Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Poverty and Education: International, National, and State
PISANAEP
Program for International Achievement (PISA)
In 2012, 68 participating education systems Three U.S. states: Connecticut, Florida, and Massachusetts
3
Participating Education Systems in PISA
Among the 34 OECD countries, the United States performed below average in mathematics in 2012 and is ranked 27th.
Performance in reading (17th) and science (20th) are both close to the OECD average.
Mathematics scores for the top-performer, Shanghai-China, indicate a performance that is the equivalent of over two years of formal schooling ahead of those observed in Massachusetts, the strongest U. S. performer.
One in four U.S. students do not reach the PISA baseline Level 2 of mathematics proficiency – a higher-than-OECD average proportion and one that hasn’t changed since 2003. At the opposite end of the proficiency scale, the U.S. has a below-average share of top performers.
4
Key Findings in the U. S. on the PISA (compared to other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OEDC] Countries)
Students in the United States have particular weaknesses in performing mathematics tasks with higher cognitive demands, such as taking real-world situations, translating them into mathematical terms, and interpreting mathematical aspects in real-world problems.
The trend data show no significant changes in the average performance of U. S. students in mathematics, reading, and science over time.
The socio-economic background of U. S. students accounts for 15% of the variation in their mathematics performance.
Only 2% of students in the U. S. reach the highest (6th) level of performance in mathematics, compared to an OECD average of 3% and 31% of the students in Shanghai-China. The %’s of top performers in reading and science in the U. S. are around the OECD average.
5
Other Key Findings in the U. S. on the PISA
PISA – Mathematics Literacy Proficiency
Source:
Of 34 OECD Countries, U.S.A. Ranks 27th in Mathematics Literacy
300
350
400
450
500
550
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
2012 PISA – Mathematics Literacy
U.S.OECD
Higher than U.S. average Not measurably different from U.S. average Lower than U.S. average
National Center for Education Statistics, 2013, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/pisa2012highlights_3a.asp. 16
Average higher than U.S. average
Average not measurably different from U.S. average
Average lower than U.S. average
8
U.S. 15-year-olds OECD Average in Mathematics Literacy
MA 514
CT 506
FL 467
U.S. not measurably different from OECD average in two mathematics content subscales
Subscale U.S. average score OECD average score
Quantity 478 495
Uncertainty and data 488 493
Change and relationships 488 493
Space and shape 463 490
9
Not measurably different from U.S. average
Significantly higher than U.S. average
In mathematics literacy, 9 percent of U.S. 15-year-old students scored at proficiency level 5 or above
10Percentage higher than U.S.
Percentage not measurably different from U.S.
Percentage lower than U.S.
MA 19%
CT 16%
FL 6%
PISA – Science Literacy Proficiency
Source:
Of 34 OECD Countries, U.S.A. Ranks20th in Science Literacy
National Center for Education Statistics, 2013, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/pisa2012highlights_4a.asp. 28
350
400
450
500
550
600
Aver
age
scal
e sc
ore
2012 PISA – Science Literacy
OECD U.S.
Higher than U.S. average Not measurably different from U.S. average Lower than U.S. average
Average higher than U.S. average
Average not measurably different from U.S. average
Average lower than U.S. average
13
U.S. 15-year-old students not measurably different from OECD average in science literacy
MA 527
CT 521 FL 485
14Percentage higher than U.S.
Percentage not measurably different from U.S.
Percentage lower than U.S.
In science literacy, 7 percent of U.S. 15-year-old students scored at proficiency level 5 or above
MA 14%
FL 5%
CT 13%
PISA – Reading Literacy Proficiency
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2013, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/pisa2012highlights_5a.asp. 39
350
400
450
500
550
600
Aver
age
scal
e sc
ore
2012 PISA – Reading Literacy
OECD
Higher than U.S. average Not measurably different from U.S. average Lower than U.S. average
Of 34 OECD Countries, U.S.A. Ranks 17th in Reading Literacy
U.S.
