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 ID: 632187
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Narrowing the Racial Achievement Gap:" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Narrowing the Racial Achievement Gap: Policy Success at the State Level
Prepared byKelsey Hill, Daniel Moser, R. Sam Shannon, Timothy St. Louis For the State of Wisconsin, Department of Public InstructionMay 13, 2013Slide2
Background
What is an achievement gap?Who is affected?How bad is it?Why do we care?Slide3
Scale of the ProblemSlide4
Scale of the ProblemSlide5
Identification Methods
PHASEREMAINING STATESAll non-Wisconsin states491) State Similarity Index302) 20% gap reduction – either NAEP or CCD
11
3) Confirm #2 with state
tests and SEA officials
4Slide6
Research Methods
Four Target States – Case StudyInterviews with SEA officialsPeer-reviewed research journalsInternal document review45 Non-Target States – OverviewBrief interviewsJournals and popular mediaEducation policy websitesSlide7
Targeted Review
Iowa
In-depth review of the four states identified according to our similarity matrix and academic cut-offs.
North Carolina
Oklahoma
KansasSlide8
Target States
IowaStatewide Voluntary Preschool Program Includes: increased quality and standardization, greater access and funding, kindergarten assessmentsAssociated with: higher proficiency, especially notable for low-income childrenKansasAccreditation programIncludes: cultural sensitivity, localized and personalized interventionAssociated 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 itSlide9
Target States
North CarolinaCooperative Innovative High (CIH) SchoolsIncludes: college credit in high school through partnerships with local colleges/universitiesAssociated with: increased achievement and higher academic persistenceOklahomaUniversal 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 8
th
grade mathematics achievement gaps, similar act focused on reading improvementSlide10
Collected information on our non-targeted states in a “potpourri” section
National ReviewSlide11
“Potpourri” Policies
Competitive Grants ProgramSimilar to federal RTTT and TIFe.g., Tennessee, UtahChoice ArchitectureBased on behavioral economicse.g., Washington, FloridaSlide12
Educator SupportNew and better professional developmente.g., Idaho, Massachusetts
High School PersistenceMore specific focus areae.g., Indiana“Potpourri” PoliciesSlide13
State-Run SchoolsFeasibility varies widely by statee.g., Louisiana, Michigan
PreK-3 AlignmentCoherence, not just accesse.g., Chicago, Maryland “Potpourri” PoliciesSlide14
Final ThoughtsDaunting
taskNo “silver bullet”Still, there is promise!Opportunity for future researchSlide15
Thank you!
Questions?Slide16
Phase 1: State Similarity IndexUS Census reports
20 broad comparison categoriesDPI rated each categoryRatings 10 categories.Categories 17 variables (demographics, economics, education)Calculated the variance from Wisconsin for each variable, then calculated the average varianceThe top 30 states moved on to phase 2Slide17
Phase 2: Academic ProgressNational Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP):
4th and 8th grade math and reading test scoresCalculated the percentage change from 2003-2011High 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 3Slide18
Phase 3: State-Level Confirmation
Analyzed scores from the state’s own testing regimeInterviewed officials from the State Education AgenciesIf state test and interview data confirmed the NAEP progress, the state was targeted for a case study4 states qualified: Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina, and Oklahoma