the limits and possibilities of urban school improvement: lessons from the inner city

The Limits and Possibilities of Urban School Improvement: Lessons from the Inner City

Robert F. and Augusta Finkelstein Memorial Lecture

October 20, 2009

Alan R. Sadovnik

Rutgers University-Newark

Jersey Roots, Global Reach

Agenda• Introduction

– Data on Achievement Gaps: Social Class, Race and Gender– Data on U.S. Cities– Data on Newark and New Jersey– Data on Long Island

• Sociological Explanations for the Achievement Gap • Reform Approaches

– School level– Societal and Community levels

• Types of Reforms and Effects– Governance Reforms– School Finance– Accountability under NCLB– School Choice– Progressive v. Traditional Approaches– Community-Based

• Limits and Possibilities of Reform• Conclusion


The Achievement Gap—Making Progress by Race

1996 NAEP 4th Grade Math 2007 NAEP 4th Grade MathNAEP Long-Term Trends, NCES (2004)


The Achievement Gap—Making Progress SES


High School Gap has widened…

17 Year Olds--NAEP Reading

17 Year Olds--NAEP Math

NAEP Long-Term Trends, NCES (2004)


African American, Latino & Native American high school graduates are less likely to have been enrolled in a full college prep track

25

46

22 21

39

0

50

AfricanAmerican

Asian Latino NativeAmerican

White

per

cen

t in

co

lleg

e p

rep

Source: Jay P. Greene, Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United States, Manhattan Institute, September 2003. Table 8. 2001 high school graduates with college-prep curriculum.

Full College Prep track is defined as at least: 4 years of English, 3 years of math, 2 years of natural science, 2 years of social science and 2 years of foreign language


African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Do Math at Same Levels As White 13

Year-Olds

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP


African American and Latino 17 Year-Olds Read at Same Levels As White 13 Year-

Olds

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress

Note: Long-Term Trends NAEP


Best available estimates of national four-year graduation rates

Class of 2006

57% 61%

78%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

African American Latino White

Source: Ed Trust analysis of enrollment data from the National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data using the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) methodology. For more information on the AFGR methodology, see National Center for Education Statistics, Users Guide to Computing High School Graduation Rates, Volume 2, August 2006.


Differences in Graduation Rate by Race


Reading Achievement GapMales v. Females Age 17


Math Achievement GapMales v. Females Age 17


Low-Income African American Scale Scores

Source: NAEP Data Explorer, NCES


Low-Income Latino Scale Scores

Note: Latino scores are not available for Atlanta.Source: NAEP Data Explorer, NCES


Low-Income African American Scale Scores

Source: NAEP Data Explorer, NCES


Low-Income Latino Scale Scores

Note: Latino scores are not available for Atlanta.Source: NAEP Data Explorer, NCES


Demographic Differences—Newark vs. NJ


Average Property Value

Per Student by District Grouping

1998-2003


Comparing Demographics of Students in New Jersey


Child and Youth Well-Being Indicators:Newark and New Jersey, 1997-2002


Grade 11 (HSPA) Language Arts Literacy2001-02 to 2002-03


Grade 11 (HSPA) Math2001-02 to 2002-03


Cumulative Promotion Index by District Grouping

Graduation by Traditional Grade 11 Exam by District Grouping

1994-95 to 2002-03


Categories of School Districts According to Demographic Stability and Change

Nassau and Suffolk County, Long Island 1998-2007 (Wells, 2009)

Table 1. Categories of School Districts According to Demographic Stability and Change