Average is higher than U.S. average
Average not measurably different from U.S. average
Average is lower than U.S. average
U.S. 15-year-olds not measurably different from OECD average in reading literacy
17
FL 492
MA 527
CT 521
18Percentage higher than U.S.Percentage not measurably different from U.S.
Percentage lower than U.S.
In reading literacy, 8 percent of U.S. 15-year-old students scored at proficiency level 5 or above, not measurably different from OECD average
CT 15% MA 16%
FL 6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dent
s
Source: PISA 2012 Results, OECD, Annex B1, Chapter 2, Table II.2.7a
The U.S. ranks 26th among 34 OECD Countries on the Percentage of Low-SES Students who are High-Performing
PISA 2012 Mathematics Literacy
U.S.OECD
Note: High-performing, low-SES students are those who are in the bottom quarter of the ESCS in their country but perform in the top quarter across students from all countries after accounting for socioeconomic background.
19
Source:
Among OECD Countries, U.S. has the 5th Largest Achievement Gap Between High-SES and Low-SES Students for
2009 PISA – Reading Literacy
350
400
450
500
550
600
Gap
in A
vera
ge Sc
ale
Scor
e
PISA 2009 Results, OECD, Table II.3.1 45
U.S.OECD
Source:
Among OECD Countries, U.S. has the 4th Largest Achievement Gap Between High-SES and Low-SES Students for
2006 PISA – Science Literacy
350
400
450
500
550
600
Gap
in A
vera
ge S
cale
Sco
re OECD
PISA 2006 Results, OECD, table 4.8b 44
U.S.
Source:
The U.S. Achievement Gap Between High-SES and Low-SES Students is Equivalent to Over Two Years of Schooling
2012 PISA – Mathematics Literacy
350
400
450
500
550
600
Gap
in A
vera
ge Sc
ale
Scor
e
PISA 2012 Results, OECD, Annex B1, Chapter 2, Table II.2.4a 47
U.S.OECD
23
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
Math NaN 483 474 487 481
Science NaN NaN 489 502 497
Reading 504 495 NaN 500 498
455
465
475
485
495
505
Average PISA Scores in U. S. for 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012A
vera
ge P
ISA
Sco
res
24
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Ineligible 244 246 249 250 252 254
Eligible 222 225 227 227 229 230
Gap 23 22 22 23 23 24
25
75
125
175
225
275
Arkansas 4th Grade NAEP Average Math Scores & Score Gaps by NSL Sc
ale
Scor
es
25
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Ineligible 287 288 291 294 296 297
Eligible 259 262 265 266 269 270
Gap 28 27 26 27 27 27
25
75
125
175
225
275
Arkansas 8th Grade NAEP Math Average Scores & Score Gaps by NSL Sc
ale
Scor
es
26
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Ineligibie 229 230 232 232 235 236
Eligible 201 203 205 206 207 207
Gap 28 27 27 26 28 29
25
75
125
175
225
Arkansas 4th Grade NAEP Reading Average Scores & Score Gaps by NSLSc
ale
Scor
es
27
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Ineligible 271 270 271 273 275 278
Eligible 247 247 247 249 252 254
Gap 25 23 24 24 24 24
25
75
125
175
225
275
Arkansas 8th Grade NAEP Reading Average Scores & Score Gaps by NSLSc
ale
Scor
es
28
AR FR AR NFR LA FR LA NFR MS FR MS NFR
MO FR MO NFR
OK FR OK NFR TN FR TN NFR TX FR TX NFR
Prof > 28 56 19 44 18 52 25 54 26 52 24 60 28 63
Adv 2 10 1 6 1 7 2 9 2 8 2 13 2 15
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
2013 4th Grade NAEP Math Percentages by NSL
Percentages
Percentages
29
AR FR AR NFR
LA FR LA NFR MS FR MS NFR
MO FR MO NFR
OK FR OK NFR
TN FR TN NFR
TX FR TX NFR
Prof > 16 43 14 34 15 36 18 45 15 36 15 42 26 53
Adv 2 8 1 7 2 6 2 10 2 6 1 9 3 14
5
15
25
35
45
55
2013 8th Grade NAEP Math Percentages by NSLPe
rcen
tage
s
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-130
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Number of Arkansas Students by Free, Reduced-Price or Full-Price Lunch Status
Free Reduced Price Full Price
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
50
100
150
200
250
Number of Districts by NSL %
<70% 70%-90% 90%+
Num
