Closing the Achievement Gap State Board of Education Study Session - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

State Board of Education Study Session October 2013

Closing the Achievement Gap

• What is the data telling us about how our students are

performing and improving over time?

• Who is making a difference and what can we learn from them?
• How can the state support districts in addressing achievement

gaps?

Agenda

2

What is the data telling us about how our students are achieving and improvement

• ver time?

3

Student performance has been steadily improving for all students across multiple grades.

CSAP/TCAP Math Percent Proficient and Advanced CSAP/TCAP Reading Percent Proficient and Advanced

Source: CDE, CSAP/TCAP Data, Data Lab

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 10 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 10 4

Although not shown, year-to-year performance trends for low income students, English language learners, and minority students were largely similar in middle and high school. Similar trends hold true for math.

In most subjects and grades, achievement increased more for our low income students, English language learners, and minority students.

Year-to-Year Change in Percent of Students Proficient and Advanced

• n CSAP/TCAP Reading by Student Demographics - Elementary

Source: CDE, CSAP/TCAP Data, Data Lab

• 1
• 0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 2010 to 2011 2011 to 2012 2012 to 2013 Non-Minority Minority ELL FRL ELL: English language learner FRL: Free and reduced price lunch 5

Despite this progress, our overall results appear relatively stagnant compared to results nine year ago.

Percent of Students Proficient and Advanced, CSAP/TCAP

Source: CDE, CSAP/TCAP Data, Data Lab

50.6 52.4 53.1 53.2 54.5 54.9 55.7 55.8 56.7 66.3 67.6 67.2 67.8 68.3 68.4 67.9 69.3 69.5 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Math Reading 6

48.6 50.8 49.9 52.2 53.1 79.7 79.6 80.1 81.5 81.6 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Low Income Non-Low Income

The same is true when we disaggregate by income and minority status. Gaps are large and persistent, despite modest gains.

29% gap has been consistent with minimal closing

Percent of Students Proficient and Advanced by Income, CSAP/TCAP Reading

24% gap: The gap between minority and non minority has improved marginally, but is still large

Percent of Students Proficient and Advanced by Minority, CSAP/TCAP Reading

Similar achievement gaps exist for Colorado English learners, student with disabilities, and on-time graduation rates for all these sub-groups.

!

Source: CDE, CSAP/TCAP Data, Data Lab

51.1 52.5 53.3 55.2 56.3 79.2 78.7 78.9 80.2 80.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Minority Non-Minority 7

The racial achievement gap is most pronounced for black and Hispanic students.

76.1 75.8 74.8 75.7 76.9 52.1 53.5 48.6 51.6 52.0 47.4 49.0 49.8 51.6 52.8 79.2 78.7 78.9 80.2 80.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Asian Black Hispanic White 71.0 70.2 70.9 71.9 73.2 34.5 36.0 33.3 33.6 35.5 35.9 36.8 39.3 39.0 40.2 64.3 64.5 65.8 66.2 67.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Asian Black Hispanic White

Percent of Students Proficient and Advanced CSAP/TCAP Math by Race Percent of Students Proficient and Advanced CSAP/TCAP Reading by Race

8

Controlling for income, gaps remain for students

• f color.
• .19
• .21
• .17
• .12
• .12
• .03
• .02
• .71
• .71
• .63
• .62
• .56
• .55
• .52
• 1.00
• .90
• .80
• .70
• .60
• .50
• .40
• .30
• .20
• .10

.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Not FRL FRL

Reading Achievement: Ethnicity by Free and Reduce Lunch (FRL)

White Hispanic

.35 .35 .36 .37 .37 .37 .38

• .18
• .18
• .17
• .15
• .15
• .14
• .10

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Not FRL FRL

Standard score

What’s Going on? Within group income gap Between group race gap

Source: Analysis by CDE staff, CSAP/TCAP Reading data

!

Although not shown, the finding holds true for black, Native American, and, to some degree, Asian students.

9

Digging Further into the Data

10

Instead of growing more, our low income and minority students are falling further behind.

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 2011 2012 2013 Non-Minority Non-FRL Minority FRL IEP

Percent of Students Making Catch Up Growth, Math

While reading results are not shown here, about 70% of minority and low income students are NOT making sufficient growth to catch up to proficiency.

Source: CDE, CSAP/TCAP Data, Data Lab

Less than 1 in 5 students is making sufficient growth to catch up to PROFICIENCY in math within three years or by grade 10. This is even worse for

• ur

low income and minority students where the number hovers at 1 in 10 making catch up growth. These numbers have not changed within the last several years.

11

And fewer minority and low income students are making sufficient growth to maintain proficiency.

Percent of Minority/Low Income Students Making Keep Up Growth, Math 1 in 4 minority and low income students is NOT making sufficient growth to maintain proficiency in reading.

Source: CDE, CSAP/TCAP Data, Data Lab

While about 65%

• f non-minority

and non-FRL students make sufficient growth to maintain proficiency, the number drops to 50% and below for minority and low income students.

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 2011 2012 2013 Non-Minority Non-FRL Minority FRL IEP 12

How can this be?

