Reducing Achievement & Opportunity Gaps: A Collaborative ...s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ · RPS students would benefit from equitable access to support and enrichment. Despite

Reducing Achievement & Opportunity Gaps:

A Collaborative Framework

March 2008

A study commissioned by the Rochester, Minnesota, Public Schools

Reducing Achievement & Opportunity Gaps:


March 2008

A study commissioned by the Rochester, Minnesota, Public Schools

Produced under a rochester Public Schools (rPS) contract with Education Development center, Inc. (EDc), this report exemplifies rPS leaders’ dedication to the belief that all students can be proficient. The result of intensive, collaborative work between rPS leaders and EDc researchers, the report is designed to further ongoing school-wide and community-wide dialogues about achievement and opportunity gaps among the school district’s students, as well as to help inform related professional, leadership, and program development efforts that are underway. It is important to note that the contents of this report represent a clear snapshot—and not a definitive portrait—of achievement and opportunity gaps in the school district as of fall 2007. It is also important to note that, in addition to being derived from interviews and focus groups, findings and recommendations were drawn from the quantitative data that was available at the time of the study. In some instances, researchers were compelled to use 2006–2007 data because they could not access more recent information. In other cases, researchers were not able to confirm certain facts or obtain specific datasets before the report went to press. any omissions of this nature do not represent an oversight on the part of rPS and EDc. rather, they reflect the complexity of the school district’s undertaking and the relatively short duration of the study.

copyright © March 2008. Education Development center, Inc. With attribution, this report may be freely reproduced and distributed without permission for educational, non-commercial purposes, but cannot be sold or republished without written permission.

a study commissioned by the rochester, Minnesota, Public Schools March 2008

iiiReducing Achievement & Opportunity Gaps:


ExECutivE SuMMARyWithout question, rochester Public Schools (rPS) and the rochester community have a great deal to be proud of in their ceaseless efforts to give children and youth outstanding educational experiences. Yet, school and community leaders are aware that, like many districts, rPS might have policies, systems, programs, and practices in place that cause it to fall short of realizing its mission and goals for all students.

across the United States, outcome and assessment data in math, science, English/language arts, and other core curriculum areas signal that our nation’s students are not realizing their full academic potential. School districts are realizing that they need to identify new strategies to better meet the changing needs of students—and future workforce—of the twenty-first century. as a result, the vast majority of districts are working hard to take stock and identify impediments to student excellence. rPS is part of this larger trend.

Over the course of the last few years, rPS has launched a series of multi-faceted initiatives to recalibrate instruction to enhance learning and boost student achievement. In the Fall of 2007, the district contracted with Education Development center, Inc. (EDc)—an international, nonprofit organization that conducts and applies research to advance learning and promote health—to conduct a study of achievement and opportunity gaps.

Approach and Methodology

Two groups—an EDc External core Team and an rPS Internal core Team—worked in concert to achieve the study’s goal and objectives. The External core Team included an experienced and diverse group of education leaders, professional developers, and researchers. The Internal core Team was comprised of school district central office and school-based administrators with considerable knowledge and experience in education in general and rPS in particular.

During six months of intensive work, from September 2007 through March 2008, the External core Team carried out the following five tasks in its quantitative and qualitative research:

Gap Analysis1. —The team collected and analyzed publicly available data on student achievement, as well as extensive demographic and performance data provided by rPS.

Stakeholder Meetings and Interviews2. —The team convened meetings and interviewed individuals to clarify study goals, discuss school district data, and develop a shared vision for collaboration. More than 450 teachers, school administrators, business and organizational leaders, parents, and students contributed their perspectives and reflections to this study.

Reducing Achievement & Opportunity Gaps: A Collaborative Framework

ivSchool Site Visits3. —In November, the team conducted school site visits that included observations, stakeholder interviews, and focus groups in 7 elementary schools, 1 K–8 school, 3 middle schools, 1 alternative school, and 3 high schools. During these visits, the team collected qualitative data from students, teachers, administrators, parents, and community members to address three research questions:

how do the schools, and their faculty and staff, welcome and engage families and community •members in supporting high levels of student learning?how do the schools communicate and support high expectations for all students and create a •climate that is supportive, respectful, and challenging to all?how do teachers engage all students actively in learning, using varied and effective teaching •that meets diverse student needs?

Data Analysis4. —The team synthesized and analyzed data to identify specific, measurable outcomes with clear gaps in student achievement. The team also analyzed data to identify “opportunity gaps”—differences in access to or participation in critical points for intervention and/or enrichment.

Report Development5. —The team compiled an extensive report that documents current achievement and opportunity gaps in the district and presents a series of recommendations.

Throughout this process, the Internal core Team facilitated access to data, documents, school sites, school district personnel, parents, and community members. They also reviewed draft sections of the report and provided suggestions that grounded the findings and recommendations in the context of past and current practice.

Overview of Key Findings

Data analysis revealed the following four key findings:

Not all RPS students are reaching their academic potential.1. The efforts of rPS leaders to re-examine its instructional program and learning environment are well-timed. The data indicates that there is reason to be concerned about the academic achievement of all students and that the district needs to take steps to ensure that it succeeds in achieving its mission to promote the lifelong learning of all students. White students, who make up the majority of students in rPS, comprise the largest number of students who are not achieving at levels that would be expected. however, higher percentages of students in specific sub-populations are present in achievement gaps at rates greater than they appear in the student population overall. Students of color, students enrolled in ESOL, students who receive FrPL, and students enrolled in special education consistently have lower scores and lower graduation rates than the district average.

RPS students would benefit from a culture of diversity. 2. Students and families have markedly different experiences in the rPS culture. across many stakeholder groups—community, business, parents, and students—we identified the shared perception that rPS has been struggling with the changes in the make-up of its students for some time and still has important, deeply-rooted issues of diversity and equity to resolve in its policies, procedures, and culture. Many serious concerns and questions were raised about whether and how rPS responds to the needs of students and families from culturally and linguistically diverse populations, and from families with low incomes. at the same time, there appeared to be some renewed hope that this will be the time when “action will be taken and not just talk.” There is a growing appreciation that the district has made it a priority to deal with the systemic inequities that compromise the quality of life and educational experiences of many rPS students.


vRPS students would benefit from an enhanced instructional program.3. We found that there is still a perception, based on valid evidence, that rPS is a high-performing school system. Yet, our findings also revealed a growing understanding among stakeholders that rPS will not be able to maintain its level of performance if it does not assure that schools meet the needs of students who are placed at risk of academic difficulties and/or failure. Some schools have already begun to launch initiatives for these students that include innovative methods of academic support. Yet, almost all the schools miss the mark in offering consistently challenging curricula and differentiated instruction. In addition, critical opportunities are missed—including the lack of access to early childhood and kindergarten programs—to assure that all children arrive at school ready to succeed and have the fundamental knowledge and skills they need to support their lifelong learning. Gaps also exist in professional development and resources for teachers, who need support to enable them to meet the needs of increasingly diverse populations of students. current resources to solve these challenges are not sufficient and it might be challenging—although certainly possible if creativity and collaborations are tapped into—to locate additional resources.

RPS students would benefit from equitable access to support and enrichment.4. Despite its many excellent initiatives, rPS has many opportunities to change its systems and practices to assure that all of its students have equitable access to gateway programs, learning support, and enrichment activities. Findings revealed that the majority of participants in portal programs are White and affluent, that members of statistically underrepresented groups swell the ranks of students who receive special education services, and that the systems used to identify and enroll students in these programs should be reassessed. We found strong indications that the district’s ESOL and newcomer programs would benefit from new approaches to working with students and, particularly in the case of newcomer students, preparing them for higher education and life outside of school. In many instances, district-wide approaches and leadership at the district level are needed to address these issues, to assure equity in the quality and availability of learning support provided to students, to take advantage of opportunities to engage the community in enrichment activities such as mentoring programs, and to dismantle barriers that impede students from accessing enrichment activities.

Recommendations

Ensuring the success and academic achievement of all rochester children and youth will require a strong partnership among rPS families, schools—including school board and all staff–and the community at large (e.g., political, business and industry, human service leaders). Each of these stakeholder groups has unique and important contributions to make to children’s academic and post-school outcomes. The recommendations outlined on the next few pages are targeted to help rPS engage and better serve families, involve and partner with the community, and strengthen the educational system to enhance the quality of an rPS education for all.

Recommendations to Engage and Better Serve Familiesrochester Public Schools’ families are eager to be involved in their children’s educational experiences and to lend their support to the school district’s efforts to close achievement and opportunity gaps. This is an extremely important resource for the school district and its schools to tap. The following recommendations highlight this potential resource and suggest ways to better serve families.

1. Form a task force that includes parents from diverse backgrounds to review current student and family communication and information dissemination strategies such as the Web site and agile.


vi2. Engage families that are members of culturally and linguistically diverse groups in identifying

ways toshare information about their children’s lives, experiences, and needs•improve the school environment for all students, and•strengthen home-school collaborations.•

•3. Expand information campaigns about available programs, services, and supports to reach

families who are known to have difficulty obtaining information.

4. Foster intercultural dialogue to reduce discomfort in intercultural settings and sponsor meetings that bring together culturally diverse segments of the rochester community such as those that were organized as part of this study.

5. Develop a continuous improvement plan for increasing family engagement, with measurable goals, activities, and periodic assessment and revision.

Recommendations to Partner with and involve the CommunityThe rochester community’s high level of interest and investment in its schools is a significant strength upon which rPS leaders can draw as they take steps to close achievement and opportunity gaps. The following recommendations provide some strategies that could serve to deepen the community’s involvement in the schools and lead to improved student outcomes.

6. Form a school-community working group to identify and coordinate school and community enrichment and support opportunities. Give the group the mission to address the following questions:

are enrichment and support opportunities serving students who are in most need of •extra support?are current enrichment and support opportunities effective in reducing achievement •and opportunity gaps?how can schools and the community expand transportation availability and address cost •issues to assure that all students can access enrichment and support opportunities?

7. collaborate with community service agencies and organizations to align the goals of the school district with opportunities for all children, synchronize program registrations, and expand enrichment and support options.

8. Propose an active agenda to the business community of ways it can help (e.g., volunteering in schools, sponsoring mentoring programs, funding early childhood programs, initiating work-coop programs).

9. create opportunities for mutual learning between the rPS and community agencies that are showing successes in reaching out to diverse families. What can the school district learn from them? how can they cooperate to provide better, focused services for their mutual clientele?

10. Involve the community at large in reviewing school district performance goals, benchmarks, and accountability measures for: producing favorable academic and post-school outcomes for all students; making progress in reducing achievement and those opportunity gaps that are clearly under its control; and demonstrating a sense of urgency in implementing strategies that are intended to address the achievement and opportunity gaps.


viiRecommendations to Strengthen the RPS Educational SystemrPS possesses many of the qualities that make public schools effective. The district has dedicated and talented leaders and staff who genuinely care about students and demonstrate a willingness to recognize and tackle challenges, an interest in working with families, and a spirit of innovation that has led to promising efforts to address gaps. The following recommendations are designed to build upon this strong foundation and to leverage existing assets into a multi-faceted effort to strengthen the educational system for all. To implement these recommendations, the school district must affirm and act on the principle that achieving equality might require treating people differently.

Continually Evaluate and Refine the Instructional Program11. Examine the efficacy of instructional approaches to math and reading currently being used and

develop a plan to build on demonstrated strengths and address identified deficits, including eliminating those that are not producing desired outcomes.

12. Integrate formative assessment into teaching and learning so that adjustments in instruction are immediate and effective.

13. Ensure that assessment and instruction are aligned to meet state standards across all grades.

14. Eliminate low level courses and tracking, using the resources normally devoted to these courses to support students, organize or use time differently, and investigate different course delivery models to help students succeed.

Establish a Foundation in Children for Lifelong Learning15. Increase access to high quality pre-K, extended day, and full-day kindergarten to children at risk

of school difficulties.

16. Build on the early childhood public-private partnerships that already exist to increase access to early childhood services provided outside of, but in coordination with, schools.

17. Prioritize the dissemination of information about early childhood and kindergarten services and registration deadlines to newcomer and low-income communities.

18. Strengthen the skills of classroom teachers to provide comprehensive intensive reading instruction in Grades 1–5.

Enhance the School Social Climate for All Students19. Engage all students and staff at all levels and positions in addressing key issues of cultural

competence including:acceptance and affirmation of diversity•reduction of feelings of invisibility and social isolation among members of culturally and •linguistically diverse groupspromotion of positive social identities for students from culturally and linguistically •diverse backgrounds.

•20. Learn from and replicate the successes some schools have had with students from low-income

families, students of color, newcomer students, students whose first language is other than English, and students with disabilities.


viii21. Engage students in implementing new traditions and different kinds of events that might appeal

to the broader school community and that respect all traditions, including mainstream ones, so as not to create an “us vs. them” mentality.

22. Intensify recruitment efforts to make the rPS administrative, teaching, and support staffs reflect the changing community and composition of the student population. as part of the recruitment effort, partner with the higher education to support the preparation of staff of color as teachers and create career ladders that start with paraprofessional status and allow staff to move up.

23. recruit and deploy a culturally diverse corps of mentors from the rochester community to tutor and serve as role models of effective adult functioning and achievement.

Expand Access to Enrichment and Support for Students24. review and revise resource allocations to schools to ensure they are able to meet the needs

of diverse learners.

25. Provide more intensive and appropriate support to allow students to recover and accelerate academically.

26. Increase out-of-school time program options: before-school, after-school, and between-session programs, and expand extended year offerings.

27. Develop internships and cooperative work programs for secondary level students to increase their post-graduation options, especially for those who, in spite of encouragement, are not intending to pursue a college degree.

28. review and modify criteria and application processes for portal and opportunity enhancing courses/programs to ensure fairness and transparency in the process while maintaining standards of excellence.

29. Set goals for underrepresented group participation in Gifted Services and advanced Placement courses. Identify steps needed to reach those goals.

30. research and/or design talent development programs that recognize, support, and capitalize on a range of talents.

31. Increase effective use of classroom-based differentiated instructional approaches.

32. adopt and expand student leadership programs that have been successful for underserved students.

Strengthen ESOL and Newcomer Programs and Policies33. review and evaluate the goals of the ESOL program with teachers, students, parents, and the

wider community. Evaluate the current ESOL program in light of the agreed-upon goals and make the appropriate programmatic and instructional adjustments.

34. continue to intensify the provision of professional development on research-based programs and proven effective instructional strategies that best meet the diverse needs of ESOL students at all levels in acquiring English as a second language, the academic English needed to access content instruction, and subject area content.


ix35. Design a range of flexible support strategies and approaches, such as age differentiated strategies,

for ESOL and newcomer students to better meet the variety of characteristics and needs that these students present (e.g., no formal education, interrupted schooling, prior academic performance in their country of origin, age at which they enter the rPS system).

36. continuously monitor students’ progress in relation to the length of time they are in the ESOL program to determine what additional language supports a student may need or whether there are other factors at play that call for additional non-academic services.

37. review and evaluate the criteria for transitioning students from ESOL and newcomer programs into the general education program; examine the skills students possess at transition and their post-transition experiences to inform the development of exit criteria.

38. Intensify efforts to connect ESOL students with the regular education student body and create a reciprocal integration of all students in school wide activities.

39. Provide ongoing professional development opportunities for ESOL teachers as well as regular education teachers.

Strengthen Special Education Programs and Policies40. Make certain that students who are identified as needing special education services are not kept

in special education programs longer than needed.

41. continuously monitor the length of the transition period from special education programs into the general education program, the skills students possess at the transition, and their post-transition experiences.

42. carefully review the structure of the school day for students enrolled in special education who are involved in pull-out activities. Expand inclusive practices, utilizing co-teaching and push-in models where possible.

43. continue district-level work on special education issues including expanding inclusive practices, enhancing rigor of curriculum and quality of instruction in special settings, and reducing disproportionality.

Invest in Building Staff Capacity44. Ensure that site-based professional development is aligned with and supports district direction

and priorities while providing embedded opportunities to tailor implementation to the unique characteristics and needs of school sites.

45. Protect time allotted for teacher planning and teacher-to-teacher collaboration, and ensure that it is used for collaborative problem-solving, learning, and strategizing.

46. Intensify and systematize the kind of professional development that encourages open discussions about racism, ethnocentrism, and the implicit biases we all have. Ensure that this professional development includes teacher collaboration on practical strategies they can use to reduce achievement gaps. Focus on building teachers’ and administrators’ understanding of how to build and support a culturally competent educational system, including individual skills that promote high expectations and culturally responsive teaching practices.


x47. Explore new ways to use exemplary teachers to assist selected schools in reducing achievement

and opportunity gaps.

48. For struggling schools, assure that they have rochester’s most highly-skilled teachers who are qualified to teach the content that students are expected to learn and administrators who exhibit research-based characteristics of successful school principals.

The goal of reducing achievement and opportunity gaps in rPS is achievable and ethically the right thing to do. as is evident by this study’s findings, it is also extraordinarily challenging and will require a multi-dimensional, multi-year effort, as well as strategic utilization of school district and community resources. as such, it will necessitate the sustained attention and commitment of school district, community, organizational, and political leaders and the active participation of students and their families. The school district and community have considerable resources, including widespread commitment and good will. With persistence and creativity, the school district will be able to meet its chartered and historically successful responsibility to all of the community’s children and families, and, thus, contribute positively to the continued vibrancy and attractiveness of the rochester area.

A study commissioned by the Rochester, Minnesota, Public Schools March 2008

1Contents

IntRoDUCtIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Scope and Context of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Approach and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Initial Team and Stakeholder Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

School Site Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Developing Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

FInDInGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Achievement Gaps among RPS Student Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Stanford Data Showing Achievement Gaps in Grades 2–6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

MCA-II Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

ACT Participation and Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Graduation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Graduation Rates and Post-Graduation Rates of Students Enrolled in ESOL by 2000–2001 Cohort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

MCA-II Reading and Mathematics Results for Students Enrolled in ESOL and Formerly Enrolled in ESOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Opportunity Gaps among RPS Student Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Culture of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Instructional Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Equitable Access to Support and Enrichment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

ConCLUsIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56A Collaborative Framework for Reducing Achievement and Opportunity Gaps in the Rochester Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Recommendations to Engage and Better Serve Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

The Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Recommendations to Partner with and Involve the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Recommendations to Strengthen the RPS Educational System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

APPenDICes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Reducing Achievement & opportunity Gaps: A Collaborative Framework

2


3

IntRoDUCtIon

scope and Context of the study

In September 2007, the Rochester Public Schools (RPS) contracted with Education Development Center, Inc . (EDC)—an international, nonprofit organization that conducts and applies research to advance learning and promote health (see Appendix A)—to conduct a study on achievement and opportunity gaps for students . The objectives of the study were to build the capacity of the school district’s central office, school-based personnel, and the Rochester community to understand the factors contributing to gaps, to identify actions RPS might take to reduce disparities, and to provide baseline data that would enable RPS to measure progress . The overarching goal was to improve school achievement and outcomes for all students .

As will be detailed later, but requires recognition at the very outset of this report, RPS leaders and professional staff must be commended for the work they have been doing to assess and address achievement gaps and related issues of equity and diversity . The surrounding community of Rochester—including civic, service, and business entities—also has a history of long-standing and dedicated efforts to welcome the influx of diverse families into the community . In 1989, the school district’s leadership partnered with community agencies, religious communities, businesses, IBM, the Mayo Clinic, the United Way, and others to counter attacks that had been made on immigrant students . The resulting city-wide Diversity Council has worked hard to achieve its mission to create an inclusive and welcoming community through education . These efforts are acclaimed not just locally, but nationally—in 2008, the NBC Today show aired a profile of the Council’s Prejudice Reduction Workshops . Still, the city continues to face challenges . A May 2007 report of the Rochester Diversity Council’s 2006 Olmsted County Racial Attitude and Actions Survey showed that, while “some people support and value diversity,” there was an increase in “anti-black sentiment since 1990” and that “anti-immigrant sentiment is mixed at best .”

The investment of RPS in this study attests to the district’s deep and enduring commitment to promoting lifelong learning for all in a spirit of continuous improvement . It also signals leaders’ awareness that the district faces challenges that might be compromising its ability to realize its mission to “create an environment where lifelong learning is valued, excellence is expected, and improvement is continuous .” They understand that the continuing diversity of the population of Rochester—demographic projections indicate that the city will be, in the words of the U .S . Census Bureau, a “majority-minority” city by 2018—demands a revisiting of the structure and effectiveness of the educational system, accountability for student outcomes, and how progress is evaluated across the community, school district, and school levels .

Approach and Methodology

Two groups—an EDC External Core Team and an RPS Internal Core Team (see Appendix B)—worked in concert to achieve the goals of the study . The External Core Team included an experienced and diverse group of education leaders, professional developers, and researchers . The Internal Core Team was comprised of school district central office and school-based administrators .

Reducing Achievement & opportunity Gaps:A Collaborative Framework


4With the support of the Internal Core Team, the External Core Team gathered and analyzed a vast array of quantitative and qualitative data . To gain a complete picture of current achievement and opportunity gaps in the district, it was vital to collect both kinds of data—performance and graduation facts and figures and the perceptions of parents, students, school district leaders and staff, and community and business leaders .1

During six months of intensive work, the External Core Team completed a gap analysis, convened team and stakeholder meetings, conducted school site visits, completed data analysis, and developed the findings and recommendations presented in this report . Throughout this process, the Internal Core Team facilitated EDC’s access to data, documents, school sites, school district personnel, parents, and community members . They also reviewed sections of this report and provided comments and suggestions that were helpful in grounding the findings and recommendations in the context of past and current practice .

Gap AnalysisIn preparation for an on-site visit by the External Core Team on September 20–21, 2007, staff from EDC began collecting and analyzing publicly available data, as well as extensive demographic and performance data provided by the school district . Throughout the study process, as quantitative and qualitative data were collected, the gap analysis continued, and the team requested further materials and information to refine their analysis and study protocols .

