action intuitively seemed

plausible, at the point of NCLB’s national implementation, the “Texas Miracle” was the

primary source of evidence fueling the notion that accountability positively impacted the

long-term success of low-performing students and the schools that served them (Nichols,

Glass, & Berliner, 2006). The successes of the Lone Star State’s accountability policy in

the midst of the Texas Miracle has been debated vociferously in the literature (Carnoy,

Loeb, & Smith, 2001; Haney, 2000; Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, & Stecher, 2000;

Linton & Kester, 2003; McNeil, Coppola, Radigan, & Vasquez Heilig, 2008; Toenjes &

Dworkin, 2002). Disturbing allegations of underreporting of dropout rates and testing

irregularities emerged in the last decade (Vasquez Heilig & Darling-Hammond, 2008).


Yet the question remains: has Texas improved student outcomes over the long term?

How have changes in student outcomes reflected on state-released and national data? In

this report we examine state-level K-12 and higher education data in conjunction with

data from national sources to compare Texas with the other most populous states and also

rank the Lone Star State relative to all other states in the nation over the past decade.

Comparison States

Comparing Texas with California and New York is logical, given their

demography and population. Not only are these three states the most populous in the

union (Mackun & Wilson, 2011), they also point to the growing demographic reality of a

nation that is increasingly populated by people of color, and the rapid growth of Latinos

(Passel, Cohn, & Lopez, 2011) (see Table 1).

Table 1 Comparison States by 2010 Population by Race, and Ethnicity

California Texas New York United States

Population 37,253,956 25,145,561 19,378,102 308,745,538

African

American 6.20% 11.80% 15.90% 12.60%

Asian

American 13.00% 3.80% 7.30% 4.80%

Latina/o 37.60% 37.60% 17.60% 16.30%

Native

American 1.00% 0.70% 0.60% 0.90%

White 40.10% 45.30% 58.30% 63.70%

Source: U.S. Census, 2010.

California, New York, and Texas additionally resemble one another regarding

their tax base: the three states are ranked in the top third regarding the median property

taxes paid on homes as well as taxes as a percent of income (see Table 2).


Table 2. Comparison States Property Taxes on Owner-Occupied Housing by State

State

Median

Property

Taxes Paid

on Homes Rank

Median

Income for

Home

Owners

Taxes as

% of

Income Rank

New York $3,755 4 $74,777 5.02% 6

California $2,839 10 $78,973 3.59% 15

Texas $2,275 14 $62,353 3.65% 12

Source: Tax Foundation, 2012 Note: Figures do not adjust for cost of living or inflation.

In regard to public elementary-secondary spending per pupil, there is something

of a divide. New York is the undisputed leader among all states in public elementary-

secondary spending per pupil, while California and Texas rank in the lower half of all

states. Both California and Texas have not kept pace with other states, dropping from 24th

to 30th

and 35th

to 43rd

in the eight-year interval between 2000 and 2008, respectively (see

Table 3). However, all three states have seen an increase in per-pupil expenditures during

this timeframe.ii

Table 3. Comparison States Public Elementary-Secondary Per Pupil Spending by

State

2000-2001 Rank 2008-2009 Rank $Δ Rank Δ

New York $10,922 1 $18,126 1 $7,204 —

California $6,965 24 $9,657 30 $2,692 -6

Texas $6,460 35 $8,540 43 $2,080 -8

Source: U.S Census, 2003 Note: Figures do not adjust for cost of living or inflation.

To address the question of whether student outcomes for African American and

Latina/o students have improved over the past decade in Texas, we examine cross-

sectional high school exit exam data, dropout, and graduation data from 2000 through

2010. During this time period, Texas utilized two generations of accountability

assessment systems. The first generation of relied on the Texas Assessment of Academic

Skills (TAAS) and lasted 1994-2002. The second generation included the Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) and includes data from 2003-2010. Our


descriptive statistical analyses focus on high-stakes high school exit test score trends for

10th

graders (TAAS, 2000-2002) and 11th

graders (TAKS, 2003-2010).

Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)

Figure 1 shows that African Americans increased their achievement on the TAAS

Exit Math, from only 74% meeting minimum standards in 2000 to 85% by 2002.

Concurrently, the percent of Latina/os meeting minimum standards increased from 80%

to 83%. Although the achievement gap between minorities and whites remained, the gap

for Latina/os and African Americans narrowed to 8% and 11%, respectively, by 2002.

Figure 1. TAAS Exit Math: Percent meeting minimum standards (2000–2002).

Source: Texas Education Agency, 2003.


Figure 2. TAAS Exit Reading: Percent meeting minimum standards (2000–2002).


Figure 2 also shows gains in the percent of African American and Latina/o

students meeting minimum standards on the TAAS Exit Reading. By 2002, the Texas

Education Agency (TEA) reported that 92% of African Americans and 90% of Latina/os

in the state had met minimum standards on the TAAS Exit Reading. Both African

Americans and Latina/os showed an increase of 7% more students meeting minimum

standards since 2000. The achievement gap closed to 8% for Latina/os and 6% for

African Americans.

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)

In 2003, the TAKS replaced the TAAS as the exit exam in Texas. As shown in

Figure 3, between 2003 and 2010 the percentage of African Americans passing the TAKS

Exit Math increased from 25% to 81%, a gain of 56%. Latina/os showed a similar gain of


55% more students meeting minimum standards on the TAKS Exit Math (from 30% to

85%). Similar to the closing of the achievement gap on the TAAS Exit Math, the TAKS

Exit Math gap for African Americans and Latina/os decreased to 13% and 9% by 2010

(see Figure 3).

Figure 3. TAKS Exit Math: Percent meeting minimum standards (2003–2009).


During the first 8 years of TAKS Exit testing, the percentage of African

Americans passing the TAKS Exit English Language Arts increased 43%, while the

proportion of Latina/os meeting minimum standards increased 38% (see Figure 4).

Similar to the closing of the achievement gap noted on the TAAS Exit Reading, the gap

between African American and White students decreased to 6%. By 2010, the gap

between the percent of Whites and Latina/os passing the TAKS Exit English Language

Arts had declined to 7%.


Figure 4. TAKS Exit English Language Arts: Percent meeting minimum standards

(2003–2009).


Texas Education Agency Dropout

In the 1998–1999 school year, TEA introduced tracking of individual students in

cohorts between Grades 9 and 12 (TEA, 2001).iii

Figure 5 shows that TEA-reported

African American and Latina/o cohort dropout rates almost halved between 2000 and

2005. However, after 2005, when the state of Texas was required by the U.S. Department

of Education to use the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) dropout standard

for leaver (students who leave school) reporting, the cohort dropout rates more than

doubled for African Americans and Latina/os, after the adoption of the NCES standard.

These numbers align with empirical research critical of TEA’s publicly reported dropout

numbers (Losen, Orfield, & Balfanz, 2006) and suggests that student leavers were


underreported since the inception of accountability. Indeed, the scandal at Houston’s

Sharpstown High School and subsequent audits by TEA of Houston ISD data illustrated

that several schools had significantly underreported the dropout rate (Leung, 2009).

Figure 5. Cohort dropout rates (2000–2010).


Texas Education Agency Graduation

If significantly larger numbers of African Americans and Latina/os were dropping

out of school in Texas, then cohort graduation rates should be correspondingly low.

Figure 6 shows that TEA reported African American and Latina/o graduation rates from

2000-2010 gradually rose to about 80% then dipped by almost 10% when NCES

standards were instituted after 2005. Again, the large decline did not occur for Whites in

Texas, as their cohort graduation rates only dipped about 1% after the NCES re-


adjustment. By 2010, the graduation gap between Whites and both African Americans

and Latinos was 12.8%.

Figure 6. Cohort graduation rates (2000–2010).


Summary: Texas Education Agency Data

TEA’s TAAS and TAKS exit exam data show that African American and

Latina/o students apparently made dramatic achievement gains and narrowed the

achievement gaps during the TAAS and TAKS eras. However, the cross-sectional student

progress analysis showed that dropout rates and graduation rates for African Americans

in Texas do not appear to have improved (even with the apparently inflated rates released

by TEA) after about 15 years of high-stakes testing and accountability policy; in fact, if

data from empirical sources are to be believed, the situation has worsened.