ber o
f Dis
tric
ts
32
Frequency Statistics for Arkansas Districts
Free Lunch Reduced-Price Lunch
Fully Paid Lunch
N of Districts
Valid 239 239 239
Missing 0 0 0
Statistics Number of Students
Mean 981.61 191.78 765.21
Median 499.00 118.00 344.00
Std. Deviation 1624.37 242.85 1324.55
Minimum 106 15 12
Maximum 15567 1813 10362
33
Step
Standardized Coefficients t-test
p-value
Beta
1 (Constant) 123.774 .000
% Non-White -.655 -13.353 .000
2
(Constant) 45.218 .000
% Non-White -.425 -8.161 .000
% Free-Reduced -.421 -8.091 .000
3
(Constant) 9.467 .000
%Non-White -.397 -7.872 .000
% Free-Reduced -.355 -6.789 .000
% Instruction Cost .205 4.461 .000
4
(Constant) (r2 = 60%) 6.742 .000
%Non-White -.469 -8.752 .000
%Free-Reduced -.269 -4.737 .000
% Instruction Cost .170 3.676 .000 Average Teacher Salary .166 3.433 .001
Multiple Regression Analyses of Key Predictors of Student Performance
Bivariate OLS Regression Analyses of Achievement
34
Predictor Standardized
Coefficient (b)
Significance Level
(a)
Explained
Variance (r2)
NSL % -.654 .000 .425
% non-White -.655 .000 .427
Property Assessment* -.161 .013 .022
3 Quarter ADM .059 .361 .001
Instruction Cost** .466 .000 .214
Teacher Salary** .570 .000 .323
Student Services** .046 .477 .002
Instruction Support** -.512 .000 .259
School Administration** .224 .000 .046
Central Administration** -.275 .001 .072
Maintenance/Operation** -.074 .254 .001
Transportation** .017 .800 .000
Per Pupil Expenses -.534 .000 .283
Note: *Property assessment is divided by 3 quarter ADM. ** Denotes that expenditure items are the percentage of the total district expenditures from all funding sources. All expenditures were based on all funding sources.
35
More than one in five of all U.S. children live in poverty, and that percentage is substantially higher for some subgroups of the population. Internationally, the United States ranks second highest in child poverty among the world’s “richest” 35 countries, surpassed only by Romania.
More than one in five of all U.S. children live in poverty, and that percentage is substantially higher for some subgroups of the population. Internationally, the United States ranks second highest in child poverty among the world’s “richest” 35 countries, surpassed only by Romania.
The Great Recession of 2007 and its lingering effects have increased the challenges many poor children face at a time when literacy and math skills and educationalattainment have never been more important, both for the individual and for the country.
The Great Recession of 2007 and its lingering effects have increased the challenges many poor children face at a time when literacy and math skills and educationalattainment have never been more important, both for the individual and for the country.
Numerous studies have documented the negative relationship between poverty and a wide range of measures of educational achievement, educational attainment, and other important life outcomes.
Numerous studies have documented the negative relationship between poverty and a wide range of measures of educational achievement, educational attainment, and other important life outcomes.
Cost of Poverty
Adults who grew up in poverty are more likely to have low earnings, more and longerperiods of unemployment, pay less in taxes, and exhibit health and behavioral problems that are costly to the individual and to society.
Adults who grew up in poverty are more likely to have low earnings, more and longerperiods of unemployment, pay less in taxes, and exhibit health and behavioral problems that are costly to the individual and to society.
The costs to the U.S. economy associated with child poverty have been estimated to total about $500 billion per year, or about 4% of the Gross Domestic Product.
The costs to the U.S. economy associated with child poverty have been estimated to total about $500 billion per year, or about 4% of the Gross Domestic Product.