Nassau and Suffolk County, Long Island 1998 2007 ‐

Category Stability/Change over time Race SES

(Free Lunch) Change over 8

Years Number of LI Districts

by Category

1 Stable, Predominantly Black and Latino with Concentrated Poverty

> 88% Black or Latino

> 30% receiving free lunch

< 10% change in Black and Latino

Nassau: 5 Suffolk: 3 Total LI: 8

2

Stable, Predominantly White and/or Asian with

Low Poverty and thus Concentrated Privilege

> 75% White and/or Asian

< 8% receiving free lunch

< 10% change in White and/or Asian


3 Stable, Racially and Socio‐economically Diverse

<75% of Black/Latino OR

White /Asian

Between 15% and 22% with < 3%

change

< 10% change for any race

Nassau: 4 Suffolk: 8

Total LI: 12

4 Unstable, Changing Race and/or Poverty

Not more than 75% of any

racial/ethnic group

Between 3% and 26%

> 10% change in White



Inequalities on Long Island: Contiguous Districts


Inequalities on Long Island: North Shore vs. Urban Type Suburban Districts


Sociological Explanations for the Gap

• Functionalism: Meritocracy and Reduction of Inequalities

• Conflict Theory: Reproduction

of Inequalities

Within School Factors:

Funding

Curriculum and Pedagogy

Teacher and Principal Quality

Tracking

Outside School Factors:

Effects of Poverty (i.e. Health, Housing)

Culture

Family

Peer Groups

Neighborhood


School Based Reforms: Education Equality Project

• Advocacy group focused on closing the achievement gap through grass-roots organizing efforts

• Mission is to:– Ensure an effective teacher in

every classroom– Empower parents– Create accountability– Make decisions around what

is best for students– Encourage parents and

students to demand more from schools, as well as from themselves

– Advocate against those that have preserved inequity

Joel Klein & Al Sharpton


Societal and Community Based Reforms

Addressing the Effects of Poverty

A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education

1) Continue to focus on school improvement efforts

2) Increase and improve quality of early childhood programs

3) Increase investment in health services4) Understand how students spend their time

outside of school

From: http://www.boldapproach.org/statement.html

Jean Anyon & Richard Rothstein

Pedro Noguera & Helen Ladd


Types of Reform and Effects

• Governance Reform• School Finance• Accountability• School Choice• Progressive vs. Traditional

Approaches• Community-based Reforms


Types of Reform and Effects—Governance Reform

State Takeovers• 29 states have legislative power• NCLB gave states authority to

takeover school districts that failed to meet state standards

• Improve education systems by increasing level of local accountability (see Anderson & Lewis, 1997; Bushweller, 1998)

Mayoral Control• Baltimore, Boston, Chicago,

Cleveland, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C.

• Detroit• Mixed results on success (see

Wong, et al., 2007; Viteritti, 2009; Kirst, 2002; Chambers, 2006)


Types of Reform and Effects—School Finance

NEW JERSEY

“Thorough and Efficient Education”• Robinson v. Cahill (1970-1976)• Abbott v. Burke (1979-2009)• Bacon v. Davy (2003)• Abbott v. Burke XX, (SFRA) (2009)

NEW YORK

“Sound and Basic Education”

• Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. NY State (1993-2006)


National Inequities in State and Local Revenue

Per Student

Gap

High Poverty vs. Low Poverty Districts

–$773 per student

High Minority vs. Low Minority Districts

–$1,122 per student

Education Trust analyses based on U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Census Bureau data for the 2005-06 school year.


Types of Reform and EffectsAccountability under NCLB

SCHOOL QUALITY

NCLB neglects the concentrations

of poverty in American schools

From: Can Separate Be Equal? The Overlooked Flaw at the Center of No Child Left Behind Richard D. Kahlenberg, The Century Foundation, 4/23/2004

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PB&pubid=468

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PB&pubid=468


TEACHER QUALITYStudents at High-Minority Schools More Likely to Be Taught by Novice

Teachers

Analysis of 2003-2004 Schools and Staffing Survey data by Richard Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania (2007)

Note: Novice teachers are those with three years or fewer experience. High-minority ≥ 75% students non-white. Low-minority ≤ 10% students non-white.


Poor and Minority Students Get More Inexperienced* Teachers

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “Monitoring Quality: An Indicators Report,” December 2000.

*Teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience.

