315 310 305 300 295 Math Science 290 285 280 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999
300 295 290 285 280 275 270 265 260 255 250 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 READING WRITING
Average Reading NAEP Score 300 200 1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 African American Latino White
300 Average Scale Score 280 260 240 220 200 1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 African American Latino White
Average Reading NAEP Score 350 250 20 32 1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 African American Latino White
Average Reading NAEP Score 300 200 1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 African American Latino White
70 60 50 40 30 48 27 58 44 34 25 38 Grade 4-8 Grade 8-12 20 10 9 0 Reading Writing Math Science
Value Added in High School Declined During the Nineties
Age 13-17 Growth 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 36 36 Math 34 Class of '90 Class of '94 Class of '96 Source: NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress
Age 13-17 Growth 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 33 Math 29 Source: Main NAEP 1996, 2000 Class of 96 Class of 00
100% NAEP score and gains to age 17 0% Total=290 Total=288 33 28 46 48 211 212 1984-1992 1988-1996 Ages 13-17 growth Ages 9-13 growth Age 9 score Source: NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress
Students in Other Countries Gain far More in High School
Nations' Average Science Performance Compared with the U.S. 100% 50% 0% Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12 Nations scoring higher than the U.S. Nations scoring the same as the U.S. Nations scoring below the U.S. Source: NCES 1999-081R, Highlights From TIMSS
Nations' Average Mathematics Performance Compared with the U.S. 100% 50% 0% Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 12 Nations' scoring higher than the U.S. Nations scoring the same as the U.S. Nations scoring below the U.S. Source: NCES 1999-081R, Highlights From TIMSS
READING MATH SCIENCE U.S. RANK 15TH 19TH 14TH
550 500 Average Scale Score 450 400 350 300 Finland Korea Netherlands Japan Canada Belgium Switzerland New Zealand Australia Czech Republic Iceland Denmark France Sweden Austria Germany Ireland OECD Average Slovack Republic Norway Luxembourg Poland Hungary Spain United States Portugal Italy Greece Turkey Mexico Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/
10 8 Percent of Students 6 4 2 0 Belgium Korea Japan Finland Netherlands New Zealand Switzerland Australia Canada Czech Republic Iceland Denmark Sweden OECD Average Austria Germany France Slovak Republic Norway Ireland Poland Luxembourg Hungary United States Italy Turkey Spain Portugal Greece Mexico Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/
700 650 600 Average Scale Score 550 500 450 400 350 300 Belgium Japan Korea Switzerland Netherlands New Zealand Finland Australia Canada Czech Republic Denmark Sweden Germany OECD AVERAGE Austria Iceland France Slovak Republic Norway Hungary Luxembourg * Students at the 95 th Percentile Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/ Ireland Poland United States Spain Italy Turkey Portugal Greece Mexico
600 550 Average Scale Score 500 450 400 350 300 Belgium Netherlands Finland Czech Republic Canada Japan Korea Switzerland Australia Germany New Zealand France Denmark Sweden Austria Hungary OECD AVERAGE Slovak Republic Luxembourg Ireland Iceland Poland Norway United States Spain Portugal Italy Greece Turkey Mexico Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/
PISA 5 th 95 th Gap Rank* Reading (interpreting text) 3 Mathematical Literacy 6 (tie) Science Literacy 7 *Of 27 OECD countries Source: OECD, Knowledge and Skills for Life: First Results From PISA 2000, 2001.
100% 30 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 32 38 Prof/Adv Basic Below Basic Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Summary Data Tables
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12 14 16 27 29 39 37 31 35 32 61 57 53 26 31 Black Latino Native White Asian Prof/Adv Basic Below Basic Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 15 29 56 41 34 25 Prof/Adv Basic Below Basic Poor Not Poor Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
100% 27 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 40 33 Prof/Adv Basic Below Basic Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Summary Data Tables
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7 11 16 36 32 42 36 38 43 35 61 53 46 21 23 Black Latino Native White Asian Prof/Adv Basic Below Basic Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 11 36 53 37 41 22 Prof/Adv Basic Below Basic Poor Not Poor Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
100% 0% 200 250 300 350 White 8th Graders African American 12th Graders Latino 12th Graders Source: NAEP 1999 Long Term Trends Summary Tables (online)
100% 0% 150 200 250 300 350 White 8th Graders Latino 12th Graders African American 12th Graders Source: Source: NAEP 1999 Long Term Trends Summary Tables (online)
100% 79% 72% 51% 52% 54% 0% African American Asian Latino Native American White Source: Jay P. Greene and Greg Forster, Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United States, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, September 2003.