Overview of Childhood Poverty and Disadvantage in the U. S.
36
All Children in Poverty 22%
Black Children in Poverty 28%
Hispanic Children in Poverty 25%
Children in Extreme Poverty 4%
Household with Food Insecure Children 21%
Children with Unstable Parent Employment 32%
Source: ETS Poverty and Education
37
The weight of the evidence from both experimental and non-experimental studiesdocument a clear link between childhood family income and adult outcomes.
The weight of the evidence from both experimental and non-experimental studiesdocument a clear link between childhood family income and adult outcomes.
Compared with children whose families had incomes of at least twice the poverty line during their early childhood, children in poverty completed two fewer years of school, earned less than half as much money, worked 451 fewer hours per year, received $826 per year more in food stamps, and were nearly three times as likely to have health-related issues.
Compared with children whose families had incomes of at least twice the poverty line during their early childhood, children in poverty completed two fewer years of school, earned less than half as much money, worked 451 fewer hours per year, received $826 per year more in food stamps, and were nearly three times as likely to have health-related issues.
Males in poverty were twice as likely to get arrested and females in poverty were five times more likely to have a child out of wedlock. Even after controlling for a variety of background characteristics, research indicates that a substantial portion ofthe relationship between childhood income and adult outcomes can be accounted for by the negative conditions associated with birth into a low-income family.
Males in poverty were twice as likely to get arrested and females in poverty were five times more likely to have a child out of wedlock. Even after controlling for a variety of background characteristics, research indicates that a substantial portion ofthe relationship between childhood income and adult outcomes can be accounted for by the negative conditions associated with birth into a low-income family.
Outcomes of Poverty
Education has been envisioned as the great equalizer, able to mitigate the effects of poverty on children by equipping them with the knowledge and skills they need to lead successful and productive lives.
Education has been envisioned as the great equalizer, able to mitigate the effects of poverty on children by equipping them with the knowledge and skills they need to lead successful and productive lives.
38
However, the income gap in student achievement has surpassed the achievement gap between racial groups.
However, the income gap in student achievement has surpassed the achievement gap between racial groups.
Sean Reardon’s longitudinal research at Stanford University indicates that the gap in standardized scores between affluent and low-income students has grown about 40% since the 1960s and is now double the achievement gap between black and white students.
Sean Reardon’s longitudinal research at Stanford University indicates that the gap in standardized scores between affluent and low-income students has grown about 40% since the 1960s and is now double the achievement gap between black and white students.
Comparative studies across states or major metropolitan areas show a high correlation between large income gaps and wide student achievement gaps. r
Comparative studies across states or major metropolitan areas show a high correlation between large income gaps and wide student achievement gaps. r
Poverty & Achievement
Data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study have revealed significant differences in the cognitive skills measured for both toddlers (about 2-year olds) and preschoolers (about 4-year olds).
Data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study have revealed significant differences in the cognitive skills measured for both toddlers (about 2-year olds) and preschoolers (about 4-year olds).
For example, among the younger cohort, 67% of toddlers at or above poverty were found to be proficient in expressive vocabulary, compared to 55 percent of toddlers below poverty. A similar pattern was found for preschoolers.
For example, among the younger cohort, 67% of toddlers at or above poverty were found to be proficient in expressive vocabulary, compared to 55 percent of toddlers below poverty. A similar pattern was found for preschoolers.
39
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) organization uses theNational School Lunch Act (NSLA) eligibility as a measure of poverty.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) organization uses theNational School Lunch Act (NSLA) eligibility as a measure of poverty.
Fourth-graders who were eligible for free lunch scored 29 points lower in reading than those not eligible. A similar pattern is seen for eighth-graders.
Fourth-graders who were eligible for free lunch scored 29 points lower in reading than those not eligible. A similar pattern is seen for eighth-graders.
Data show a strong linear relationship between family income and SAT Critical Reading scores. Seniors at the lowest levels of income score about 100 points belowstudents at the top level.
Data show a strong linear relationship between family income and SAT Critical Reading scores. Seniors at the lowest levels of income score about 100 points belowstudents at the top level.