Initial team and stakeholder MeetingsOn September 20, 2007, the Internal Core Team and External Core Team met at the school district’s headquarters . During this full-day meeting, the teams clarified the goals of the study, discussed school district data, and developed a shared vision for collaboration . That evening, some members of the External Core Team attended a data retreat for secondary school faculty and administration . On September 21, 2007, the External Core Team conducted a lively and productive meeting with more than 50 community stakeholders about Rochester schools and the gap study . Members of the External Core Team facilitated small group conversations, to give opportunities for more people to be heard .

school site VisitsPreparationWith a preliminary picture of the nature and extent of RPS achievement and opportunity gaps, the External Core Team generated a set of questions and a protocol for site visits . Three research questions guided the team’s collection of data during school and community site visits and interviews:

How do the schools, and their faculty and staff, welcome and engage families and community members •in supporting high levels of student learning?

How do the schools communicate and support high expectations for all students and create a climate that •is supportive, respectful, and challenging to all?

How do teachers engage all students actively in learning, using varied and effective teaching that meets •diverse student needs?

In setting up interviews, focus groups, and visits, the team tried to reach a cross-section of the RPS community .1 Perceptual data that reflects the opinions of students, parents, staff, and community members can be very powerful in helping a district

understand what stakeholders think about the environment of education, how they feel within the environment, and how these thoughts and feelings shape educational experiences . See, for example: Bernhardt, V . L . (2003) . Using data to improve student learning in elementary schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.


5Interviews and Focus GroupsFrom November 6 through November 8, members of the External Core Team visited the district and observed and spoke with students, teachers, and administrators in 7 elementary schools, 1 K–8 school, 3 middle schools, 1 alternative school, and 3 high schools . Each visit lasted about half a school day and included a tour, observations, and focus groups or interviews . At the end of each day, the team hosted open sessions to give people from other schools an opportunity to provide information . The team also convened two parent focus groups and interviewed a number of central office staff, community members, and other stakeholders . Additional community, business, and central office interviews were conducted by telephone, after the site visits . Table 1 provides a breakdown of participants in interviews and focus groups by role .

Table 1. Participants in November 2007 Interviews and Focus Groups

Participants Totals

School Administrators 34Teachers/Union Reps/Other Staff 115Students 148Parents 33Central Office Administrators 9Community Partners 15Total Participants 354

Data AnalysisEDC staff analyzed quantitative data to identify specific, measurable outcomes with clear gaps in student achievement . We defined achievement gap as a difference in a particular outcome measure between groups of students of differing race/ethnicity, language status, disability status, or Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL) status . We identified opportunity gaps as differences in access to or participation in critical points for intervention and/or enrichment . In addition to quantitative data, the External Core Team carefully considered the qualitative data, primarily gathered through school visits and other stakeholder interviews .

Developing Findings and RecommendationsThe EDC School Visit Team shared their raw notes and initial analyses and together identified major themes . The notes were then analyzed with special attention to the themes, which were refined as findings were written up .


6FInDInGs

Achievement Gaps among RPs student Populations

It is clear that RPS strives to create a rigorous, engaging, and supportive learning environment for students . As part of its commitment to continuous improvement, RPS has made efforts over the past 20 years to respond to dramatic changes in demographics—population changes both in overall growth and diversity . Yet, as is true of districts nationwide (see Appendix C for a review of current literature on national achievement gaps), data analysis revealed some significant achievement gaps for RPS students of color, students whose first language is other than English, students with disabilities, newcomer students, and students from low-income families (as measured by those students enrolled in FRPL) . Figure 1 represents RPS student demographics for the 2006-2007 school year .

Figure 1. Student Demographics by Percentage, Rochester, MN, 2006-2007 (n=16022).

Source: Minnesota Department of Education .

In the pages that follow, we detail specific, measurable outcomes that clearly demonstrate gaps in student achievement based on the following data:

stanford Data in Reading and Mathematics for students in Grades 2–6 .• This information shows differences in performance by ethnicity, language of origin, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) status, students enrolled in special education, and FRPL status on the Stanford assessment, which is administered to all RPS students in Grades 2–6 and 9 (not shown in this report) . This data shows that the gap in reading and mathematics achievement begins at least as early as second grade .

MCA-II Reading and Mathematics, District-Wide .• This information provides a broad brushstroke view of the achievement gaps . It combines across Grades 3–8 and 11 the district average scores on the MCA-II, Minnesota’s statewide assessment .


7ACt Participation Rates and Achievement .• The ACT is an assessment taken by high school students for college entrance . The data presented in this section show gaps by race/ethnicity in both participation rates and in achievement on the ACT .Graduation Rates .• We present three methods of calculating the graduation rate, to highlight the importance of including as many students as possible when determining important outcomes such as high school graduation .

Graduation Rates and Post-Graduation Rates of students enrolled in esoL by 2000–2001 •Cohort . Because of particularly low graduation rates among this group of students, we did a little more digging into the data to see what happened with one cohort from their year of expected graduation and for four years subsequent .

MCA-II Reading and Mathematics Results for students enrolled in esoL and Formerly enrolled •in esoL . Because of an expressed interest in looking at the performance of these students depending on the number of years they have been taking ESOL classes, we looked at students’ MCA-II scores by years enrolled in ESOL and by years after having exited the ESOL program .

Combining all of these sources of outcome data across grade levels and for different groups of students revealed achievement gaps in particular outcomes .

stanford Data showing Achievement Gaps in Grades 2–6By EthnicityFigure 2 and Figure 3 show Stanford reading and mathematics percentile scores for Grades 2–6 by ethnicity . In both reading and mathematics, the district average percentile is higher in every subsequent grade . This means that, while in second grade, RPS students, on average, are in the 42nd percentile in reading nationally, in sixth grade, students, on average, are in the 60th percentile . Patterns are similar for mathematics . Both reading and mathematics scores are similar for both White and Asian students, at or above the district average . In contrast, scores for Black and Hispanic students are consistently below the district average across all primary grades . The gap between Black and Hispanic students and their White and Asian counterparts is almost 30 percentile points across all primary grades in both reading and mathematics . For example, in Grade 2, both Black and Hispanic students’ average scores on Stanford reading were in the 23rd percentile in contrast with White and Asian students’ average scores in the 49th and 50th percentile, respectively . While all students’ scores are in higher percentiles in Grade 6, the gap between Black and Hispanic students and their White and Asian peers remains constant: Stanford reading averages for Black and Hispanic students were in the 35th percentile while White and Asian averages were in the 70th and 64th percentiles, respectively . Stanford mathematics percentiles for the sixth grade told a similar story: Black and Hispanic students’ average scores were in the 40th and 43rd percentiles, respectively, while White and Asian students’ average scores were in the 80th and 84th percentiles, respectively .


8Figure 2. 2006–2007 Rochester Public Schools Stanford Reading Results (National Percentiles), Grades 2–6 by Ethnicity

Source: Rochester Research and Assessment Department .

Figure 3. 2006–2007 Rochester Public Schools Stanford Math Results (National Percentiles), Grades 2–6 by Ethnicity


By Language of OriginFigure 4 and Figure 5 show Stanford reading and mathematics percentile scores for Grades 2–6 by language of origin . English-, Spanish-, Cambodian/Khmer-, and Somali-speakers are represented as these are the only languages with more than 100 speakers attending public school in the district . In general, students’ scores are higher at each grade level, for all languages and both subjects, although there is some variation . English-speaking students’ scores are significantly higher than those who speak Spanish, Cambodian/Khmer, or Somali at all grade levels .


9Figure 4. 2006–2007 Rochester Public Schools Stanford Reading Results (National Percentiles), Grades 2–6 by Language of Origin


Figure 5. 2006–2007 Rochester Public Schools Stanford Math Results (National Percentiles), Grades 2–6 by Language of Origin


By ESOL, Special Education, and FRPL StatusFigure 6 and Figure 7 show Stanford reading scores and Stanford mathematics percentile scores for Grades 2–6 for students enrolled in ESOL, students enrolled in special education, and students who receive FRPL . At all grade levels, students enrolled in ESOL, students enrolled in special education, and students who receive FRPL have, on average, lower scores than the district average .


10Figure 6. 2006–2007 Rochester Public Schools Stanford Reading Results (National Percentile), Grades 2–6 by ESOL, Special Education, and FRPL Status


Figure 7. 2006–2007 Rochester Public Schools Stanford Math Results (National Percentile), Grades 2–6 by ESOL, Special Education, and FRPL Status


By Years in DistrictFigure 8 and Figure 9 show Stanford reading and mathematics percentile scores for Grades 2–6 by years spent in the district . Students who have been in the district since first grade (blue dots) score, on average, at or above the district average . In contrast, students who are new to the district in the year of the test (yellow dot) score, on average, below the district average . The gap between students who have been in the district since first grade and those who are new to the district is greater in fourth, fifth, and sixth grades than in second and third grades .


11Figure 8. 2006–2007 Rochester Public Schools Stanford Reading Results (National Percentile) Grades 2–6 by Years in District


Figure 9. 2006–2007 Rochester Public Schools Stanford Math Results (National Percentile), Grades 2–6 by Years in District



12MCA-II AchievementIn both the MCA-II reading and writing assessments (2006–2007), we identified achievement gaps by race/ethnicity, ESOL status, disability status, and FRPL status . As Figure 10 shows, the mean scores in reading for Hispanic students and Black students are 28 and 30 points lower than White students, respectively . The mean score for students enrolled in ESOL is 32 points lower, and for students with disabilities 31 points lower . Students receiving FRPL scored an average of 24 points lower than White students . Figure 11 provides the same information for mathematics .

Figure 10. Rochester District Reading Proficiency 2006–2007


Figure 11. Rochester District Mathematics Proficiency 2006–2007


ACt Participation and AchievementThe average ACT score of RPS students is consistently above the state and national averages . However, participation rates have never gone above 70 percent, and among the class of 2007, 67 percent took the ACT . Figure 12 shows the racial disparities between the overall RPS population and those who took the ACT . While Black students are 11 percent of the population, they are only 2 percent of those who took the ACT . The situation is similar for Hispanic students (6 percent of the population, 1 percent of those who took the ACT) and for Asian students (9 percent of the population, 4 percent of those who took the ACT) . Yet, it should be noted that while the RPS


13demographic data comes from RPS, the ACT demographic data is self-reported . Students have the option to choose “Other” in the ACT data, and 18 percent chose to do so . It cannot be known which racial category they would choose if “Other” were not an option .

Figure 12. Rochester District ACT Participation by Race/Ethnicity, 2006–2007


When looking at ACT results by race/ethnicity, racial disparities remain . Figure 13 shows the percentage of students by race/ethnicity that attained a score judged by ACT as indicating college readiness . While 84 percent of White students met the benchmark in reading, only 30 percent of Black students did so, 64 percent of Hispanic students, and 77 percent of Asian students . Similar disparities are found in the subject areas of Mathematics, Reading, and Science . Only 45 percent of White students met the benchmark in all four subject areas; this rate was 10 percent for Black students, 27 percent for Hispanic students, and 40 percent for Asian students .

Figure 13. Percentage Meeting ACT College Readiness Benchmarks, 2006–2007



14These data indicate both a participation gap and an achievement gap by race/ethnicity .2 Among those students who take the ACT, Black students, Hispanic students and Asian students have consistently lower scores in all content areas . The data also shows that only 50 percent of all RPS students reached the benchmark in science .

Graduation RatesIn the pages that follow, we present figures that show the 2006 graduation rate in Rochester (disaggregated) using two different calculations—the calculation used for AYP and the National Governors Association (NGA) Graduation Rate (see Appendix D for explanations of the way the rates are calculated) . We also provide disaggregated graduation rates for the ninth grade cohort/class of 2007 .

AYP RateThe AYP rate includes all students who graduated in 2006, minus those who are formally recorded as having dropped out . As Figure 14 shows, the AYP graduation rates vary from 69 percent for Hispanic students to 92 percent for White students . American Indian students, Asian students, Hispanic students, Black students, students enrolled in ESOL, students enrolled in special education, and students who receive FRPL have lower graduation rates than White students .

Figure 14. Rochester AYP Graduation Rates, 2006


NGA RatesFigure 15 shows the NGA-calculated 2006 graduation and dropout rates . These rates are calculated differently because they begin with the ninth grade cohort and include students who graduated, left the system, dropped out, are continuing, or are unknown . Using these calculations, graduation rates are lower for all students, including White students . White students have an NGA graduation rate of 83 percent, Black students 43 percent, and Hispanic students 48 percent . Students enrolled in ESOL have the lowest rate, 26 percent . Students enrolled in special education have a graduation rate of 59 percent . The dropout rates identify those students who are formally identified as dropouts, and the “Other” category includes those who left the system, are continuing, or unknown . Hispanic students have the highest dropout rate (14 percent) and White students the lowest (4 percent) . More than 60 percent of students enrolled in ESOL fall into the “Other” category, which may mean that they are taking longer than 4 years to complete high school (though we can’t know for sure from the data alone) .

2 Disaggregated data was not available by ESOL status, special education status, or FRPL status .


15Figure 15. 2006 NGA Adjusted Cohort Graduation and Dropout Rates


Disaggregated Graduation Data for Ninth Grade Cohort/Class of 2007Figure 16 shows disaggregated graduation rates for a different group of students than the two figures above . First, Figure 16 includes students from the Class of 2007, not the class of 2006 . Second, it includes all students who began in the 9th-grade cohort, but does not include students who might have entered the class in 10th, 11th, or 12th grades . It does include students who began in ninth grade and who have graduated, dropped out, failed the exit exam, aged out, moved or transferred, or became a continuing student . Thus, Figure 16 allows us to look in greater detail at the outcomes for the ninth-grade cohort than either of the two previous figures . It includes the following categories:

Graduated with a standard diploma•Dropped out—identified in the system as dropping out•Failed the exit exam—students who completed all district graduation requirements •but did not pass the state exit examContinuing student—registered to continue studying in the RPS system•Aged out—reached age 18 and withdrew from school•Moved/transferred—students who left the system with a record of having entered another system•Unknown—students whose outcome is unknown•

Across groups, the rate of continuing students actually exceeds the dropout rate, as does the rate of students who have moved or transferred . When disaggregated in this manner, White students have a graduation rate of 81 .5 percent, followed by Asian students (56 .0 percent) and Black students (38 .5 percent) . Hispanic students have the highest dropout rate at 14 .9 percent, and students enrolled in ESOL have the lowest graduation rate of all students (27 .7 percent) as well as the second highest dropout rate across all groups of students (11 .9 percent), though this same group has the highest rate of continuing students (37 .8 percent) . A very slim number of students enrolled in special education (1 .8 percent) drop out—98 .2 percent of students enrolled in special education either earn a diploma or become a continuing student .


16Figure 16. Disaggregated Graduation Data for Ninth-Grade Cohort/Class of 2007


Graduation Rates and Post-Graduation Rates of students enrolled in esoL by 2000–2001 CohortFigure 17 shows disaggregated graduation rates for ESOL graduates in the ninth-grade cohort . In their final year of high school (2003–2004), 62 (26 .7 percent) students enrolled in ESOL graduated; 94 (40 .5 percent) dropped out, transferred out of the district, or were missing data . Seventy-six (32 .8 percent) students enrolled in ESOL continued their education in the school district beyond the 4 years of high school . Of those students who continued their education past 2003–2004, similar patterns persisted in the following year, with 19 (24 .0 percent) students enrolled in ESOL graduating and 24 (30 .4 percent) still remaining in the district and further continuing their education . Thirty-six (45 .6 percent) students enrolled in ESOL who continued after 2003–2004 ended up dropping out of school, transferring out of the district, or missing a year later . Similar patterns continue for the 2 years after that . In the 4 years following the expected date of graduation, 83 (35 .8 percent) of students enrolled in ESOL graduated, 13 (5 .6 percent) dropped out or left the system, and 136 (58 .6 percent) were missing .

Figure 17. ESOL Graduates Ninth-Grade Cohort 2000–2001 (n = 232 in 2003–2004)



17MCA-II Reading and Mathematics Results for students enrolled in esoL and Formerly enrolled in esoLStudents Enrolled in ESOLFigures 18–20 show MCA-II reading and mathematics results for current students enrolled in ESOL in the third grade, fourth grade, and seventh grade . At each grade level, students enrolled in ESOL programs for 2 to 4 years, on average, have higher reading and math results than students who have been in ESOL programs for 1 year or less . Students in ESOL programs for 5 years or more, on average, have lower MCA-II scores than those with 2 to 4 years .

Figure 18. 2007 Rochester Public Schools MCA-II Reading and Math Results, Grade 3 by Years in ESOL


Figure 19. 2007 Rochester Public Schools MCA-II Reading and Math Results, Grade 4 by Years in ESOL



18Figure 20. 2007 Rochester Public Schools MCA-II Reading and Math Results, Grade 7 by Years in ESOL


Students Formerly Enrolled in ESOLFigures 21-23 show MCA-II reading and mathematics results for students in the third grade, fourth grade, and seventh grade that were enrolled in the ESOL program . Students who have exited ESOL programs, on average, have higher scores than those who are still in ESOL programs . Figure 23, which shows the MCA-II results for students formerly enrolled in ESOL in seventh grade, shows that, on average, student scores are higher for students who have been exited from ESOL programs for more years .

Figure 21. 2007 Rochester Public Schools MCA-II Reading and Math Results, Grade 3 by Years Post-ESOL



19Figure 22. 2007 Rochester Public Schools MCA-II Reading and Math Results, Grade 4 by Years Post-ESOL


Figure 23. 2007 Rochester Public Schools MCA-II Reading and Math Results, Grade 7 by Years Post-ESOL



20summary of FindingsThis section examined RPS student outcomes—from second grade through Grade 12—on large-scale assessments and by graduation rates . We found that not all RPS students are reaching their academic potential and that the efforts of RPS leaders to re-examine its instructional program and learning environment are well-timed . The data indicates that there is reason to be concerned about the academic achievement of all students and that the district needs to take steps to ensure that it succeeds in achieving its mission to promote the lifelong learning of all students . White students, who make up the majority of students in RPS, comprise the largest number of students who are not achieving at levels that would be expected . However, higher percentages of students in specific sub-populations are present in achievement gaps at rates greater than they appear in the student population overall . Students of color, students enrolled in ESOL, students who receive FRPL, and students enrolled in special education consistently have lower scores and lower graduation rates than the district average .

opportunity Gaps among RPs student Populations

As is clear from the findings presented above, RPS has extensive quantitative data available to support a better understanding of its achievement gaps . Further analysis of this data—as well as analysis of qualitative data collected during site visits, interviews, stakeholder meetings, and collaborative work with RPS leaders3—also revealed a series of key opportunity gaps that appear to contribute to achievement gaps . A thematic analysis of these opportunity gaps highlighted three areas in which significant challenges are perceived and evident . In each of the following areas, RPS leaders and the larger community can take actions that will substantially improve the quality of RPS students’ learning, outcomes, and well-being:

Culture of Diversity• —While RPS has demonstrated its commitment to addressing issues of equity and diversity, significant challenges remain . Opportunities remain to: ensure that all students experience a sense of belonging in their school community; assure that all students benefit from high expectations and fair treatment; create an open and welcoming culture for all families; and enhance the diversity of staff and leaders in the school system . Instructional Program• —With good reason, RPS takes pride in its strong academic programs . Yet, many students are at risk of academic difficulties . Opportunities remain to: ensure that all children have access to high-quality early childhood education; provide high-quality reading instruction to all children; assure that all students receive high-quality math instruction; adopt new paradigms of teaching and learning that better fit the needs of students; and provide resources and professional development that build staff ’s capacity to meet the needs of all students .equitable Access to support and enrichment• —RPS offers a rich array of programs that help students reach their full potential . Not all students, however, are able to take advantage of these programs . Opportunities remain to: ensure that all students participate in critical portal programs (i .e ., those that provide them with access to higher-level academics); assure that all students receive learning support (i .e ., resources that improve learning and deepen academic experiences); and support all students in participating in enrichment activities (i .e ., those that expose them to ideas and worlds outside the classroom) .

Below, we provide an overview of our findings in each of these areas . We also highlight innovative approaches that RPS schools, often with the fiscal and programmatic support of central office departments, are using to address and close opportunity gaps . In the final section of the report, we present a series of recommendations to support RPS leaders and the Rochester community in addressing these gaps .

3 The qualitative data, primarily perceptual in nature, is an essential complement to the quantitative data . It offers a window into what students, parents, staff, and community members think about the RPS environment, how they feel within that environment, and how their beliefs and feelings influence their actions .


21Culture of Diversity

Culture is one of the most important contextual factors that critically impacts the education and educational experiences of youth . The culture of a district or school derives from the nature and the quality of the day-to-day interactions among the adults (administrators, faculty, and staff including those in the front office, counselors, maintenance and cafeteria workers, etc .), among the students, between students and adults, and with parents and families . To create and sustain a culture that is respectful and affirming of the uniqueness that each individual brings, everyone must assume responsibility for being mindful of the consequences of their actions – in words and deeds – in order to ensure an environment that fosters the academic and social emotional growth of each student .

In this section, we examine the role that the culture of RPS and its schools plays in how students experience their education and, ultimately, how the culture affects student achievement . The key opportunity gaps in aspects of RPS culture that we discuss—sense of belonging, high expectations and fair treatment, opening and welcoming culture, and diversity of staff and leaders—were identified on a consistent basis across the focused discussions held with students, parents, community stakeholders, and school and district staff, as well as from our observations during school site visits .

Sense of BelongingRochester schools pride themselves on providing safe and positive social environments in which children can learn and develop . Students in the schools we visited were engaged, active, orderly, and showed genuine pride and satisfaction at being where they were . In many of the schools that we visited, there was a general atmosphere of well-being, with many children feeling comfortable coming up to the principal and teachers to bestow hugs that were reciprocated . The school administrators, staff, and faculty we observed were actively engaged with their students and with each other, dedicated in their professions, and genuinely concerned about their students .

