March 29 2017 Grand Rapids Public Schools Cabinet

March 29, 2017 | Grand Rapids Public Schools Cabinet | Grand Rapids, MI Achievement and Opportunity in America (and Michigan): Critical Next Steps © Copyright 2017 The Education Trust © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

America: Two Powerful Stories © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

1. Land of Opportunity: Work hard, and you can become anything you want to

2. Generational Advancement: Through hard work, each generation of parents can assure a better

These stories animated hopes and dreams of people here at home And drew countless

Yes, America was often intolerant… And they knew the “Dream” was a work in

We were: • • The first to provide universal high school; The first to build public universities; The first to build community colleges; The first to broaden access to college, through GI Bill, Pell Grants, … © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Percent of U. S. adults with a high school diploma 1920 1940 1960 1980

Percent of U. S. adults with a B. A. or more 1920 1940 1960

Progress was painfully slow, especially for people of color. But year by year, decade

Percent of U. S. adults with a high school diploma, by race 1940 1920

Percent of U. S. adults with a B. A. or more, by race 2012

Then, beginning in the eighties, growing economic inequality started eating away at our progress.

In recent years, most income gains have gone to those at the top of the ladder, while those at the bottom have fallen backwards. Source: Stiglitz, “Inequality is a Choice, ” New York Times, October 13, 2013. 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Instead of being the most equal, the U. S. has the third highest income inequality among OECD nations. 1, 00 0, 90 Gini Coefficient 0, 80 United States 0, 70 0, 60 0, 50 0, 40 0, 30 0, 20 0, 10 n de Sw e ay rw d lan Fin No y an rm Ge Au str ia ary ng ia Hu en da Slo v na Ca ium Be lg nd itze rla nd Sw Po la ce ee Gr d lan Ire in Sp a nia ly Es to Ita l ae Isr y rke Tu s tat e d. S xic o Un ite Me Ch ile 0, 00 Note: Gini coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates total income equality and 1 indicates total income inequality. Source: United Nations, U. N. data, http: //data. un. org/Document. Data. aspx? q=gini&id=271: 2011 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Not just wages and wealth, but social mobility as well. 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©©

U. S. intergenerational mobility was improving until 1980, but barriers have gotten higher since. The falling elasticity meant increased economic mobility until 1980. Since then, the elasticity has risen, and mobility has slowed. Earnings Elasticity 0, 6 0, 4 0, 2 0, 4 0, 35 0, 34 0, 3300000 0007 1960 1970 0, 5800000 0001 0, 46 0 1950 1980 1990 2000 Source: Daniel Aaronson and Bhashkar Mazumder. Intergenerational Economic Mobility in the U. S. , 1940 to 2000. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago WP 2005 -12: Dec. 2005. 2017 EDUCATION THE EDUCATIONTRUST © 2017©THE

The US now has one of lowest rates of intergenerational mobility Cross-country examples of the link between father and son wages Earnings Elasticity 0, 6 0, 4 0, 5 0, 2 0 Source: United Kingdom 0, 48 Italy 0, 47 United States 0, 41 France 0, 4 0, 320000001 0, 27 Spain 0, 26 0, 19 Germany Sweden Australia Canada Source: Corak, Miles. Chasing the Same Dream, Climbing Different Ladders. Economic Mobility Project; Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010. 0, 18 0, 17 0, 15 Finland Norway Denmark © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

At macro level, better and more equal education is not the only answer. But

There is one road up, and that road runs through us. 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST

So, how are we doing? ©© 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

First, some good news. After more than a decade of fairly flat achievement and stagnant or growing gaps in K-12, we appear to be turning the corner with our elementary students. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Since 1999, large gains for all groups of students, especially students of color 9 Year Olds – NAEP Reading 250 240 Average Scale Score 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 African American 160 Latino White 150 1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008 2012 *Denotes previous assessment format Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012” © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Since 1999, performance rising for all groups of students 9 Year Olds – NAEP Math 260 250 Average Scale Score 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 African American 170 Latino White 160 1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 *Denotes previous assessment format Source: 2008 2012 National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012” © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Looked at differently… © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

1996 NAEP Grade 4 Math Percentage of Students By Race/Ethnicity – National Public 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3% 24% 7% 26% 32% 49% 73% Proficient/Advanced Basic 61% Below Basic 26% African Latino American White National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http: //nces. ed. gov/nationsreportcard/nde/ Source: © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

2015 NAEP Grade 4 Math Percentage of Students By Race/Ethnicity – National Public 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 19% 26% 51% 46% Proficient/Advanced 47% Basic 39% 35% African American 27% Latino Below Basic 10% White National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http: //nces. ed. gov/nationsreportcard/nde/ Source: © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Middle grades are up, too. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Record performance for students of color 13 Year Olds – NAEP Reading 300 290 Average Scale Score 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 African American 210 Latino White 200 1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008 2012 *Denotes previous assessment format National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012” ©© 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Over the last decade, all groups have steadily improved and gaps have narrowed National Public – Grade 8 NAEP Math 305 310 300 Average Scale Score 290 280 291 275 269 270 260 250 240 230 267 263 269 260 245 236 220 210 1990* 1992* 1996 African American 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Latino *Accommodations not permitted Source: NAEP Data Explorer, NCES (Proficient Scale Score = 299) © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Bottom Line: When we really focus on something, we make progress! © 2017 THE

Clearly, much more remains to be done in elementary and middle school Too many

But at least we have some traction on elementary and middle school problems. The

Achievement is flat in reading for students overall. 17 -Year-Olds Overall - NAEP 340 330 Average Scale Score 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 250 240 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 2012 Source: NAEP Long-Term Trends, NCES (2004) © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Math achievement for students overall is flat over time. 17 -Year-Olds Overall - NAEP 350 340 Average Scale Score 330 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 250 1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008 2012 * Denotes previous assessment format Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