93 65 33 Graduate from high school Complete at least some college Obtain at least a Bachelor s Degree (25-to 29-Year-Olds) Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March Current Population Surveys, 1971-2001, in The Condition of Education 2002.
87 50 18 Graduate from High School Complete at Least Some College Obtain at Least a Bachelor s Degree Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March Current Population Survey, 1971-2001, In The Condition of Education 2002. (25-to 29-Year-Olds)
63 32 11 Graduate from high school Complete at least some college Obtain at least a Bachelor s Degree Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. March Current Population Surveys, 1971-2001, In The condition of Education 2002. (25-to 29-Year-Olds)
58 7 Graduate from High School Obtain at least a Bachelor s Degree
Young People From High Income Families Young People From Low Income Families 60% 7%
% Proficient and Above 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 52% 87% 100% 96% 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: The Department of Education, http://www.schoolresults.org/
100% 93% 94% % Proficient and Above 75% 50% 25% 0% 23% 81% 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: The Department of Education, http://www.schoolresults.org/
West Manor Elementary Atlanta, GA % 4th graders meeting state standard in reading 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 68% 2000 2002 90% Source: The Education Trust, Dispelling the Myth
% Proficient and Above 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 27% 84% Reading 32% Math 88% 1999 2004 Source: Idaho Department of Education: http://www.sde.state.id.us/dept/
100 Percent Met Standard All Tests Taken 80 60 40 20 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 White Latino African American Source: Texas Education Agency, http://www.tea.state.tx.us
Source: The Education Trust, Dispelling the Myth Online. Based on scale score in KY CATS assessment system.
% Proficient and Above 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 80% 75% 90% State District School Source: The Department of Education, http://www.schoolresults.org/
% Proficient and Above 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 96% 86% 88% 93% 93% 91% Math 2004 Reading 2004 African American White Low-Income Source: The Department of Education, http://www.schoolresults.org/
Poverty vs. Achievement in Kentucky Elementary Schools Elementary Math Percentile Score 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent FRPL
Poverty vs. Achievement in Kentucky Elementary Schools Elementary Math Percentile Score 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent FRPL
Poverty vs. Achievement in Kentucky Elementary Schools Elementary Math Percentile Score 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent FRPL
Poverty vs. Achievement in Georgia Elementary Schools Percent 4th Graders Meeting Standard in Math 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Source: Education Trust analysis of data from National School-Level State Assessment Score Database (www.schooldata.org). 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Low-Income Students
Poverty vs. Achievement in Illinois Elementary Schools Percent 5th Graders Meeting Standard in Math 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Source: Education Trust analysis of data from National School-Level State Assessment Score Database (www.schooldata.org). Data are from 2002. 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Low-Income Students
Poverty vs. Achievement in Michigan Elementary Schools Percent 4th Graders Meeting Standard in Math 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Source: Education Trust analysis of data from National School-Level State Assessment Score Database (www.schooldata.org). Data are from 2002. 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Low-Income Students
100% Passing TAAS math test 75% 50% 25% 0% 72% 55% 42% 1994 African American Latino White
Passing TAAS math test 100% 75% 50% 25% 72% 55% 42% 97% 96% 92% 0% 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 African American Latino White
Percent Proficient 100 80 60 40 20 40 35 19 African American Latino White 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, http://www.ncpublicschools.org
210 Low-Income African American Students do Better in Some Districts (NAEP Reading 4th 2003) 200 190 180 District of Columbia Los Angeles Atlanta Chicago Cleveland National Public San Diego Charlotte Houston New York City Boston * There is a 19 point gap between Poor African American 4 th graders in the District of Columbia and Boston (roughly equivalent to 2 years worth of learning) SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial Urban District Reading Assessment.
