1 / 61

The Gathering Storm in Education

The Gathering Storm in Education. The Coming “Perfect Storm” in American Education : Trends for 2008-2014. F. Joseph Merlino , Principal Investigator and Director The Math Science Partnership of Greater Philadelphia. Trends For 2008-2014.

finna
Download Presentation

The Gathering Storm in Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Gathering Storm in Education

  2. The Coming “Perfect Storm” in American Education:Trends for 2008-2014 F. Joseph Merlino, Principal Investigator and Director The Math Science Partnership of Greater Philadelphia

  3. Trends For 2008-2014 Ten MajorDemographic, economic, and political currents that have been gaining energy during the 1st decade of the 21st century. These trends will likely collide as America starts its 2nd decade. The resultant “storm surge” poses a substantial threat of prolonged erosion to American economic, educational and political institutions.

  4. “Storm” Trends # 1 Increased Per Pupil Education Expenditures # 2 Continued and Increased School District Accountability by Federal and State Governments # 3 The NCLB “Accountability Squeeze” # 4 Persistent “Achievement Gaps” # 5 Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity as Percentage of US Population # 6 High School and College Dropouts and “Drop downs” # 7 Increased Demand for Post Secondary Studies (but many students not well prepared) # 8 Stiffer Competition from Abroad in STEM Talent # 9 Declining of Flat Interest In STEM and Life Sciences # 10 Domestic Human STEM Capital Shortage + Insufficient Numbers of Skilled Foreign Workers

  5. Trend # 1 Increased Costs and Decreased in Perceived Improvements in Public Education Pupil Education Expenditures Increasing in Constant Dollars Due to Greater Percent of Students in Special Education, English Language Learners, Poor, Minorities, Increase Demand in Teacher Quality, Low Teacher Supply in Key Areas, Employee Health Care Costs, Retirement Benefits

  6. K-12 Education expenditures per pupil In constant 2002–03 dollars • From 1988–89 to 2001–02, increased 22 percent. • From 2001–02 to 2013–14, are projected to increase: • 21 percent, to $9,500, in the low alternative projections; • 27 percent, to $10,000, in the middle alternative projections; • 34 percent, to $10,600, in the high alternative projections.

  7. TOTAL k-12 Educational Expenditures in constant 2002–03 dollars • From 1988–89 to 2001–02 k-12 educational expenditures increased 45 percent • From 2001–02 to 2013–14, expenditures projected to increase • 26 percent, to $473 billion, in the low alternative projections; • 32 percent, to $ 498 billion, in the middle alternative projections • 39 percent, to $525 billion, in the high alternative projections.

  8. Amid concerns about effectiveness of what is being spent… “I have never seen a service sector…that combines fiscal allocation, political accommodations and cultural views in such a manner to produce results that are so oriented toward the provider’s employment interests rather than to the needs and desires of the customers –our students and their parents. The world seems topsy-turvey, upside down.. I concluded that it was quite unreasonable to ask people in a system that serves their needs quite well to change that system fundamentally on behalf of values they support rhetorically but not actually…It is not a system that even remotely puts children first. [1] [1] Alan Bersin A Theory of Action for High School Reform, Carnegie Corporation New York 2006

  9. “First, . . . by every means necessary, protect your turf. Second, resist change. Third, expand one’s sphere of control, always hoping to control more and more resources and authority. Fourth, enlarge the number of subordinates underneath you because having subordinates means having power, having election workers, and keeping yourself in office. Next, protect programs and projects regardless of whether they are effective or not. Finally, maintain the ability to distribute the greatest amounts of wealth from taxpayers to people and organizations of your own choosing.” (Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark 2001)

  10. Trend # 2 Continued and Increased School District Accountability by Federal and State Governments • Due to: • Rising Education Expenditures in constant dollars per pupil and overall • Concerns about effectiveness of resource allocations (tax $$) • Importance of Higher Levels of Education to the Economy • Political Disenfranchisement of Growing Portions of Latinos and Blacks resulting from inequities in “opportunities to learn”.

  11. Trend # 3 The NCLB “Accountability Squeeze” • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Federal Requires • K-12 Public School Districts Must Make Steady Progress Toward Reaching 100% Proficiency • For 41 Subgroups of Students in Math and Reading • All Schools within a District by 2014 • Risk Losing Federal Education Money Each School must make “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) based on a ever increasing percentage of their student being “Proficient”.

  12. What does Adequate Yearly Progress Measure? • AYP measures student results for three indicators, • Attendance (for schools without a high school graduating class) or Graduation Rate (for schools with a high school graduating class); • Academic Performance; and • Test Participation. • The details of AYP measurement can be complicated

  13. States determine AYP performance targets based on students' standardized test scores each year. The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) uses the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) to determine AYP performance. Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 Participation in and performance on the PSSA is a cornerstone of measuring AYP results. As measured by the PSSA, students' scores fall into one of four levels: Advanced (highest) Proficient ************************************ Basic Below Basic (lowest)

  14. AYP STATUS LEVELS

  15. Pennsylvania Schools and Districts AYP for 2004-05 and 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06 www.paayp.com

  16. PA Statewide School AYP Status 2006

  17. Reading Math

  18. Proportion of PA High Schools that Reached AYP Proficiency Overall in 11th Grade Math

  19. Trend # 4 “Achievement Gaps” • Persistent and Large Differences in Math and Reading Proficiencies in Elementary, Middle and High SchoolBetween: • Asians and Whites, • Whites and Black and Hispanics • Economically Disadvantaged, Special Education, English Language Learners and those white English speaking students from moderate to high SES backgrounds