High poverty Low poverty High minority Low minority

Note: High poverty refers to the top quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low poverty-bottom quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. High minority-top quartile; those schools with the highest concentrations of minority students. Low minority-bottom quartile of schools with the lowest concentrations of minority students


The Components of NCLB

• Require states and districts to report school-by-school data on student test performance, broken out by whether the student is African-American, Hispanic, Native-American, Asian American, White non-Hispanic, Special Education, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and/or Low Income.

• States must set “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) goals for each school. In order to meet AYP, not only must each subgroup make progress in each year in each grade in each subject but there must be 95% participation of each subgroup as well. The increments in AYP should be arranged so that 100% of students reach proficiency by 2014.


The Components of NCLB (cont.)

• Annual testing of students in Grades 3-8 in reading and math plus at least one test in Grades 10-12; Science testing to follow. Graduation rates are used as a secondary indicator for high schools.

• Schools that don’t meet AYP for two years are labeled “In Need of Improvement” (INOI). Initially, this means that schools must offer students the option to go to another public school and/or to receive federally funded tutoring. Monies would also be made available for teacher professional development. In the absence of meeting future AYP targets, schools would be subject to “restructuring” (firing teachers and principal; state takeover; private company takeover; etc.).


The Components of NCLB (cont)

• Schools must have “highly qualified” teachers for the “core academic subjects” (English, reading or language arts, math, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history and geography) by 2005-6.


The Debate: Supporters’ Positions

• Advocates, including progressive organizations such as the Education Trust, argue that its annual testing and disaggregation requirements will force states to ensure that low-income students who continue to lag far behind higher income students will meet the same standards, and thus reduce the achievement gap by 2014.

• Conservative groups argue that the emphasis on testing will require schools to improve teaching and learning or face eventual closure or restructuring.

• Continuation of standards movement necessary to improve international competitiveness of U.S. schools.


The Debate: Critics’ Positions

• The law does not provide sufficient funds to improve failing schools and, more importantly, is heavy on punishment and light on building school capacity.

• Fails to acknowledge the social and economic foundation of unequal schooling and is a backdoor to the implementation of publicly funded school vouchers and the dismantling of public education in the U.S.

• Unfair to students with disabilities and Second Language Learners.


The Debate: Critics’ Positions (cont.)

• No uniform national measure of proficiency: state comparisons impossible; states can hide low standards.

• Evaluates schools rather than students: schools with high mobility rates are punished for such a high turnover.

• Assessments are based on a zero-sum definition of proficiency rather than a value added one: schools whose students show significant progress but are still below proficiency are labeled as failures rather than rewarded for their progress.


Positive Effects of the Law

• Has put spotlight on the inequalities of educational achievement like no other law, due to diasaggregation of results.

• Resulted in attention to persistently failing schools.

• Attention is being paid to teacher quality in a more systematic manner.


Negative Effects of the Law

• Over-emphasis on standardized tests, resulting in teaching to the test.

• Use of mean proficiency adversely affects schools with low-income and minority students.

• Punishes schools for problems outside of their control, such as poverty, health problems, etc.

• Over-emphasis on literacy and mathematics, has resulted in ignoring other subjects such as science, social studies, music and art.

• Outcomes based view of education has resulted in ignoring the social and developmental functions of schooling.


Types of Reform and Effects -- School Choice

Charter Schools• Charter school performance

mirrors public schools in Newark (Barr, Sadovnik, et al., 2006)

• NYC charter school students have increased achievement over students who were not accepted into charter school (Hoxby, et al., 2009)

Vouchers• Cleveland voucher program

legalized by US Supreme Court in 2002

• 18 school choice programs in 10 states and D.C.


Types of Reform and Effects

Progressive Approaches (Based on John Dewey)

Central Park East SecondarySchool (CPESS) (New York, NY)

• Under Deborah Meier:Progressive small school, 90% Black/Latino; 80% Free/Reduced Lunch; Graduation Rate 95+%College attendance Rate: 95+%

• Closed and reorganized in 2002; Non-progressiveGraduation rate: 40%


Traditional Approaches (Based on Delpit, 1995)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP)

• 82 college-preparatory schools in 19 states and D.C.