And despite earlier improvements, gaps between groups haven’t narrowed much since the late 80

Reading: Not much gap narrowing since 1988. 17 Year Olds – NAEP Reading 320 310 Average Scale Score 300 290 280 270 260 250 240 African American 230 Latino White 220 1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008 2012 *Denotes previous assessment format Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012” © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Math: Not much gap closing since 1990. 17 Year Olds – NAEP Math 340 330 Average Scale Score 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 African American 250 Latino White 240 1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008 2012 *Denotes previous assessment format Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012” © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Moreover, no matter how you cut the data, our students aren’t doing well compared

Ja Es pan to Ko Fin nia rea la , R Can nd Ne epub ada w Z lic ea of Slo land v Un ite Aus enia d K tra in lia Ge gdom Ne rm th a Sw erla ny itze nds rla Ire nd Be land De lgium nm Po ark Po land rt Un No ugal ite rw d S ay ta Au tes s Fra tria OE S nc Cz CD a wedee ec ve n h R ra ep ge ub Sp lic ain Lu xe Latv mb ia ou rg Hu Italy ng a I c ela ry Slo n va k R Isra d ep el u Gr blic ee c Ch e Tu ile r Me key xic o Average Scale Score Of 35 OECD Countries, U. S. A. Ranks 19 th in Science Literacy PISA Science, 2015 – All Students 550 Higher than U. S. average Source: U. S. A. OECD 500 450 400 350 300 Not measurably different from U. S. average Lower than U. S. average National Center for Education Statistics, 2016 https: //nces. ed. gov/surveys/pisa 2015/pisa 2015 highlights_3. asp © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

an a Fi da nl a Ko Ire nd la re a, E nd R sto ep n ub ia lic Ja of p N No an ew rw Ze ay a G lan er d m a Po ny S la N lov nd et e he ni rla a Au nd st s r Sw alia D ede en n m a Fr rk an Be ce l U ni P gium te or d tu U Kin ga ni g l te do d St m O at EC es D Sp a a Sw ve in itz rag er e C la ze n ch La d R tvi ep a ub Au lic st ria Ita Lu Ice ly xe la m nd bo ur Is g H rae un l g G ary r Sl ee ov c ak C e R hil ep e ub Tu lic rk M ey ex ic o C Average scale score Of 35 OECD Countries, U. S. A. Ranks 20 thth in Reading Literacy Reading, 2015 - All Students 600 Source: U. S. A. OECD 500 400 300 200 100 0 Higher than U. S. average Not measurably different from U. S. average Lower than U. S. average National Center for Education Statistics, 2016 https: //nces. ed. gov/surveys/pisa 2015/pisa 2015 highlights_4. asp © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Of 35 OECD Countries, U. S. A. Ranks 31 st in Math Literacy Math, 2015 – All Students 550 OECD Average scale score 500 U. S. A. 450 400 300 Japan Korea, Republic of Switzerland Estonia Canada Netherlands Denmark Finland Slovenia Germany Poland Ireland Norway Austria New Zealand Sweden Australia France United Kingdom Czech Republic Portugal OECD average Italy Iceland Spain Luxembourg Latvia Hungary Slovak Republic Israel United States Greece Chile Turkey Mexico 350 Higher than U. S. average Source: Not measurably different from U. S. average Lower than U. S. average National Center for Education Statistics, 2016 https: //nces. ed. gov/surveys/pisa 2015/pisa 2015 highlights_5. asp © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Up until the latest results, the only place we ranked high was someplace we

The gap between high and low-SES students in the United States is slightly smaller than the OECD average. Reading, 2015 - Gap between high and low SES students Source: U. S. A. OECD 550 500 450 400 350 Iceland Turkey Norway Estonia Latvia Mexico Canada Denmark Finland Korea, Republicof United Kingdom Japan Slovenia United States Ireland Spain Italy Poland OECD average Sweden Australia Chile Netherlands Portugal Germany Israel Greece New Zealand Switzerland Austria Belgium Slovak Republic Czech Republic Hungary France Luxembourg Gap in Average Scale Score 600 Note: High SES students are those in the top quartile on the ESCS. Low SES students are those in the bottom quartile. The ESCS (Index of Economic, Social, and Cultural Status) is comprised of information related to parents’ occupational status, parents’ educational attainment, family wealth, home educational resources, and possessions related to “classical” culture in the home. National Center for Education Statistics, 2016 https: //nces. ed. gov/surveys/pisa 2015/pisa 2015 highlights_4. asp © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

The U. S. Gap Between High-SES and Low-SES Students is Equivalent to Over Two Years of Schooling Math, 2015 – Gaps in low- and high- SES performance 600 OECD U. S. A. Gap in Average Scale Score 550 500 450 400 M ex Tu ico rk Ic ey el N and or w a La y t v C ia an a Es da D ton en ia m Fi ark n Sl lan ov d e Ire nia la G nd re ec e Ita Ja ly p P a U Net ola n ni he n te r d d la Ki nd ng s do O EC m S D p av ain er U Au age ni st te r N d S alia ew t Ze ates a G lan er d m a Au ny s S tr Sw we ia itz de Ko er n re la a, n Sl Re Isr d ov pu ae ak b l R lic o ep f ub li C c C ze P hil ch ort e R uga ep l ub Lu Fr lic xe an m ce b H our un g ga ry 350 Source: Note: High SES students are those in the top quartile on the ESCS. Low SES students are those in the bottom quartile. The ESCS (Index of Economic, Social, and Cultural Status) is comprised of information related to parents’ occupational status, parents’ educational attainment, family wealth, home educational resources, and possessions related to “classical” culture in the home. National Center for Education Statistics, 2016 https: //nces. ed. gov/surveys/pisa 2015/pisa 2015 highlights_5. asp © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

