1 / 18

Narrowing the Racial Achievement Gap: Policy Success at the State Level

Narrowing the Racial Achievement Gap: Policy Success at the State Level. Prepared by Kelsey Hill, Daniel Moser, R . Sam Shannon, Timothy St. Louis For the State of Wisconsin , Department of Public Instruction May 13, 2013. Background. What is an achievement gap? Who is affected?

meir
Download Presentation

Narrowing the Racial Achievement Gap: Policy Success at the State Level

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. Narrowing the Racial Achievement Gap: Policy Success at the State Level Prepared by Kelsey Hill, Daniel Moser, R. Sam Shannon, Timothy St. Louis For the State of Wisconsin, Department of Public Instruction May 13, 2013

  2. Background What is an achievement gap? Who is affected? How bad is it? Why do we care?

  3. Scale of the Problem

  4. Scale of the Problem

  5. Identification Methods

  6. Research Methods • Four Target States – Case Study • Interviews with SEA officials • Peer-reviewed research journals • Internal document review • 45 Non-Target States – Overview • Brief interviews • Journals and popular media • Education policy websites

  7. Targeted Review In-depth review of the four states identified according to our similarity matrix and academic cut-offs. Iowa Kansas North Carolina Oklahoma

  8. Target States • Iowa • Statewide Voluntary Preschool Program • Includes: increased quality and standardization, greater access and funding, kindergarten assessments • Associated with: higher proficiency, especially notable for low-income children • Kansas • Accreditation program • Includes: cultural sensitivity, localized and personalized intervention • Associated with: increased student investment in education, with hopes to reduce dropouts • Data Literacy • Includes: professional development, increased data usage • Associated with: better understanding of what contributes to student underperformance, as well as best practices to address it

  9. Target States • North Carolina • Cooperative Innovative High (CIH) Schools • Includes: college credit in high school through partnerships with local colleges/universities • Associated with: increased achievement and higher academic persistence • Oklahoma • Universal preschool • Includes: increased access, high academic standards • Associated with: higher performance on kindergarten assessments, especially for minority students • Achieving Classroom Excellence (ACE) Act • Includes: emphasis on mathematics, with additional learning supports, expanded curricula requirements, and merit-based pay • Associated with: smaller 8th grade mathematics achievement gaps, similar act focused on reading improvement

  10. National Review • Collected information on our non-targeted states in a “potpourri” section

  11. “Potpourri” Policies • Competitive Grants Program • Similar to federal RTTT and TIF • e.g., Tennessee, Utah • Choice Architecture • Based on behavioral economics • e.g., Washington, Florida

  12. “Potpourri” Policies • Educator Support • New and better professional development • e.g., Idaho, Massachusetts • High School Persistence • More specific focus area • e.g., Indiana

  13. “Potpourri” Policies • State-Run Schools • Feasibility varies widely by state • e.g., Louisiana, Michigan • PreK-3 Alignment • Coherence, not just access • e.g., Chicago, Maryland

  14. Final Thoughts • Daunting task • No “silver bullet” • Still, there is promise! • Opportunity for future research

  15. Thank you! Questions?

  16. Phase 1: State Similarity Index US Census reports 20 broad comparison categories DPI rated each category Ratings 10 categories. Categories 17 variables (demographics, economics, education) Calculated the variance from Wisconsin for each variable, then calculated the average variance The top 30 states moved on to phase 2

  17. Phase 2: Academic Progress • National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP): • 4thand 8thgrade math and reading test scores • Calculated the percentage change from 2003-2011 • High School dropout: • Common Core of Data (CCD) • Calculated the percentage change from 2001-2009 • 20% improvement for both Black and Hispanic students on either NAEP or CCD, plus a holistic review of consistency • 11 states proceed to phase 3

  18. Phase 3: State-Level Confirmation Analyzed scores from the state’s own testing regime Interviewed officials from the State Education Agencies If state test and interview data confirmed the NAEP progress, the state was targeted for a case study 4 states qualified: Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina, and Oklahoma

More Related