In a study of Texas dropout data, Losen et al. (2006) argued that Texas graduation

rates historically have been overstated. They examined Public Education Information

Management System (PEIMS) data for individual students and proffered that between

1994 and 2003, the state’s graduation rate increased from 56% to 67%. In contrast,

TEA’s publicly released statistics locate the graduation rates at 72% and 84% for the

same period—a difference of 17% by 2003, the equivalent of approximately 46,000

students. Losen et al. noted that the overstatement of graduation rates in Texas occurred

partly because PEIMS has included many ways that students could be excluded from

enrollment data used to calculate graduation rates. Instead of utilizing PEIMS to define

away the dropout and graduation numbers in Texas, the NCES definition has created

more transparency in the state while calling into question whether gains have actually

occurred in Texas since the inception of accountability in 1994.

Thus, as a cautionary note, we acknowledge that this review of data is limited

because of the ongoing debate about the validity of leaver data collected by the state.

Data reported by the state of Texas has long been accused of inaccuracy in the accounting

of student leavers (Haney, 2000; Orfield et al., 2004; Vasquez Heilig & Darling-

Hammond, 2008). The data used in these analyses are the same data that has drawn

criticism from the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) and other

researchers that have argued that the leaver problem is underreported (Johnson, 2008).

We believe the actual dropout rates to be much higher and graduation rates lower than the

publicly reported data (see also McNeil, Coppola, Radigan and Vasquez Heilig, 2008).

Furthermore, critics have questioned the validity of TAKS and TAAS score growth over


time due to TEA’s lowering of cut scores in successive state-mandated testing regimes

(Mellon, 2010; Stutz, 2011).

National Testing and NCES Data

There is wide variability amongst state-mandated criterion reference tests

(Vasquez Heilig & Nichols, in press). In 2005, Achieve, Inc. compared state high-stakes

test proficiency levels with those set by the National Assessment for Educational

Progress (NAEP), a federally funded achievement test viewed as a comparable

assessment to most state tests (Vasquez Heilig & Nichols, in press). When it came to

fourth grade math performance in 2005, states varied widely in how they defined

“proficient.” For example, compared to NAEP’s standard of proficiency, Mississippi’s

tests were the easiest compared to NAEP standards, whereas Massachusetts’ assessments

were much harder.

The Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) has argued that

adopting the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) dropout definition for

Texas has provided a more accurate, yet still understated representation of the magnitude

of the overall dropout problem in Texas (Johnson, 2008). More than two decades of

IDRA’s yearly high school attrition studies of PEIMS data have suggested that TEA has

consistently and severely undercounted student leaving in publicly reported dropout and

graduation rates. IDRA found the overall student attrition rate of 33% was the same in

2007–2008 as it was more than two decades ago (Johnson, 2008). In contrast, TEA had

reported annual dropout rates that declined from 5% to 1% and longitudinal cohort

dropout rates that declined from about 35% to around 5% over the same time frame

(Vasquez Heilig & Nichols, in press). IDRA also posited that the high school attrition


rates for Latina/o and African American students accounted for more than two thirds of

the estimated 2.8 million students lost from Texas public high school enrollment since the

1980s (Johnson, 2008).

As a result it is important to analyze how Texas performed over the past decade

not only on assessment and student leaver and graduation data that are controlled by

TEA, but also the NAEP and NCES data, which sets national standards for different

levels of proficiency and coding of dropout and graduation. Examining the NAEP, other

national tests and NCES data also allows us to compare Texas’ educational outcomes to

the other most populous states.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

Table 4 shows that 4th

grade math in California improved (18.1 points) the most

over the last decade. Texas outscored California in 2000 and 2009, but New York nudged

slightly past Texas during the decade. Notably, Texas had the lowest level of overall 4th

grade Math growth (7.8 points) over the past decade relative to California and New York

– which might be expected, given that the state reported the highest score among the

cohort in 2000.

Table 4. 4th Grade NAEP Math by State

State 2000 2009 Δ

California 213.6 231.7 18.1

New York 226.6 240.6 14.1

Texas 232.7 240.5 7.8

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2012

On the 4th

grade reading, although the Golden State’s scores were the lowest,

California showed the most improvement over the past decade (3.8 points). New York

and Texas improved by the same amount between 2000 and 2009 (1.9 points). Overall,

New York had the highest 4th

NAEP reading scores in both 2000 and 2009.


Table 5. 4th Grade NAEP Reading by State

State 2002 2009 Δ

California 205.9 209.8 3.8

New York 222.4 224.4 1.9

Texas 216.9 218.9 1.9


In sum, over the past decade, on the 4th

Grade NAEP, New York performed better

than Texas in both 4th

grade math and reading. California improved more than Texas and

New York over the past decade, but still has the lowest scores of the three most populous

states.

Table 6 shows where the three most populous states rank on the NAEP relative to

the other 50 states. On the 4th

grade NAEP math, all of three populous states saw their

relative standing to other states drop over the past decade. While New York and

California had modest drops, Texas saw its ranking drop the most— 21 spots between

2000 and 2009. Texas went from 6th

to 27th

in the nation during the decade. On 4th

grade

NAEP reading, all states also lost ground over the past decade. California (41st to 48

th)

dropped the most (7 spots), while Texas (29th

to 33rd


to 15th

)

declined four and three spots, respectively.

Table 6. National Rank: 4th Grade NAEP Math by State

State 2000 2009 Δ

Texas 6 27 -21

California 40 45 -5

New York 22 26 -4


Table 7. National Rank: 4th Grade NAEP Reading by State

State 2002 2009 Δ

California 41 48 -7

Texas 29 33 -4

New York 12 15 -3



The lone bright spot in the overall NAEP scale scores for Texas is 8th

grade math.

Table 8 shows that 8th

grade math in Texas improved (11.8 points) the most over the last

decade. Texas outscored California in 2000 and 2009, and surpassed New York during

the decade. Notably, New York had the lowest level of overall 8th

grade math growth (6.3

points) over the past decade relative to California and Texas.

Table 8. 8th Grade NAEP Math by State

State 2000 2009 Δ

Texas 274.8 286.7 11.8

California 262.2 270.4 8.3

New York 276.3 282.6 6.3


Similar to the 4th

grade NAEP, Table 9 shows that while California’s reading

scale scores were the lowest, the state showed the most improvement over the past

decade (2.2 points). New York slightly improved during the decade, while Texas showed

a decline in reading scale scores between 2000 and 2009 (-1.7 points). As was the case in

4th

grade, New York also has the highest NAEP reading scores in 8th

grade in both 2000

and 2009.

Table 9. 8th Grade NAEP Reading by State

State 2002 2009 Δ

California 250.5 252.6 2.2

New York 263.9 264.3 0.3

Texas 262.1 260.4 -1.7


In sum, New York had the highest 8th

grade NAEP reading scores while Texas

had the highest 8th

grade NAEP math scores. Texas improved the most in 8th

grade math

while California had the most improvement in 8th

grade reading scores. During the

decade, results on the 8th

grade NAEP for Texas are mixed as it was the only state that


displayed a decline in scale scores on the 8th

grade NAEP reading. However, on the 8th

grade NAEP math Texas outperformed California and New York.

Table 10 shows where the three most populous states rank on the 8th

grade NAEP

math. California and New York again saw their relative standing to other states drop over

the past decade. While New York and California had large drops (-12), Texas saw its

ranking increase four spots between 2000 and 2009. Texas went from 22nd

to 18th

in the

nation during the decade.

Table 10. National Rank: 8th Grade NAEP Math by State

State 2000 2009 Δ

California 34 46 -12

New York 19 31 -12

Texas 22 18 4

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2012 While Texas performed well relative to its peer states in math, on 8

th grade NAEP

reading, all of the states lost ground over the past decade by about the same amount, with

Texas sliding from 26th

to 34th

in the nation (see Table X).