Low-Income African American Students do Better in Some Districts (NAEP Math 8th 2003) 255 245 235 225 Los Angeles District of Columbia Atlanta Chicago National Public San Diego Cleveland Boston Charlotte New York City Houston * There is a 28 point gap between Poor African American 8 th graders in Los Angeles and Houston (roughly equivalent to 3 years worth of learning) SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial Urban District Reading Assessment.
Latino Students do Better in Some Districts (NAEP Reading 4th 2002, 6 Urban Districts) 210 Scale Score 200 190 180 Los Angeles Chicago District of Columbia National (Public) New York City Houston * There is an 18 point gap between Los Angeles and Houston (equivalent to almost 2 years worth of learning) SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002 Trial Urban District Reading Assessment.
United States +13 North Carolina +25 Texas +21 Massachusetts +18
United States +10 North Carolina +18 Texas +15 Mississippi +15
African American Gain 6 2 1 Latino Gain 8 3 6 White Gain 4 1 5 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 Change in Average Score Delaware United Stat
T e x a s Louisiana Mississippi M i s s o u r i U t a h West Virginia 1 4 6 1 4 6 1 4 6 1 4 6 1 4 6 1 4 5 A r k a n s a s 1 4 3 Hawaii 1 4 0 1 3 6 1 3 8 1 4 0 1 4 2 1 4 4 1 4 6 1 4 8 NAEP Grade 8 Writing 1998
Students can do no better than the assignments they are given...
A frequent theme in literature is the conflict between the individual and society. From literature you have read, select a character who struggled with society. In a well-developed essay, identify the character and explain why this character s conflict with society is important.
Write a composition of at least 4 paragraphs on Martin Luther King s most important contribution to this society. Illustrate your work with a neat cover page. Neatness counts.
Entered Public 2 -Year 26% Colleges Entered 4 -Year Colleges 45% Other Postsecondary 4% Total 75% Source: NELS: 88, Second (1992) and Third (1994) Follow up; in, USDOE, NCES, Access to Postsecondary Education for the 1992 High School Graduates, 1998, Table 2.
4 year Colleges 26% 2 year Colleges 45% Source: Tom Mortensen, Postsecondary Opportunity, No. 89, November 1999
30 28 NELS Score Gain 19 16 20 0 Math Reading Vocational College Prep *Grade 8-grade 12 test score gains based on 8th grade achievement. Source: USDOE, NCES, Vocational Education in the United States: Toward the Year 2000, in Issue Brief: Students Who Prepare for College and Vocation
Ninth-grade English performance, by high/low level course, and eighth-grade reading achievement quartiles 50 Percent Earning "D" or "F" 0 47 31 23 16 Quartile I (Lowest) Quartile 2 College Prep Low Level Source: SREB, Middle Grades to High School: Mending a Weak Link. Unpublished Draft, 2002.
60 50 53 40 30 20 10 0 14 low high
50% 40% 28% 31% 20% 14% 19% 16% 18% 0% Math Science English Social Studies less than 20% Free Lunch greater than 49% Free L
100% 86% 54% 42% 69% 0% 90-100% Non-White 90-100% White Certified in FieldBA or BS in Fie
25% 20% 21% 11% 10% 0% High-poverty schoolslow-poverty scho High-minority schoolslow-minority scho
50% 42% 28% 0% High-poverty* schools All other scho
Very high percent minority schools are likely to have very low school TQIs. There is little difference in TQI distribution below the highest minority quartile (i.e. below about 60% minority).
30 26.7 25 22.4 Percentage 20 15 10 15.9 14.4 5 0 Least Effective Teachers (Q1) Most Effective Teachers (Q1) White Students African American Students Sanders, William L. and Rivers, Joan C. Cumulative And Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement, 1996, Table 2, p. 10.