The U. S. Gap Between High-SES and Low-SES Students is Equivalent to Over Two Years of Schooling Science, 2015 – Gaps between low- and high- SES performance Gap in Average Scale Score 600 OECD U. S. A. 550 500 450 400 Ice la Tu nd rk Me ey xic La o Es tvia to Ca nia n No ada De rway Ko nm rea ark , R ep Ital ub y lic Fin of lan Ja d p Ire an l Un an d ite d K Spa ing in d Po om lan OE CD Gre d av ece era Un Slov ge ite d S enia Au tates st Sw ralia ed e Ne Is n the rae rla l nd Ch s Po ile rtu Slo va Au gal k s Ne Rep tria w Z ubl ea ic Ge land r Cz Swit man z y ec h R erlan ep d u Be blic lgi Hu um ng a Lu Fra ry xe mb nce ou rg 350 Note: High SES students are those in the top quartile on the ESCS. Low SES students are those in the bottom quartile. The ESCS (Index of Economic, Social, and Cultural Status) is comprised of information related to parents’ occupational status, parents’ educational attainment, family wealth, home educational resources, and possessions related to “classical” culture in the home. National Center for Education Statistics , 2016 https: //nces. ed. gov/surveys/pisa 2015/pisa 2015 highlights_3. asp ©© 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

PISA results indicate that U. S. schools are equipping white and Asian students with higher levels of preparation in reading. Reading, 2015 – Performance by race/ ethnic group Average scale score 600 550 527 526 493 500 478 443 450 400 350 White Source: Black Hispanic Asian OECD average National Center for Education Statistics, 2016 https: //nces. ed. gov/surveys/pisa 2015/pisa 2015 highlights_4. asp © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

PISA results indicate that U. S. schools are equipping white and Asian students with higher levels of preparation in Math, 2015 – U. S. results by race/ ethnicity Average scale score 600 550 500 499 498 490 446 450 419 400 350 White Source: African American Latino Asian OECD Average National Center for Education Statistics, 2016 https: //nces. ed. gov/surveys/pisa 2015/pisa 2015 highlights_5. asp © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

PISA results indicate that U. S. schools are equipping white and Asian students with higher levels of preparation in science. Science, 2015 – Performance by race/ ethnic group Average scale score 600 550 531 525 493 500 470 433 450 400 350 White African American Latino Asian OECD Average National Center for Education Statistics, 2016 https: //nces. ed. gov/surveys/pisa 2015/pisa 2015 highlights_3. asp ©© 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

So let’s talk about those gaps. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Gaps in achievement begin before children arrive at the schoolhouse door. But, rather than organizing our educational system to ameliorate this problem, we organize it to exacerbate the problem. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

How? By giving students who arrive with less, less in school, too. © 2017

Some of these “lesses” are a result of choices that policymakers make. 2017 THE

National Inequities in State and Local Revenue Per Student High Poverty vs. Low Poverty Districts High Minority vs. Low Minority Districts Source: Gap –$1200 per student –$2, 000 per student Education Trust analyses based on U. S. Dept of Education and U. S. Census Bureau data for 2010 -12 © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

In truth, though, some of the most devastating “lesses” are a function of choices

Choices we make about what to expect of whom. . . 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST

Students in poor schools receive As for work that would earn Cs in affluent schools. Source: Prospects (ABT Associates, 1993), in “Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes”, PES, DOE, 1997. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Choices we make about what to teach whom… 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Percentage of students who were in the top two quintiles of math performance in fifth grade and in algebra in eighth grade Even African-American students with high math performance in fifth grade are unlikely to be placed in algebra in eighth grade 100% 94% 80% 68% 63% 60% 40% 35% 20% 0% African American Latino White Asian Source: NCES, “Eighth-Grade Algebra: Findings from the Eighth-Grade Round of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998 -99 (ECLS-K)” (2010). 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

And choices we make about who teaches whom… 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Students at high-minority schools more likely to be taught by novice* teachers. Note: High minority school: 75% or more of the students are Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander. Low-minority school: 10% or fewer of the students are non-White students. Novice teachers are those with three years or fewer experience. Source: Analysis of 2003 -2004 Schools and Staffing Survey data by Richard Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania 2007. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Percent of Class Taught by Teachers With Neither Certification nor Major Math classes at high-poverty, high-minority secondary schools are more likely to be taught by out-of-field* teachers. 30% High Low 25% 22% 11% 13% 0% Poverty Minority Note: High-poverty school: 55 percent or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced-price lunch. Low-poverty school : 15 percent or fewer of the students are eligible for free/reduced-price lunch. High-minority school: 78 percent or more of the students are black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander. Low-minority school : 12 percent or fewer of the students are non-white students. *Teachers with neither certification nor major. Data for secondary-level core academic classes (math, science, social studies, English) across the U. S. Source: Education Trust Analysis of 2007 -08 Schools and Staffing Survey data. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Los Angeles: Black, Latino students have fewer highly effective teachers, more weak ones. Latino and black students are: READING/LANGUAGE ARTS 3 X as likely to get loweffectiveness teachers ½ as likely to get highly effective teachers Source: Education Trust—West, Learning Denied, 2012. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

The results are devastating. Kids who come in a little behind, leave a lot

And these are the students who remain in school through 12 th grade. 2017

Students of color are less likely to graduate from high school on time. Class of 2013 Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate 100% 87% 71% 89% 75% 70% 60% 40% 20% 0% African American Latino White Asian Native American Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “Public School Graduates and Dropouts from the Common Core of Data: School Year 200809” (2011). 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Add those numbers up and throw in college entry and graduation, and different groups

Whites attain bachelor’s degrees at nearly twice the rate of blacks and almost three times the rate of Hispanics Bachelor’s Degree Attainment of Young Adults (25 -29 -year-olds), 2014 41% 22% 15% White African American Latino Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Educational Attainment in the United States: 2014 © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Percent with Bachelor’s Degree by Age 24 Young adults from high-income families are more than three times as likely as those from low-income families to earn bachelor’s degrees by age 24 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 54% 3 x 17% Highest income quartile Lowest income quartile http: //www. brookings. edu/research/papers/2015/03/12 -chalkboard-income-education-attainmentchingos © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

These numbers are not good news for our country—or for the lives of the

Agenda #1 Working together to get more low-income students and students of color through

Among black men, education makes a huge difference in life outcomes © 2017 THE

What Can We Do? An awful lot of Americans have decided that we can’t

What We Hear Many Educators Say: • • • They’re poor Their parents don’t

Let’s be clear, these things do matter. 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Child Poverty in the US, 2013 White 13. 4% Black 36. 9% Hispanic 30.