Table 11. National Rank: 8th Grade NAEP Reading by State

State 2002 2009 Δ

California 41 49 -8

New York 22 31 -9

Texas 26 34 -8


Summary of 4th and 8th Grade NAEP. Relative to its peer states, Texas lagged

behind New York but was ahead of California over the past decade in the 4th

grade

reading and math NAEP. California did show more improvement than Texas and New

York over the past decade. For the 8th

grade reading and math NAEP, Texas had the most

improvement and the highest 8th

grade math scores over the past decade. For the 8th


reading, New York has the highest overall achievement. Texas outperformed California,

but was the only state (amongst its peers) where 8th grade reading performance declined.

Each of the most populous states performed worse over the past decade relative to

the nation. Texas dropped 21 spots in 4th

grade mathiv

, four spots in 4th

grade reading, and

eight spots in 8th

grade reading. The only bright spot was that Texas improved its

standing by the end of the decade in 8th

grade math, moving from 22nd

to 18th

.

NAEP by Race/Ethnicity 4th

and 8th

Grade. Our analysis now turns from the

overall scale scores for the 4th

and 8th

grade NAEP to examination of the scale scores

disaggregated by race/ethnicity and state. Table 12 shows that African Americans in

Texas and New York outscored California and the nation in 4th

grade math. However,

improvement over the decade in the nation and California outpaced gains in New York

and Texas. New York did improve scale scores more than Texas over the past decade but

still lags behind, which still has the highest overall scale scores for African Americans

amongst its peer states.

By 2009, Latina/os in Texas and New York also outscored California and the

nation in 4th

grade math. In terms of improvement, New York showed the largest growth

(24 points), then California (18 points) over the decade. Texas still has the highest scores

for Latina/os in 4th

grade NAEP math; however, New York’s dramatic growth over the

last decade is challenging this status.


Table 12. 4th Grade NAEP Math Average Scale Score by State and Race/Ethnicity

National Texas New York California

African American

2000 203 220 210 194

2009 222 231 225 217

Δ 00-09 19 11 15 23

Latina/o

2000 208 223 207 201

2009 227 233 231 219

Δ 00-09 19 10 24 18


Table 12 shows that African Americans in Texas and New York again outscored

California and the nation in 4th

grade reading. Improvement over the decade in New York

and Texas outpaced the nation and California. Texas improved the most and has the

highest overall scale scores for African Americans on the 4th

grade reading NAEP.

Latina/os in Texas and New York again outscored California and the nation in 4th

grade reading. However, in terms of improvement, New York showed the largest growth

(6 points) over the decade and has now tied Texas for the highest scale scores on 4th

grade reading NAEP.


Table 13. 4th Grade NAEP Reading Average Scale Score by State and

Race/Ethnicity


African American

2000 199 202 202 196

2009 205 213 209 200

Δ 00-09 6 11 7 4

Latina/o

2000 201 208 204 192

2009 205 210 210 196

Δ 00-09 4 2 6 4


Table 13 shows that African Americans in Texas and New York also outscored

California and the nation in 8th

grade math. Notably, dramatic improvement over the

decade in the Texas and nation outpaced New York and California. Texas improvement

amongst African American students in 8th

math is clearly reflected in the overall NAEP

8th

grade math scale scores that were discussed previously. Notably, African Americans

across the nation grew more than in New York and California.

Latina/os in Texas and the nation outscored California and New York in 8th

grade

math. In terms of improvement, Texas showed the largest growth over the decade (15

points), then California (14 points), and finally New York (11 points). In 2000 and 2009,

Texas still had the highest scores for Latina/os in 8th

grade NAEP math. In 8th

grade

math, Latina/os across the nation grew more than New York between 2000 and 2009.


Table 14. 8th Grade NAEP Math Average Scale Score by State and Race/Ethnicity


African American

2000 244 250 251 235

2009 261 272 262 250

Δ 00-09 17 22 11 15

Latina/o

2000 253 262 251 242

2009 266 277 262 256

Δ 00-09 13 15 11 14


Table 14 shows that African American reading growth was largely static

compared to the nation and the most populous states between 2000 and 2009. Texas

improved the most (2 points) and has the highest overall scale scores for African

Americans on the 8th

grade reading NAEP.

By 2009, Latina/os in Texas outscored New York, California and the nation in 8th

grade reading. In terms of improvement, New York showed a large decrease (-4 points)

over the decade and fell behind Texas for the highest scale scores on 8th

grade reading

NAEP. Notably, Latina/os across the nation scored better than New York and California.


Table 15. 8th Grade NAEP Reading Average Scale Score by State and

Race/Ethnicity


African American

2000 245 247 246 242

2009 246 249 246 243

Δ 00-09 1 2 0 1

Latina/o

2000 247 250 251 238

2009 249 251 247 241

Δ 00-09 2 1 -4 3


Summary of 4th and 8th NAEP by Race/Ethnicity. Texas had the highest 4th

grade and 8th

grade NAEP scale scores relative to its peer states of New York and

California for African Americans and Latina/os. For African Americans, on the 4th

and 8th

grade reading and math NAEP, Texas had the most improvement and the highest scale

scores during the decade. For Latina/os, it is a more mixed picture. Texas had the highest

total scale scores but the lowest level of growth for the 4th

grade reading and math NAEP.

For 8th

grade NAEP, Texas had the highest scale scores and growth for math. In reading,

Texas had the highest scores, but California grew their scale scores by a larger margin (3

points). New York was the only state (amongst its populous peers) where 8th

reading

performance declined (-4 points).


ACT

We will now analyze how Texas performed on the composite American College

Testing (ACT) over the past decade. We begin examining the overall composite scores

for California, New York, and Texas, and then consider the national rank of the states.

The ACT consists of four tests: English, Mathematics, Reading, and Science. The score

range for each of the four tests is 1–36. The composite score is the average of the four

test scores earned during a single test administration, rounded to the nearest whole

number.v In addition to overall composite scores, we examine changes in the percentage

of students taking the test over the past decade and ranking relative to all U.S. states. We

conclude by comparing ACT composite scores by race/ethnicity between 2000 and 2010.

In Table 16 we show that all of the states increased their ACT composite scores

over the last decade with New York leading the way (1.1 points), then California (.8

points), and finally Texas (.5 points).

Table 16. Composite ACT by State

2000 2010 Δ

New York 22.2 23.3 1.1

California 21.4 22.2 0.8

Texas 20.3 20.8 0.5

Source: ACT Inc, personal communication.

New York’s rank held steady at 4th

in the nation, while California had the largest

increase their ranking for their composite score, going from 23rd

in the nation in 2000 to

15th

by 2010. Texas also increased their ranking by six spots, but by 2010 was ranked

33rd

in the nation— the lowest by quite a margin (See Table 17).


Table 17. National Rank: Composite ACT by State

2000 2010 Δ

California 23 15 8

Texas 39 33 6

New York 4 4 0


The percentage of students taking the ACT increased for all of the states under

study. Texas’ percent taking only increased slightly, but was still in the forefront amongst

the states under study for percentage taking at 33 percent. New York’s percentage taking

the ACT increased the most (13 percentage points) to 27 percent taking. California had

the second largest increase in their percentage taking— going from 12 percent to 22

percent by 2010 (See Table 18).

Table 18. Percent Taking ACT by State

2000 2010 Δ

New York 14 27 13

California 12 22 10

Texas 32 33 1


Table 19 shows that New York’s rank for percentage taking the ACT increased

the most (2 spots) to 35th

in the nation. Despite an increase percent taking, California’s

ranking remained static between 2000 and 2010. Texas’ ranking only decreased slightly

from 29th

to 30th

, but was still in the forefront in their ranking amongst the populous

states for percentage taking at 30th

in the nation.