Some schools have adopted specific approaches to social and emotional support for children and their families to improve educational outcomes . Such support contributes to a social climate that is essential to energizing and motivating students to sustain their effort even when tasks are difficult . Support can also strengthen teachers’ relationships with students who struggle academically and help the students feel good about being at school . Students from a school that was depicted as strongly supportive responded to a question about what happens when student are having difficulties: “Teachers say it’s OK, they are encouraging”; “Personal attention—teachers help you during recess”; “If you try your best, even if you don’t succeed you get points for effort”; “If you don’t know, first ask a student, then the teacher”; “A Mayo High School CAP student comes to help us with math!”

During focus groups, when we asked high school students: “Who are the important adults here? Why?” Students at all levels could name a teacher or other adult in the building that they could go to for advice and support . Further, many secondary students voiced a strong sense of pride in their school and in the traditions of their school, indicating that participation of the student body in school events and school traditions was exceptional . Community members and parents also spoke of the tremendously positive school spirit as exhibited by parents and their families at all levels of schooling and especially at the high schools .

At first, discussions with students, community members, and parents focused on these positives . While some White parents did express concern that students identified as gifted and talented were not being appropriately challenged, they generally spoke of the schools as high performing, welcoming, and responsive to student needs . As conversations with students, parents, and stakeholders progressed, however, and in feedback from written comments, a different and more complex picture emerged .


22student Groups experience school Culture Differently . Many parents and students expressed pride in their school and a sense of belonging and well-being . At the same time, many community members, parents, teachers, and students also recognized and acknowledged that the culture of the schools is experienced differently by students of color, newcomer students, students with disabilities, students whose parents are migrant farm workers, students whose first language is other than English, and students of low-income families . As one parent put it “school spirit is mostly White—it is White kids and parents that attend these events” (referring to pep rallies and other school events) . This parent went on to wonder “What would make it possible for all kids to be involved and their parents, too?”

Students, especially at the high school level, also talked about a lack of interaction among students from different backgrounds . A teacher told the story of an African American family who, upon touring a high school, made the observation that “the school is like a museum,” because students were not intermingling . Some students talked about being “hesitant” and “cautious” with people who were different from themselves, and one student shared that “some people are mean and really judgmental [and] others just ignore [different people] because they’re afraid .” This student did go on to say that “a few are nice and accepting .” In general, however, it seemed that students were conscious that the student body was made up of a collection of separate groups rather than a holistic community . In some cases, the dividing characteristic was socio-economic status (SES) or race/ethnicity . In other instances, it was interest (e .g ., Goths) or language or ability level .

Some schools have made an effort to accommodate diverse traditions and values, and, in doing so, may find themselves caught in a bind . For example, some White parents questioned whether schools were going “overboard” to accommodate the religious needs of Muslim students but not allowing Christian students to celebrate their traditions . This dilemma is also borne out by White parents’ perceptions of the innovative approaches designed to support student groups described elsewhere in this section . While participants in parent and stakeholder groups affirmed the importance of such programs, they questioned why they were exclusive to one group when all groups could benefit from them .

Another example arises out of the creation of the relatively new position of minority liaisons . It appears that an unintended consequence of minority liaisons holding separate meetings for different groups of parents has resulted in a lack of participation at parent teacher association (PTA) diversity nights and the elimination of PTA diversity committees . A kind of “we-they” mentality has developed . On the other hand, a minority liaison at a high school reports that he works with all students, raising the possibility that a resource that was created to address the needs of specific groups of students was being dissipated and not meeting the need for which the position was created .

These examples highlight the delicate balance between knowing when and for what purposes is it necessary to provide opportunities and resources that are specific to a particular group and when and for what purposes is it important to provide opportunities and resources that build bridges and nurture reciprocity across groups . As was pointed out in several of the focus and stakeholder meetings, “equal is not always equitable .”

A Culture of Invisibility . A striking description of the status of African American/Black students in the RPS system was that of invisibility, a term used repeatedly across the different constituencies that were interviewed . This description was best captured by two African American parents . One parent stated “We have to work to be visible .” The other parent told the following story: Her daughter was in a classroom with another student of biracial background . They were the only students of color in that class . The two young women did not look anything like each other and had very different sounding names . And yet, the teacher could not tell them apart and never got their names straight . This is in sharp contrast to a story of another teacher who was recognized for working well with


23different students, whose relationship with her students was characterized by her ability to make each child feel special by frequently using the name of the child .

While the above anecdotes speak to the psychological and social invisibility of students of color, students also referred to the physical invisibility of students of color in honors and Advanced Placement (AP) courses . As one student observed, “as classes get more difficult, the fewer the students of color .” On the other hand, an African American student can become uncomfortably visible in the classroom when the topic in class refers to African Americans . Then all eyes turn to the African American student, often the only one in the classroom, as if he or she was the repository of all things African American .

Another aspect of invisibility was brought up by parents of color who made the point that the curriculum does not represent all students . The curriculum, in their view, is essentially Eurocentric and does not value or promote alternative traditions and experiences, nor does it include the contributions of minorities . Parents of color expressed concern that their children did not see themselves in the schools’ curriculum . Students of color echo this observation .

Innovative Approach: Initiatives for Subgroups of Students

Several schools have launched programs that are designed to meet the needs of students who often feel invisible or who “act out” in order to become visible. Examples of these include: (1) the APEX program comprised of a diverse make-up of students concentrating on achievement and leadership; (2) Rocket Academy, an after-school program for Black students; (3) a middle school group for Muslim girls; and (4) another program for African American males focusing on issues such as how to be successful in the classroom, how to be successful men, the use of the “n” word, etc. As noted earlier, while White stakeholders recognize the worth of these programs, they also question why these groups exclude White students who might be able to benefit from them. Their concerns raised the following questions and signaled the need for further open discussions in the district:

What does it mean for schools to affirm diversity without making it an “us vs. them” struggle?•Under what circumstances is it appropriate to address the unique needs of specific groups of students •exclusively, and when should programs should be inclusive?Does meeting the needs of members of specific student groups need to be an “either/or” dilemma or •can there be a “both/and” solution?

High Expectations and Fair TreatmentRochester prides itself on having a high percentage of students who fall in the gifted and talented category . At the same time, as detailed elsewhere in this report, the under-representation of students of color, newcomer students, and students from low-income families in gifted and talented programs is striking . In this section, we discuss the influence of expectations on the achievement of these groups of students as perceived by parents and students themselves .

There seems to be a growing awareness and willingness to admit that students of color, students whose first language is other than English, students with disabilities, students from low-income families, and newcomer students in RPS might not be accessing and/or benefiting from the same opportunities that White students are from this “high-performing” system .

Differential Academic expectations . Parents of color, White parents, parents with low incomes, newcomer parents, and a cross-section of participants in the stakeholders meeting all raised the following questions: “Do we really believe that all students can learn or do we make early assumptions based on race, gender, and SES?” “Do we value and have high expectations for all


24children?” “Are we blaming and coming up with excuses like poverty or family life?” “Are we expecting low performance and giving up because we already have ready excuses?”

Parents of color and newcomer parents strongly expressed that they see signs of differential expectations and treatment of their children in the schools, including inappropriate placements based on assumptions about ethnicity, language, and race . As one parent put it, “Most (White teachers) have already decided this is where you are . This is what our children have to fight for . We were at a parent-teacher conference to discuss whether our child should be in honors class (and) the teacher immediately said ‘regular class’ without any evaluation of her record . We had to insist .” Another parent offered a similar story of a teacher making a judgment based solely on the parent’s appearance and accent without finding out anything about the family . Because the family came from a country where a language other than English is spoken, the teacher immediately suggested that the children be put into an ESOL program without realizing that the family spoke fluent English .

In parent focus groups, the stakeholders’ meetings, and interviews with community members, people raised the question of “gate keeping”—whether teachers and counselors direct students of color into course decisions and “tracks” based purely on extraneous characteristics and assumptions and not on what the child can actually do or has the potential for doing . Serious concerns were also expressed that teachers and/or guidance counselors might be unwittingly giving some quiet guidance or unstated/unintended “signals” that discourage students of color, students from low-income families, and newcomer students from participating in honors or AP programs . As one community member put it, the district needs to examine what he calls systemic racism4 or silent racism,5 in which students of color are receiving repeated “implicit and explicit messages that they are not as smart as White students [and that as a result] they begin to believe they are less intelligent or less capable .”

These groups also raised a range of related questions:

Who is encouraging or not encouraging students—especially students from diverse populations—•to take or not to take tests like the ACT?Do students of color, newcomer students, students whose first language is other than English, and •students with disabilities—as well as the parents of these groups of students—know that they have flexibility to move from one track to another when they are ignored or disenfranchised by teachers?Are teachers’ decisions based on data about a child’s learning or on “stereotypes and low •expectations”? Do teachers use pedagogically meaningful data that is easy to grasp so that they can make changes in •instruction based on what the child needs and not on perceptions of what the child can do?In the case of students enrolled in ESOL, are teachers being too protective and keeping students •too long in the ESOL track and isolated from the mainstream student body? Are students enrolled in ESOL being prevented from joining in school-wide and extracurricular •activities by how their program is structured?

These observations were also reflected in comments made by high school students . Some high school students shared a view that they did not always feel respected by adults and sometimes encountered “a prejudgment of who you are, what you can and cannot do” or teachers who “mistake doing poorly for not trying .” Another student commented that “the school focuses on graduating one class, not [on graduating] 300–500 individuals [and should] focus on student issues, interests, and needs to better serve our education .”

4 Systemic racism is defined as policies and practices within an institution that have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial or ethnic groups .5 Silent racism is defined as practices and passive racism that, while not deliberate and hateful, can be equally as dangerous as overt racism

if they go unaddressed .


25The examples cited above and the questions raised about how students of color are guided or directed suggest that the district needs to create a safe environment in which all members of the educational community can examine in themselves the existence of implicit bias,6 that is, those automatic associations that operate outside of our awareness, often of judgment and evaluation, which we make when faced with a concept, image, or person . These automatic associations stem from the experiences we had and the messages we received about “the way things are” that we accepted unquestioningly . In later life, we act on the basis of these implicit biases without intending or understanding the consequences of our actions and/or words .

Whether the result of systemic racism, silent racism, or implicit bias, these examples reflect instances of a culture that sets low expectations for students of color, students whose first language is other than English, newcomer students, students from low-income families, and students with disabilities .

Other examples of systemic racism or implicit bias come from the unintended consequences of entry criteria for programs such as Gifted Services, Choice Schools, and the access to this information . Findings elsewhere in this report indicate that such criteria might serve as a barrier to members of particular groups of students were reinforced by parents’ experiences of the system . White parents, parents of color, and newcomer parents all spoke of the way that entry criteria and the lack of widespread information sharing served as a challenge for many but was especially difficult for parents not knowledgeable of the way the system works .

Yet, every year, it seems that one or two students of color or students who were formerly enrolled in ESOL graduate with honors . These students are spoken of proudly by their parents, teachers, and administrators . While this phenomenon should not be used to mask the more prevalent problem of low expectations for certain groups of students and, consequently, the achievement gap, several parents and community members suggested that the district needs to learn from the success of individual students and the success of schools that show high achievement for all their students .

Fairness in treatment of All students . As an aspect of culture, how disciplinary practices are enacted in relation to different groups of students is a critical element in creating a culture of diversity . If students and parents perceive that the code of discipline is not being applied fairly and consistently, the culture of diversity is undermined .

White parents made the observation and expressed concern that there seemed to be an overrepresentation of African American males who were expelled from school . Parents of color raised the issue of inconsistent implementation of discipline as well as the impact of some disciplinary measures on learning . One parent recounted the story of her daughter who was placed on in-house suspension for forgetting her lanyard . The parent made a point to find out if other students who did not have their lanyards received the same punishment and found out that this was not the case . She felt that her daughter was singled out because she is of color . In addition, this parent was very upset that, because of this slight infraction, her daughter ended up being three days behind in her schoolwork as she was unable to submit her homework on the day it was due and was unable to receive her assignments because she was on suspension . Students also spoke to the issue of the unfair application of school rules . Students made the observation that “kids [who are] expected to do bad things often get punished [while] kids with good grades often have it easier .” At the middle school level, one student said that teachers “give [different students] not as much discipline, [or] sometimes more .”

6 This definition was adapted from the work of Brian Nosek, Mahzarin Banaji, and Tony Greenwald developers of Project Implicit . http://implicit .harvard .edu


26Data affirm the accuracy of parents’ and students’ perceptions . Figure 24 shows that suspension rates are disproportionate to the overall student population, both by race and by disability status . While students of color make up 29 percent of the population, they make up more than 50 percent of all those students suspended . In contrast, White students make up more than 70 percent of the population, but are only 45 percent of those who are suspended . Similarly, students with disabilities make up 12 .4 percent of all students, but almost 30 percent of all suspensions . Given that students with disabilities are disproportionately Black (especially in the DCM-MM, DCM-MP, and EBD categories, which are also the categories with the highest suspension rates), this group of Black students deserves greater attention from a number of angles, such as identification processes, discipline issues, least restrictive setting, and access to grade-level curriculum .

Suspension rate data for 2007–2008 shows that for this year, through November, 82 of 288 out-of-school suspensions have been students with disabilities (29 percent), and of those, 44 are EBD (15 percent of all suspensions) and 22 are students with learning disabilities (8 percent) . These percentages are almost identical to those for 2006–07 .

Figure 24. Suspension Rates by Race/Ethnicity and Special Education Status, 2006–2007 (n = 734)


A lack of fairness of treatment in areas other than discipline was also mentioned by students . As noted earlier, while all students interviewed were able to speak of important adults in their school who made a difference for them, they also recognized that “some teachers relate to ‘different’ students but the majority don’t .” One student suggested that “more connections between students and teachers” would help more students succeed . A bi-racial student suggested that her school needed help to “be more open to diversity,” perhaps through greater adult diversity and student diversity within challenging courses .

Open and Welcoming CultureAgain there appeared to be a discrepancy between how White parents experienced their children’s schools and how parents of color and newcomer parents experienced their children’s schools . There was general agreement that schools should be welcoming of families from diverse backgrounds, but how this was being done seemed to be an issue since it was clear that creating such a welcoming culture could not be simply mandated .


27While efforts have been undertaken since the 1990s to address the changing face of Rochester, there is still an underlying feeling today, as voiced in the September stakeholders meeting, that “hostility to diversity is present” and that there is a tendency among district members “to blame children and their families .” White parents, parents of color, and newcomer parents expressed the belief that there are “some deep-seated prejudices and hostilities within the community but that, for the most part, people know what the appropriate ‘politically correct’ responses are and so do not present these in public .” Similar sentiments were expressed by student groups at both the elementary and secondary levels and reflected in comments such as the following from an elementary Muslim student who, while highly positive about her school, also said “People should treat others like their own friends, even if they are a different religion” and an African American male high school student who, at the very end of a student focus group session, said “There is this ‘Minnesota nice’ culture … not wanting to offend [but] they do not go out of their bubble . When they talk to me they talk to my race, to the stereotype [and] not to the real me .”

This description of the community culture as “Minnesota nice” is a theme that reverberated in many conversations across different groups . As a White teacher put it, “Minnesota nice is a shell and we have to crack it open and look underneath .” While this issue needs to be confronted and explored further, we were impressed that it was raised and that there appeared to be a sincere effort to look honestly at what was happening in RPS that made some children experience their schools as less welcoming, less supportive, less academically rigorous and fulfilling . Across the different groups that were interviewed or participated in focus groups, the following questions were raised:

Do schools and their faculties welcome and engage families and community members in •supporting high levels of student learning?How can we reach out to engage more parents of color and from diverse backgrounds?•

There are many reasons why families of color, newcomer families, and families with low incomes are reluctant to participate or avoid participation in school events . These reasons can vary from community to community, and schools have to take the initiative and invest time in identifying the relevant reasons in their community . One illustrative interchange at a parent focus group between an African American parent and community leader and some White parents, underscored the need to see the problem of parent participation from different sets of experiences .

During the discussion, White parents made the observation that newcomer parents and parents of low-income tended not to attend or participate in school events even when efforts were made to reach out to them by translating fliers and providing interpreters . Schools had tried to schedule meetings taking into account that many parents were working two or more jobs but parents still were not coming . The parents concluded that many of these parents did not value education and were unconcerned about their children’s performance . In response, the African American parent asked the White parents, “Do any of you show up at open community events put on by different ethnic groups in our community?” The White parents responded that they did not because they were not sure they would be welcomed and they did not feel comfortable being in these settings . The African American parent pointed out that this was not only precisely how newcomer and parents of low-income often felt about attending school events but that their feelings of discomfort, confusion, and being overwhelmed were probably even greater as they were going into a community that was not their own and a culture they might not understand .

A White mother then related her experience of trying to help a Cambodian family navigate the system . She shared that she found that even she could not make much headway . This gave her a profound sense of what many newcomer families are going through and the tremendous sense of feeling overwhelmed that they must feel .


28An African American parent noted that teachers often make assumptions about her . For example, assumptions were made as to why she as a single mother had come to Rochester when the real reason was that she had come to go to school . A participant in the stakeholder meeting made the observation that some parents had had negative experiences in their own schooling which made it hard for them to feel comfortable participating in school activities .

Several parents observed that communication between schools and parents was not always optimal, even for White parents . A White mother with a biracial child reported that she did not get any notice or receive any communication from the school that her child was failing until she got her report card and her child had to go to summer school . Another White mother with an Asian child complained that she could not get assignments for her child when her child was sick because three days hadn’t passed . A White grandparent complained about “not being heard” by the school and being forced to go directly to the superintendent . Many parents also complained that the RPS Agile Student Information Portal, the district’s online information system, did not have up-to-date information and lacked a “personal touch .” In addition, e-mail or other forms of electronic communication were not accessible to many parents .

Numerous parents identified the need for the district and schools to do a better job of listening to parents and students alike . They felt they had valuable insights to share concerning their own educational experiences and their beliefs about what is important in the education of their children . They also felt that RPS leaders could learn a great deal from students themselves, who know what they need but do not feel that anyone is listening .

Diversity of Staff and LeadersFor decades, RPS has recognized that the lack of adult diversity in the system is a challenge that needs to be met . The creation of a new position focusing on the recruitment and retention of people of color and people from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds as administrators, teachers and staff is a step in the right direction . Yet, the lack of diversity in the school system as a whole acts as a barrier to creating a truly diverse culture . At the administrative level, both at central office and school sites, the lack of diversity clearly impedes the development of new ways of thinking and limits the district’s ability to make use of fresh viewpoints to challenge existing beliefs and practices .

During our school site visits, we found school faculty and staff to be almost exclusively White . It was rare to encounter a paraprofessional who was a person of color or whose first language was other than English . Our perceptions were confirmed by current data on the demographics of RPS staff . As shown in Figure 25, RPS employees are overwhelmingly White . Of the 2000+ employees, 94 percent are White, and 2 percent each are Asian American, Black not Hispanic, and Hispanic . The lack of diversity is even more marked among the teaching staff—97 percent are White, with 1 percent each of Asian American, Black not Hispanic, and Hispanic . In contrast, there is slightly more diversity among the clerical, food preparation, and paraprofessional staff: 90 percent are White, with 4 percent Asian American, 4 percent Black not Hispanic, and 2 percent Hispanic . Of the 50 Black not Hispanic employees, 16 percent have teaching positions, while of the 2,107 White not Hispanic employees, 54 percent have teaching positions .


29Figure 25. Rochester Public School District Staff, By Ethnicity, 2007–2008 (n = 2246)

Source: Rochester Department of Elementary and Secondary Education .

A member of the executive committee of the teacher’s union shared the perception that, while RPS is one of the best districts in which to grow professionally, many teachers of color for whom expectations are higher and for whom silent racism is a reality find that they can succeed only “if (they are) willing to learn the ropes … [and] the White world’s rules .” African American/Black parents also spoke of the lack of teachers of color, staff of color, and administrators of color within RPS . In addition, they noted that there is little consistent effort made to bring in mentors with diverse backgrounds from the community, including individuals from the Mayo Clinic and IBM .

summary of FindingsStudents and families have markedly different experiences in the RPS culture . Across many stakeholder groups—community, business, parents, and students—we identified the shared perception that RPS has been struggling with the changes in the make-up of its students for some time and still has important, deeply-rooted issues of diversity and equity to resolve in its policies, procedures, and culture . Many serious concerns and questions were raised about whether and how RPS responds to the needs of students and families from culturally and linguistically diverse populations, and from families with low incomes . At the same time, there appeared to be some renewed hope that this will be the time when “action will be taken and not just talk .” There is a growing appreciation that the district has made it a priority to deal with the systemic inequities that compromise the quality of life and educational experiences of many RPS students . To address this priority successfully, it will be imperative to engage all adults in the system (administrators, teaching staffs, and all support staff) in mindfully working together to create a culture of diversity that is pervasive across the district .

Instructional ProgramA sine qua non condition for reducing achievement gaps is the provision of sound instruction that uses state-of-the-art curricula, is challenging, is linked to state standards, engages students, is individualized, and is relevant to students from culturally diverse backgrounds . While the strong achievement data for White and affluent RPS students we presented earlier in this report reveals strengths in the instructional program, the test scores of RPS students who are at risk of academic difficulties tell a different tale and serve as an early warning sign that all might not be well . In


30this section, we examine opportunity gaps in early childhood education, reading instruction, math instruction, curriculum, models of teaching and learning, and resources and professional development for staff that might be contributing to and exacerbating achievement gaps .