And let’s also be clear: tolerating high child poverty rates is a policy choice.

2017 EDUCATION THE EDUCATIONTRUST © 2017©THE

Yet, how we respond to the effects of that choice is a choice, too.

We can choose to go along with what has become conventional wisdom in our

Or we can choose differently. …joining colleagues in schools all over this country that

Mary Mc. Leod Bethune Elementary School New Orleans, Louisiana • 505 students in grades PK – 6 • 99% African American • 90% Low-Income . Source: Louisiana Department of Education, 2016 © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Bethune Elementary Outperforming the State PARCC, 2016 3 17 35 53 36 28 19 3 0 7 Grade 6 ELA Bethune Grade 6 ELA Louisiana 0% Unsatisfactory Source: Louisiana Department of Education Approaching Basic Mastery Advanced © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Bethune Elementary Outperforming the State PARCC, 2016 6 8 31 33 30 41 22 16 11 2 0% Grade 3 Math Bethune Unsatisfactory Source: Louisiana Department of Education Approaching Basic Grade 3 Math Louisiana Basic Mastery Advanced © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Dr. Carlos J. Finlay Elementary School Miami-Dade, Florida • • 511 students in grades PK – 5 98% Latino 86% Low Income 57% English Language Learners Note: Data are for 2012 -2013 school year. Source: Florida Department of Education © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Finlay Elementary Outperforming the State 2016 100 79 80 68 60 53 57 54

Elmont Memorial High School Elmont, New York 1, 739 students in grades 7 -12 76% African American 14% Latino 9% Asian 1% White Source: New York State Department of Education, 2016 © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

High Performance by ALL Students at Elmont Memorial High School Percentage Proficient and Above Secondary Level Math (2012) 100% 80% 94% 97% 82% 71% 72% 96% 76% 60% EMHS 40% New York 20% 0% Overall African American Hispanic Low Income Source: New York Department of Education https: //reportcards. nysed. gov/schools. php? district=800000049235&year=2012 © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

High Performance by ALL Students at Elmont Memorial High School Percentage Proficient and Above Secondary Level English (2012) 100% 80% 96% 93% 82% 71% 98% 75% 60% EMHS 40% New York 20% 0% Overall African American Hispanic Low Income Source: New York Department of Education https: //reportcards. nysed. gov/schools. php? district=800000049235&year=2012 © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Graduation Rates, 2015 100 80 92 91 91 88 92 91 86 78 70 65 65 60 40 20 0 All Students African American Hispanic Elmont White Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged New York Source: New York State Department of Education, 2016 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Graduating with an Advanced Designation, 2015 50 46 45 43 44 39 40 35 46 44 32 30 25 20 17 15 10 10 5 0 All Students African American White Elmont Source: New York State Department of Education, 2016 Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged New York 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Class of 2011 95% 94% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 97% 89% 93% 81% 74% 58% 64% 58% Elmont. . ta ad v an om on Ec N ot on om ic ic al ly D is ad v Am an ric Af Ec an ta g. ge d o La tin er ve ic ra an ll New York O Percentage of 2007 Freshmen Graduating in Four Years High Graduation Rates at Elmont Memorial High School Note: Includes students graduating by June 2011. Source: New York State Department of Education © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

This is what happens when teams of educators choose differently. ©© 2017 THE EDUCATION

Available from Harvard Education Press and amazon. com © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Just flukes, outliers? No. Very big differences at district level, too— even in the

Source: ia (D Atl a s nta o ieg lla city Lo CP S) s. A ng ele Ph s ila de lph Ba ia ltim ore Cit y Cle ve lan d Fre sn o De tro it mb olu f. C to Dis tric Da rge lic go ub lp n. D Sa La na y Cit (KY ) ica Ch ork nty w. Y tio Na Ne (FL e ) us ton Ho ty ad ) e (FL i-D un ou Co n. C va l rso Du am Mi nty ott arl n sto Bo Ch ou h. C ug oro ffe Je lsb Hil Average Scale Scores, by District Low-Income African American Students Grade 4 – NAEP Reading (2015) 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 Note: Basic Scale Score = 208; Proficient Scale Score = 238 NAEP Data Explorer, NCES © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