Table 19. National Rank: % Taking ACT by State

2000 2010 Δ

New York 37 35 2

California 39 39 0

Texas 29 30 -1


ACT by Race/Ethnicity. Table 20 shows that by 2009, African American

composite scores were highest in New York (19), then California (18.3) and then Texas


(17.5). Growth on the ACT was largely static in the nation, but it increased in each of the

most populous states between 2000 and 2010. Growth followed the same rank order as

the highest scores as New York improved the most (.7 points) followed by California (.6

points), and then Texas (.3 points).

The nation experienced a decrease in Latina/o ACT composite scores between

2000 and 2010. Latina/os in each of the most populous states increased their scores

during the decade. Latina/os in New York outscored those in Texas and California in

2000 and 2010. Growth again followed the same rank order as the highest scores as New

York improved the most (.9 points) followed by California (.3 points), and then Texas (.3

points).

Table 20. ACT Composite Score by State and Race/Ethnicity

National New York California Texas

African American

2000 17 18.3 17.7 17.2

2009 17 19 18.3 17.5

Δ 00-09 0 0.7 0.6 0.3

Latina/o

2000 18.9 19.7 18.7 18.2

2009 18.7 20.6 19 18.5

Δ 00-09 -0.2 0.9 0.3 0.3


Overall composite scores were highest in New York (ranked 4

th), followed

California (15th

) and then Texas (33rd

). Texas did have the highest overall percent of

students taking the ACT relative to its peer states of New York and California. For

African Americans and Latina/os, New York students had the highest ACT composite

scores followed by California, then Texas.


SAT

For the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) analyses, we begin examining the overall

composite scores for each state and then consider the national rank of California, New

York and Texas. The SAT composite consists of two tests: Verbal and Math. The score

range for each of the two tests is 1–1600; the composite score is the total of the two test

scores earned during a single test administration.vi

In addition to overall composite

scores, we examine changes in the percentage of students taking the test over the past

decade and ranking relative to all U.S. states. We conclude by comparing SAT composite

scores by race/ethnicity for 2000 and 2010.

In Table 21 we show that California had the highest scores followed by Texas and

then New York. Only California increased their SAT composite scores (2 points) over the

last decade with other two states showing decreases New York (-17 points) and Texas (-4

points).

Table 21. Composite SAT by State

2000 2010 Δ

California 1015 1017 2

Texas 993 989 -4

New York 1000 983 -17

Source: College Board, personal communication.

California’s rank held steady at 35th

in the nation followed by Texas (44th

) and

New York (47th

). Texas had the largest increase in its ranking for composite score, going

from 47th

in 2000 to 44th

in the nation by 2010. California also increased its ranking by a

single spot. New York saw its national SAT ranking decline by five spots to 47th

in the

nation (See Table 22).


Table 22. National Rank: Composite SAT by State

2000 2010 Δ

California 36 35 1

Texas 47 44 3

New York 42 47 -5


The percentage of students taking the SAT increased for all of the states under

study. California and Texas’ percent taking only increased slightly (1 point), and they

were both at about 50 percent taking the SAT. New York’s percentage taking the SAT

increased the most (8 percentage points) to 85 percent taking the test (See Table 23).

Table 23. Percent Taking SAT by State

2000 2010 Δ

California 49 50 1

New York 77 85 8

Texas 52 53 1


Table 24 shows that New York’s rank for percentage taking the SAT increased

the most (2 spots) to 3rd

in the nation. Despite a slight increase in percent taking ranking

(1 spot), California’s ranking remained virtually the same between 2000 and 2010.

Texas’ ranking decreased slightly from 21st to 22

nd.

Table 24. National Rank: Percent Taking SAT by State

2000 2010 Δ

New York 5 3 2

Texas 21 22 -1

California 24 23 1


SAT by Race/Ethnicity. In 2009, for African Americans and Latina/os, Texas

had the highest SAT composite scores for Latinos amongst peer states, while California

had the highest composite scores for African Americans. African Americans in each of

the states increased SAT composite scores between 2000 and 2009— New York and


Texas led by increasing composite scores by 8 points while California increased scores

by 6 points.

Table 25. SAT Composite Score by State and Race/Ethnicity

National New York California Texas

African American

2000 869 873 850

2009 837 879 858

Δ 00-09 8 6 8

Latina/o

2000vii

— — —

2009 859 890 905

Δ 00-09 — — —

Source: College Board, personal communication. Note: Composite of Critical Reading

and Math

NCES Data

Our analyses of U.S. Department of Education data examines the number of high

school graduates via the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) and the event

dropout data for grades 9–12 for public schools in each of the most populous states (and

our comparison group) – California, New York, and Texas. The federal data is derived

from when State Education Agencies (SEAs) report counts of graduates, dropouts, and

enrollments to the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Common Core of

Data (CCD).

NCES Dropout Data

The federal definition of a dropout for the CCD is “a student who was enrolled at

any time during the previous school year who is not enrolled at the beginning of the

current school year and who has not successfully completed school” (Stillwell, Sable,


Plotts, 2011, p. 1). The event dropout rate describes the proportion of students who drop

out in any single year. The event dropout rate is determined by dividing the number of

dropouts in any given grade by the number of students enrolled in that grade at the

beginning of that school year.viii

Figure 7 shows that California’s event dropout rate increased 1.8 percentage

points from the lowest rate to the highest between 2003 and 2009. New York improved

its dropout rate by largest amount (1.3 percentage points) during the time period. By

2009, Texas was reporting the lowest event dropout rate at 3.2%.

Figure 7. Public High School Event Dropout Rate for Grades 9-12 by Year and

State: School years 2002-03 through 2008-09

Source: Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., and KewalRamani, A., 2011. 2002-2003 is the first year

that event dropout rate is publicly disseminated.

In 2009, Texas’ event dropout rank was holding steady at 24

th in the nation

followed by New York (44th

) and California (41st). California had a precipitous decrease


their ranking going from 14th

in 2000 to 41st in the nation by 2009— a drop of 27 places.

New York also saw their ranking decreased their ranking by nine places (See Table 26).

Table 26. National Rank: NCES Dropout Rate for Grades 9–12

2001-2002 2008-2009 Δ

Texas 25 24 1

New York 43 34 9

California 14 41 -27

Source: Calculated from Common Core data

NCES Dropout by Race/Ethnicity. Since event dropout rates for grades 9-12

were not disseminated by the U.S. Department of Education by race/ethnicity in 2002-

2003, we will examine only the most recent data available at the time of writing for event

dropout by race/ethnicity in each of the most populous states (See Table 27). Across the

board, Texas reported the lowest dropout rates for all race/ethnicity categories. At 5%,

Texas had the lowest dropout rates for African Americans. Notably, the highest event

dropout rate was for African Americans in New York. The Latino dropout rate was also

lowest in Texas relative to New York and California. Dropout for Whites was highest in

California and was the lowest in Texas. The Asian American dropout rate in California

and New York was about double the rate in Texas. California and New York, while

Native American event dropout rates were about 4% higher than Texas.

Table 27. NCES Dropout Rate Grades 9-12 (2008-09)

Native

American

Asian

American Latina/o

African

American White

California 6.8 2.4 6.2 9.2 3.2

New York 6.7 2.5 7.1 7.6 2.0

Texas 2.2 1.0 4.2 5.0 1.5

Source: Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., and KewalRamani, A., 2011.

NCES Graduation Data

The high school Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) is an estimate


calculated by the U.S. Department of Education of the percentage of high school students

who graduate on time. The AFGR uses aggregate student enrollment data from CCD to

estimate the size of an incoming freshman class and counts of the number of diplomas

awarded four years later.ix

Figure 8 shows that Texas has the highest AFGR throughout the time period, but

remained virtually static at 75 percent during the period under study. New York’s AFGR

increased the most (13 percentage points) between 2003 and 2009. California saw its

AFGR decline (1.3 percentage points) during the time period.

Figure 8. Public High School Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR), by

Year and State: School years 2002-03 through 2008-09

Source: Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., and KewalRamani, A., 2011. Notes: 2002-2003

is the first year that AFGR is publicly disseminated. New York did not have an AFGR in

2004 due to missing diploma count data.