Poverty & Achievement
As expected, the National Longitudinal Youth Survey showed increases in college graduation between the 1961-64 birth cohort and the 1979-82 birth cohort. However, the top income quartile gained 18 percentage points in completing college, while the bottom quartile gained by only four percentage points.
As expected, the National Longitudinal Youth Survey showed increases in college graduation between the 1961-64 birth cohort and the 1979-82 birth cohort. However, the top income quartile gained 18 percentage points in completing college, while the bottom quartile gained by only four percentage points.
These data illustrate the fact that that the income inequality in college outcomes hasincreased during a time when economic benefits of educational attainment are rising.
These data illustrate the fact that that the income inequality in college outcomes hasincreased during a time when economic benefits of educational attainment are rising.
% of Students Completing College, by Income Quartile and Birth Cohort
40
Top
3rd
2nd
Low
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
54%
32%
21%
9%
36%
17%
14%
5%
1961-64 Cohort 1979-82 Cohort
Income
Quartile
41
The United States’ child poverty rate of 23 percent is considerably higher than nearly all other economically advanced countries, and it is twice the rate in 23 of the 34OECD countries.
The United States’ child poverty rate of 23 percent is considerably higher than nearly all other economically advanced countries, and it is twice the rate in 23 of the 34OECD countries.
Two out of five people in poverty have incomes of less than half their Census Bureau’spoverty threshold.
Two out of five people in poverty have incomes of less than half their Census Bureau’spoverty threshold.
The National Poverty Center (NPC @ U. of Michigan) has studied how the prevalence of extreme poverty has changed since 1996 in the U. S. They adopted the World Bank’s measure of extreme poverty of $2 or less per person daily.
The National Poverty Center (NPC @ U. of Michigan) has studied how the prevalence of extreme poverty has changed since 1996 in the U. S. They adopted the World Bank’s measure of extreme poverty of $2 or less per person daily.
Poverty Rate
They estimates that over 1.5 million households, with about 3 million children, have extreme poverty incomes. This figure has grown by 130% since 1996 when 636,000 households lived in extreme poverty.
They estimates that over 1.5 million households, with about 3 million children, have extreme poverty incomes. This figure has grown by 130% since 1996 when 636,000 households lived in extreme poverty.
The growth rate was even higher for households headed by single females (191%) and for African-American households (183%). About 60% of all children lived with both of their married biological or adoptive parents, compared to 12% below the poverty line.
The growth rate was even higher for households headed by single females (191%) and for African-American households (183%). About 60% of all children lived with both of their married biological or adoptive parents, compared to 12% below the poverty line.
42
Map of poverty rate in the United States in 2013. Legend: <6% 6%-7.5% 7.5%-9% 9%-10.5% 10.5%-12% 12%-13.5% 13.5%-15% 15%-16.5% >16.5%
Source: USDA
43
The prevalence of food insecurity declined from 11.9% of households in 2004 to 11% in 2005-07. Then, the prevalence of food insecurity increased to 14.6 % of households and remained near that level. The percentage of U.S. households that were food insecure remained essentially unchanged from 2012 (14.5%) to 2013 (14.3%). Source: USDA
The prevalence of food insecurity declined from 11.9% of households in 2004 to 11% in 2005-07. Then, the prevalence of food insecurity increased to 14.6 % of households and remained near that level. The percentage of U.S. households that were food insecure remained essentially unchanged from 2012 (14.5%) to 2013 (14.3%). Source: USDA
The prevalence of very low food security remained essentially unchanged from 2004 (3.9%) to 2007 (4.1%), then increased to 5.7% in 2008 and 2009, declined to 5.4% in 2010, returned to 5.7% in 2011 and 2012, and was essentially unchanged at 5.6% in 2013.
The prevalence of very low food security remained essentially unchanged from 2004 (3.9%) to 2007 (4.1%), then increased to 5.7% in 2008 and 2009, declined to 5.4% in 2010, returned to 5.7% in 2011 and 2012, and was essentially unchanged at 5.6% in 2013.