ou nty lla (FL ) s e (FL Da ty un Co h. C ug oro va l ad e Ho ) us ton Au stin Bo sto n Dis Ch tric ica to go f. C La rge olu mb city ia (D Na CP tio S) na l p Ne ub Je lic w. Y ffe rso ork n. C Cit ou y nty Ba (KY ltim ) ore Cit y Cle ve lan Alb d uq ue rqu e Atl an ta Sa n. D ieg Lo o s. A ng ele s De tro it Fre sn Ph o ila de lph ia lsb Hil Du i-D ott arl Ch am Mi Average Scale Scores, by District Low-Income Latino Students Grade 4 – NAEP Math (2015) 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 Note: Basic Scale Score = 214; Proficient Scale Score = 249 Source: NAEP Data Explorer, NCES © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Change in Average Scale Scores, by District Low-Income African American Students Grade 4 – NAEP Reading (2003 -2015) Charlotte District of Columbia Los (DCPS) Angeles Boston 15 15 14 13 Chicago 12 Large city 11 Atlanta National public Houston San New. Diego York 10 10 6 6 4 City Clevelan d 1 0 5 10 15 20 Change in Mean Scale Score, 2003 -2015 Note: Chart includes only districts that participated, and had members of this specific subgroup, in both the 2003 and 2015 NAEP TUDA administrations Source: NCES, . NAEP Data Explorer 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Change in Average Scale Scores, by District Low-Income Latino Students Grade 4 – NAEP Reading (2003 -2015) Boston District of Columbia (DCPS) Charlotte San Diego Chicago National public Los 14 13 11 8 8 8 7 Angeles Large city Houston New York City Clevelan 7 1 -1 -1 d -5 0 5 10 15 Change in Mean Scale Score, 2003 -2015 Note: Chart includes only districts that participated, and had members of this specific subgroup, in both the 2003 and 2015 NAEP TUDA administrations Source: NCES, . NAEP Data Explorer 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Change in Average Scale Scores, by District Low-Income African American Students Grade 8 – NAEP Math (2003 -2015) Los Angeles Boston 22 19 Chicago 17 Atlanta Large city Charlotte District of Columbia National (DCPS) public New York City Houston Clevelan d 17 12 12 11 9 9 6 0 -1 4 9 14 19 24 Change in Mean Scale Score, 2003 -2015 Note: Chart includes only districts that participated, and had members of this specific subgroup, in both the 2003 and 2015 NAEP TUDA administrations Source: NCES, . NAEP Data Explorer 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Change in Average Scale Scores, by District Low-Income Latino Students Grade 8 – NAEP Math (2003 -2015) San Diego Boston Los Angeles Chicago Large city Houston National District publicof Columbia New (DCPS) York City Clevelan 19 19 18 14 13 13 12 10 9 8 d 0 5 10 15 20 Change in Mean Scale Score, 2003 -2015 Note: Chart includes only districts that participated, and had members of this specific subgroup, in both the 2003 and 2015 NAEP TUDA administrations Source: NCES, . NAEP Data Explorer 2017 THE THEEDUCATIONTRUST ©© 2017

Even at the state level, there are very big differences in performance—even for the

103 In All-Important Area of Early Literacy, Michigan One of Only Five States with Declining Achievement Since 2003 Average Lo Scale Score Change, NAEP Grade 4 - Reading - All Students (2003 -15) MI -4 Source: -2 uis Ala ian Flo Rh ba Ke a rid od ma ntu Mi ae ck ssi Isl Ge y Ok Pe ssi Ma an org lah nn ppi ss d ia om syl ac Ne a Cal va hu va ifo nia set da Ut rni Ind ts Te ah Ha a ian nn wa a Ari es ii Wy zo Ne se om na bra e Illi Nat ing sk Vir noi ion a gin Wa s al No ia shi Pu rth Ar Ne ngt bli Ca ka w Ne on Ma c roli ns Jer w ryl Ne na as se Ha an w y mp Ver d Me So shi mo xic Ida uth re nt o ho Te Ca No xa roli Oh rth s na io Or Da Wi eg kot sc Mo on a on Ala nta Ka sin sk Mi na Co ns a nn nn Mi as es ect Ne ss ota Co icu w ou lor t Yo ri Io ad rk Ma So wa Del o ine uth aw Mi We Da are chi st kot ga Vir an gin ia F L MA TN US Public 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Note: Basic Scale Score = 208; Proficient Scale Score = 238 NAEP Data Explorer, NCES © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

In Math, Michigan’s 8 th Graders Show Little Improvement Compared with Leading States Average Scale Score Change, Grade 8 - NAEP Math- All Students (2003 -2015) Massachusetts Tennessee Nation Michigan 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Source: NAEP Data Explorer, NCES (Proficient Scale Score = 299; Basic Scale Score = 262) © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Across racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups, Michigan is in a free fall, with broad