  20. PA State Overall Results in Mathematics 2005

  21. PA State Overall Results in Mathematics 2006

  22. 11th Grade PSSA by Race 70 % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% White Asian Black Hispanic Advanced Below Basic

  23. PA STATE PSSA MATH 8th Grade 2006 versus 2005

  24. LikelyOutcomes • 1. 50% of all PA high schools will not reach AYP in 2008, • 2. More than 90% of PA schools will fail to reach 100% Proficiency in Math ,Reading and Science by 2014 for all students. • 3. Persistent Achievement and Graduation Gaps in NCLB categories • Crisis points: • Credibility of NCLB and “Corrective Action” sanctions. • “So what if we fail? What can the state really do with so many?” • 2. Inability of states and schools to improve student learning for all students at sufficient levels as reflected in high stakes state tests. • 3. Widening social and personal inequities, increased proportion of low knowledge young people in a high knowledge economy.

  25. Trend # 5 Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity as Percentage of US Population Poorer Hispanic and Black Populations Continue to Grow as Percentage of US Population Young People are Fasting Growing Minority Segment

  26. Trend # 6 High School and College Dropouts and “Drop downs”

  27. # 7 Increased Demand for Post Secondary Studies but many students not prepared Rising to the Challenge Are High School Graduates Prepared For College & Work? Key findings from surveys among public high school graduates, college instructors, and employers Conducted December 2004–January 2005 for

  28. Few Employers Feel High SchoolGraduates Prepared For Advancement Applicants with no high school degree Recent public high school grads who have no further education/training Recent grads of two-year college or training program Recent graduates of four-year colleges

  29. College instructors Employers/Instructors Dissatisfied With High Schools’ Skills Prep (In each area, % saying they are somewhat/very dissatisfied with the job public high schools are doing preparing graduates) Employers 29% very dissatisfied 22% very dissatisfied16% very dissatisfied 17% very dissatisfied Thinking analytically Work and study habits Applying what is learned in school to solving problems Computer skills

  30. College Instructors Are Harshest Critics Of High School Do public high schools adequately prepare graduates to meet the expectations they face in college In first-year classes, how much class time do you spend reviewing material and skills that should have been taught in high school? 70% Some class time Do not adequately prepare graduates 28% Very little class time Adequately prepare graduates Significant amount of class time (24%) Employers No class time

  31. # 8 Stiffer Competition from Abroad in STEM Talent

  32. Program for International Students Assessment

  33. High School Graduate Science Performance

  34. High School Graduate Math Performance

  35. #9 Declining of Flat Interest In STEM and Life Sciences

  36. Pennsylvania SAT Reasoning Test Test-Takers Mean Scores SAT I Mean Scores SAT I Mean Scores Intended College Major Number Pct Critical 1998 2006 Reading Math Writing Verbal Math Agriculture or Natural Resources 794 0.8% 473 471 455 1,453 1.6% 487 477 Architecture or Environmental Design 2,048 2.0% 483 517 476 1,767 1.9% 491 513 Arts: Visual and Performing 5,847 5.7% 508 490 497 5,333 5.9% 511 486 Biological Sciences 3,676 3.6% 530 534 518 4,412 4.9% 539 534 Business and Commerce 9,363 9.1% 479 498 470 10,281 11.3% 479 492 Communications 3,062 3.0% 514 490 509 3,395 3.7% 515 485 Computer or Information Sciences 2,715 2.6% 503 527 474 3,644 4.0% 497 514 Education 9,627 9.3% 477 481 473 10,206 11.2% 481 474 Engineering and Engineering Technologies 4,498 4.3% 524 577 507 5,670 6.2% 525 562 Foreign or Classical Languages 596 0.6% 577 547 562 412 0.5% 547 526 General or Interdisciplinary Studies 247 0.2% 516 497 512 179 0.2% 536 512 Health and Allied Services 13,067 12.6% 475 483 470 13,489 14.8% 490 492 Home Economics 296 0.3% 466 465 456 410 0.5% 456 447 Language and Literature 1,233 1.2% 595 529 583 1,033 1.1% 606 541 Library and Archival Sciences 47 0.0% 586 515 533 41 0.0% 537 495 Mathematics 679 0.7% 534 614 530 437 0.5% 549 619 Military Sciences 302 0.3% 502 510 482 328 0.4% 495 502 Philosophy, Religion, or Theology 405 0.4% 546 518 516 419 0.5% 551 523 Physical Sciences 1,153 1.1% 547 579 530 1,331 1.5% 557 571 Public Affairs and Services 2,202 2.1% 457 451 442 2,696 3.0% 459 448 Social Sciences and History 6,396 6.2% 527 503 511 8,366 9.2% 523 496 Technical and Vocational 1,023 1.0% 426 440 408 1,184 1.3% 437 442 Undecided 2,482 2.4% 491 504 479 5,173 5.7% 493 496 81,659 71,758 69.4% 89.8% Blank 30.6% 9,286 31,687 10.2% Total Test Takers 90,945 103,445 100.0% 493 500 483 100.0% 497 495 SD 107 113 106 89,198 PA 1st Time College Freshman Enrollment 2005-06

More Related