Prevalence rates of food insecurity varied considerably from State to State. Data for 3 years, 2011-13, were combined to provide more reliable statistics at the state level.
Prevalence rates of food insecurity varied considerably from State to State. Data for 3 years, 2011-13, were combined to provide more reliable statistics at the state level.
Food Insecurity
Estimated prevalence rates of food insecurity during this 3-year period ranged from 8.7% in North Dakota to 21.2% in Arkansas. The estimated prevalence rates of very low food security ranged from 3.1% in North Dakota to 8.4% in Arkansas (posted USDA. 9-3-14).
Estimated prevalence rates of food insecurity during this 3-year period ranged from 8.7% in North Dakota to 21.2% in Arkansas. The estimated prevalence rates of very low food security ranged from 3.1% in North Dakota to 8.4% in Arkansas (posted USDA. 9-3-14).
44
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Insecure
11.9 12 10.1 11.7 10.1 10.5 10.7 11.1 11.2 11.9 11 10.9 11.1 14.5 14.9 14.5 14.9 14.5 14.3
VeryInsecure
4.1 4.3 3.2 3.7 3 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.9 4 4.1 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.7 5.7 5.6
13579
111315
Trends in Prevalence Rates of Food Insecurity in U. S. HouseholdsPe
rcen
tage
s
45
R2 = 75%
AR
MS
46
State Income Achievement (NAEP) Gap4th Grade Reading
47
Low-income = 185% of federal poverty line. Nation’s income-basedachievement gap is 29 points.
48
Research studies have demonstrated that teachers influence student learning more than any other single factor within the school context, and the effects of teaching on student achievement are cumulative.
Research studies have demonstrated that teachers influence student learning more than any other single factor within the school context, and the effects of teaching on student achievement are cumulative.
Teachers need a thorough command of their subject to be able to provide differentiated instruction to students with diverse abilities and deficits. Teachers must have a comprehensive knowledge of their subject, and its connections to other important elements of the area, both prior to and beyond the level they are assigned to teach.
Teachers need a thorough command of their subject to be able to provide differentiated instruction to students with diverse abilities and deficits. Teachers must have a comprehensive knowledge of their subject, and its connections to other important elements of the area, both prior to and beyond the level they are assigned to teach. Bright teachers from strong academic institutions have higher student achievement results than their counterparts. Hiring highly qualified teachers is one of the most effective strategies for raising student achievement.
Bright teachers from strong academic institutions have higher student achievement results than their counterparts. Hiring highly qualified teachers is one of the most effective strategies for raising student achievement.
High Quality Teacher
Minority students and students in poverty often are taught by unlicensed, out-of-field, and inexperienced teachers who often have weak academic backgrounds.
Minority students and students in poverty often are taught by unlicensed, out-of-field, and inexperienced teachers who often have weak academic backgrounds.
A recent national survey found that the differences in student achievement can be 9 months or more – essentially a full school year of learning - between the most effective and least effective teachers.
A recent national survey found that the differences in student achievement can be 9 months or more – essentially a full school year of learning - between the most effective and least effective teachers.
49
Research also finds that leadership is the second strongest predictor of studentachievement.
Research also finds that leadership is the second strongest predictor of studentachievement.
There is a consensus emerging that the principal is best positioned to ensure teaching and learning are maximized, especially in schools with high rates of poverty. Student achievement is the result of dynamic, interacting forces, both inschool and in the larger community, and the principal is the catalyst.
There is a consensus emerging that the principal is best positioned to ensure teaching and learning are maximized, especially in schools with high rates of poverty. Student achievement is the result of dynamic, interacting forces, both inschool and in the larger community, and the principal is the catalyst. Studies have found that the impact of principals, as measured by the value-added scores, was nearly twice as large in high-poverty schools as in low-poverty schools.
Studies have found that the impact of principals, as measured by the value-added scores, was nearly twice as large in high-poverty schools as in low-poverty schools.
Principal & Leadership
Evidence indicates that high performing schools have principals, or a co-leader, who maintains an active leadership role, ensuring that curriculum, professional development (PD), and data-driven instruction are diligently pursued.