ss Do. D ac hu EA se Wa Ariz tts Rh shi ona od ngt e on No Co Islan rth lor d a Ne Caro do w J lin er a Flo sey Ke rid nt a Ge ucky o We In rgia st dian V a De irgin law ia Al are No Neb aska rth ras Da ka Vir kota Ma gini a Na Ne rylan tio w Y d na l or Ok Pub k Co laho lic nn m ec a tic Pe nn Tex ut sy as lva Dis nia tric t o Ala Ohio f C ba ol ma Lo umb uis ia Mi iana Arkssou Mi ans ri ss iss as ip So uth Illin pi Da ois k So N uth ev ota C a Te aro da nn lina es Ka see Ca nsa lifo s r Mania in Mi Iowe nn Wi eso a sc ta Mi onsi ch n iga n Ma Average Scale Score Reasonably Well Known: Michigan’s African American Students at the Bottom Compared to Peers in Other States Grade 4 – NAEP Reading (2015) 260 250 240 230 220 210 Michigan 192 200 190 180 170 160 NAEP Data Explorer, NCES (Proficient Scale Score = 238; Basic Scale Score = 208) ©© 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Dis tric t Maof C ss olu Coachumbia Nennecsetts w J tic e u Vir rseyt No rth Doginia C D A Dearol. E ina l a Co wa lor re a F Ma lorido ryl da Pe a n T Rh nsy exnd od lva as e I ni a Wa. Nebrsland sh ask Ne ing a Ne w Yton w. H o am. Illinork ps is Ha hire M Geowaii Na Winnesrgia tio yo ot na m a l P ing ub I Candia lic lifo na Wi Urnia s t Keconsah So V ntu in uth er ck Ca mony rol t ina Ari Ohio No Mo zon rth nt a D an Mi akota s Nesoura va i So I da uth Alaowa Da ska Ka kota Or nsas e Mi Idgon ss ah Lo iss o Ok uisiaippi lah na Te. Alaboma nn am e Ne Mssea w M ai e Ark exine We Mi ansco st chig as Vir an gin ia Average Scale Score Less Well Known: Michigan’s White Students Perform Below Peers in All But West Virginia Grade 4 – NAEP Reading (2015) 260 250 240 Michigan 221 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 NAEP Data Explorer, NCES (Proficient Scale Score = 238; Basic Scale Score = 208) © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST-MIDWEST © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Michigan NAEP Performance Relative Rank of All Students 2003 -2015 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 4 th Grade Reading 28 th 30 th 34 th 35 th 38 th 41 st 4 th Grade Math 27 th 32 nd 38 th 41 st 42 nd 8 th Grade Reading 27 th 29 th 32 nd 28 th 32 nd 31 st 8 th Grade Math 34 th 33 rd 36 th 37 th 38 th Note: Rankings are among all 50 states Source: NCES, NAEP Data Explorer © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Michigan NAEP Performance Relative Rank of African-American Students 2003 -2015 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 4 th Grade Reading 38 th 39 th 36 th 44 th 45 th 42 nd 41 st 4 th Grade Math 37 th 40 th 43 rd 44 th 42 nd 8 th Grade Reading 29 th 33 rd 38 th 37 th 34 th 33 rd 39 th 8 th Grade Math 35 th 32 nd 39 th 42 nd 41 st 37 th Note: Rankings are among the states that reported data for African-American students. Source: NCES, NAEP Data Explorer © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Michigan NAEP Performance Relative Rank of Latino Students 2003 -2015 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 4 th Grade Reading 22 nd 15 th 13 th 25 th 26 th 24 th 33 rd 4 th Grade Math 16 th 25 th 20 th 31 st 32 nd 40 th 43 rd 8 th Grade Reading 5 th 13 th 38 th 13 th 4 th 21 st 3 rd 8 th Grade Math 4 th 12 th 35 th 19 th 13 th 43 rd 30 th Note: Rankings are among all 50 states Source: NCES, NAEP Data Explorer © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Michigan NAEP Performance Relative Rank of White Students 2003 -2015 200 3 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 4 th Grade Reading 13 th 26 th 33 rd 38 th 35 th 49 th 4 th Grade Math 13 th 20 th 37 th 41 st 45 th 46 th 47 th 8 th Grade Reading 12 th 30 th 37 th 38 th 37 th 41 st 42 nd 8 th Grade Math 25 th 31 st 38 th 40 th 44 th 42 nd Note: Rankings are among all 50 states Source: NCES, NAEP Data Explorer © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Michigan NAEP Performance Relative Rank of Low Income Students 2003 -2015 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 4 th Grade Reading 35 th 37 th 36 th 37 th 45 th 4 th Grade Math 34 th 37 th 40 th 45 th 46 th 48 th 8 th Grade Reading 31 st 33 rd 41 st 37 th 26 th 31 st 35 th 8 th Grade Math 34 th 37 th 42 nd 47 th 43 rd 44 th 46 th Note: Rankings are among all 50 states Source: NCES, NAEP Data Explorer © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Michigan NAEP Performance Relative Rank of Higher Income Students 2003 -2015 2003 2005 2007 2009 201 1 2013 2015 4 th Grade Reading 24 th 35 th 36 th 35 th 38 th 4 th Grade Math 20 th 29 th 35 th 43 rd 32 nd 45 th 8 th Grade Reading 21 st 37 th 36 th 31 st 30 th 31 st 33 rd 8 th Grade Math 34 th 35 th 38 th 39 th 40 th 39 th 41 st Note: Rankings are among all 50 states Source: NCES, NAEP Data Explorer © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Add these numbers together and compare with other states? Michigan is generally both low performing and low improving—not a good place to be in a country that is at best only middle-of-thepack. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

And for those who think that the “answer” is fast growth of charters… 2017

116 Even though Boston’s Traditional Public Schools Perform Much Higher Than those in Detroit, Their Charters Overwhelmingly Have Higher Learning Gains Percentage of Charter Schools with Worse/No Different/Better Growth than Location Traditional Schools Stanford University – CREDO (2015): Comparing Charter School Growth to Local Traditional School Growth within Boston and Detroit in Math 100% 92% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 33% 30% 20% 8% 10% 8% 0% 0% Worse Growth No Different Growth Boston Better Growth Detroit Source: “Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions, ” Stanford University Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2015. https: //urbancharters. stanford. edu/download/Urban%20 Charter%20 School%20 Study%20 Report%20 on%2041%20 Regions. pdf © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Source: Center for Research on Education Outcomes, “Charter School Performance in Michigan” (Stanford, CA: CREDO, 2013), http: //credo. stanford. edu/research-reports. html. © 2016 THE EDUCATION TRUST-MIDWEST © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