• College matriculation rate above 80%; student population 90% Black/Latino; more than 80% Free/Reduced lunch

North Star Academy (Newark, NJ): Uncommon Schools

• Charter school serves over 900 students in grades K-2 and 5-12

• 11month, extended day schedule

• 95% College matriculation; 100% Black/Latino; 90% Free/Reduced Lunch


Types of Reform and EffectsCommunity-Based Reforms

• Full service and community schools– Dryfoos (1994)

• Harlem Children’s Zone Project

• Newark Broader Bolder Approach


Possibilities: Effective School and District Level Reform

• Put all children—not just some—in a demanding high school core curriculum.

• Teachers matter—make sure they are high quality and supported.

• Focus on improving low-performing schools.• Motivate more students and prepare more students for

higher education.• Principals matter—focus on effective leadership.• Focus on instructional time.

Source: www.edtrust.org

http://www.edtrust.org/


Osmond A. Church SchoolNew York, New York


Osmond A. Church School, P.S./M.S. 124

Queens, NY

► 924 students in grades PK-7*

► 40% African American

► 33% Asian

► 23% Latino

► 97% Low-Income

Source: New York Department of Education, https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb/

* In 2005-06



Osmond A. Church School High Achievement for All

Grade 3 ELA (2006)


60%

41%

83%

50%

90%83% 84%84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Overall AfricanAmerican

Asian Low-Income

Perc

ent

Meeti

ng S

tandard

s

New York State Osmond Church


Osmond A. Church School High Achievement for All

Grade 6 Math (2006)


Elmont Memorial Junior-Senior HighElmont, New York

• 1,945 students in grades 7-12

– 77% African American• 27% Low-Income

Source: NY Department of Education


Elmont: Out-Performing the StateSecondary-Level English (2006)



Improvement and High Performance at Elmont Memorial Junior-Senior High



More Students Graduate at Elmont Memorial Junior-Senior High



Limits of Urban School Reform

• Problems associated with replication and “scaling up” for both district and charter schools

• Failure to address outside school factors (community, peer group, health and environmental factors)

• Failure to address economic factors (labor force and wage issues)

• Often perpetuates a simplistic “No Excuses” ideology of school improvement


Based upon the evidence, successful urban school improvement will require…

• Systemic reform aimed at both the school, student, community, economic and societal levels, which includes:

At the school level:– Equity school finance reform– Equitable distribution of high quality teachers and

principals– School level reforms based on research based

findings on effective schools and comprehensive school reform

– District level reform best on research based best practices of successful urban districts (i.e Charlotte and Austin)


At the student, community, economic and societal levels

• Address student and family health, environmental, and social-psychological needs

• Implement research based best practices family involvement programs (i.e. Comer; Epstein)

• Implement research based best practices gang prevention programs

• Link school reform to urban community and economic development

• Develop urban revitalization programs• Promote school level economic integration through affordable

housing programs and magnet school choice programs• Address pernicious effects of poverty through urban social

and economic policies


Conclusion• More sociological research is needed to inform urban

educational policy.• The focus on reducing the achievement gap in NCLB

should not be eliminated.• Emphasis on equal opportunities to learn need to be

included in all reforms.• Emphasis on building capacity of schools and districts

in need of improvement must be included in all reforms.

• Emphasis on factors outside schools, including poverty, community and neighborhood variables, need to be included in all reforms.

Sadovnik, A.R., O’Day, J; Borhnstedt, G., & Borman, K. (eds.) (2008). No Child Left Behind and the Reduction of the Achievement Gap: Sociological Perspectives on Federal Educational Policy. New York: Routledge.


Alan R.Sadovnik, Professor of Education, Sociology and Public Affairs

Co-director, Institute on Education Law and Policy and Newark Schools Research Collaborative

Rutgers University-Newark

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

the limits and possibilities of urban school improvement: lessons from the inner city

Documents