Some answers lie in the data…

13

18.5% 16.8% 21.7% 35.0% 17.8% 18.1% 22.6% 33.7% 1 - Low Minority/Poverty 2 3 4 - High Minority/Poverty Minority Poverty

Data suggests a tendency to concentrate our novice teachers in our highest minority/highest poverty schools.

Percent of Novice Teachers by School Minority and Poverty Quartiles, 2012

Source: CDE HR Data, 2011-12

14

We have a much higher turnover of principals and teachers in our lowest performing districts; and we know that poor and minority students are 4 times more likely than their counterparts to be served in these districts.

Source: CDE HR Data, 2011-12

30.4% 22.8% 17.6% 17.4% 16.9% 27.6% 17.1% 15.4% 12.9% 14.1%

• Accred. with Turnaround
• Accred. w/Priority

Improvement

• Accred. with Improvement

Accredited

• Accred. with Distinction

Principals Teachers

Principal and Teacher Turnover by District Accreditation Rating, 2012

15

Fewer percentages of Hispanic/Latino and black students are identified to engage in gifted education experiences.

Proportion of Students Identified as Gifted

9.6% 4.3% 4.1%

White Hispanic or Latino Black or African American

Source: CDE Student Oct Count, SY2011-12

16

• But…that’s not the case across the system.
• We see some districts and schools where the data is playing
• ut differently.

These “opportunity to learn” indicators suggest we may not be providing all of our students with access to the same opportunities.

17

Who is making a difference and what can we learn from them?

18

Districts making a difference

Several districts around the state are closing the minority and/or poverty achievement gaps.

• Del Norte
• Delta County
• Garfield 16
• Harrison
• Cherry Creek
• Fort Morgan
• Holyoke

19

Nisley showed strong achievement gains for many

• f its student populations.

53.5 43.9 49.5 36.4 66.2 61.8 62.6 53.1 All Hispanic FRL ELL 2009 2013

Percent of Students Proficient or Advanced in Reading by Student Subgroup

Source: CDE, CSAP/TCAP Data, Data Lab

80.6% of Nisley students qualify for free and reduced price lunch 42.9% of Nisley students are minority

20

NI SL E Y E L E ME NT ARY HOME OF T HE GRI ZZL I E S MCVSD-51

• Str

e amline d Sc ho o l Syste ms

Qua rte rlie s PL C Co nve rsa tio ns Re spo nsive I nte rve ntio ns

• Distr

ic t & State Initiative s

Curric ulum Re so urc e T itle Sc ho o ls MT SS/ PBI S/ RtI

• F

amily T ie s

Sta ff Co mra de ry: T

• g e the r we a re a ll in this!

F a mily E ng a g e me nt: BE AR Nig hts, Co . He a lth F

• unda tio n, Muffins fo r Mo m

Co mmunity Suppo rt: Ba c k Pa c k Pro g ra m, Hig h Sc ho o l Me nto rs http:/ / yo utu.b e / me QsE e p6L zs

Harrison School District has successfully narrowed the minority achievement gap in math and reading

• ver time.

Percent of Students Proficient and Advanced by Minority/Non-Minority - Math

Source: CDE, CSAP/TCAP Data, Data Lab

While results are not shown here, Harrison achieved similar gap closing in reading.

42.8 46.1 48.2 50.3 53.2 59.7 62.5 62.3 64.0 66.9 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent Proficient or Advanced Minority Non Minority

70% of Harrison students qualify for free and reduced price lunch 66% of Harrison students are minority

22

• Curry Newton, Principal, Nisley Elementary School
• Deb Lamb, Assistant Principal, Nisley Elementary School
• Edwin Saunders, Elementary School Leadership Officer,

Harrison School District

Lessons from Practitioners

How can the state support districts in addressing achievement gaps?

24

• Findings from 2005 Colorado Commission on Closing the

Achievement Gap Final Report:

• Comprehensive data and assessment system to identify gaps
• High expectations
• Rigorous, aligned P-16 curriculum
• Administrator and teacher cultural competencies
• Parent/community connections
• Research-based instructional strategies

…Why then, is it so hard to move the needle at scale?

The steps to achieve and maintain the gains we see in successful districts/schools have been well documented…

25

• Inconsistent or unclear expectations across the system
• Staff turnover at all levels in the system
• Changes with service providers
• Management and flexibility issues with vendors
• Uneven implementation
• Limited use of data and poor target/goal setting

Source: Final Report for the Evaluation of the Colorado Department of Education Closing the Achievement Gap Project; Submitted by The Center for Education Policy Analysis School of Public Affairs at the Buechner Institute for Governance University of Colorado Denver and Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates, June 2011.

Implementation Challenges

26

• Provide organization-wide focus through CDE strategic plan (Goal 3)
• Build strong delivery plan for our achievement gap work building on

lessons learned and working with Education Trust

• Theory of action
• Metrics (that can be translated to district/school level)
• Strategies & action plan
• Implement delivery plan, including but not limited to:
• Providing statewide data and helping district use/analyze their data
• Capturing and sharing what is working
• Partnering with interested districts to implement targeted strategies and

to learn how the state can best support districts in this work

Next Steps

How can we build on the lessons learned from the past and from successful districts to close achievement gaps?

27