High-Quality Early Childhood EducationIn the earliest stages of learning—pre-K–Grade 3—sound instruction concentrates on the building blocks of early language and literacy . These are typically covered in programs for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds . The first signs of difficulty for RPS are evident in the number of young children at risk of academic difficulties who do not receive adequate early childhood services and programs . The contributors to academic difficulties originate early in a child’s life, and early childhood is an important place to begin assessing possible contributors to achievement difficulties and identifying areas for intervention . Moreover, numerous studies have suggested that investment of resources in pre-K and kindergarten pay a high dividend to society .7

RPS provides comprehensive early childhood check-in/screenings for all preschool children age three and older . These screenings assess vision, hearing, physical growth, and immunization status as well as cognitive, language, communication, motor, social, and emotional skills . The screening identifies children who might be eligible for special education early childhood intervention services prior to kindergarten . Of the 1,516 children screened in the 2006–2007 report year, 213 children (14 percent) were referred for services . This rate is similar to the rates of referral in surrounding areas .

Beginning of the Achievement Gap . Early signs of achievement gaps appear by kindergarten in both the percent of children with low initial scores on early skills tests and the percent of children who already have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) by the time they enter school . A revealing sign of potential academic difficulty is the high number of children who lack skills and knowledge that are viewed as requisite for success in school . Each year, more than one thousand students enter RPS kindergartens (1,108 in 2005 and 1,229 in 2006) . About one third of the children who entered school in kindergarten were deemed at risk of school difficulty because they struggled with letter naming fluency . Similarly, on a test of initial sound fluency (an early literacy test), 458 of the children (41 percent) scored at a level that placed them at risk for reading difficulty in 2005 and 377 (32 percent) in 2006 . About half of the kindergartners in the 2004 and 2005 cohorts had at least 1 risk factor and about 32 percent of the 2006 cohort had 1 or more risk factors .

Unfortunately, there are wide variations among students in skills and experiences that prepare them for school . One teacher noted poignantly, “At the entrance to school, some children can read and some have never held a pencil!” As is clear from Table 2, children of color are more likely to show signs of early risk for academic difficulties . Center- and home based programs for 3- and 4-year-olds, and participation in full-day kindergarten are the best available approaches to reversing this cycle of educational disadvantage . For example, kindergarten teachers reported significant success in improving the skills of children at risk of academic difficulties who were enrolled in full-day kindergarten because of the ability to provide these children with additional support and work with small groups of them each day .

7 Gormley, W . T ., Gayer, T ., Phillips, D ., & Dawson, B . (2005) . The effects of universal pre-K on cognitive development . Developmental Psychology, 41, 872–884; Heckman, J ., Grunewald, R ., & Reynolds, A . (2006, July) . The dollars and cents of investing early: Cost-benefit analysis in early care and education . Zero to Three, 26(6), 10–17 . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www .babyfutures .org /files/DollarsCents-Heckman .pdf


31Table 2. Risk for School Difficulty for Children of Color

Number of children

% at Academic Risk % Low Income % Enrolled in

Special Education

American Indian 5 60% (3) 80% (4) 60% (3)Asian 122 37% (45) 31% (38) 2% (24)Hispanic 94 53% (50) 63% (59) 10% (9)Black 164 42% (69) 67% (108) 13% (21)White 844 27% (228) 13% (110) 8% (68)All 1229 32% (393) 26% (320) 9% (111)


the need to serve More eligible Children . We found that slots for full-day kindergarten, which might help children catch up, are insufficient to meet the need . Although as many as 45 of the 140 (32 percent) kindergartners in one school were invited to attend full-day kindergarten, conversations with kindergarten teachers revealed that many more children need this service to be successful but cannot be accommodated due to space, capacity and financial constraints . Even more children go unserved because their parents lack key information . Some schools mentioned that many low-income families and newcomer families did not have information about kindergarten eligibility requirements and registration deadlines . The most vulnerable children often showed up on the first day of school unregistered for kindergarten . Usually by the first day of kindergarten, all the slots for full-day kindergarten were assigned, leaving these children without access to the more intensive and structured experiences that they might need to catch up .

Programs to serve children prior to kindergarten face similar challenges, Rochester has a range of publicly funded programs to serve young children including Head Start, Early Childhood Family Education (PAIIR), Hand in Hand (Family Literacy), and School Readiness . Program models include home based, center-based, family literacy, and full- and half-day programs . While the range of models is broad and has the flexibility to respond to a variety of family needs, Head Start—along with other programs that seek to meet the needs of children at risk of academic difficulties—is under-funded and cannot accommodate all of the children who need its services . Many deserving children must be placed on waiting lists . For example, in October 2007 the Head Start program reported that it had a waiting list of 125 students who qualified for its services; in February 2008, the program had a waiting list of 80 children . Similarly, Hand in Hand has a waiting list of 70 families and the School Readiness program had a waiting list of 40 children . These waiting lists might be under representative of the actual desire to enroll . Parents and referring agencies do not try to place children on waiting lists once it is apparent that it is unlikely that the child will be able to enroll . It is estimated that there are more than 300 three- or four-year-old children who are eligible for services they do not receive . Interviews with teacher union representatives revealed that the demand for these services might be even larger because many newcomer families, families whose first language is other than English, and low-income families lack information about early childhood programs for which their children might be eligible .

Partnerships to Assure Children’s school success . The city of Rochester is an unusual setting for early childhood with respect to the degree of integration and cooperation among public and private early childhood resources . RPS collaborates with both Head Start and community early childhood programs to meet the needs of young children . The school district contracts with private nursery schools for early childhood and provides additional services (e .g ., home visitations, parent education programs, and case management services) .


32Because the early childhood community in Rochester is characterized by cooperation and the ability to think outside of their silos, there are multiple opportunities for expanding early childhood programs to the children not able to be served by Head Start or other early childhood programs . The district has an over 30 year history of working with community early childhood programs to leverage private, federal, and state readiness dollars to serve needy children . The programs developed in Rochester are based on public private partnerships . Our findings indicated that the public schools, non-profits, and philanthropic community of Rochester might be able to increase the number of needy children they can serve . There is a history of such collaborations . The United Way and Rochester Area Foundation First Steps have provided funds for additional early childhood slots in the past . Child Care Resource and Referral estimates that it costs about $7,280 per child . It would cost an additional $2 .3 million to provide services to all children who are eligible for them .

High Quality Reading InstructionTwo of the most significant tasks of teaching and learning in elementary schools are helping children master skills so that they become competent readers and helping them increase their fluency sufficiently to make the transition from “learning to read” to “reading to learn .” In our discussions with teachers, they noted that reading scores were continuing to decline, and they expressed a need for a greater emphasis on the development of reading . One school estimated that 25 percent of its children had not become skilled readers by the end of first grade, the critical year for the acquisition of basic reading skills . This group of poor readers received and continues to receive attention and concentrated reading intervention . Most schools have a Reading Specialist who offers pull-out instructional support—removing children from their classes—to address the skill development needs of children . However, RPS is still suffering the after-effects of budget cuts from 8 years ago with the result that the number of Reading Specialists is limited . For example in one elementary school with an enrollment of 950 students only two reading teachers were available to work with children .

Teachers reported that the difficulties children have with reading are not restricted to the development of beginning reading basics such as decoding and phonological processing skills . Many children are experiencing difficulty in making the transition to becoming fluent readers who comprehend well enough to “read to learn” This problem is sometimes captured in what teachers described as the “fourth-grade slump in reading .” Teachers also identified a stable and predictable group of students in each class that they felt needed a different kind of instruction from the typical reading curriculum in order to continue on the road to success in school . Unfortunately, teachers told us that, after the second grade, reading specialists were unable to meet with readers struggling with serious issues of comprehension . The lack of an appropriate instructional response for these students certainly contributes to achievement gaps .


33Innovative Approach: Team Teaching of Reading

Several schools have addressed their reading instruction challenges in ways that might be instructive and helpful to others facing similar difficulties. One school provided more individualized reading instruction than was previously possible by adopting a team approach to teaching reading. The Rochester schools use the Reading Street curriculum published by Pearson Scott Foresman and benchmark assessment tools to gauge students’ level of competence and to determine what instruction to provide. Reading Street is a scripted curriculum that teachers think is very effective.

Other schools have adopted a flexible grouping by ability to put together children with common ability and to facilitate teaching. To make this work, teachers meet twice a quarter to review and evaluate whether the child is in the right group and make changes when necessary. This avoids the overly restrictive approach typical of highly criticized tracking systems in that it permits a child to move when the child’s level of skill changes.

One school has used the strategies of intensification and individualization of instruction that by their reports seem to work well. At this school, 90 minutes are devoted to reading instruction each morning. Each reading class has three staff: a lead teacher and two support staff. Students are instructed daily in the whole group for one hour. For the last 30 minutes, the class splits into small groups with similar ability levels led by one of the 3 teaching staff where they work on a specific skill. It would be helpful to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach using student outcome data as the criterion of success.

High-Quality Math InstructionRPS is facing significant opportunities to improve math instruction and to close opportunity and achievement gaps throughout the school system .

elementary and Middle school Math . While literacy instruction is thought to lay a foundation for all later achievement, instruction in math cannot afford to be neglected because it, too, is critical to children’s school success . The need to attend to math education is underscored by growing evidence of academic underperformance in math, even by children who excel in other areas . Many schools meet their goals in reading but do not do so in math . This has led to an increased emphasis on math instruction from grades three to five .

In RPS, not all of the solutions implemented by the school administration have been greeted with enthusiasm by teaching staff . Consider, for example, the case of Everyday Math, a curriculum introduced into the school district to increase math achievement . It is designed to expand access to and achievement in conceptually challenging mathematics in addition to providing basic skills . Some parents and teachers give less than favorable reviews of this curriculum . They complain that Everyday Math leaves too much of the learning of basic computational skills to chance . It relies on much work being done at home or in supplemental lessons . For this reason, some teachers questioned the appropriateness of Everyday Math for children from families who are unable to work at home with children on math because of lack of confidence in their own math skills or the availability of time .

It is important for math achievement gaps to be addressed in the early years because once students reach middle school they are already being separated based upon test scores . In middle school, children are grouped for course sections by the music and the math to which they are assigned, and assignment to math classes in the middle schools are determined by children’s test scores at the end of elementary school . Though unintended, this is the point at which the divide between the academic experiences for students who are members of statistically underrepresented groups and


34students who are White and affluent becomes fully institutionalized . By high school, the division becomes very difficult, although not impossible, to undo . Some efforts are underway to address this challenge . Other initiatives consistent with Everyday Math include requiring pre-Algebra for all students by the eighth grade, eliminating “renaissance” (basic) math courses, and preparing everyone for the state goal of all students succeeding in Algebra II by 2013 . We found that these changes have a mixed impact on staff . For some, the changes challenge teachers and lead them to raise their expectations of some students’ abilities . Other teachers greet these changes with cynicism about how realistic these initiatives are .

New Paradigms of Teaching and LearningWe found that RPS is engaged in tackling the achievement challenges it faces head-on . Even in a context of constrained financial resources, many schools are already in the process of developing and to some extent implementing plans to address gaps . As they are assessing the efficacy of the existing instructional program, schools are identifying the need to adopt new paradigms of teaching and learning that they hope will better serve their students and merit wider dissemination across the district . Schools are actively grappling with complex issues and new ideas related to curriculum, intensification of and extension of instruction, and communication and outreach that, if resolved, could substantially improve the educational outcomes of students placed at risk of school difficulties and/or failure . Other essential aspects of their efforts that are described elsewhere in this report include support for parents and students (see Culture of Diversity), provision of enrichment for students (see Equitable Access to Enrichment and Support), and the Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) described at the end of this section .

Curriculum . We found that administrators faced an often controversial dilemma about offering multiple curricula within the same building . In one respect, multiple curricula enable schools to respond to diverse learners; no single curriculum can meet the needs of all students . However, offering multiple curricula in the same building creates a challenge that is difficult to manage and can produce unintended consequences of segregating White or affluent students from their less advantaged counterparts . During our school site visits, we found that work was underway to align high school curriculum across schools . Yet, while a course of study might seem very similar on paper, it can play out quite differently in classrooms with different teachers, and more work was needed to align courses, assessments, and expectations for learning within and between schools .

In several elementary schools and a middle school, the Core Knowledge Curriculum—which can be selected by parents for their children—was in place . Launched in 1994 in response to parental dissatisfaction with the curriculum and desire for more consistency in their children’s K–5 curriculum, Core Knowledge fosters high expectations of basic skills mastery . It is distinguished from state standards by its specificity about the foundation of facts children should possess in language arts, history and geography, math, science, and the fine arts to be considered literate in U .S . society . Core Knowledge tends to attract middle-class and White students at rates higher than their numbers in the district as a whole . The class sections that offer the standard curriculum have a much higher percentage of students with disabilities and students whose first language is other than English than the sections that offer Core Knowledge . For example, sections offering the standard curriculum can have as much as 50 percent of students from the aforementioned two groups . Some teachers and administrators—especially at the middle school, where Core Knowledge is one of three different curricula—see this program as divisive and a source of huge inequities within a single building .


35Innovative Approach: Using Multiple Strategies

We found that several schools were combining strategies to create comprehensive approaches to remedying deeply-rooted systemic problems. Gage Elementary School—which has achievement gaps that range from about 17 percent to 40 percent in third, fourth, and fifth grade, depending upon whether the group is composed of students with disabilities, students whose first language is other than English, students of color, or students from low-income families—has developed a plan that utilizes several strategies in order to better meet the needs of students who are experiencing academic difficulties. These plans include, but are not limited to, aligning special education curriculum with general education curriculum, using flexible ability grouping, offering After-School Academies to supplement instruction in reading and math, increasing ESOL staff, hiring a minority liaison, utilizing mentors, and introducing a focus on character education. Some of these efforts to address the problems contributing to the achievement gap appear to be promising and going well.Another school dealt with the problems of students with academic difficulties by using a sequence of complementary interventions: Pre-intervention Team—Students who needed support were referred, but the level of support did not rise to the level of special education classification. Instead, teachers brainstormed and planned approaches for working with children outside of special education.Reading Corps—Students who needed support to become reading proficient but did not have extreme difficulties were teamed with Reading Corps volunteers who worked with them on their reading.Parent Volunteers—Parents with education backgrounds in some of the reading strategies/interventions volunteered to receive training and work with students.Team Teaching—Staff were organized and trained to utilize more coordinated, team teaching methods.Building Self-Esteem—“Struggling” students were placed in leadership positions in the school.

Intensification and extension of Instruction . Intensification of instruction arises from the recognition that students vary in their needs, and some do not receive sufficient and appropriate instruction to develop their talents and reach their potential . Intensification strategies can take the form of individualization of instruction—sometimes referred to as differentiated instruction—to fit the child’s learning style and knowledge needs . Other approaches are used in compensatory and enrichment programs that are described in the next section of this report .

Below, we describe two aspects of intensification of instruction—flexible grouping and pull-in and pull-out models—that RPS schools were using, debating, and attempting to refine . We also describe an approach to extension of instruction—restructuring the format of the school year:

Flexible Grouping:• As discussed earlier, many elementary schools have adopted flexible grouping by ability to facilitate more individualized teaching . Teachers meet twice a quarter to review and evaluate whether each child is in the right group and to make changes when necessary . This avoids the overly restrictive approach typical of highly criticized tracking systems by allowing a child to move when the child’s level of skill changes . Interestingly, in parent focus groups, this practice was both praised and criticized . Some parents found that their teachers seamlessly moved children among groups as appropriate, while other parents found that the process led to “de facto” tracking, limiting student mobility .

Pull-In and Pull-out Models:• In the traditional pull-out model—that predominates for most RPS schools’ special services during the school day—a specialist or volunteer removes children


36from their classrooms and provides specialized, one-on-one or small group supplementary instruction for a period of time and on a regular basis . While pull-out models might permit individualization of instruction to meet the child’s specific need, they often create other problems: the instruction is often disconnected from what is going on in the classroom, the regular teacher becomes unaware of the child’s progress over time, and the child might fall further behind as they miss exposure to new material and assignments . Questions were being raised about the desirability of this approach . One principal expressed concern over the amount of time that some students spend in pull-out sessions and argued that the pull-out system is disruptive to the student, to the teacher, and to other students in the classroom and that, at its worst, students are pulled out of classes for more than half the school day . At most of the schools we visited, we did not see evidence of coordination among the different programs that used pull-out . Thus, the schedule of a student who received services for ESOL and special education might be organized not to meet his or her needs, but rather to make room for all the assigned pull-out sessions . In general, there was a lack of coordination and clarity between and among different entities about individual students, overall scheduling, and the pedagogical strengths and weaknesses of different methods of meeting students’ needs . The lack of coordination between the classroom teacher and the specialist has led some RPS schools to experiment with pull-in models of individualized instruction that bring the specialist in to work with the child in the classroom, supporting what the teacher is covering in the curriculum . This increases the cooperation of the classroom teacher and specialist and makes it possible for the specialist to diagnose the specific learning problem a child is having and develop instructional strategies specific to that child’s learning style and situation all while remaining in the classroom .

extension—Length of the school Year . • One school has experimented with an extended-year calendar, and others were considering adopting that calendar, both for the reduction of learning loss over summer vacation and for teachers and students to have more frequent opportunities to refresh throughout the school year . At least one of the elementary schools was operating on a year-round school schedule that involved 9 consecutive weeks of instruction followed by a 3-week break . This 12-week cycle was repeated four times per year . The number of instructional hours under this schedule was the same as it was for the 9-month schedule, but the year-round schedule offered some flexibility and opportunities not available in the more traditional schedules with summer vacations . Reported advantages included the ability to offer more intense instruction and enrichment during the 3-week break to children who were not responding as expected to regular classroom instruction or who needed additional help . As an added benefit, this schedule helped reduce the possibility of burnout for teachers and the fatigue factor for children that the longer semesters often produced . By teachers’ reports, children were better able to sustain their motivation over the periods that were punctuated with shorter but more frequent breaks . Moreover, they claimed that they did not see the steep decline in the knowledge of children from low-income families, children of color, newcomer children, and children whose first language is other than English that frequently occurs after the long summer break from school .


37Innovative Approach: Creation of Engaging Learning Environments

Students at a number of middle schools were enthusiastic about classes that called upon them to actively participate in the learning process. In these schools, there was a conscious effort on the part of staff and administrators to create engaging learning environments. Students and staff used the word “fun” many times in describing the activities and environment of the school in their interviews. Academic events in the school—history field trips and History Day, for example—bring adults and students together in shared learning. The hallmarks of these environments are teachers who care deeply about their craft, strive to get their students excited, and venture outside of their topic areas to engage students in learning across the curriculum. For example, one math teacher read “Fancy Nancy” stories aloud to her students to help them build their vocabulary, and an art teacher encouraged students to write about their art. Three representative comments from our interviews at these schools capture the spirit of the teaching and learning there: “It is a “fun” place where teachers have high expectations,” “Teachers like and respect the kids and kids are able to find someone who ‘loves them’; and “Kids care about learning.”

Resources and Professional Development for StaffTeachers are central to a district’s success in reducing achievement and opportunity gaps . RPS is fortunate to have dedicated, committed, qualified educators . The schools have another advantage over many urban school districts: stability of staff over time . Unlike the revolving doors experienced in many urban school districts, we found that it was not uncommon to meet teachers and administrators who had been in a school for more than 10 years . Among the schools we visited, a very experienced and stable faculty seemed to be the norm . This is a major advantage in efforts to address the needs of students at risk of academic difficulties .

In meetings with teachers, a number of ideas were presented about what is already being done and what needs to be done to improve the achievement of all students . They reported that at the high school level, all schools are aware of achievement gaps, use data to study student needs, seek to align curriculum, offer professional development that focuses on data and assessment, provide various structures to encourage collaborative work, and utilize literacy coaching, co-teaching, and grade-level teaming . The overarching message from teachers was that all schools are aware of achievement gaps and are trying to identify and address the gaps in different ways . It rapidly became clear, however, that while teachers were often enthusiastic, optimistic, and energetic about their calling and work, they also felt “stretched” at times because they were trying to do whatever needed to be done to address achievement gaps and meet the needs of students . Some teachers expressed frustration and felt that the intensity of the effort and the limitations of staff resources made things difficult . One teacher noted: “Everyone takes on a good deal of work to support the needs of the students .” Several teachers shared their perspectives on current efforts to address student achievement gaps:

“There are students who can’t read . We need to find out what those kids need to get them on board . Testing measures something, but it is limited in what it tells us . Are we testing the right thing? Are we going with the wrong strategy—so much time is spent in testing . We already know which kids are struggling .”

“There are too many pressures for students and teachers; this is not an optimal environment for learning .”


38“Education is not an assembly line operation . Kids grow in spurts and at different rates . Some groups don’t do as well—there is something we are doing or not doing with them that widens the gap . Some kids need more time, attention, and differentiated instruction, [and] have different needs but all children can learn .”

“I’m working my hardest and there are still gaps . I don’t know what to do differently .”

“Can we put more trust in teachers? We are trying to do the right thing .”“Teachers have limited time, and some do wonderful things—how much more can we do?”

Several teachers expressed a concern that the main response to the achievement gap and dwindling resources had been a narrowing of education at the very time when global competition demands an expanded vision of education .

Some teachers related that at their schools, conversations about the achievement gap had evolved and grown increasingly open over time . They reported that they felt less defensive and more focused on “what can we do?” They noted that, as they analyzed student data and changed curricular offerings to better match students’ needs, they were concentrating on answering questions such as “How do we support all kids?” and “How do we help kids recover and get back on track?”

In contrast, other teachers appeared to be reluctant to engage in an open conversation on how to address the achievement gap because of the discomfort it raised . In the absence of such conversations, teachers might work hard at answering the wrong—or at least the more superficial—questions . Overall, our focused discussions with teachers revealed an opportunity to provide more support and targeted professional development to address their concerns and frustration and enable them to effectively tackle achievement gaps in their schools . While capacity-building efforts are underway, as described by the teachers, they appear to have fallen short of giving teachers the tools they need to “support all kids .” From our high school site visits and our conversations with stakeholders, we noted that the majority of professional development efforts are ad hoc and developed in response to teacher or school interests . There is an opportunity for these efforts to become more effective with greater coordination, linkages to explicit district goals, and guidance from leadership to keep teacher learning on track with the district’s mission and vision .