ep Pr M ar De etro at or troi Ch t y Sc En arte ie ter r A nc p c D e ris ad R etr and e A em id ge oit P M cad y a D et Pa rem th em y ( ro r D it k C ier PS et A M h ro er ar Aca D) it i t t C er de Ed m h A is U on Gre art ca y ni ve Pu at er A dem rs bl Oa ca y ity ic k Pr Sc s A dem ep ho ca y a d In rat La ol A em te or rn y uru ca y W ati Ac s A dem es on ad c to a e ad y W n P l A my em c ar re rep ade (PS y nd ar m A al ato y o D) e f r W Ch y A Flin es art ca t t V er de Ac il la Aca my a g d Li d nd em e A em F en y o ca y B lag C f S de D urt shi har ou my et on p ro C te th it Gle ha r Ac field Se n rt a rv C er de m A ic h D e L arte cad y av e r a id Ac em r Be n y Pl D Ellis ing ade ov ym nto e Ac Aca my ou n H A a d de th ar c Ed bo De ade em my uc r C tro m y W at ha it y o e P s io na rter ub f De t l C S lic t S roit e ch Ad R nte ool cho va ea r o nc ch Ch Aca ls ed C ar de Te ha ter my r S C chn ter ch ha G A o ra nd olog ca ol nd d le y r P A em R ap ar cad y id k s Ea A em c El Le Cr ton ad y lin gt C ga es A em on on c ce ca y y n d n N at Aca er Ch t A em ak C a c y i T dem ree rte ad e r al ib y o k A Aca my f c a d a A h G Sc rts de em Ar eo ho & my y ts rge ol Te E an W as h c d Ti o Te ash No us hno t m bu ch ing rth e o log rid f kt n t u ol on g D y e og e Ac y Car Ac troi ad Ac ve ad t em a r d y A em of A em ca y d y S c M cie ade of em ic hi nce my Po y n ga n an of W tiac Te d a T O chn ech rren ld i R cal nol ed A og fo ca y Fr rd A dem an c y M Br cis ade ar ad R m vi n fo eh y L. rd PS W H A in V op ca A an s Un oya e A dem Ac iv g c H ad ers eu ad y en em ity r A em ry y Ye cad y Fo of s e rd Ti Pe Aca my Ac m rfo d ad be e r m m em D rla av nd ing y y: id Sc A Ar ho De Wo Ell cad ts M ic ol tro od is A em hi fo it C w ga r C o ar cad y n In e m d r M te at W eat mu Aca my rn h at em illia ive nity de io na at m Stu S my ic C. l. P di ch s o re D an Ab es ( ols D et n r. Hig par ro d S ey PS Jo hl at c i t L ie Ac AD se an ory ea nc ad ) ph d P A de e e F. ar cad rs Ac my Po k P em hi ad M p e lla ub us y ck lic - M All Aca my ke go Ac Sc a en de c. D A n h a o c m d H ei Po em ol A owe ad y e gh n i ts tia c C cad ll C my D Pu c A en em am et t pu c b e y ro lic ad r s o S it Ac Sc em f E yst ad ho y fo xc em em ol A r elle E W y o ca xc nce e d as f hi Ar em llen M ng ts y c ic hi an Sy e t o ga ns d Pa S tem n c Ed r i uc Ham ks enc A e at io ilto cad s na n e l C Ac my ho ad ic em e C y en te r ity rs ni ve U Percentage Proficient 118 The Majority of Charter Districts (67%) Perform Worse than DPS among African American Students in 8 th Grade Math Grade 8 – MEAP Math (2013) African American Students 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 15% Michigan Charter Dis tricts Performing Be low 20% Detroit Public Schools Average Detroit Public Schools 11% 10% 5% 0% Note: Data above represents all charter districts statewide reporting African American proficiency rates in grade 8 MEAP math for 2013. Only charter districts where African American students comprise 50% or more of the total enrollment are included. Source: MDE MEAP 2013, CEPI Educational Entity Master (EEM), CEPI Public Head Count © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Bottom Line: What We Do Matters! © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

What Can We Learn From Top Performers and Top Gainers? Four common sense, but

#1. Good schools, districts don’t leave anything about teaching and learning to chance. ©

What does this do? Leaves teachers entirely on their own to figure out what

‘A’ Work in Poor Schools Would Earn ‘Cs’ in Affluent Schools Source: Prospects (ABT

Students can do no better than the assignments they are given. . . ©

Grade 10 Writing Assignment 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. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Grade 10 Writing Assignment 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. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Grade 7 Writing Assignment Essay on Anne Frank Your essay will consist of an opening paragraph which introduced the title, author and general background of the novel. Your thesis will state specifically what Anne's overall personality is, and what general psychological and intellectual changes she exhibits over the course of the book You might organize your essay by grouping psychological and intellectual changes OR you might choose 3 or 4 characteristics (like friendliness, patience, optimism, self doubt) and show she changes in this area. Source: Unnamed school district in California, 2002 -03 school © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Grade 7 Writing Assignment • My Best Friend: • A chore I hate: •

A Deeper Look at What We Did Analyzed and scored close to 1, 600 assignments using our Literacy Assignment Analysis Framework. Alignment With the Common Core Centrality of Text Domains of Rigorous Student Assignments Cognitive Challenge Motivation and Engagement Additional Features Analyzed • Text Type and Length • Writing Output • Length of Assignment • Student Thinking © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

GRADE 7– English Language Arts How can we make out voices heard? After reading I am Malala, write a literary essay in which you answer this question. Select and analyze one of the following: • Any key person from the text • The setting • A theme from the text Support your argument with evidence from the text. In your piece, be sure to write at least 5 paragraphs and follow the structure of a literary analysis. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

GRADE 7 - English Language Arts Read the poem, then fill in the blanks to create your own poem to communicate your thoughts and feelings about unfinished business in your life. The Song I couldn’t Finish by Jeanne The words I couldn’t say The call I couldn’t make The time I couldn’t spend with you The walls I couldn’t break through The breath I couldn’t take The air I couldn’t release The love I couldn’t feel The person I couldn’t convince The song I couldn’t finish © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

GRADE 7 - English Language Arts (continued) The words I couldn’t say ______________ The things I couldn’t change I couldn’t _______________ The walls I couldn’t break through I couldn’t find a way to _________ The feelings I couldn’t feel I couldn’t _______________ The help I couldn’t give I couldn’t _______________ The song I couldn’t finish The song was about __________ © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