Evidence indicates that high performing schools have principals, or a co-leader, who maintains an active leadership role, ensuring that curriculum, professional development (PD), and data-driven instruction are diligently pursued.
Principals in high performing schools typically share leadership responsibilities with teachers, who have the capacity to encourage and reinforce the establishment and effective functioning of professional learning communities (PLC).
Principals in high performing schools typically share leadership responsibilities with teachers, who have the capacity to encourage and reinforce the establishment and effective functioning of professional learning communities (PLC).
50
As studies reveal more about how teachers learn, many researchers and practitioners have begun to place greater emphasis on collaborative learning in professional learning communities.
As studies reveal more about how teachers learn, many researchers and practitioners have begun to place greater emphasis on collaborative learning in professional learning communities.
PLCs provide an ideal forum for teachers to learn course content and teaching skills from one another, to examine and interpret test data as the basis for differentiated and coordinated instruction across teachers and courses, and to evaluate and adjust lesson plans and curriculum according to assessments.
PLCs provide an ideal forum for teachers to learn course content and teaching skills from one another, to examine and interpret test data as the basis for differentiated and coordinated instruction across teachers and courses, and to evaluate and adjust lesson plans and curriculum according to assessments.
Teachers should have a dedicated time each week for PLC meetings, and PLCs can provide substantial training through direct instruction, modeling, classroom observation and feedback.
Teachers should have a dedicated time each week for PLC meetings, and PLCs can provide substantial training through direct instruction, modeling, classroom observation and feedback.
Professional Learning Community
Many high performing schools have found time for PLC meetings by limiting faculty meetings for administrative issues, which are handled via memo, e-mail, or one-to-one communication.
Many high performing schools have found time for PLC meetings by limiting faculty meetings for administrative issues, which are handled via memo, e-mail, or one-to-one communication.
High performing schools also involve parents and tutors in PLC meetings when they are needed or can benefit.
High performing schools also involve parents and tutors in PLC meetings when they are needed or can benefit.
51
Effective instruction requires a comprehensive, in-depth knowledge of content, and an array of teaching skills to present complex ideas to a diverse group of learners.
Effective instruction requires a comprehensive, in-depth knowledge of content, and an array of teaching skills to present complex ideas to a diverse group of learners.
PLCs provide an ideal forum for teachers to learn course content and teaching skills from one another, to examine and interpret test data as the basis for differentiated and coordinated instruction across teachers and courses, and to evaluate and adjust lesson plans and curriculum according to assessments.
PLCs provide an ideal forum for teachers to learn course content and teaching skills from one another, to examine and interpret test data as the basis for differentiated and coordinated instruction across teachers and courses, and to evaluate and adjust lesson plans and curriculum according to assessments.
In schools that successfully "turn around" academic performance, leaders work with academic coaches and other teachers to create a culture, structures, and dispositions that promote continuous incremental PD aimed at identifying individual teacher and student needs, instructional strategies to address those needs, and data-driven evaluations of teaching.
In schools that successfully "turn around" academic performance, leaders work with academic coaches and other teachers to create a culture, structures, and dispositions that promote continuous incremental PD aimed at identifying individual teacher and student needs, instructional strategies to address those needs, and data-driven evaluations of teaching.
Professional Development
Research indicates that effective PD presupposes a sequence of developmental learning, consisting of individually-tailored instruction, modeling, practice teaching and observational feedback from peers and coaches, and regular evaluation based on a variety of indicators.
Research indicates that effective PD presupposes a sequence of developmental learning, consisting of individually-tailored instruction, modeling, practice teaching and observational feedback from peers and coaches, and regular evaluation based on a variety of indicators.
52
Overall, the evidence suggests that participation in after-school programs can positively affect the academic, social-emotional, and physical well-being students. However, both the direction and magnitude of these programs depend on quality.
Overall, the evidence suggests that participation in after-school programs can positively affect the academic, social-emotional, and physical well-being students. However, both the direction and magnitude of these programs depend on quality.