39Innovative Approach: Professional Learning Communities (PLC)

We found that some RPS schools were using the PLC approach to create teamwork among teachers and engage them in collaborative problem solving to improve learning for students. The form, development, and strength of PLCs appeared to differ from school to school. In some cases, the focus of the PLC was narrowly targeted on developing and coordinating instruction for children who were having difficulties; other schools’ PLC approaches were broader. One school’s PLC ,designed to support teachers’ learning, had evolved over time from a core group engaged in book study to regular weekly meetings—“sacred time” during which teachers focused on student data—to current daily half-hour common planning time for grade-level staff to consider what actions they could take to improve their practice and support student learning. Teachers at another school chose to work in small groups, each on a different professional development focus. Some worked on co-teaching; others were reading Courageous Conversations.

Other teachers described data retreats in which they identified each child’s needs and planned individual support. A group of teachers in one school spoke of having team meetings (grade level) every other Tuesday to discuss data. Reviewing data together had a powerful effect on these teachers and woke them up to the reality that not all kids were doing well. The presenter of the data put real faces before the teachers and asked them to consider which of those faces (read: children) were they willing to have fail. There was a realization on the part of a critical mass of teachers that their school was not moving to meet the needs of every child. As a result, an important, ongoing dialogue opened up in the school—teachers began to have informal conversations about what was going on in their classes and what they could do to change. They began to work together to establish common goals and procedures for monitoring and teaching vulnerable children, they shared ideas about curriculum, and continued to review data on children’s outcomes as a basis for planning how to work more effectively with children.

Multiple schools described projects they were implementing as experiments. This high level of coordination appeared to be new for several schools. Previously, they did not need to coordinate their efforts as closely. One of the positive aspects of this coordination was that teachers appeared to be developing a collective identity and shared sense of responsibility for all children in a grade rather than those children assigned to their classroom for the year.

summary of FindingsWe found that there is still a perception, based on valid evidence, that RPS is a high-performing school system . Yet, our findings also revealed a growing understanding among stakeholders that RPS will not be able to maintain its level of performance if it does not assure that schools meet the needs of students who are placed at risk of academic difficulties and/or failure . Some schools have already begun to launch initiatives for these students that include innovative methods of academic support . Yet, almost all the schools miss the mark in offering consistently challenging curricula and differentiated instruction . In addition, critical opportunities are missed—including the lack of access to early childhood and kindergarten programs—to assure that all children arrive at school ready to succeed and have the fundamental knowledge and skills they need to support their lifelong learning . Gaps also exist in professional development and resources for teachers, who need support to enable them to meet the needs of increasingly diverse populations of students . Current resources to solve these challenges are not sufficient and it might be challenging—although certainly possible if creativity and collaborations are tapped into—to locate additional resources .


40equitable Access to support and enrichmentPrograms that support and enrich students’ learning are an essential part of school life and fill a variety of functions . Depending upon their goals and focus, such programs help students “catch up,” nurture students’ talents, foster students’ academic excellence, give students a chance to explore topics that go beyond the curriculum, and allow students to experiment with future careers . In this section, we examine the opportunities RPS has to improve students’ access to its outstanding support and enrichment programs . We also describe a series of barriers that appear to impede students’ access to these programs .

Portal ProgramsGifted and talented Programs . During our site visits, we had the opportunity to speak to a number of parents whose children participate in RPS Gifted Services . We were impressed by their dedication to the program and by the hard work parents have done over the years to expand and improve the program . The program states that its goal is to “create an environment in which the full potential of the Gifted and Talented Learner is recognized, encouraged, and nurtured .”

Student participants in Gifted Services continue to be heavily White, of the middle and upper class, and native English speakers . Table 3 and Table 4 show the demographic breakdown of all gifted and talented students in the district . There is a relatively even distribution of boys and girls . However, students enrolled in ESOL, students enrolled in special education, and students eligible for FRPL are underrepresented within the gifted and talented group (Table 3) . Only 1 .7 percent of students enrolled in ESOL participate in Gifted Services, 3 .3 percent of students enrolled in special education, and 4 .1 percent of students eligible for FRPL . In contrast, 19 .2 percent of students in the district participate in gifted programs .

Table 3. Gifted and Talented Students in Rochester, by ESOL, Special Education, and FRPL Status

Number Percentage of Students in Program

ESOL 37 2%

Special Education 56 3%

FRPL 167 4%

All Gifted and Talented 3060 19%


As shown in Table 4, less than 5 percent of American Indian, Hispanic, and Black students participate in the gifted and talented program, while 17 .7 percent of Asian students and 23 percent of White students participate in the program .


41Table 4. Gifted and Talented Students in Rochester, by Ethnicity

Gifted and Talented Students Number Percentage of Students in ProgramAmerican Indian 0 0%Asian 251 18%Hispanic 38 4%Black 58 3%White 2713 23%All gifted and talented 3060 19%


Similarly, as shown in Table 5, Somali-, Spanish-, Cambodian/Khmer-, Vietnamese-, and Lao-speaking students are also underrepresented in the gifted and talented program, while English-speaking students are overrepresented .

Table 5. Gifted and Talented Students in Rochester, by Language of Origin

Gifted and Talented Students

Number Percentage of Students in Program

English 2804 22%

Somali 23 3%

Spanish 15 2%

Cambodian, Khmer 14 4%

Vietnamese 11 7%

Lao 9 6%

All gifted and talented 3060 19%


Adult advocacy—usually parent, sometimes teacher or counselor—is instrumental in gaining access to Gifted Services . Seventy-five percent of referrals come from parents, the greatest number in second grade; almost a third of referred students qualify for services, whether through standardized testing or a portfolio process . While the mechanisms differ at the high school level, with guidance counselor and teacher recommendations more common, enrollment in AP or honors classes in high school follows a similar pattern to GATE; the classes tend to be dominated by more privileged students than in the general population . These data raise a number of questions for reflection .

Are Gifted Services eligibility procedures resulting in an overrepresentation of White students •and native English speakers in the program?Is there something about the eligibility criteria that keeps qualified students of color, students •from low-income families, and students enrolled in ESOL from participating?Are non-White students deliberately not choosing Gifted Services for a particular reason?•If more students of color participate in Gifted Services, will this change the program’s identity •and will changes prove threatening to current participants?


42High school Mathematics . Research has clearly demonstrated that student participation in high school mathematics courses at the Algebra level and above is a very strong indicator of college attendance8 . In RPS, high school mathematics courses range from basic mathematics through AP calculus . We have divided the mathematics courses offered into two categories: pre-Algebra and basic mathematics, and honors, advanced, or AP mathematics .9 We looked at participation in mathematics classes by disability status, gender, FRPL status, race/ethnicity, and native language . Participation does not vary by gender, but it does vary by all the other categories .

As shown in Figure 26, 30 percent of all students taking pre-Algebra or basic mathematics in RPS high schools are students enrolled in special education, but students enrolled in special education make up only 1 percent of those taking advanced, honors, or AP mathematics . Thus, students enrolled in special education are underrepresented in advanced mathematics classes .

Figure 26. Percentage of Students in Pre-Algebra or Advanced Math, by Special Education Status


As shown in Figure 27, while students eligible for FRPL make up 18 percent of all students taking mathematics in RPS high schools, they are only 6 percent of students taking advanced mathematics, and 50 percent of students taking basic mathematics . Thus, they are underrepresented in advanced mathematics and overrepresented in basic mathematics .

8 Rose, H ., & Betts, J . R . (2001) . Math matters: The links between high school curriculum, college graduation, and earnings . San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California; Spielhagen, F . R . (2006) . Closing the achievement gap in math: The long-term effects of eighth-grade algebra . Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(1), 34–59 .

9 Honors/AP/Advanced courses: Algebra II Honors, Geometry Honors, Mathematical Analysis Honors, Mathematical Analysis, AP Calculus, Statistics, AP Statistics . Pre-Algebra/Basic Mathematics: Mathematical Connections, Standard Math I, Standard Math II, Standard Math III .


43Figure 27. Percentage of Students in Pre-Algebra or Advanced Math, by FRPL Status


As shown in Figure 28, similar patterns are found when looking at participation in mathematics classes by race/ethnicity . A lower percentage of American Indian students, Hispanic students, and Asian students take any math courses (54 .5 percent, 52 .4 percent, and 63 .2 percent respectively) than Asian American or White students (70 .6 percent and 76 .1 percent, respectively) . Of those, 50 percent of American Indian students are in pre-Algebra courses, and no American Indian students are in advanced mathematics courses . Similarly, 34 percent of Hispanic students and 37 percent of Black students are in basic mathematics courses, while only 16 percent and 15 percent, respectively, are enrolled in advanced mathematics . In contrast, 44 percent of Asian American and 46 percent of White students are enrolled in advanced mathematics . Thus, American Indian, Black, and Hispanic students are underrepresented in not just advanced courses but in all mathematics courses .

Figure 28. Percentage of Students in Pre-Algebra or Advanced Math, by Race/Ethnicity


As Figure 29 indicates, participation in advanced mathematics is even bleaker for students enrolled in ESOL . While they make up 9 percent of all students taking mathematics in high school, they are only 1 percent of those taking advanced mathematics, and 29 percent of those taking basic mathematics .


44Figure 29. Percentage of Students in Pre-Algebra or Advanced Math, by ESOL Status


As these figures indicate, students enrolled in ESOL, students eligible for FRPL, students enrolled in special education, and Black and Hispanic students are far more likely to take basic mathematics, while White and Asian students are far more likely to take advanced mathematics . While the reasons for these opportunity gaps are likely varied, they raise a number of questions:

What supports are in place for students in mathematics in the early grades?•What kind of mathematics supports are provided to students enrolled in ESOL •throughout all grades?How are decisions made about what math courses students should take upon entering •ninth grade?If there are different levels of mathematics at the middle school, what plans are in place •to have all students be ready for Algebra I by ninth grade?How are students guided at the high school level in terms of taking advanced mathematics?•Are there social barriers to taking certain mathematics classes for certain groups?•Are there scheduling issues for taking advanced mathematics for students who might be •participating in other programs, such as special education or ESOL?

Advanced Placement (AP) Courses . Enrollment patterns in AP courses are very similar to those in mathematics courses . As shown in Table 6, in the graduating class of 2007 girls were slightly more likely than boys to enroll in AP courses (53 percent were girls, 47 percent were boys), while students enrolled in ESOL, students enrolled in special education, and students eligible for FRPL were underrepresented . Only 3 .4 percent of students enrolled in ESOL took AP courses, 7 .3 percent of students with disabilities, and 4 .3 percent of those eligible for FRPL . In contrast, 31 .3 percent of all 12th graders took one or more AP courses .


45Table 6. Twelfth Grade Students Taking Advanced Placement, Class of 2007, By ESOL, Special Education, and FRPL Status

Number Percentage of Total Taking AP

ESOL 4 3.4%

Special education 4 7.3%

FRPL 15 4.3%

All students taking AP 424 31.3%


The patterns are similar for race, as shown in Table 7 . More than 35 percent of White students took AP courses, compared to 24 .1 percent of Asian students, 17 percent of Hispanic students, 6 .6 percent of Black students, and no American Indian students .

Table 7. Twelfth Grade Students Taking Advanced Placement, Class of 2007, By Race

Number Percentage of Total Taking AP

American Indian 0 0.0%

Asian 28 24.1%

Hispanic 8 17.0%

Black 8 6.6%

White 380 35.7%

All students taking AP 424 31.3%


Choice schools . Table 8 shows that, while the differences by race between choice and non-choice schools are not as extreme as in AP courses, math courses, or gifted and talented, there is a clear difference between them . We have separated Longfellow into its own category because of its unique characteristics (e .g ., boundary-restricted choice) . The non-choice elementary schools reflect the overall student population, with 10 percent Asian, 7 percent Hispanic, 12 percent Black, and 70 percent White . In contrast, the choice elementary schools have lower percentages of Hispanic students and Black students, and higher percentages of Asian students and White students . Longfellow is the exception to that, with higher than district averages of Hispanic students and Black students . Thus, while these numbers suggest that there is not segregation by race across the schools, there are differences in participation rates in choice schools which have the potential of leading to segregation .

Table 8. Percentage Race by School Type (Elementary Schools)

American Indian Asian Hispanic Black WhiteLongfellow 0% 5% 23% 28% 44%Other choice elementary 0% 13% 3% 5% 79%Non-choice elementary 0% 10% 7% 12% 70%All elementary students 0% 10% 7% 12% 70%



46RCtC CARe summer Bridge . Rochester Community Technical College (RCTC) and RPS have an agreement that allows eligible 11th and 12th graders to take courses for college credit at RCTC (Post-Secondary Enrollment Option, PSEO) . Students who enroll in PSEO as juniors and/or seniors are not typically the same students who later enroll at RCTC .

RCTC is the single most attended post-secondary institution by Rochester high school graduates . Almost 8,000 students are enrolled in RCTC; of those, 13 .1 percent are students of color . The student population is 63 percent female and 37 percent male . About 25 percent of all high school graduates attend RCTC after high school graduation . Nearly all (88 percent) of these students require developmental course work in mathematics . About 50 percent require developmental course work in English and 31 percent in Reading .

Through a financial agreement with RCTC, student enrollment in PSEO results in extra funding, of which 35 percent goes back to RPS, 35 percent goes to RCTC, and 30 percent is set aside in a “joint venture” account which is used by the Collaboration Among Rochester Educators (CARE) committee to support those students who transition from Rochester high schools to RCTC . The goal is to reduce the percent of students who require development course work upon entrance to RCTC .

The CARE Summer Bridge Program is offered free to all RPS graduates who will be attending RCTC . It includes remedial courses, tutoring and supplemental instruction, small class sizes, all required textbooks for the summer courses, an introduction to the RCTC campus, campus orientation activities, and tuition and fees for courses . The program offers four courses: Developmental Reading, Basic Grammar and Usage, Introduction to College Writing, and Elementary Algebra . While the courses do not count towards graduation at RCTC, students who are placed in these courses based on placement tests must complete them to advance to college-level coursework . In its first year, students who participated in Summer Bridge had better passing and retention rates than the general RCTC population . This program appears to be providing an important opportunity to RPS students to prepare them to succeed in college . It would be useful to know, however, how many students of color, students who receive FRPL, students whose first language is other than English, and students with disabilities are served by the program . At the time this report went to press, it was not possible to obtain this data .

Learning SupportWe found that one of the district’s major challenges is to make sure that students are not kept in learning support programs for reasons other than their specific academic needs . As noted in the pages that follow, certain categories of disabilities are overrepresented by students of color, and many students stay in ESOL classes for more than four years . Our findings also revealed that there is uneven learning support for struggling students across schools and grade levels and many students cannot obtain the support they need to succeed in school .

special education . Table 9 and Table 10 look at disproportionality by race/ethnicity in specific disability categories and in the educational setting .10 Table 9 shows that White students are more likely than students of other races/ethnicities to be identified as autistic or having other health disabilities . A disproportionate number of Black students are identified with cognitive disorders (both mild to moderate and severe to profound), with emotional behavioral disorders, with physical disabilities, with specific learning disabilities, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment . They are also disproportionately found in early childhood special education . Hispanic students are disproportionately identified in specific learning disabilities and early childhood special education . Overall, Black students are disproportionately identified with any kind of disability; while they are 11 percent of all students in the district, they are 15 percent of all students with disabilities .

10 Disaggregated data was not available by ESOL status or socioeconomic status .


47Table 9. Primary Disability by Race/Ethnicity

Primary Disability American Indian Asian Hispanic Black White All

students

Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) 0% 3% 1% 3% 10% 8%DCD-MM 11% 9% 6% 7% 5% 6%DCD-SP 0% 5% 2% 6% 4% 4%Early Childhood Special Education 0% 11% 15% 8% 7% 8%Emotional/Behavior Disorders 28% 7% 13% 28% 15% 17%Specific Learning Disabilities 28% 33% 31% 25% 21% 23%Other disability category 33% 32% 31% 23% 38% 35%Total* 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 101%*Totals not always equal to 100 because of rounding.

Source: Rochester Department of Student Support Services .

Table 10 shows the proportion of students in different educational settings by race/ethnicity . A higher proportion of American Indian students, Hispanic students, and Black students are found in the most restrictive setting as compared to White students and Asian students .

Table 10. Classroom Setting by Race/Ethnicity

American Indian Asian Hispanic Black White Total

Setting 1: Sped less than 21% of the day 67% 64% 72% 63% 72% 70%Setting 2: Sped 21%–60% of the day 14% 25% 20% 21% 14% 17%Setting 3: Sped more than 60% of the day 14% 11% 4% 11% 12% 11%Setting 4: Public Separate Facility 5% 0% 3% 5% 2% 2%Total 28% 6% 12% 15% 10% 11%

Source: Rochester Department of Student Support Services

This disaggregated data raises questions about the process by which students are identified with disabilities, especially in those categories with notable disparities . It also raises questions about the selection of settings .

Innovative Approaches: Efforts to Address Special Education Issues

The RPS Department of Student Support Services has been focusing on reducing the disproportionate representation of students of color in special education programs. It has developed a comprehensive plan to address the issue and, among other activities, has enrolled the school district in the African American Pre-referral Training Project sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Education. Four schools were to begin training this school year: Franklin, Gage, Sunset Terrace, and Bamber Valley. The eight-module course covers such topics as cultural awareness, culturally responsive assessment and pedagogy, and pre-referral practices. The department has also promoted the adoption of positive behavior interventions and supports throughout the school district with the intention of reducing office referrals that might result in inappropriate referrals for special education assessments particularly of students of color and students whose first language is other than English. The Department has also partnered with the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in designing a Response to Intervention model to guide those academic interventions students might receive prior to referral for special education evaluation. Finally, the Department is promoting more co-teaching and other strategies to increase inclusive practices throughout the school district.


48esoL Programs . Rochester, like many other communities across the U .S ., has experienced, and is expected to continue to experience, an influx of refugee and immigrant populations into its community . The numbers of students attending Rochester schools whose first language is other than English has risen steadily over the last 10 years . Students enrolled in ESOL now make up more than 13 percent of all students in Rochester schools . RPS provides ESOL programs to students from early childhood education through 12th grade . The majority of students—67 percent—enrolls in ESOL programs for 1 to 4 years and then transitions into mainstream classes . However, 23 percent of students are in ESOL programs for more than 5 years, and 7 percent of ESOL students have been in programs for more than 7 years . Table 11 shows the current number of students enrolled in ESOL, by grade and years in ESOL programs .

Table 11. Current Students Enrolled in ESOL, by Grade and Years in ESOL Programs

Grade/Years in ESOL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TotalECE 1 1am K 43 1 44pm K 60 0 60all-day K 100 2 1021 22 143 41 2062 21 23 175 9 2283 11 18 19 130 6 7 1914 17 10 14 14 66 52 2 1755 12 9 8 11 17 53 49 5 1646 12 15 14 14 23 15 37 40 4 1747 13 4 6 10 18 12 19 29 34 1458 39 28 11 14 9 17 14 23 28 1839 15 33 9 11 14 14 15 15 48 17410 2 6 12 17 13 13 13 9 27 11211 7 6 5 9 13 8 5 7 22 8212 0 3 5 4 7 11 10 5 21 66Total 375 301 319 243 186 202 164 133 184 2107


For some students, staying in the ESOL program allows them to continue to receive much needed essential language development support, but for others, it appears that remaining in ESOL programs does not help them continue to learn English or to meet academic standards in the content areas . While language development research indicates that it takes from 5 to 7 years to acquire academic English, data presented in the prior section of this report show that students who remain in ESOL programs for 5 or more years have lower average scores on the MCA-II than do students who have been in ESOL programs for only 2 to 4 years . Since students remain in ESOL programs precisely because they do not meet the ESOL exit criteria, including MCA-II scores among other measures, it becomes imperative to determine why these students are not progressing at a faster rate . For example: Did the student have no prior formal schooling or did the student experience interrupted schooling and, therefore, needs more time to catch up? Does the student need extra support and, if so, what kinds of support? Are there other factors such as post-traumatic stress or other emotional factors that need to be addressed? Is there a disability that has gone undiagnosed?

We also looked at former students enrolled in ESOL who have exited the ESOL program . Table 12 shows the breakdown of these students by grade and by years spent in ESOL . Of the 468 students who have exited, only 42 exited after one year, and 162 after 2 to 4 years . More than 50 percent of former students enrolled in ESOL spent 5 or more years in the program .


49Table 12. Former ESOL Students, by Grade and Years Spent in ESOL Before Exiting

Years spent in ESOL

Grade 1 2–4 5+ Total1 2 22 2 23 3 8 114 1 11 5 175 5 19 9 336 5 14 25 447 4 18 27 498 4 10 27 419 4 19 47 7010 4 25 38 6711 6 21 37 6412 2 17 49 68Total 42 162 264 468


Some high school students and teachers shared the perception that students enrolled in ESOL remain isolated from other students and that it is difficult to exit from ESOL classes . At a school board meeting in November, a number of parents and students raised the issue of isolation among students enrolled in ESOL . In one interview at a Rochester high school, a student explained that although Somali youth enjoy soccer, they do not tend to play in any of the sports because they are so separated . The formal class separation leaks over to the social sphere .

ESOL program leadership is aware of the need to provide individualized attention to those students who, for whatever reason, are struggling in school and have not met the criteria to exit the ESOL program even after 5 years . Initiatives have already begun to focus on this group’s literacy needs and to see if other programs in addition to ESOL will help them progress more rapidly . The district’s new initiative to provide alternative literacy options should be helpful in addressing the needs of those students who do not follow the standard development pattern . At the same time, ESOL leadership recognizes that some of these learning difficulties may be due to other non-academic factors and is looking to engage community resources to help address these non-academic needs of many of the ESOL students .