In 2009, Texas’ AFGR rank was holding virtually steady at 29th

in the nation

followed by New York (39th

) and California (42nd

). Notably, New York saw their

improved AFGR increase their ranking by ten places. Similar to the event dropout

analysis, California also had a precipitous AFGR decrease in their ranking going from

34th

in 2000 to 42nd

in the nation by 2009— a drop of 8 places (See Table 28).x

Table 28. National Rank: NCES Public High School Averaged Freshman

Graduation Rate

2001-2002 2008-2009 Δ

Texas 31 29 2

New York 49 39 10

California 34 42 -8

Source: Calculated from Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., and KewalRamani, A., 2011.

AFGR by Race/Ethnicity. Similar to event dropout rates, the AFGR was not

disseminated by the U.S. Department of Education by race/ethnicity in 2002-2003. Thus,

we will examine only the most recent data available at the time of writing for AFGR by

race/ethnicity in each of the most populous states. Texas reported the highest AFGR for

virtually all race/ethnicity categories, only bested in AFGR for Whites by New York. At

68%, Texas had the highest AFGR rates for African Americans. Notably, the AFGR was

about 10% lower for African Americans in California and New York relative to Texas.

The Latina/o AFGR was also highest in Texas relative to New York and California. At

mentioned above, the AFGR Whites was highest in New York and was the lowest in

California. Asian American AFGR in California and New York was about 90%. Of note,

the Asian American AFGR in Texas was invalid due to in-migration that skewed the

number to 100%— evidence of the limitation of the AFGR or any other measure that

does not follow individual students across time. The Native American AFGR in Texas

was 20 percentage points higher in Texas than California and New York (See Table 29).


Table 29. NCES Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (2008-09) by Race/Ethnicity

Native

American Asian American Latina/o

African

American White

California 65.8 91.9 61.6 57.7 80.8

New York 60.6 88.4 57.4 58.1 85.1

Texas 81.9 100xi

69.6 68.0 82.7

Source: Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., and KewalRamani, A., 2011. Note: AFGR was

not publicly disseminated by Race/Ethnicity in 2002-2003.

Summary: K-12 Outcomes

TEA’s TAAS and TAKS exit exam data show that African American and

Latina/o students apparently made dramatic achievement gains and narrowed the

achievement gaps during the past 20 years of accountability policy. These gains appear to

be reflected in the NAEP as Texas had the highest 4th

grade and 8th

grade NAEP scale

scores relative to its peer states of New York and California for African Americans and

Latina/os. However, each of the most populous states performed worse over the past

decade relative to other states in the nation. Texas dropped 21 spots in 4th

grade mathxii

,

four spots in 4th

grade reading, and eight spots in 8th

grade reading. The only bright spot

was that Texas improved its standing by the end of the decade in 8th

grade math, moving

from 22nd

to 18th

.

Another important question is whether Texas’ early grade performance on

standardized tests relative to peer states also transferred to college entrance exams.

Overall ACT composite scores were highest in New York (ranked 4th

), followed

California (15th

) and then Texas (33rd

). For African Americans and Latina/os, New York

students had the highest ACT composite scores followed by California, then Texas. For

the SAT, we found that California had the highest scores followed by Texas and then

New York. Only California increased their SAT composite scores (2 points) over the last

decade with other two states showing decreases New York (-17 points) and Texas (-4


points). In terms of national rank, California’s SAT rank held steady at 35th

in the nation

followed by Texas (44th


). In 2009, for African Americans and

Latina/os, Texas had the highest SAT composite scores for Latinos amongst peer states,

while California had the highest composite scores for African Americans. Therefore, in

sum, Texas apparent success in the state-level data released to the public and NEAP

scores in elementary and middle school is not reflected in composite SAT or ACT

scores— except for Latina/os Which begs the question: Why, considering in the past 20

years of high-stakes testing and accountability policy in the state, have these policies not

produced greater levels of college readiness in Texas relative to peer states and all other

states? Considering that the ultimate goal of our schools is frequently framed as college

and career readiness by the legislature, it appears that our current system is not meeting

those goals, but state-mandated tests (TAAS, TAKS, STAAR— even NAEP) are instead

providing us a false sense of security regarding achievement our schools.

Higher Education Outcomes

The first part of this research report has examined outcomes in primary and

secondary education, and indicators regarding postsecondary access (ACT and SAT

scores). At this point, we look at outcomes regarding higher education: specifically,

graduation rates, college student characteristics, including civic engagement. Initial

analyses focus on the state of Texas, then comparative analyses between the Lone Star

State, California, and New York, and where possible, followed with analyses by race and

ethnicity.


NCES College Graduation Rates

Figure 9. Texas Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by Year and

Race/Ethnicity: 2002 through 2010

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education

Data System

Notes: Graduation within 150% of normal time; data represent the average by institution

for all undergraduate awards

As Figure 9 demonstrates, college graduation rates in Texas have largely held

steady since 2002. Graduation rates over this time period ranged from 35% in 2003 to

39% in 2005. Racial/ethnic disparities in graduation rates grew from 2002 to 2010. In

2002, White students graduated at a rate of 36%, compared to 32% for African American

students and 34% for Latina/o students. In 2010, White students’ graduation rate grew to

40%, while the graduation rate for African American students dropped slightly to 31%

and the graduation rate for Latina/o students grew to 38%.


Figure 10. 2010 Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by State and

Race/Ethnicity


Data System



Figure 10 shows that Texas students are less likely to graduate within 150% of

normal time than students in California or New York. This gap persists across

racial/ethnic groups.


Figure 11. Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by Year and State: 2002

through 2010


Data System



In Figure 11, it is evident that the gap in graduation rates between Texas and

comparable states has existed since at least 2002. In 2002, the average graduation rate

across colleges in Texas was 36%, whereas, this rate was 46% in California and 47% in

New York. Graduation rates in all states have largely remained flat since 2002.


Figure 12. African-American Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by

Year and State: 2002 through 2010


Data System



Texas does a worse job graduating African American students than California or

New York. In 2002, Texas and California had similar graduation rates for African

Americans, 32% and 34%, respectively, but this gap has grown over time. As shown in

Figure 12, in 2010, the graduation rate for African Americans in Texas was 31%,

compared to 36% and 38% for African Americans in California and New York,

respectively.


Figure 13. Latina/o Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by Year and

State: 2002 through 2010


Data System



Figure 13 shows that a different pattern emerges when analyzing trends in

Latina/o graduation rates between Texas, California, and New York. The graduation rate

gap between Texas and the comparable states has been closing since 2002. In 2002, the

average graduation rate for Latinos across colleges in Texas was 34%, compared to 40%

for New York and 44% for California. By 2010, the rate was 38% for Texas, 43% for

New York, and 44% for California. Texas has improved its graduation rate for Latina/o

students more quickly than New York, while California’s rate has remained flat.


NCES College Student Outcomes and Characteristics

College graduation rates are often the most popular postsecondary outcome

policymakers focus on, but there are other important college variables are worth

examining in national data. In this section, we examine trends over time, differences

between Texas and comparable states, and racial/ethnic disparities for the following:

Bachelor’s degree expectations

Remedial course-taking

Amount of time studying outside the classroom

Financial aid and student budgets

Civic engagement

Bachelor’s Degree Expectations

Figure 14. Percent of Students who Expect to Complete at least a Bachelor’s Degree,

by State and Race/Ethnicity: 2004 and 2008

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study


Figure 14 shows that between 2004 and 2008, Texas and comparable states all

saw increases in students’ postsecondary expectations. But differences between states and

across racial/ethnic groups existed. New York’s students had the highest educational

aspirations in 2004 and 2008, but by 2008, differences between Texas and New York

were hardly distinguishable. In both years, California lagged behind both states.

In 2008, among Whites, African Americans, and Latina/os, Texas Latina/o

students were the most likely to report that they expected to earn at least a bachelor’s

degree, followed by Whites, then African Americans. It is worthwhile noting that these

differences were minute and that nearly all students, regardless of race/ethnicity, planned

to complete a bachelor’s degree.