Quality after-school programs share the following features:
Clearly stated measurable goals and objectives. Responsible supervision and well-defined structure. Skilled and knowledgeable staff. Intentional programming with opportunities for autonomy and choice. Strong partnerships among the various settings in which program participants spend their day—schools, after-school programs, and families.
Quality after-school programs share the following features:
Clearly stated measurable goals and objectives. Responsible supervision and well-defined structure. Skilled and knowledgeable staff. Intentional programming with opportunities for autonomy and choice. Strong partnerships among the various settings in which program participants spend their day—schools, after-school programs, and families.
After-School Programs
53
Many types of summer learning programs have the potential to reduce summer learning losses, but they are not guaranteed to be effective.
Many types of summer learning programs have the potential to reduce summer learning losses, but they are not guaranteed to be effective.
Researchers identified components of quality summer learning programs: small class size (< 20), differentiated instruction, high-quality instruction, aligned school year and summer curriculum, engaging and rigorous academics, maximized participation and attendance, sufficient duration, involved parents, and evaluation of effectiveness.
Researchers identified components of quality summer learning programs: small class size (< 20), differentiated instruction, high-quality instruction, aligned school year and summer curriculum, engaging and rigorous academics, maximized participation and attendance, sufficient duration, involved parents, and evaluation of effectiveness.
Summer School Programs
54
One-to-one tutoring is effective in raising reading skills and performance in other courses. Teachers are more effective as tutors than teaching assistants or volunteers, and an emphasis on phonics greatly improves tutoring outcomes.
One-to-one tutoring is effective in raising reading skills and performance in other courses. Teachers are more effective as tutors than teaching assistants or volunteers, and an emphasis on phonics greatly improves tutoring outcomes.
Although one-to-one phonetic tutoring for first graders is highly effective, effectslast into the upper elementary grades only if classroom interventions continue beyond this initial period.
Although one-to-one phonetic tutoring for first graders is highly effective, effectslast into the upper elementary grades only if classroom interventions continue beyond this initial period.
Tutoring by interventionists and classroom aides, especially retired or part-timeteachers, can substantially raise student achievement among struggling students.
Tutoring by interventionists and classroom aides, especially retired or part-timeteachers, can substantially raise student achievement among struggling students.
Tutoring
Small group tutorials can be effective, but are not as effective as one-to-one instruction by teachers or trained paraprofessionals.
Small group tutorials can be effective, but are not as effective as one-to-one instruction by teachers or trained paraprofessionals. Classroom instructional process approaches, especially cooperative learning and structured phonetic models, have strong effects for low achievers (as well as other students).
Classroom instructional process approaches, especially cooperative learning and structured phonetic models, have strong effects for low achievers (as well as other students).
55
A recent meta-analysis of 123 studies found that despite some decline in the effectsafter children entered school, on average effects remained substantial.
A recent meta-analysis of 123 studies found that despite some decline in the effectsafter children entered school, on average effects remained substantial.
Cognitive gains from preschool programs were larger when programs focused on intentional and individualized teaching and small group learning.
Cognitive gains from preschool programs were larger when programs focused on intentional and individualized teaching and small group learning.
Programs with these features produced long-term cognitive effects equivalent to one half or more of the achievement gap through the end of high school.
Programs with these features produced long-term cognitive effects equivalent to one half or more of the achievement gap through the end of high school.
Pre-K
Small group tutorials can be effective, but are not as effective as one-to-one instruction by teachers or trained paraprofessionals.
Small group tutorials can be effective, but are not as effective as one-to-one instruction by teachers or trained paraprofessionals. More broadly, long-term effects include gains in achievement and in social-emotional development, less grade repetition and special education, and increased high school graduation.
More broadly, long-term effects include gains in achievement and in social-emotional development, less grade repetition and special education, and increased high school graduation.
Studies in the United States and abroad find that preschool education has larger benefits for disadvantaged children, but high-quality programs have substantial benefits for all children.
Studies in the United States and abroad find that preschool education has larger benefits for disadvantaged children, but high-quality programs have substantial benefits for all children.