In addition, ESOL teachers have been receiving and continue to receive professional development in instructional strategies that have been proven effective with ESOL students . The challenge at this time is twofold . The first challenge is to ensure that these strategies are implemented with fidelity and rigor across the district . The second challenge is to begin to prepare all teachers with the strategies they can use in regular education classrooms that will enable ESOL students to participate in them and gain the full benefits of instruction in the content areas with their English-speaking peers .

newcomer Centers . Since 1985, the ESOL program has provided administrative oversight to five levels of RPS Newcomer Centers—K–Grade 1, Grades 2–3, Grades 4–5, Middle School, and Secondary School—that address the developmental stage and educational status of newcomer students whose first language is other than English . Indeed, sixty-five different languages are represented among those spoken by children enrolled in RPS . Students from language groups that are highly prevalent in Rochester (e .g ., Somali, Hmong, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Arabic, Bosnian) have interpreters to work with them in math .


50The amount of time children spend in Newcomer Centers varies by age and the grade to which they are assigned . If children have prior literacy training in their native language, they spend less than a year in the newcomer center, participating in an intensive English immersion program before they are moved into regular classrooms . Children in the elementary grades spend about half of the academic year in Newcomer Centers . The entire day is spent learning English—initial English instruction focuses on “survival” language (i .e ., words and phrases such as “I need,” “I like,” and “I want”)—and literacy training that consists of heavy doses of phonemic awareness as well as other associated early literacy skills (e .g ., alphabet knowledge, basic sounds) . Students also receive what is called “an introduction to the culture of schools” that gives them a sense of how schools operate, explains expectations, and helps them navigate their way through the school day .

However, a large percentage of newcomer students enter the school system with interrupted schooling and, often, traumatic refugee experiences . Many older children, particularly those who were refugees from war-torn countries, come to school with no prior formal education . These and other children who have had no schooling prior to enrollment in Rochester can remain in Newcomer Centers for up to a maximum of 1 .5 years . After this point, they are integrated into the middle school or high school depending on their age . As the student progresses to the second and third year of high school, the number of hours devoted to ESOL might be decreased from 3 to 2 to 1 each year . Additional support in English and other academic subjects is available through after-school tutoring programs . However, after a year at the Newcomer Center, high school aged-students on average have acquired English reading skills only at about the second grade level . Many of these students, but especially those who arrive with limited formal education from their home country, are unable to progress quickly enough to complete a high school education before reaching the maximum age as indicated by state law . Students who reach the age of 21 are then directed to adult education because RPS can no longer receive state support for educating them .

As the ESOL data suggest, many students enrolled in Newcomer Centers are not doing well in school compared to their peers . For example, one student mentioned that she was concerned that students enrolled in ESOL were graduating from high school having passed only the minimum assessment requirements (Minnesota is currently changing its graduation requirements) .

The achievement gap evidenced in the assessment results of these children suggests that RPS may want to undertake a systematic review of the program’s goals and approaches and the fidelity with which instructional models are being implemented . It is possible that different models, methods, and expectations might be needed depending on the age and the number of years the child is likely to be in the district .

Uneven support for struggling students . We found that academic support for students is uneven across student groups, across grades, and across schools . For example, high schools differ in their portfolio of support for struggling students and in the range of challenging courses for students with advanced skills . The three high schools have the same curriculum with a variety of courses and electives . However, as noted in the section on curriculum, not all students have access to these opportunities and this curriculum can look very different depending on the school . For example, because some schools have to offer more remedial classes to their students, they lack the resources to offer the full range of electives offered at the other high schools . At one high school where there are many AP and honors courses the support for struggling students is not as robust . One teacher at this school commented that there was not enough support for students who needed additional help with their coursework .

At all levels (i .e ., elementary, middle, and high school), there are inadequate resources to meet the educational needs of children from low-income families . Because of federal and/or state regulations,


51some schools do not qualify for Title I funding because they lack the required percentage of students from low-income families . Other schools who qualify for target or school-wide Title I funding may receive no Title I funds, or reduced funds, because of decisions regarding allocation of Title I funding from the district level . While all schools enroll children from low-income families, not all schools have access to the range of resources available in school-wide Title I sites because funding guidelines restrict how funds can be allocated . As a result, children who move or are reassigned from schools with significant Title I and/or compensatory resources to schools with minimal resources might no longer have access to the same levels of staffing provided for intensive instruction, to extended day learning opportunities, or to summer programs that were available at their previous schools .

After-school Academies . The goal of RPS’s After-School Academies is to enhance the instruction offered during the school day and to reinforce learning objectives through re-teaching, pre-teaching, guided reading, math facts, software interventions, and enhancement opportunities . The majority of the district’s After-School Academies are offered from 3:30 – 5:30 p .m . Monday through Thursday for 88 days during the school year; some of the programs also offer enrichment opportunities on Fridays . In most cases, these programs are staffed by regular classroom teachers .

Teachers recommend students for inclusion in After-School Academies—basing their selections on their knowledge of their students and test results (e .g ., assessments, Stanford results from the prior year,11 MCA results) . The school’s site team, After-School Academy Administrator, and school principal take teachers’ recommendations under advisement and decide whether or not to proffer invitations to participate in the program to students and their families . In some cases, a site team might determine that the student under consideration could not handle an additional two hours of school each day . In other instances, parents might refuse the invitation . If a student who has been selected to participate in the After-School Academy does not take part, daytime interventions are utilized to make sure the student is getting additional support .

Despite efforts to meet students’ needs for support, the After-School Academies struggle to meet the demand for their services . Staff/student ratios are dictated by funding source

and amounts—funding is primarily derived from Title I monies12 occasionally supplemented by other funding streams (e .g ., Twenty-First Century grants)—and there is a waiting list for participation in the Academies (approximately 10 to 15 students per site at the time of the study) . Currently, as shown in Tables 13–15, the Academies are only able to serve very small percentages of the elementary and middle school population as a whole, of students with disabilities, and of students enrolled in ESOL . Table 13. Number of Students in After-School Academies

Total % of Total School Population

Elementary 498 7.06%

Middle 271 7.80%

Total 769 7.30%


11 The Stanford timeline is such that Title I sites cannot use a fall score to identify After-School Academy students .12 Title I is a federal grant program designed to support educationally disadvantaged students through academic support and stronger

assessment and accountability requirements .


52Table 14. Number of Students with Disabilities in After-School Academies

Total % of All Students with Disabilities

Elementary 84 1.19%

Middle 37 1.06%

Total 121 1.15%


Table 15. Number of Students Enrolled in ESOL in After-School Academies

Total % of All Students Enrolled in ESOL

Elementary 231 3.28%

Middle 141 4.06%

Total 372 3.53%


In addition to being limited in the number of students they can serve, After-School Academies have two challenges: (1) ensuring that all of the program elements required by the funding source are evident in each Academy; and (2) measuring the efficacy of the overall program . The last time RPS evaluated this program, data showed that some students benefited and some students did not . It is important to note that, at the time of the study, the district was piloting other intervention options, including the use of computer software programs .

Enrichment OpportunitiesParticipants in focus groups expressed a belief that the academic difficulties that undergird achievement gaps are due, in part, to insufficient opportunity to learn . School administrators noted that “…kids can do it, but they haven’t had the opportunity and have not been taught some of the things we expect them to know .” School administrators also expressed the opinion that extracurricular programs are key to compensating for this lack of opportunity . At the same time, they noted that all such programs were cut out 8 years ago . Community Education has tried to fill the gap, such as Rochester Youth Sports .

A community partner described opportunity gaps in the broader Rochester community as a “pretty large chasm between the haves and have-nots [for] out-of-class experiences like community events, athletics, and music .” This same partner argued that children need “a sense of belonging, social networks, confidence with their diversity in varied settings; there is an exposure gap many kids confront .” Another interviewee described that not enough is done to encourage all students to participate in extracurricular activities . In this section, we look at two enrichment opportunities in Rochester: mentor/internship programs and after-school programs .

Mentors/Internships . The Boys and Girls Club, the United Way, YMCA, and other community partners were cited by some Rochester educators as contributors to the growth and social networking of students . Some elementary schools have volunteers from community groups come into the schools for one-on-one reading with children . While strong partnerships exist, especially at individual schools, many participants expressed a need to increase mentoring and internship opportunities, especially for less privileged students . Representatives from both the Mayo Clinic and IBM expressed a desire to share their expertise in developing talent and working with diverse teams . Currently, students in gifted services and others in


53honors classes are the high school students most likely to have Mayo Clinic mentors . One parent said that in a Rotary Club-sponsored mentor program there were “just two kids of color .” According to another community partner, career exploration stands apart from the curriculum, relegated to career days and over-extended counselors . Parents and students echoed a desire for more ongoing and integrated career-related experiences at the secondary level . Some high school students also communicated a desire to learn about fields outside health care and technology .

After-school enrichment Programs . Other after-school programs include cultural activities, music, athletics, clubs, and a range of additional social activities . Some schools have been fortunate to have community partners to assist in running the social and recreational components of after-school programs . While high school students identified these after-school opportunities as providing the most personally relevant and engaging experiences, participants are predominantly White and middle-class students . It was not possible, in the time period of this study, to collect information about participation rates in all of these activities . However, given comments from students, parents, and community members as to the importance of these activities, further exploration of the nature of the activities, the accessibility of the activities, and participation rates of different student groups in these activities, is recommended .

Barriers to Equitable Access to Support and EnrichmentQualitative research revealed several significant barriers to equitable participation in these programs including transportation challenges, hidden costs, prerequisites, and lack communication and outreach .

transportation Challenges . We found that a lack of transportation limits students’ participation in after-school programs, whether enrichment or special support . RPS has an annual transportation budget of $8 .5 million . This budget covers transportation to and from school (including noon kindergarten and special education needs), field trips, athletics, late activities, and other programs . Morning and afternoon transportation is provided for K–5 students who live more than 1 .25 miles from school, Grade 6–8 students who live more than 1 .5 miles from school, and Grade 9–12 students who live more than two miles from school .

The city also offers public transportation, but the routes and schedules are not conducive to meeting the needs of students and/or parents who wish to participate in after-school or weekend learning opportunities, meetings, sports, and/or cultural events . Bus routes are primarily along the main routes (e .g ., Broadway, Highway 52, 12th Street SW, 37th Street NW, and 55th Street NW) and do not extend into neighborhoods . While there might be upwards of 30 buses running during the day, only 5 buses operate after 6:45 p .m ., and all bus service ends at approximately 10:00 p .m . Saturday service is limited and there is no service on Sundays . Therefore, if families who do not have access to a car or alternative means of transportation are not able to take advantage of the multiple opportunities for learning, enrichment, and social networking that RPS and the broader Rochester community offer .

At the school level, teachers and administrators have recognized that the transportation limitations mean that some students cannot participate in after-school activities, and that some parents have limited ability to participate in school functions during school, after school, or in the evenings . In our visits to schools, we found that individual schools have worked hard to address this challenge by taking the following actions:

Making multiple phone calls to families to share information and find out about their •transportation needsProviding teacher substitutes so that teachers can meet with parents whenever parents are able •to get to school, rather than being limited by the teachers’ schedulesCooperating with nearby non-public schools for student transportation•


54While these efforts improved parent participation at the schools where they have been implemented, transportation challenges persist at the district level . Many students cannot participate in after-school activities, and many parents cannot be actively involved in their children’s school due to lack of transportation .

Hidden Costs . We identified expense as a factor that limited students’ participation in after-school enrichment activities . For example, sports and music both require family investments . A parent explained that “bands are pretty White—children from low SES families do not have opportunities for music lessons .” Because most athletic activities are run by the community, rather than by the school district, there are registration and equipment fees associated with participation . Efforts have been made at the school and individual levels to make enrichment activities financially accessible to all families . For example, one school developed a partnership with Best Buy Company to provide financial support for extracurricular activities and special events at the school . A number of the athletic programs have offered scholarships, but they were rarely full scholarships and did not address the transportation limitations described above . One teacher described helping a student gain access to a scholarship to participate in the community basketball program, but the scholarship only covered half of the $300 cost; the student had to provide the other $150 as well as take care of transportation . Still, these efforts do not resolve the larger issue that certain enrichment activities—especially music and athletics—come with costs that limit participation by students from low-income families .

Prerequisites . We found that students cannot participate in many academic and extracurricular activities because they did not take part in the activities in earlier grades . For example, if students do not begin their study of music in the elementary grades, they cannot continue in high school . One parent noted about music, “You have to start at elementary school for music, but it is $300 to rent the instrument .” Particularly in the cases of athletics and the performing arts, lack of participation in earlier grades creates a skills and experience gap that is difficult for students to overcome in later grades . Similarly, early participation in Gifted Services tends to lead to enrollment in more advanced mathematics classes, honors classes, and eventually AP classes . As one student noted: “As we go up in grades, the more segregated it becomes” both in curriculum (Gifted Services, honors) and enrichment (music) .

Lack of Communication and outreach . A number of parents reported that word-of-mouth, often through neighborhood or social networks, is the operative form of communication about opportunities in the school district . Some reported a perception that “you need to know someone” for the best treatment . As noted earlier, teacher union representatives mentioned that early childhood education primarily benefits families “in the know,” that this is also true of extracurricular activities, and that improved outreach to Hispanic and other parents of color is needed to communicate, for example, the importance and availability of early childhood education .

School choice is another instructive and concrete example to illustrate the challenges of communication and outreach . The lack of a centralized timeline and procedure for school choice—each school can determine its own lottery date—reinforces the need for parents to exert extra efforts to make informed selections . The district Web site, a potential resource, is difficult to navigate, even to find specific and basic questions about the process for applying to a choice school . Some choice schools reported that they were trying to reach a population that fully reflected the larger district community; others remained more White and middle class than the district as a whole and did not seem to focus on diversifying their student body . Regardless, the responsibility for any such outreach currently rests at the school, and not the district, level and thus varies considerably from school to school .


55summary of FindingsWe found that despite its many excellent initiatives, RPS has many opportunities to change its systems and practices to assure that all of its students have equitable access to gateway programs, learning support, and enrichment activities . Findings revealed that the majority of participants in portal programs are White and affluent, that members of statistically underrepresented groups swell the ranks of students who receive special education services, and that the systems used to identify and enroll students in these programs should be reassessed . We found strong indications that the district’s ESOL and newcomer programs would benefit from new approaches to working with students and, particularly in the case of newcomer students, preparing them for higher education and life outside of school . In many instances, district-wide approaches and leadership at the district level are needed to address these issues, to assure equity in the quality and availability of learning support provided to students, to take advantage of opportunities to engage the community in enrichment activities such as mentoring programs, and to dismantle barriers that impede students from accessing enrichment activities .


56ConCLUsIon

A Collaborative Framework for Reducing Achievement and opportunity Gaps in the Rochester Public schools

Interviews with school, district, and community leaders indicate that the challenges of closing achievement and opportunity gaps are well understood . Indeed, the commissioning of this very study demonstrates that the school district’s leaders realize that Rochester’s enviable reputation as a flagship school district is more reflective of past achievements than current ones . Chamber of Commerce, Mayo Clinic, IBM, and other organizational leaders with whom we have spoken welcomed this study, recognizing that the community’s demographic changes require a re-imaging of traditional roles, relationships, and responsibilities and that the inevitable change of demographics must be viewed as an opportunity rather than a problem . Boys and Girls Club, Rochester Education Association, Rochester Community and Technical College, Diversity Council, and PTA leaders, too, expressed a profound awareness of the need to re-structure outreach and communication strategies, to form new alliances between the schools and other family and community support agencies, and to take strategic action to close achievement and opportunity gaps .

The magnitude and importance of this task will require support and involvement from multiple stakeholders . Ensuring the success and academic achievement of all Rochester children and youth will require a strong partnership among RPS families, schools—including school board and all staff–and the community at large (e .g ., political, business and industry, human service leaders) . Each of these stakeholder groups has unique and important contributions to make to children’s academic and post-school outcomes . The recommendations outlined on the next few pages are targeted to help RPS engage and better serve families, involve and partner with the community, and strengthen the educational system to enhance the quality of an RPS education for all .

Families

Families play a critical role in enhancing children’s school success—from supporting their physical and socio-emotional well being to serving as children’s first teachers . Central to the care they provide is an involvement with their children through rich language interactions, guidance, and manifestations of interest in the child’s life at school . While parents are especially important in the early preschool years, as they help lay the foundation for language and literacy, their involvement remains critical throughout a child’s education . As the child matures, parents’ role transforms into one of support, encouragement, and motivation .

Rochester Public Schools’ families are eager to be involved in their children’s educational experiences and to lend their support to the school district’s efforts to close achievement and opportunity gaps . This is an extremely important resource for the school district and its schools to tap . The following recommendations highlight this potential resource and suggest ways to better serve families .


57Recommendations to engage and Better serve Families1 . Form a task force that includes parents from diverse backgrounds to review current student and

family communication and information dissemination strategies such as the Web site and Agile .2 . Engage families that are members of culturally and linguistically diverse groups in identifying

ways to:share information about their children’s lives, experiences, and needs•improve the school environment for all students, and•strengthen home-school collaborations .•

3 . Expand information campaigns about available programs, services, and supports to reach families who are known to have difficulty obtaining information .

4 . Foster intercultural dialogue to reduce discomfort in intercultural settings and sponsor meetings that bring together culturally diverse segments of the Rochester community such as those that were organized as part of this study .

5 . Develop a continuous improvement plan for increasing family engagement, with measurable goals, activities, and periodic assessment and revision .

the Community

The job of enhancing the academic growth of all students and reducing the achievement gap is not one that schools can accomplish without the support of the wider community . The community can become a strong partner for schools by volunteering, fund raising, and offering enrichment and mentoring experiences for students . In addition, the challenge of children’s movement from school to school is most often a problem of finances and housing . These are issues that are beyond the control of the school but can be addressed by communities . Studying and solving the problems of high frequency residential mobility by families who are struggling to survive—living in poverty or who are of low income—can contribute significantly to the impact of schools in reducing achievement gaps . Community support services—including health and mental health programs designed to improve the well-being of families living in poverty or who are of low income—are also essential to children’s academic achievement and school success .

The Rochester community’s high level of interest and investment in its schools is a significant strength upon which RPS leaders can draw as they take steps to close achievement and opportunity gaps . The following recommendations provide some strategies that could serve to deepen the community’s involvement in the schools and lead to improved student outcomes .

Recommendations to Partner with and Involve the Community6 . Form a school-community working group to identify and coordinate school and community

enrichment and support opportunities . Give the group the mission to address the following questions:

Are enrichment and support opportunities serving students who are in most need of extra support?•Are current enrichment and support opportunities effective in reducing achievement •and opportunity gaps?How can schools and the community expand transportation availability and address cost •issues to assure that all students can access enrichment and support opportunities?

7 . Collaborate with community service agencies and organizations to align the goals of the school district with opportunities for all children, synchronize program registrations, and expand enrichment and support options .

8 . Propose an active agenda to the business community of ways it can help (e .g ., volunteering in schools, sponsoring mentoring programs, funding early childhood programs, initiating work-coop programs) .


589 . Create opportunities for mutual learning between the RPS and community agencies that are

showing successes in reaching out to diverse families . What can the school district learn from them? How can they cooperate to provide better, focused services for their mutual clientele?

10 . Involve the community at large in reviewing school district performance goals, benchmarks, and accountability measures for: producing favorable academic and post-school outcomes for all students; making progress in reducing achievement and those opportunity gaps that are clearly under its control; and demonstrating a sense of urgency in implementing strategies that are intended to address the achievement and opportunity gaps .

schools

Public schools have a mandate to teach all who come through their doors . Effective administrative leadership, a solid instructional foundation, knowledgeable and caring staff, and equitable access to resources for support and enrichment help schools meet this mandate . Effective leadership and teaching are especially vital, and both rely upon a clear, concerted focus on excellence for all students and an emphasis on building on, reflecting, and according a place of value to students’ culture and experiences at home . To be successful, schools must adhere to the belief that all children can learn and do well in school and ensure that practices support this belief . Relationships, particularly between teachers and children, are critical . They are most effective when they are characterized by high levels of emotional warmth and personal acceptance . To ensure the highest possible levels of academic achievement for all students, schools must also establish strong working relationships and partnerships with families and the community .

RPS possesses many of the qualities that make public schools effective . The district has dedicated and talented leaders and staff who genuinely care about students and demonstrate a willingness to recognize and tackle challenges, an interest in working with families, and a spirit of innovation that has led to promising efforts to address gaps . The following recommendations are designed to build upon this strong foundation and to leverage existing assets into a multi-faceted effort to strengthen the educational system for all . To implement these recommendations, the school district must affirm and act on the principle that achieving equality might require treating people differently .

Recommendations to strengthen the RPs educational systemContinually Evaluate and Refine the Instructional Program11 . Examine the efficacy of instructional approaches to math and reading currently being used and

develop a plan to build on demonstrated strengths and address identified deficits, including eliminating those that are not producing desired outcomes .

12 . Integrate formative assessment into teaching and learning so that adjustments in instruction are immediate and effective .

13 . Ensure that assessment and instruction are aligned to meet state standards across all grades .14 . Eliminate low level courses and tracking, using the resources normally devoted to these courses

to support students, organize or use time differently, and investigate different course delivery models to help students succeed .


59Establish a Foundation in Children for Lifelong Learning15 . Increase access to high quality pre-K, extended day, and full-day kindergarten to children at risk

of school difficulties .16 . Build on the early childhood public-private partnerships that already exist to increase access to

early childhood services provided outside of, but in coordination with, schools .17 . Prioritize the dissemination of information about early childhood and kindergarten services and

registration deadlines to newcomer and low-income communities .18 . Strengthen the skills of classroom teachers to provide comprehensive intensive reading

instruction in Grades 1–5 .