Remedial Course-Taking

Figure 15. Percent of All Students who Ever Took a Remedial Course, by State &

Year


Study


Figure 15 demonstrates that Texas students’ remediation rates have slightly

decreased between 2000 and 2008; however, Texas students are still more likely to have

taken a remedial course than New York and California students.

Figure 16. Percent of African American Students who Ever Took a Remedial

Course, by State & Year


Study

In Figure 16, it is evident that remediation rates for African American students

increased from 2000 to 2008, and African American students in Texas were more likely

to report ever taking a remedial course than African American students in comparable

states.


Figure 17. Percent of Latina/o Students who Ever Took a Remedial Course, by State

& Year


Study

Figure 17 shows that similar to Texas African American students, remediation

rates for Texas Latina/o students increased from 2000 to 2008. Additionally, Texas

Latina/o students were more likely to report ever taking a remedial course than Latina/o

students in comparable states.

Figure 18. Percent of White Students who Ever Took a Remedial Course, by State &

Year


Study


In 2000, Texas White students were more likely to have taken a remedial course

than White students in comparable states. (See Figure 18.) By 2008, this gap had closed

from a difference of 11 and 12 percentage points to two and nine percentage points.

Hours Spent Studying

Figure 19. Hours Spent per Week on School Work Outside of Class Time, by State

and Race/Ethnicity: 2008


Study

Figure 19 demonstrates that Texas students reported spending about an hour less

per week on schoolwork outside of class time than New York students, but spend about

half an hour more than California students. White and African American students in

Texas reported spending about the same amount of time studying, while Latina/o students

spend about half an hour less than their White and African American classmates.


Student Budget and Income

Figure 20. Student Budget as a Percent of Income, by State and Race/Ethnicity:

2004 and 2008


Study

Figure 20 shows how in 2004 and 2008, Texas students reported spending a

smaller percent of their income on college than students in New York and about the same

percentage as students in California. The student budget as a percentage of income

increased slightly for students in all three states from 2004 to 2008.

In Texas, African American and Latina/o students spent more of their income on

college than did White students, 49%, 42%, and 29%, respectively.


Applying for Financial Aid

Figure 21. Percent of All Students who Applied for Financial Aid, by State & Year


Study

In 2000, 2004, and 2008, students in Texas reported applying for financial aid at

higher rates than students in California and lower rates than students in New York. (See

Figure 21.) Application rates in Texas increased from 2000 to 2004 and then dropped

slightly in 2008.


Figure 22. Percent of African American Students who Applied for Financial Aid, by

State & Year


Study

Figure 22 demonstrates how financial aid application rate patterns for African

American students look similar to patterns for all students. Texas African American

students reported applying for financial aid in between application rates for California

and New York in 2004 and 2008 (in 2000, Texas African American students reported

slightly higher application rates than comparable states). Application rates for African

American students in Texas increased slightly from 2000 to 2004 and then decreased

from 2004 to 2008.


Figure 23. Percent of Latina/o Students who Applied for Financial Aid, by State &

Year


Study

Latina/o students in Texas reported applying for financial aid at rates between

Latina/o students in California and Texas. (See Figure 23.) Texas Latina/o students’

application rates increased from 2000 to 2004 and dropped slightly from 2004 to 2008.

Figure 24. Percent of White Students who Applied for Financial Aid, by State &

Year


Study


Figure 24 shows that White students in Texas reported applying for financial aid

at rates between those reported by White students in comparable states. From 2000 to

2004, the percentage of Texas White students who reported applying for aid increased

and then decreased slightly from 2004 to 2008.

Figure 25. White Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by Year and



Data System



From Figure 25, it is evident that the racial/ethnic gap in graduation rates between

Texas and comparable states is largest for Whites and only closes slightly over time. In

2002, the average graduation rate for Whites across colleges in Texas was 36%,


compared to 49% for New York and 48% for California. By 2010, the rate was 40% for

Texas, 50% for New York, and 47% for California. The closing of the graduation rate

gap stems from Texas’s increasing graduation rates for Whites.

Civic Engagement

Figure 26. Percent of All Students who Registered to Vote, by State & Year


Study

Figure 26 presents data showing that students in Texas reported being registered

to vote at higher rates than students in comparable states. This figure increased from 84%

in 2000 to 89% in 2004, but then dropped to 83% in 2008.


Figure 27. Percent of African American Students who Registered to Vote, by State

& Year


Study

Figure 27 shows that African American students in Texas reported being

registered to vote at higher rates than African American students in comparable states.

This percentage increased slightly from 90% in 2000 to 91% in 2004, and then dropped

to 88% in 2008.

Figure 28. Percent of Latina/o Students who Registered to Vote, by State & Year


Study


Latina/o students in Texas reported being registered to vote at higher rates than

students in comparable states. (See Figure 28.) In 2000, 86% reported being registered to

vote, increasing to 88% in 2004, and dropping to 81% in 2008.

Figure 29. Percent of White Students who Registered to Vote, by State & Year


Study

In Figure 29, the data show that White students in Texas reported being registered

to vote at lower rates than California White students, but at higher rates than New York

White students. In 2000, 83% of Texas White students reported being registered to vote,

increasing to 90% in 2004, and then dropping to 83% in 2008.


Figure 30. Percent of All Students who have Ever Voted, by State & Year


Study

Figure 30 demonstrates that students in Texas reported having ever voted at rates

lower than students in California, but higher than students in New York. This rate was

fairly flat from 2000 to 2008 at 59% to 58%.

Figure 31. Percent of African American Students who have Ever Voted, by State &

Year


Study

In Figure 31, the data show that reports of voting by African American students

were similar between Texas and comparable states -- around 60% in 2000 and 2004. By


2008, though, California and Texas led slightly at 61.3 and 61.2%, and New York lagged

slightly at 57%.

Figure 32. Percent of Latina/o Students who have Ever Voted, by State & Year


Study

From Figure 32, we see that Latina/o students in Texas reported having had voted

at rates lower than Latina/o students in California but higher than Latina/o students in

New York. This rate held fairly steady from 54% in 2000 to 56% in 2004 to 53% in 2008.

Figure 33. Percent of White Students who have Ever Voted, by State & Year



Study

Figure 33 demonstrates that Texas White students reported having voted at rates

lower than Whites in California but higher than Whites in New York. This figure dipped

slightly from 63% in 2000 to 60% in 2004 and then increased slightly to 61% in 2008.

Summary: Higher Education Outcomes

Texas, in comparison to its peer states, finds itself generally surpassing California

in higher education measures, but trails New York in virtually all outcomes.

Demographic trends reveal interesting differences between the Empire and the Golden

and Lone Star States: there is a greater percentage of White and African American

students in New York, while both California and Texas have larger percentages of Asian

and Latino at school-age (NCES, 2011). Per student spending at the K-12 level in New

York surpasses that of California and Texas (National Education Association, 2010), and

perhaps this investment is showing dividends in higher education. The exponential

growth of the Latino population in California and Texas is noteworthy. Moving forward,

policymakers must consider the impact of policies on low income and English-language

learner populations.

Measuring Up: A Medal Count Analysis

To facilitate the reader’s understanding of how the three states fared compared to

one another across K-12 and higher education, we utilized a “medal system” to indicate

the highest achievement in each outcome (gold), to the second place state (silver), to the

lowest (bronze). In the case of indicators such as dropout rates and college affordability,


we reversed the order, so that the state with the lowest scoring outcome was awarded

gold, and the highest, bronze. This provides a quick method in which to determine the

performance of states compared to one another.

We found the “medal count” metaphor apt in an Olympic year. However, we urge

academics, policymakers, media, and others reading this report to exercise caution:

“medals” are shorthand for fairly complex summaries of the educational data from

California, New York, and Texas. In some instances, the gradation between the states is

very slight (“photo finishes”), while in others the gulf is quite vast. Secondly, we

afforded every metric a “medal;” therefore each measure is weighted equally. In reality,

some measures carry stronger emphasis than others. Third, this report contains much

more data analysis regarding K-12 outcomes (NAEP, graduation rates, ACT and SAT-

taking rates) than higher education outcomes. Future analyses should consider mining the

various sources for higher education data for a more nuanced and explicit charting of

higher education outcomes. We encourage readers to resist the urge to simply count

medals, and to instead use the medal count to augment the understanding of each

outcome.