Enhance the School Social Climate for All Students19 . Engage all students and staff at all levels and positions in addressing key issues of cultural

competence including:acceptance and affirmation of diversity•reduction of feelings of invisibility and social isolation among members of culturally and •linguistically diverse groupspromotion of positive social identities for students from culturally and linguistically •diverse backgrounds .

20 . Learn from and replicate the successes some schools have had with students from low-income families, students of color, newcomer students, students whose first language is other than English, and students with disabilities .

21 . Engage students in implementing new traditions and different kinds of events that might appeal to the broader school community and that respect all traditions, including mainstream ones, so as not to create an “us vs . them” mentality .

22 . Intensify recruitment efforts to make the RPS administrative, teaching, and support staffs reflect the changing community and composition of the student population . As part of the recruitment effort, partner with the higher education to support the preparation of staff of color as teachers and create career ladders that start with paraprofessional status and allow staff to move up .

23 . Recruit and deploy a culturally diverse corps of mentors from the Rochester community to tutor and serve as role models of effective adult functioning and achievement .

Expand Access to Enrichment and Support for Students24 . Review and revise resource allocations to schools to ensure they are able to meet the needs of

diverse learners .25 . Provide more intensive and appropriate support to allow students to recover and accelerate

academically .26 . Increase out-of-school time program options: before-school, after-school, and between-session

programs, and expand extended year offerings .27 . Develop internships and cooperative work programs for secondary level students to increase

their post-graduation options, especially for those who, in spite of encouragement, are not intending to pursue a college degree .

28 . Review and modify criteria and application processes for portal and opportunity enhancing courses/programs to ensure fairness and transparency in the process while maintaining standards of excellence .

29 . Set goals for underrepresented group participation in Gifted Services and Advanced Placement courses . Identify steps needed to reach those goals .

30 . Research and/or design talent development programs that recognize, support, and capitalize on a range of talents .

31 . Increase effective use of classroom-based differentiated instructional approaches .32 . Adopt and expand student leadership programs that have been successful for underserved students .


60Strengthen ESOL and Newcomer Programs and Policies33 . Review and evaluate the goals of the ESOL program with teachers, students, parents, and the

wider community . Evaluate the current ESOL program in light of the agreed-upon goals and make the appropriate programmatic and instructional adjustments .

34 . Continue to intensify the provision of professional development on research-based programs and proven effective instructional strategies that best meet the diverse needs of ESOL students at all levels in acquiring English as a second language, the academic English needed to access content instruction, and subject area content .

35 . Design a range of flexible support strategies and approaches, such as age differentiated strategies, for ESOL and newcomer students to better meet the variety of characteristics and needs that these students present (e .g ., no formal education, interrupted schooling, prior academic performance in their country of origin, age at which they enter the RPS system) .

36 . Continuously monitor students’ progress in relation to the length of time they are in the ESOL program to determine what additional language supports a student may need or whether there are other factors at play that call for additional non-academic services .

37 . Review and evaluate the criteria for transitioning students from ESOL and newcomer programs into the general education program; examine the skills students possess at transition and their post-transition experiences to inform the development of exit criteria .

38 . Intensify efforts to connect ESOL students with the regular education student body and create a reciprocal integration of all students in school wide activities .

39 . Provide ongoing professional development opportunities for ESOL teachers as well as regular education teachers .

Strengthen Special Education Programs and Policies40 . Make certain that students who are identified as needing special education services are not kept

in special education programs longer than needed .41 . Continuously monitor the length of the transition period from special education programs

into the general education program, the skills students possess at the transition, and their post-transition experiences .

42 . Carefully review the structure of the school day for students enrolled in special education who are involved in pull-out activities . Expand inclusive practices, utilizing co-teaching and push-in models where possible .

43 . Continue district-level work on special education issues including expanding inclusive practices, enhancing rigor of curriculum and quality of instruction in special settings, and reducing disproportionality .

Invest in Building Staff Capacity44 . Ensure that site-based professional development is aligned with and supports district direction

and priorities while providing embedded opportunities to tailor implementation to the unique characteristics and needs of school sites .

45 . Protect time allotted for teacher planning and teacher-to-teacher collaboration, and ensure that it is used for collaborative problem-solving, learning, and strategizing .

46 . Intensify and systematize the kind of professional development that encourages open discussions about racism, ethnocentrism, and the implicit biases we all have . Ensure that this professional development includes teacher collaboration on practical strategies they can use to reduce achievement gaps . Focus on building teachers’ and administrators’ understanding of how to build and support a culturally competent educational system, including individual skills that promote high expectations and culturally responsive teaching practices .

47 . Explore new ways to use exemplary teachers to assist selected schools in reducing achievement and opportunity gaps .


6148 . For struggling schools, assure that they have Rochester’s most highly-skilled teachers who

are qualified to teach the content that students are expected to learn and administrators who exhibit research-based characteristics of successful school principals .

The goal of reducing achievement and opportunity gaps in RPS is achievable and ethically the right thing to do . As is evident by this study’s findings, it is also extraordinarily challenging and will require a multi-dimensional, multi-year effort, as well as strategic utilization of school district and community resources . As such, it will necessitate the sustained attention and commitment of school district, community, organizational, and political leaders and the active participation of students and their families . The school district and community have considerable resources, including widespread commitment and good will . With persistence and creativity, the school district will be able to meet its chartered and historically successful responsibility to all of the community’s children and families, and, thus, contribute positively to the continued vibrancy and attractiveness of the Rochester area .


62APPenDIX A

oRGAnIzAtIonAL PRoFILe

education Development Center, Inc .

Education Development Center, Inc . (EDC) is an international, nonprofit organization that conducts and applies research to advance learning and promote health . EDC currently manages 325 projects in 50 countries . EDC’s award-winning programs and products, developed in collaboration with partners around the globe, address nearly every critical need in society, including early child development, K–12 education, health promotion, workforce preparation, community development, learning technologies, basic and adult education, institutional reform, medical ethics, and social justice . EDC has more than 650 U .S .-based staff from a wide range of disciplines . Many of its projects are conducted in collaboration with other organizations (both nonprofit and for-profit), institutions of higher education, community agencies, and business partners .

Since its founding in 1958, EDC has worked on the frontiers of educational research and development, contributing to knowledge about effective learning, teaching, organizational development, and systemic change . For five decades, EDC has engaged in curriculum development, professional development, leadership and policy development, organizational change, research, and resource dissemination . The heart of its work is building bridges between research and practice in schools and other educational settings .

Through its many projects, EDC has worked with hundreds of schools in dozens of school districts in urban, suburban, and rural settings across the country . EDC’s expertise spans preschool through high school education, and includes work in school reform and restructuring, school climate and safety, assessment, adolescent and early literacy, special education, English language learners, family engagement, and curriculum implementation .


63APPenDIX B

Rochester Public schools Internal Core team

Kathy Accurso, Ed .S . Supervisor of Student Support Services

Timothy Alexander, Ed .S . Director of Human Resources

Sheri Allen, Ed .S . Director of Elementary and Secondary Education

Chuck Briscoe, Ed .S . Century High School Principal

Romain Dallemand, Ed .D . Superintendent

Susanne Griffin-Ziebart, Ed .S . Ben Franklin Elementary / Montessori @ Franklin Principal

Paul Gustafson, Ph .D . Coordinator of Research and Assessment

Richard Jones, Ed .D . John Adams Middle School Principal

Cory McIntyre, MEd Director of Student Support Services

Randy Nelson, MEd Director of Curriculum and Instruction

Jacquelyn Silver, Ph .D . Director of Community Education

Larry Smith, BS, CPA Interim Director of Business Services

James Sonju, Ed .S . Lincoln K-8 Choice School Principal

Christina Streiff, MEd Coordinator of Staff Development and Continuous Improvement

education Development Center, Inc ., external Core team

Maria-Paz Avery, PhD, Managing Director Center for Education, Employment and Community

Oscar Barbarin, Ph .D ., Distinguished Professor School of Social Work University of North Carolina

Linda Clark, MEd, Turnaround Facilitator Rhode Island Corrective Action Intervention Project Center for Family, School, and Community

Karen Clay, MEd, Project Director Center for Family, School, and Community

Ronald Felton, MS, Associate Director Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative Center for Family, School, and Community

Leslie Hergert, Ed .D ., Managing Project Director Center for Family, School, and Community

Cynthia Mata-Aguilar, MA, Director Center for Family, School, and Community

Caroline E . Parker, Ed .D ., Research Scientist Center for Education, Employment and Community

David Riley, Ph .D ., Associate Center Director Center for Family, School, and Community


64APPenDIX C

ReVIeW oF tHe LIteRAtURe

Over the last several decades, academic achievement has emerged as an increasingly highly valued commodity in the U .S . It is correlated with self-competence and self-esteem (Filozof et al ., 1998) and with a variety of indices of long-range success, such as college attendance and performance and future economic stability (Campbell & Pungello, 2000; DeBerard, Spielmans, & Julka, 2004; Strenze, 2007) . In short, doing well in school has implications for one’s emotional, mental, and financial state . This fact is in part due to the significant decrease in the past 30 years of jobs that require unskilled labor and the consequent rise in importance of a college degree for job security (Ferguson, 2007) . With the heightened role of academic achievement as a precursor of future success has come an interest and urgency in ensuring that all children have an opportunity to perform well in school . This urgency has even prompted one of the most comprehensive school policy legislations in recent history, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Education Trust, 2002) .

Here we briefly review issues surrounding nationwide achievement gaps between children of different socio-economic statuses, races, immigration/language statuses (i .e ., first language and/or bilingualism), and disability statuses . While it is important to acknowledge that many children who underachieve are members of more than one vulnerable group (e .g ., from a low-income family, first language other than English), for the purposes of clarifying the risks associated with each factor, each will be discussed separately .

the socio-economic status Achievement Gap

extentChildren living in low-income families perform worse academically than children from middle-class or affluent families . The differences emerge early . Data from the U .S . Department of Education Early Childhood Longitudinal Study showed that the average cognitive score of pre-K children living in the highest socioeconomic bracket was significantly higher than the average score of children in the lowest bracket (Lee & Burkam, 2002) . These differences in performance persist throughout school . As part of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), which includes fourth-grade children from 35 countries and uses a literacy test with a range of scores from 0 to 600, students in U .S . schools with the highest levels of poverty scored about 100 points lower than students in schools with the lowest levels of poverty . In addition, in high-poverty schools 3 percent of students performed in the 10th percentile as opposed to 34 percent of students in the lowest-poverty schools (Ogle et al ., 2003) . Likewise, in the 2003 Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), which also administers a test based on a scale of 0 to 600, U .S . eighth-grade students attending high-poverty schools had average scores about 100 points lower than their counterparts in low-poverty schools (Gonzales et al ., 2004) . Adolescents who live in the lowest socioeconomic bracket are six times as likely as those in the highest socioeconomic bracket to drop out of high school (Snyder & Hoffman, 2003) .

In addition, high-achieving children from low-income neighborhoods fare worse than their counterparts from middle- or high-income neighborhoods . For example they fall out of the high-achieving group during elementary and secondary school at a disproportionate rate, and a lower percentage go on to obtain college degrees than students from more affluent backgrounds (Wyner, Bridgeland, & Diulio, 2006) .


65explanations/theories

A recent study by Education Trust (Liu, 2006) found that children living in high-poverty neighborhoods receive less funding from district, state, and federal institutions . First, within districts, significantly less money is allocated to high-poverty schools . For example, in Austin, TX, the gap between teacher salaries between the highest- and lowest-poverty schools was $3, 837 . However, it is important to consider that the gap in salary might be partly related to more experienced teachers choosing to work in low-poverty areas, so that the difference in pay is related to experience, not area . State funding also disproportionately favors affluent school districts . The study found that, on average, states spend $825 less per student in districts with the most students from low-income families as compared to the wealthiest districts . Finally, federal Title I funds also tend to reinforce inequality in school resources, specifically by allocating more money to states with fewer children from low-income families, such as Massachusetts and Wyoming, and less to states with higher percentages of poor children, such as Arkansas and Oklahoma (see Table C .1 for the Title I Allocations per child living in poverty for each state in recent years .)

Table C.1. Children in Poverty and Title I Allocations, 2003–2004

State Poor Children Title I AllocationTitle I Allocation Per Poor Child

Wyoming 9,796 $28, 964 809 $2,957Vermont 9,667 27, 005, 035 2,794North Dakota 11,245 30, 329, 411 2,697Massachusetts 112,570 260, 050, 569 2,310New Hampshire 13,140 29, 733, 465 2,263Alaska 14,330 30, 431, 327 2,124Maine 25,025 47, 816, 946 1,911Delaware 16,038 30, 637, 587 1,910Connecticut 55,987 106, 557, 518 1,903New York 638,992 1,184, 751, 800 1,854New Jersey 155,082 272, 032, 782 1,754South Dakota 19,125 32, 000, 786 1,673Michigan 251,533 420, 799, 581 1,673Pennsylvania 274,088 438, 337, 029 1,599Rhode Island 27,313 43, 155, 247 1,580Wisconsin 96,223 151, 746, 825 1,577Kansas 55,419 87, 046, 905 1,571Montana 25,827 40, 458, 865 1,567Ohio 258,749 399, 821, 239 1,545Minnesota 76,892 117, 728, 364 1,531Maryland 101,153 153, 983, 710 1,522West Virginia 63,503 94, 167, 837 1,483Nebraska 32,413 46, 769, 850 1,443Illinois 333,173 478, 793, 210 1,437Hawaii 26,720 36, 094, 503 1,351Missouri 146,574 194, 886, 735 1,330California 1,288,493 1, 649, 697, 459 1,280Iowa 49,808 62, 955, 699 1,264Oregon 93,069 115, 317, 070 1,239Louisiana 207,871 256, 175, 473 1,232Virginia 149,256 182, 110, 558 1,220New Mexico 85,331 103, 273, 759 1,210Indiana 129,878 156, 540, 820 1,205Kentucky 138,101 162, 957, 050 1,180Georgia 292.,431 343, 346, 663 1,174South Carolina 138,465 157, 877, 214 1,140Washington 138,049 157, 166, 797 1,138Texas 902,369 1,018, 467, 898 1,129Mississippi 139,374 157, 215, 840 1,128Idaho 35,921 39, 875, 687 1,110Oklahoma 117,122 128, 454, 510 1,097Tennessee 171,190 185, 694, 729 1.080Colorado 96,512 104, 115, 332 1,079Alabama 165,578 177, 362, 455 1,071North Carolina 248,492 261, 980, 283 1,054Florida 512,261 523, 834, 879 1,023Arkansas 105,100 106, 001, 974 1,009Utah 49,259 45, 809, 427 930Nevada 59,296 53, 216, 311 897Arizona 213,295 187, 860, 284 881

Source: Funding Gaps 2006 by the Education Trust .

Another reason that children from low-income backgrounds seem to be underachieving is that, in


66general, they are exposed to less qualified teachers than children from higher socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds . For example, in one study of students living in three large Midwestern cities, children in the highest-poverty schools were twice as likely to have teachers with less than 3 years of experience as children living in low-poverty schools . In addition, children attending high-poverty schools had a 34 percent chance of having a teacher who was teaching a class outside of the area in which they had been trained, whereas children attending low-poverty schools had a 19 percent chance of having an “out-of-area” teacher . What is more concerning is that in math, an area in which a good education is particularly important given the skills needed to compete in the current de-industrialized job market, 70 percent of middle school classes in high-poverty schools are being taught by an “out-of-area” teacher (Peske & Haycock, 2006) . Similarly, in a study of North Carolina schools, high-poverty schools had the highest percentages of teachers with little experience, who had graduated from less competitive undergraduate universities, and who had provisional or temporary licenses (Clotfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2006) .

extent of the Racial/ethnic Achievement GapBlack – White Achievement GapSince the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Act desegregated schools, efforts have been underway to provide equal educational opportunities to all children in this country, regardless of race (Slavin & Maddin, 2002) . Since that time, Black children have steadily improved their academic achievement in relation to White children, and the gap in performance between the two groups has steadily narrowed . One of the most useful and widely-referenced indicators of national academic performance is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which administers tests in math, reading, and science to a nationally representative sample of more than 350,000 students and has a scoring system ranging from 0 to 500 . Between 1971 and 1988, the gap between Black students and White students in reading, as measured by the NAEP, decreased by 34 percent for 9-year-olds, by 54 percent for 13-year-olds, and by 60 percent for 17-year-olds . From 1973 to 1990, the gap in math scores decreased by 23 percent for 9-year-olds, by 41 percent for 13-year-olds, and by 50 percent for 17-year-olds (Snyder, Tan, & Hoffman, 2006) . In addition, between 1975–76 and 1994–94, the average SAT scores of Black youth rose by 8 percent, while the average scores of White adolescents remained about the same (College Entrance Examination Board, 1995) .

However, since 1988, the progress in closing the achievement gap between Black children and White children has slowed and even stopped, especially among middle and high school students . Between 1990 and 2007, the achievement gap in math between eighth-grade students decreased by only 3 percent . Between 1992 and 2007, the reading achievement gap for this grade decreased by 10 percent (Lee, Grigg, & Donahue, 2007) . Between 1990 and 2004, the achievement gap in reading between Black and White 17-year-olds decreased by 3 percent . Furthermore, among 17-year-olds, the achievement gap in math has widened . Between 1990 and 2004, the difference in average math scores of Black 17-year-olds compared to their White counterparts rose 40 percent, from a difference of 20 points to 28 points on the NAEP (Lee et al ., 2007) .

While the closing of the achievement gap between Black and White students has virtually stopped, in general, since the late 1980s, there has continued to be some progress among young children . For example, the gap in average NAEP reading scores between Black and White fourth graders decreased by 16 percent, after 1990 . Similarly, in math, between 1990 and 2007, the achievement gap decreased by 19 percent (Lee et al ., 2007) .

The overall lack of progress in closing the achievement gap since the late 1980s means that today Black students in every grade remain behind their White counterparts . Despite the fact that no cognitive differences have been found between the races among 8- to 12-month-old infants (Fryer & Levitt, 2006), today, by age 3, Black children are already behind White children academically (Ferguson, 2007) . By


67kindergarten, Black children score below White children (Chatterji, 2006) . On the 2007 NAEP math test, Black children in fourth grade scored an average of 26 points lower than White students and 32 points lower in eighth grade . On the 2007 reading test, the difference in scores was 27 points for both fourth- and eighth-grade students (Lee et al ., 2007) .

Among high school students, the picture is also disconcerting . Although the NAEP has not released results for 2007 testing among 17-year-olds, the 2004 NAEP test revealed that Black students scored an average of 29 points below White students in reading and 28 points below White students in math (Lee et al ., 2007) . Further, Black students perform disproportionately worse on other indicators of academic success . In 2005, on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), Black students scored 193 points below White students (Card & Rothstein, 2006) . In addition, although Black students are currently tied with Hispanic students for being the largest minority group in the country, in 2005, they represented the racial/ethnic group with the second lowest number of students, next to American Indians, taking Advanced Placement (AP) courses . In 2005, around 67,000 Black students took AP as compared to over 100,000 for Hispanic students and Asian American students and over 700,000 White students (Lee et al ., 2007) . Similarly, in 2000, 3 .4 percent of Black students were taking honors courses as opposed to 7 .5 percent of White students (Research Center, 2007) .

The persistence of the achievement gap between Black students and their White counterparts has resulted in a stark contrast between the educational aspirations and accomplishments reached by each group . For example, while for every 100 White kindergartners, 30 will obtain at least a bachelor’s degree; for every 100 Black kindergartners,16 will obtain at least a bachelors degree (Education Trust, 2001) .

Furthermore, the achievement gap persists even among children living in middle-income and affluent neighborhoods . In fact, some estimates show that when looking at the achievement gap between students of different races who are at the same SES levels, at the lowest SES level, the achievement gap between Black students and White students is 0 .14 of a grade point average (GPA) point, while it is .5 of a GPA point among students at the highest SES level . Looked at a different way, within races, the differences in academic achievement between children from low-income families and children from affluent families is smallest for Black people (Ferguson, 2002) .

Hispanic – White Achievement GapHistorically, Hispanic children have typically performed better academically than Black students but worse than White students . Similar to Black students, the achievement gap between Hispanic and White students seemed to be closing steadily from the 1970s until the late 1980s . Between 1975 and 1988, the gap in NAEP reading scores decreased 29 percent among 9-year-olds, 30 percent among 13-year-olds, and 41 percent among 17-year-olds . Similarly, between 1973 and 1990, the gap in NAEP math scores decreased 9 percent for 9-year-olds, 40 percent for 13-year-olds, and 24 percent for 17-year-olds (Lee et al ., 2007) .

Results from the NAEP 2007 Report Card indicate that the achievement gap between fourth- and eighth-grade Hispanic students and White students has not narrowed significantly since 1990 . Since that time, the gap between the average score of Hispanic students and White students decreased by only 4 percent on the fourth-grade reading test and by 5 percent on the math test . In addition, the achievement gap between Hispanic and White eighth-grade students in reading has been consistent, decreasing by only 4 percent since 1992, and the gap in math has actually increased by 9 percent (Lee et al ., 2007) .

Today, Hispanic students continue to perform at a level below their White counterparts . The average difference in scores on the 2007 NAEP reading test was 26 points for fourth-grade students and 25 points for eighth-grade students . Similarly, on the math test, the difference was 21 points between


68Hispanic and White students in fourth grade and 26 points between Hispanic and White students in eighth grade . Once again, data for 17-year-olds was not available from the 2007 tests . However, in 2004, the gap in reading scores between Hispanic and White students was 29 points in reading and 28 points in math (Lee et al ., 2007) .