Table 30. Medal Count Guide

Gold medal: ranked 1st

Silver medal: ranked 2nd

Bronze medal: ranked 3rd

Table 31. Medal Count for K-12 and Higher Education Outcomes for Comparable

Large States (2000-2010)

Outcome California New York Texas

4th Grade NAEP Math by State


4th Grade NAEP Reading by State

8th Grade NAEP Math by State

8th Grade NAEP Reading by State

National Rank: 4th Grade NAEP Math by State

National Rank: 4th Grade NAEP Reading by

State

National Rank: 8th Grade NAEP Math by State

National Rank: 8th Grade NAEP Reading by

State

4th Grade NAEP Math Average Scale Score by

State and Race/Ethnicity

4th Grade NAEP Reading Average Scale Score

by State and Race/Ethnicity

8th Grade NAEP Math Average Scale Score by

State and Race/Ethnicity

8th Grade NAEP Reading Average Scale Score


Composite ACT by State

National Rank: Composite ACT by State

Percent Taking ACT by State

National Rank: % Taking ACT by State

ACT Composite Score by State and

Race/Ethnicity

Composite SAT by State

National Rank: Composite SAT by State

Percent Taking SAT by State

National Rank: % Taking SAT by State

SAT Composite Score by State and

Race/Ethnicity

Event Dropout Rate for Grades 9–12


National Rank: Event Dropout Rate for Grades

9–12

NCES Dropout Rate Grades 9-12 (2008-09)

Public High School AFGR

National Rank: Public High School AFGR

AFGR (2008-09) by Race/Ethnicity

Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate,


Postsecondary Undergraduate Graduation Rate,

by Year and State: 2002 through 2010

African-American Postsecondary

Undergraduate Graduation Rate, by Year and


Latina/o Postsecondary Undergraduate

Graduation Rate, by Year and State: 2002

through 2010

White Postsecondary Undergraduate

Graduation Rate, by Year and State: 2002

through 2010

Percent of Students who Expect to Complete at

least a Bachelor’s Degree, by State and

Race/Ethnicity: 2004 and 2008

Percent of All Students who Never Took a

Remedial Course, by State & Year

Percent of African American Students who

Never Took a Remedial Course, by State &

Year

Percent of Latina/o Students who Never Took

a Remedial Course, by State & Year

Percent of White Students who Never Took a


Remedial Course, by State & Year

Hours Spent per Week on School Work

Outside of Class Time, by State and

Race/Ethnicity: 2008

Student Budget as a Percent of Income, by

State and Race/Ethnicity: 2004 and 2008

Percent of All Students who Applied for

Financial Aid, by State & Year


Applied for Financial Aid, by State & Year

Percent of Latina/o Students who Applied for


Percent of White Students who Applied for


Percent of All Students who Registered to

Vote, by State & Year


Registered to Vote, by State & Year

Percent of Latina/o Students who Registered to


Percent of White Students who Registered to


Percent of All Students who have Ever Voted,

by State & Year


have Ever Voted, by State & Year

Percent of Latina/o Students who have Ever

Voted, by State & Year

Percent of White Students who have Ever

Voted, by State & Year


Table 32. Medal Count Totals for K-12 and Higher Education

K-12 1st 2

nd 3

rd Total

California 6 5 17 62

New York 10 14 4 96

Texas 12 9 7 94

Higher Education 1st 2

nd 3

rd Total

California 8 9 6 73

New York 12 2 9 75

Texas 4 11 9 62

Overall 1st 2

nd 3

rd Total

California 13 14 23 135

New York 22 16 12 171

Texas 16 19 16 156

Note: Gold: 5 points, Silver: 3 points, Bronze: 1 point

Conclusion

The findings in this report are instructive and useful for education stakeholders in

the state of Texas and beyond. In particular, while it is noteworthy that the gaps between

White student achievement and African American and Latina/o student achievement are

generally closing in both K-12 and higher education— the gap persists and exists in all

peer states.

College entrance exams reveal interesting patterns in the state of Texas. African

American and Latina/o students in the Lone Star State were the lowest performing on

both the ACT and the SAT among African Americans and Latina/os in the peer state

group. Regarding the ACT, Texas students recorded the lowest gains; however, more

students took the exam compared to peer states. In reference to the SAT, although Texas

students took the exam at rates similar to California students, they scored lower.


In the three most populous states, we find divergent trends regarding dropout rates

and convergent in reference to graduation rates. California saw an increase in dropout

rates, while New York’s decreased, with Texas’ dropout rate remaining flat. Texas’

performance is also noteworthy as the dropout rate is lowest for African Americans and

Latina/os in the peer comparison group. While there is a general upward trend among all

three peer states concerning graduation rates since 2006, there is additional good news

(comparatively speaking) for Texas in reference to graduation rates; African Americans

and Latina/os in the Lone Star State had the highest graduation rates among their peers

among the comparison states.

New York’s performance on higher education measures suggests that policies in

that state are generally assisting African American and Latina/o students in closing the

gaps. New York students generally surpassed California and Texas students on every

measure, save one very significant exception: New York students allocated far greater

amounts of their income toward higher education costs. While this finding is troubling to

an extent, students’ aspirations towards higher education, as well as the amount of time

they spend outside of class devoted towards studying is noteworthy.

Remediation measures are a category that none of the comparison states can truly

boast about. In California, New York, and Texas, all three states reported that

approximately half of all African American and Latina/o students had taken remedial

courses. This speaks to the inequity of educational opportunities before students get to

college. It is important, however, to consider findings that suggest that students who are

in remedial courses tend to persist in college and transfer to four-year institutions


compared to their peers with similar test scores who were not required to take

remediation coursework (Bettinger & Long, 2009).

Civic engagement measures are another topic for concern in all three states. Voter

registration and the percentage of students who reported having ever voted demonstrate a

declining trend since 2000. At a time when college affordability is an increasing concern

for students and their families (Immerwahr, Johnson, Ott, & Rochkind, 2010), it is

essential that college graduates opine and engage on this policy issue, and others.

This report finds that past and current educational policies have not made Texas

the leader in educational outcomes. While assessments and accountability are important

components in an educational system, they alone cannot drive the improvements

necessary. Texas should take a close look at New York’s educational policies and see

what can be learned there. Is it the innovative educational reforms happening in New

York City? Is it volumes of research based on New York City schools and colleges that

proves policymakers with more and better information on education problems and

solutions? Texas should also look at California’s educational policies and see what has

led the state in its decline. Surely, California’s budget crisis and education governance

structure have negatively impact education in the state. Finally, Texas needs more policy

research to help pinpoint problems and potential solutions. This report is an example of

the beginning of research that illuminates public issues in education but much more is

necessary before specific recommendations can be made.

In conclusion, while Texas typically performs in the middle between New York

and California on the K-12 and higher education measures (as the medal count

demonstrates), the state is seeing more trends of decline and stasis than growth between


2000 and 2010 relative to all states in the nation. To promote college and career

readiness, policymakers must focus on equitable funding for Texas schools (K-12 and

higher education) relative to other states in the nation and stop depending solely on high-

stakes testing as a measuring stick of the state’s educational progress.

69

The Institute for Urban Policy Research & Analysis

References

Anderson, G. L. (2009). Advocacy leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda in

education. New York: Routledge.

Bettinger, E. P. & Long, B. T. (2009). Addressing the needs of underprepared student in

higher education: Does college remediation work? Journal of Human Resources,

44(3), 736-771.

Bracey, G. W. (2006). Dropping in on dropouts. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 798-799.

Carnoy, M., Loeb, S., & Smith, T. (2001) Do higher state test scores in Texas make for

better high school outcomes? (CPRE Research Report, No. RR-047), Consortium

for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia, PA ERIC ED478984.

Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., and KewalRamani, A. (2011). Trends in High School

Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2009 (NCES 2012-

006). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy

Analysis Archives, 8(41) Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/

Immerwahr, J., Johnson, J., Ott, A., & Rochkind, J. (2010, February). Squeeze play 2010:

Continued public anxiety on cost, harsher judgments on how colleges are run

(Report prepared by Public Agenda for the National Center for Public Policy and

Higher Education). San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher

Education. Retrieved from

http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/SqueezePlay2010report_0.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/SqueezePlay2010report_0.pdf

70


Johnson, H. (2012). Defunding higher education: What are the effects on college

enrollment? San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved

from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_512HJR.pdf

Johnson, R. (2008, October). Texas public school attrition study, 2007-08: At current

pace, schools will lose many more generations. IDRA Newsletter. Retrieved from

http://www.idra.org/newsletterplus/October_2008/

Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., & Stecher, M. B. (2000). What do test

scores in Texas tell us? (Issue Paper). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Linton T. H. & Kester, D. (2003, March 14). Exploring the achievement gap between

white and minority students in Texas: A comparison of the 1996 and 2000 NAEP

and TAAS eighth grade mathematics test results, Education Policy Analysis

Archives, 11(10). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n10/

Leung, R. (2009, February 11). The “Texas miracle.” Retrieved from

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/60ii/main591676.shtml

Losen, D., Orfield, G., & Balfanz, R. (2006). Confronting the graduation rate crisis in

Texas. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Mackun, P. & Wilson, S. (2011, March). Population distribution and change: 2000 to

2010 (US Census Briefs). Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.

Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf

McNeil, L. (2005), “Faking equity: high-stakes testing and the education of Latino

youth”, In A. Valenzuela (Eds.), Leaving Children Behind: How “Texas-style”

Accountability Fails Latino Youth. State University of New York Press, New

York, NY.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_512HJR.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/60ii/main591676.shtml

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf

71


McNeil, L. M., Coppola, E., Radigan, J., & Vasquez Heilig, J. (2008). Avoidable losses:

High-stakes accountability and the dropout crisis. Education Policy Analysis

Archives, 16(3). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v16n3/

Mellon, E. (2010, June 7). Qualms arise over TAKS standards. The Houston Chronicle.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). IPEDS Survey Data Files. Retrieved

from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspx, from the IPEDS Data

Center.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). PowerStats. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/index.aspx, from the NCES DataLab.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011). Table 2: Public school student

membership and percentage distribution of public school student membership, by

race/ethnicity and state or jurisdiction: School year 2010–11. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/snf201011/tables/table_02.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2012). National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP). Custom datasets and tables. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/datatools/index.asp?DataToolSectionID=4

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2012). National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study. Custom datasets and tables. Retrieved from


National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2012). The Integrated Postsecondary

Education Data System (IPEDS), Custom datasets and tables. Retrieved from


http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspx

http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/index.aspx

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/snf201011/tables/table_02.asp



72


National Education Association (2010, December). Rankings and estimates: Rankings of

the states 2010 and estimates of school statistics 2011. Washington, DC: NEA Research.

Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C. B. (2004). Losing our future: How

minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge,

MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Passel, J. S., Cohn, D., & Lopez, M. H. (2011, March). Census 2010: 50 million Latinos.

Hispanics account for more than half of nation’s growth in past decade.

Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/140.pdf

Stutz, E. (2001, June 9). Bar for passing TAAS lowered cutoff scores for math test

debated. The Dallas Morning News.

Tax Foundation (2012). Property Tax Data. Retrieved from

http://interactive.taxfoundation.org/propertytax/.

Texas Education Agency. (2003). Statewide TAAS results—Percent passing tables Spring

1994–Spring 2002, Grade 10, Reading, Mathematics, Writing. Retrieved from

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/reporting/ results/swresults/august/

g10all_au.pdf

Texas Education Agency. (2009). Statewide TAKS performance results. Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=3220&menu_id3=793

Texas Education Agency. (2012). Secondary school completion and dropouts in Texas

public schools 2010–11. Retrieved from

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/acctres/DropComp_2010-11.pdf

Texas Senate Bill 7, 73rd

Texas Legislature, Education Code § 16.007 (1993).

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/140.pdf

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/reporting/results/swresults/august/g10all_au.pdf

73


Toenjes, L. A., & Dworkin, A. G. (2002). Are increasing test scores in Texas really a

myth, or is Haney's myth a myth? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(17).

Available from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n17/.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Public education finances 2001 Retrieved from

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 population finder. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/popfinder/.

Vasquez Heilig, J & Darling-Hammond, L (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The

progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75-110.

Vasquez Heilig, J. & Nichols, S. (in press). A quandary for school leaders: Equity, high-

stakes testing and accountability. Linda C. Tillman & James Joseph Scheurich.

eds., Handbook of Research on Educational Leadership for Diversity and Equity.

i For more information on the history of the Texas accountability system see

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2009/manual/ ii Note that these figures do not adjust for cost of living or inflation. If anything, these adjustments would

make finance figures between Texas and New York more comparable. iii

To understand student leavers, a cohort method is more desirable than the yearly snapshot as it considers

what happens to a group of students over time and is based on repeated measures of each cohort to reveal

how students progress in school. The cohort method is more accurate than the yearly snapshot dropout rate

that TEA historically has highlighted in the public sphere. iv Of note, 10 states did not participate in 4

th Math NAEP in 2000.

v http://www.act.org/aap/infosys/scores.html

vihttp://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/counselors/hs/sat/resources/handbook/4_InterpretingScore

s.pdf vii

Comparison group not available for Latina/os due to SAT reporting. In 2000, Latina/o was broken down

by Mexican American, Puerto Rican and Latin American, South American, Central American or Other

Hispanic or Latino. James Lindsay, Director of State and District Strategy and Outreach for the

Southwestern Regional Office at the College Board, informed the authors that all-encompassing data for

Latina/os is not available for 2000. viii

Of note, this is not a cohort dropout rate— which would considers student cross-sectionally between

years or a rate based on following individuals students in the data across time, both of which would provide

more accurate estimates (Vasquez Heilig & Darling-Hammond, 2008).

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf

http://www.census.gov/popfinder/

74


ix

The U.S. Department of Education creates the AFGR by estimating the incoming freshman class size by

summing the enrollment in 8th grade in 1 year, 9th grade for the next year, and 10th grade for the year

after, and then dividing by three. The averaging is intended to account for prior year retentions in the 9th

grade. The AFGR estimate of an on-time graduation rate can be computed with currently available cross-

sectional data. Similar to the event dropout rate, the AFGR is not as accurate as an on-time graduation rate

computed from a cohort of students using individual student record data. x CA and TX look so different in rank when their numbers look so similar in above because small

differences make a big difference in rank. xi

Personal communication from Chris Chapman, U.S. Department of Education Acting Associate

Commissioner of Early Childhood, International, and Crosscutting Studies Division from May, 12, 2012

reveals a limitation in the calculation of the AFGR for subgroups because it does not account for mobility

of students in an out of a state because the AFGR compares cross-sectional data rather than individual level

data. Chapman stated in an email, “For the 100% Asian estimate for Texas, that is due to the formula and

data used for the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR). Individual student level data that follow

the projection of each student over time was not available when the rate was derived. The AFGR was

designed to approximate on-time graduation rates that were comparable across states using aggregate

enrollment and diploma count data. It does not effectively adjust for grade retentions and net migration for

cohorts after the initial estimate of first time ninth graders is derived (see the above paragraph for this

process). As such, it will not directly match rates based on data that do actually follow each individual

student in a cohort over time. Research comparing the AFGR to data from a few states that had actual

student level data at the time indicated that it is relatively accurate at the state level (within a few

percentage points of true), but becomes less so as finer and finer subgroups are considered (e.g., districts,

race/ethnic groups).”

Documents

POLICY REPORT: Is Texas Leading Its Peers and the Nation? Texas Decade Brief.pdfIs Texas Leading Its Peers and the Nation? A Decadal Analysis of Educational Data September, 2012 Julian