As is the case for Black students, for Hispanic students, the achievement gap is not just reflected in differences in test scores . Of every 100 Hispanic kindergartners, 62 will graduate from high school and 6 will obtain a bachelor’s degree, compared to 91 and 30 White kindergartners, respectively (Education Trust, 2001) . In addition, in 2000, 64 percent of Hispanic adults between the ages of 18 and 24 had completed high school, as compared to 92 percent of Caucasians and 84 percent of Blacks (Gonzales et al ., 2004) .

American Indian/Alaska Native – White Achievement GapAmerican Indian/Alaska Native students perform, in general, at about the same level as Black and Hispanic students . On the 2007 NAEP, American Indian/Alaska Native students in fourth grade scored an average of 28 points below White students in reading . What is more alarming is that the average reading score on the NAEP has gone down 8 points for American Indian/Alaska Native students since 1994 . In math, American Indian/Alaska Native students are behind White students by an average of 20 points . In eighth grade, the achievement gap between American Indian/Alaska Native students and White students in NAEP scores is 25 points in reading and 27 points in math (Lee et al ., 2007) . Looking at the data another way, in 2005, 52 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native fourth-grade students performed below basic proficiency in reading as compared to 24 percent of White students . Similarly, for that year, 32 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native eighth-grade students performed below basic proficiency in math as compared to White students . In eighth grade, 41 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students were performing poorly in reading, as opposed to 18 percent of White students . In math, for that grade, 47 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students were the below basic proficiency category, as opposed to 20 percent of White students . Finally, in 12th grade, 33 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students were meeting minimum levels of proficiency in reading as opposed to 21 percent of White students, and in math, 58 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students were not performing well in math, as opposed to 30 percent of White students (KewalRamani, Gilbertson, Fox, & Provasnik, 2007) .

Multi-Racial – White Achievement GapThe academic achievement of multi-racial and multi-ethnic students has largely been overlooked in the study of the racial/ethnic achievement gap despite the fact that, today, 6 .8 million Americans identify themselves as multi-racial or multi-ethnic (Jones & Smith, 2001) . Recent work suggests that multi-racial youth have specific sets of concerns and factors that impact their performance in school . In a study of close to 1,500 biracial high school students, the students with the lowest grades overall were those identifying as Black-Hispanic . In addition, the GPAs of all groups that included some Black or Hispanic heritage were significantly below the mean of all students . Finally, the races to which the biracial students listed as their primary identification also had ramifications for their achievement . For example, Hispanic-White students who identified as Hispanic had significantly lower GPAs than Hispanic-White students who identified as White (Herman, 2007) .

explanations/theories for the Racial/ethnic Achievement GapIt appears that differences in educational quality and opportunity play a role in achievement gaps between racial/ethnic groups . For example, one study of schools in a Minnesota school district found that Black students, American Indian students, and Hispanic students were underrepresented in the top ranked schools and that Black students were 4 .5 times as likely to attend schools ranked low in math and twice as likely to attend schools ranked lowest in reading (Berlak, 2001) . In addition, another study of the Texas Schools Project and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS)


69found that the majority of achievement gaps can be explained by differences between schools, such as unequal distributions of inexperienced teachers, of school turnover, and of racial concentrations, rather than differences within schools (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2006) .

Moving from extra-individual explanations to intra-individual explanations, stereotype threat has been one psychological factor that has been implicated in the underachievement of minority students . Stereotype threat refers to the theory that members of groups who have been subjected to negative stereotypes regarding their intellectual capabilities often suffer negative psychological consequences, including anxiety, self-doubt, and lowered achievement (Steele, 1995) . In fact, stress and worry about being stereotyped does appear to depress the academic achievement of Blacks and other members of underrepresented groups (Osborne & Walker, 2006; Steele, 1997) .

There has also been some suggestion that children of color, specifically Black children, purposely under-perform in opposition to majority culture, which they feel is oppressive, and to avoid facing rejection from peers . Participants in a study of urban Black high school students stated that they did not perform up to their potential to avoid being accused of “acting White” by peers (Ogbu, 1991) . While the potential for peer rejection as a result of academic achievement might be said to exist only in the minds of these youth, their fears seem to be partially supported by real-life social processes . For example, a recent study found that, unlike White high school students, after a certain GPA—3 .5 for Black students and 2 .5 for Hispanic students—there is a negative relationship between GPA and popularity (Fryer & Torelli, 2005) . In other words, for students from underrepresented groups, getting good grades seems to come with the price of having fewer friends . However, while minority students might be afraid of losing friends or being accused of “acting White” it appears that getting good grades is not, in actuality, a factor in determining whether a student is accused of “acting White .”

Another possible explanation for the racial/ethnic achievement gap is that because minority children are more likely than White students to be from low-income families, they are more likely to face the disadvantages that are related to being from a low-income background . For example, one study found that once several factors related to SES, such as number of children’s books in the home, age of entry into kindergarten, birth weight, and age of mother at time of birth, were taken into account, the racial gap in math shrank considerably (Duncan & Magnuson, 2005) . Finally, while in general there have not been any explanations put forth for the fact that the racial/ethnic achievement gap has ceased to decrease since around 1988, societal factors disproportionately affecting minorities might be playing a role . For example, one possible explanation might be that since the standard of living has been widening between people from lower- and middle-class backgrounds on the one hand and those from upper-class backgrounds on the other, and minorities are more likely to be lower or middle class, the widening gap between the classes, and its effect on families, could be related to the slowed closing of the achievement gap .

the extent of the Language and Immigrant status Achievement GapThe number of children who speak a language other than English in the nation’s schools is increasing exponentially . There are roughly 4 .9 bilingual children in U .S . schools, which is a 60 percent increase since 1994–95 . About 70 percent of those children speak Spanish (National Clearinghouse of English Language Acquisition, 2006) . In addition, 20 percent of children in this country have at least one parent who is an immigrant (Capps & Fortuny, 2006) .

Young children whose first language is other than English often perform below national averages in reading . For example, such children who enter Head Start typically score significantly below English-speaking children on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (DHHS, 2003) . It normally takes about 6 years for children whose first language is other than English who enter kindergarten to catch up to their English-speaking counterparts in academic achievement (Bialystok, 2007) . For those who


70continue to struggle with speaking English, or for children who enter the American school system at an older age, school performance continues to be a concern . For example, an overwhelming majority, 96 percent, of eighth-grade students whose first language is other than English performed below basic levels on the 2005 NAEP (Perie, Grigg, & Donahue, 2005) .

Closely related to gaps between children based on their English proficiency, are gaps between immigrant and native-born children . Certain groups of immigrant children, particularly those who have immigrated from Latin America and Southeast Asia, consistently perform worse academically than children born in the United States . For example, in the large-scale Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) study, first-generation children from Latin America score below their non-Hispanic White counterparts in both reading and math (Han, 2006) . However, despite the initial gaps between immigrant and native-born children, the longer immigrant children are in the United States, the more the achievement gap decreases . For example, in a study of eighth- and ninth-grade students in Miami and San Diego, immigrant children who had been in the United States at least 5 years had scores at about the same level as their second-generation counterparts (Cortes, 2004) .

explanations/theories for the Language and Immigrant status Achievement GapThe main explanation for the language achievement gap has been that children whose first language is other than English must mentally translate academic skills in English into their native language before learning the skills . This extra processing time results in an extended period of time for these students to learn some concepts than for monolingual English-speaking children (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2006) . In addition to this explanation, there have also been findings that students whose first language is other than English are often concentrated in schools with limited resources; specifically, 70 percent of these students are enrolled in 10 percent of elementary schools . Schools with a high percentage of students whose first language is other than English are more likely to be located in an urban area, to have larger enrollments, larger class sizes, higher incidences of student poverty, student health problems, greater difficulty filling teaching vacancies, and greater reliance on unqualified teachers (Cosentino de Cohen, Deterding, & Clewell, 2005) .

In addition, explanations have also been offered for differences in academic achievement between immigrant children and native-born children . One explanation is that some immigrant groups, specifically those from Southeast Asian and Latin American countries, get assimilated into lower SES strata than other groups (Aldous, 2006) . In addition, the illegal status of some immigrants means that their families do not have as many resources to encourage academic achievement (Aldous, 2006) .

the extent of the Disability Achievement GapThe term disability in academic settings refers to a wide range of difficulties, including visual impairment, hearing impairment, other health impairment, emotional disturbance, learning disability, speech/language impairment, orthopedic impairment, traumatic brain injury, autism, deaf-blindness, and mental retardation . In general, children with disabilities perform worse in school than children without disabilities . For example, results from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), a nationally representative study of over 11,000 youth receiving special education services, found students with a disability to be significantly behind the general population . Youth with disabilities performed at a level approximately 3 .6 years behind grade level in both reading and mathematics . Only 16 percent of students with disabilities were performing at grade level or one grade level behind, 20 percent were between one and three grade levels behind, and the remaining 65 percent were performing 3 or more years behind grade level (Wagner et . al ., 2003) .

A gap between the achievement of children with disabilities and children without disabilities has


71also been found using other measures . Three-quarters of youth with disabilities score below the mean on the research edition of the Woodcock-Johnson, Third Edition (WJ III), as compared to 50 percent of youth in the general population . Students with disabilities performed poorly on each of the various areas measured by the WJ III; 86 percent received scores below the mean on the applied problems subtest, 83 percent performed below the mean on the passage comprehension and social studies subtests, 82 percent performed below average on the science subtest, 70 percent on the synonyms/antonyms subtest, and 77 percent on the mathematics calculation subtest (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2006) .

As the term disability refers to a heterogeneous group, the extent of the gap between students with disabilities and the general population varies depending on the exact type of disability being studied . A range of academic achievement exists in the students studied in the NLST2 . Children with mental retardation performed the worse, with scores ranging from 56 to 67 . Children with multiple disabilities performed slightly better, with scores ranging from 62 to 72 . The next highest group were students with deaf-blindness who scored between 66 and 78 on average . Individuals with autism, traumatic brain injury, and hearing impairment scored in the middle range of children with disabilities with scores ranging, roughly, from 70 to 90 . Students with speech/language impairment scored between 81 and 90 and youth with learning disabilities received scores between 82 and 90 . The group of children with disabilities who scored the highest were those with emotional disturbances, who received scores between 84 and 93, those with visual impairments who scored between 85 and 94, and those with other health impairment who scored between 86 and 95 (Wagner et . al ., 2006) . Reading is the area in which children with learning disabilities are most likely to struggle, with 80 percent of all children identified as learning disabled primarily having difficulty in reading (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003) .

Although children with disabilities generally score below national averages on standardized tests, it should be noted that many children with disabilities receive high grades, even when their achievement on standardized tests are significantly below average . For example, more students with mental retardation than children with other types of disabilities receive high grades, mostly A’s and B’s, even though their performance is actually worse . One possible reason offered for this apparent contradiction is the fact that children with learning disabilities spend more of their school day in general education classes, where expectations are likely higher, than in self-contained classrooms, where children with mental retardation are likely to be placed (Wagner et . al ., 2003) .

explanations/theories for the Disability Achievement GapFactors identified as explaining the underachievement of students with disabilities have been sparse, given the fact that by definition, students with disabilities do not perform at the same level as peers who do not have that particular disability . However, one factor within students with disabilities that has been associated with achievement is the extent of functional impairment, specifically in cognitive skills . In the NLST2, it is estimated that for every 1 point gain in cognitive skills, overall academic achievement improves by between 1 and 3 points (Wagner et al ., 2006) .

LIteRAtURe ReVIeW ReFeRenCes


72Aldous, J . (2006) . Family, ethnicity, and immigrant youths’ educational achievements . Journal of Family Issues, 27,

1633–1667 .

Berlak, H . (2001) . Race and the achievement gap . Rethinking Schools, 15(4) . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www .rethinkingschoools .org/archive/15_04/Race154 .shtml

Bialystok, E . (2007) . Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research . Language Learning, 57, Suppl. 1, 45–77 .

Campbell, F . A ., & Pungello, E . (2000) . High quality childcare has long-term educational benefits for poor children . Paper presented at the Head Start National Research Conference . Washington, DC .

Capps, R ., & Fortuny, K . (2006, January) . Immigration and child and family policy (Paper 3) . Prepared for the Urban Institute and Child Trends Roundtable on Children in Low-Income Families . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www .urban .org/url .cfm?ID=311362

Card, D . E ., & Rothstein, J . (2006, March) . Racial segregation and the black-white test score gap (NBER Working Paper No . W12078) . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://papers .ssrn .com/sol3/papers .cfm?abstract_id=888280

Chatterji, M . (2006) . Reading achievement gaps, correlates and moderators of early reading achievement: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) kindergarten to first grade sample . Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 489–507 .

Clotfelter, C ., Ladd, H . F ., Vigdor, J ., & Wheeler, J . (2006, December) . High-poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals . Working paper of the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www .caldercenter .org/PDF/1001057_High_Poverty .pdf

College Entrance Examination Board . (1995) . Scholastic Assessment Test\1\ score averages, by race/ethnicity: 1975–76 to 1994–95 . National Report on College-Bound Seniors, various years . Washington DC: Author .

Cortes, K . E . (2004) . The effects of age at arrival and enclave schools on the academic performance of immigrant children . Economic of Education Review, 25(2), 121–132 .

Cosentino de Cohen, C ., Deterding, N ., & Clewell, B . C . (2005) . Who’s left behind?: Immigrant children in high and low LEP schools . Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Program for Evaluation and Equity Research .

DeBerard, M . S ., Spielmans, G . I ., & Julka, D . C . (2004) . Predictors of academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study . College Student Journal, 38, 66–81 .

Duncan, G . J ., & Magnuson, K . A . (2005) . Can family socioeconomic resources account for racial and ethnic test score gaps? The Future of Children, 15(1), 35–54 .

Education Trust . (2001) . Achievement in America. Washington, DC: Author .

Education Trust . (2002) . ESEA: Myths versus realities . Washington, DC: Author .

Education Trust . (2006) . Funding gaps 2006 . Washington, DC: Author .

Ferguson, R . (2002) . What doesn’t meet the eye: Understanding and addressing racial disparities in high-achieving suburban schools . Working Paper . Wiener Center for Social Policy, Harvard University . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www .ncrel .org/ gap/ferg/

Ferguson, R . (2007) . How parents can help their child succeed in school. A presentation to the High Five: Regional Partnership for High School Excellence . Durham, NC .

Filozof, E . M ., Albertin, H ., Jones, C . R ., Steme, S . S ., Myers, L ., & McDermott, R . J . (1998) . Relationships of adolescent self-esteem to selected academic variables . Journal of School Health, 68(2), 68–72 .

Fryer, R . G ., & Levitt, S . D . (2006) . Testing for racial differences in the mental ability of young children . Working paper . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www .agi .harvard .edu/ Search/SearchAllPapers .php

Fryer, R . G ., & Torelli, P . (2005) . An empirical analysis of “acting white.” Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www .agi .harvard .edu/Search/SearchAllPapers .php

Gonzales, P ., Guzmán, J . C ., Partelow, L ., Pahlke, E ., Jocelyn, L ., Kastberg, D . et al . (2004) . Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2003 (NCES 2005–005) . U .S . Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics . Washington, DC: U .S . Government Printing Office . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://nces .ed .gov/pubs2005/2005005 .pdf

Han, W . J . (2006) . Academic achievements of children in immigrant families . Educational Research and Review, 1(8), 286–318 .

Hanushek, E . A ., & Rivkin, S . G . (2006) . School quality and the Black-White achievement gap . Working paper 12651 . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from www .nber .org/papers/w12651

Herman, M . R . (2007) . The Black-White-other test score gap: Academic achievement among mixed race adolescents . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www .agi .harvard .edu/ Search/SearchAllPapers .php

Jones, N . A ., & Smith, A . S . (2001, November) . The two or more races population: 2000 . Washington, DC: U .S . Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, U .S . Census Bureau .


73KewalRamani, A ., Gilbertson, L ., Fox, M ., & Provasnik, S .

(2007) . Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities . Washington, DC: U .S . Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics .

Lee, J ., Grigg, W ., & Donahue, P . (2007) . The nation’s report card: Reading 2007. National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8 (2007–496). U .S . Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics . Washington, DC: U .S . Government Printing Office . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://nces .ed .gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2007496 .pdf

Lee, V ., & Burkam, D . (2002) . Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school . Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute .

Liu, G . (2006) . How the federal government makes rich states richer . Funding Gaps 2006 . The Education Trust . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www .titlei .org/documents/ fundgap06 .pdf

Lyon, G . R ., Shaywitz, S . E ., & Shaywitz, B . A . (2003) . A definition of dyslexia . Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14 .

National Clearinghouse of English Language Acquisition . (2006) . The growing numbers of LEP students: 2004–2005. Washington, DC: Author .

Ogbu, J . (1991) . Low performance as an adaptation: The case of Blacks in Stockton, California . In M . A . Gibson & J . U . Ogbu (Eds .), Minority status and schooling (pp . 249–285) . New York: Grand Publishing .

Ogle, L . T ., Sen, A ., Pahlke, E ., Jocelyn, L ., Kastberg, D ., Roey, S . et al . (2003) . International comparisons in fourth-grade reading literacy: Findings from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) of 2001 (2003–073) . U .S . Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics . Washington, DC: U .S . Government Printing Office . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://nces .ed .gov/pubs2003/ 2003073 .pdf

Osborne, J . W ., & Walker, C . (2006) . Stereotype threat, identification with academics, and withdrawal from school: Why the most successful students of colour might be most likely to withdraw . Educational Psychology, 26(4), 563–577.

Perie, M ., Grigg, W . S ., & Donahue, P . L . (2005) . The nation’s report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451). U .S . Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics . Washington, DC: U .S . Government Printing Office .

Peske, H . G ., & Haycock, K . (2006) . Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality. A report and recommendations by The Education Trust . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www2 .edtrust .org/NR/rdonlyres/010DBD9F-CED8-4D2B-9E0D-91B446746ED3/0/TQReportJune2006 .pdf

Short, D . J . & Fitzsimmons, S . (2006) . Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York . New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York .

Slavin, R . E ., & Madden, N . A . (2002) . “Success for All” and Black and Hispanic student achievement . In J . E . Chubb & T . Loveless (Eds .), Bridging the achievement gap (pp . 74–90) . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .

Snyder, T . D ., & Hoffman, C . M . (2003) . Digest of education statistics 2002 (2003–060) . U .S . Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics . Washington, DC: U .S . Government Printing Office . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://nces .ed .gov/pubs2003/ 2003060 .pdf

Snyder, T . D ., Tan, A . G ., & Hoffman, C . M . (2006) . Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006–03) . U .S . Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics . Washington, DC: U .S . Government Printing Office . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://nces .ed .gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/ dt06_108 .asp

Steele, C . M . (1997) . A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance . American Psychologist, 52, 613–629 .

Steele, C . M ., & Aronson, J . (1995) . Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of Blacks . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811 .

Strenze, T . (2007) . Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research . Intelligence, 35, 401–426 .

Wagner, M ., Marder, C ., Blackorby, J ., Cameto, R ., Newman, L ., Levine, P ., et al . (2003) . The achievements of youth with disabilities during secondary school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLST2) . Menlo Park, CA: SRI International . Retrieved February 1, 2008 www .nlts2 .org/reports/2003_11/nlts2_report _2003_11_complete .pdf

Wagner, M ., Newman, L ., Cameto, R ., & Levine, P . (2006) . The academic achievement and functional performance of youth with disabilities. A report of findings from the national Longitudinal transition Study-2 (NLTS2) . Menlo Park, CA: SRI International . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://ies .ed .gov/ncser/pdf/20063000 .pdf

Wyner, J . S ., Bridgeland, J . M ., & Diulio, J . J . (2006) . Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families . A report by the Jack Kent/Cooke Foundation & Civic Enterprises . Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://www .aypf .org/forumbriefs/2007/fb092807 .htm


74APPenDIX D

GRADUAtIon RAte CALCULAtIons

AYP Graduation Rate*From 2004 to 2007, Minnesota has used the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) emulated cohort model to compute graduation rates for AYP requirements . The formal title of this rate is: Common Core of Data Graduation Leaver Indicator . This model creates a cohort group by identifying students who graduated in 2006 plus students who dropped out of school as 9th graders in 2003, 10th graders in 2004, 11th graders in 2005, and 12th graders in 2006 . The cohort group is divided by the number of graduates . This rate is much higher than the National Governors Association (NGA) rate as it only considers part of the available student group—those who were last reported as graduated and those reported as dropping out . It does not consider students reported as continuing their education or students whose end status is unknown . It also does not limit graduates to only those finishing in four years . Any student who receives a diploma in 2006 is considered a graduate regardless of the number of years spent in school .

national Governors Association (nGA) Graduation Rate

The NGA rate is a four-year, on-time graduation rate agreed to by all 50 states . The cohort is larger than the AYP rate used in previous years because in addition to students who graduate and students who drop out, it considers continuing and unknown students . These two additional groups add approximately 16,000 students statewide into the measure . For the Class of 2006, the cohort of students was determined by counting first time ninth graders in 2003 plus transfers into the group minus transfers out over the next four years . The NGA rate only considers students who graduate in four years . The number of four-year graduates is divided by the total number of students in the cohort . NCES cites this rate as the NCES Exclusion-Adjusted Cohort Graduation Indicator . This rate is lower than the AYP rates because it includes more groups of students and it only considers on-time graduates . It provides information about student success across the entire state and can be used to compare Minnesota to the rest of the country .

*Information on different processes for determining graduation rates was taken directly from the Minnesota Department of Education website (http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Data/ Data_Downloads/ Accountability_Data/03210

EduCAtiOn dEvElOPMEnt CEntER, inC.55 Chapel Street, newton, MA 02458 tel: 617-618-2189 / Fax: 617-969-3440

Documents

Reducing Achievement & Opportunity Gaps: A Collaborative ...s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/ · RPS students would benefit from equitable access to support and enrichment. Despite