GRADE 8 – Social Studies #Black. Lives. Matter -OR- #All. Lives. Matter? • Read analyze “How Black Lives Matter moved from a hashtag to a real political force” and select quotes from “All Lives Matter”. • Participate in a Socratic Seminar using the Essential Questions as a guide for the discussion. • Respond to the following statement: “Personally, I (agree or disagree) with the #Black. Lives. Matter awareness campaign because …”. Include at least 2 -3 specific details of support stemming from© 2017 the. THE EDUCATION TRUST

GRADE 8 – Social Studies (continued) Socratic Seminar Essential Questions: • “All Lives Matter”: What does the quote mean to you? Do you agree or disagree with the quote and why? • Why do you think some people have said “All Lives Matter” in response to “Black Lives Matter? ” How does this impact the Black Lives Matter movement? Is one of the terms more appropriate? • What would… Booker T. Washington/WEB Du. Bois/Martin Luther King Jr/ Malcolm X/Marcus Garvey say about this issue? • Given all of the racially-fueled incidents that sparked the #Black. Lives. Matter movement, whose strategy for achieving racial equality and harmony would be the most applicable in 2015 and why? How can we, as members of the school Community, help to raise more awareness about such a controversial, yet relevant topic such as this? • WHAT IF … these police related shootings had been carried out by members of the same race? IS “race” the © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST only contributing factor to these police-related shootings?

GRADE 8 – Social Studies Listen to “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” and have a class discussion on honesty and dishonesty with the following guiding questions: • What was the moral of the story? • What is honesty and why is it important? • How did the shepherd boy’s dishonesty hurt him? How did it endanger his sheep? • Have you ever been dishonest before? Why? • What happened when you were dishonest? Did anyone ever find out? Was anyone else hurt or affected by your dishonesty? © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

In isolation, the low assignments can reflect targeted skill building and student practice…not necessarily

However when compounded over multiple class periods, in multiple subjects, over multiple years, the

Ed Trust Assignment Study: What We Found • Fewer than 4 in 10 middle grades assignments are targeted at a grade-appropriate standard; • In high poverty schools the proportion drops to only about one third, compared to nearly half of assignments in low poverty schools; • That said, only about 5% of assignments in both kinds of schools tapped into the higher-level cognitive demands of the CCSS; • Most efforts at engagement and relevance were superficial, and often condescending. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

And don’t think that your students don’t know the difference…. © 2017 THE EDUCATION

High Performing Schools and Districts Know That Standards Alone Aren’t Enough • Have clear and specific goals for what students should learn in every grade, including the order in which they should learn it; • Provide teachers with common curriculum, assignments; • Have regular vehicle to assure common marking standards; • Assess students regularly to measure progress; and, • Don’t leave student supports to chance. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

In other words, they strive for consistency in everything they do. © 2017 THE

#2. Good schools, districts know how much teachers matter, and they act on that knowledge. Not leaving anything to chance means not leaving who teaches whom to chance, either. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

In our roles as parents… © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Students in Dallas Gain More in Math with Effective Teachers: One Year Growth From 3 rd-4 th Grade Source: Heather Jordan, Robert Mendro, and Dash Weerasinghe, The Effects of Teachers on Longitudinal Student © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

DIFFERENCES IN TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS ACCOUNT FOR LARGE DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT LEARNING The distribution of

ACCESS TO MULTIPLE EFFECTIVE TEACHERS CAN DRAMATICALLY AFFECT STUDENT LEARNING CST math proficiency trends for second-graders at ‘Below Basic’ or ‘Far Below Basic’ in 2007 who subsequently had three consecutive high or low value-added teachers © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

And, no matter how you measure, some kids aren’t getting their fair share. ©

Students at High-Minority Schools More Likely to Be Taught By Novice* Teachers Note: High minority school-75% or more of the students are Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander. Low-minority school -10% or fewer of the students are non-White students. *Novice teachers are those with three years or fewer experience. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST Source: Analysis of 2003 -2004 Schools and Staffing Survey data by Richard Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania 2007.

Math Classes at High-Poverty and High- Minority Schools More Likely to be Taught by Out of Field* Teachers Note: High Poverty school-75% or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low-poverty school -15% or fewer of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. High minority school-75% or more of the students are Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander. Low-minority school -10% or fewer of the students are non-White students. *Teachers with neither certification nor major. Data for secondary-level core academic classes (Math, Science, Social Studies, © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST English) across USA.

Tennessee: High poverty/high minority schools have fewer of the “most effective” teachers and more “least effective” teachers Note: High Poverty/High minority means at least 75% qualify for FRPL and at least 75% are minority. Source: Tennessee Department of Education 2007. “Tennessee’s Most Effective Teachers: Are they assigned to the schools that © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST need them most? ” http: //tennessee. gov/education/nclb/doc/Teacher. Effectiveness 2007_03. pdf

Los Angeles: LOW-INCOME STUDENTS LESS LIKELY TO HAVE HIGH VALUEADDED TEACHERS ELA MATH A low-income student is more than twice as likely to have a low value-added teacher for ELA A student from a relatively more affluent background is 62% more likely to get a high value-added ELA teacher. In math, a student from a relatively more affluent background is 39% more likely to get a high valueadded math teacher. A lowincome student is 66% more likely to have a low valueadded teacher. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Low-Achieving Students are More Likely to be Assigned to Ineffective Teachers than Effective Teachers Source: Sitha Babu and Robert Mendro, Teacher Accountability: HLM-Based Teacher Effectiveness Indices in the © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST Investigation of Teacher Effects on Student Achievement in a State Assessment Program, AERA Annual Meeting, 2003.

These patterns not, however, inevitable. Charlotte’s Strategic Staffing Initiative © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Putting it All Together: Charlotte’s Strategic Staffing Initiative • Experienced, high performing principal; • Gets to bring in 6 high performing teachers from elsewhere in district, and bump out that many low performers; • Two years of autonomy to produce turn around results; • Near 100% results. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

#3. Good schools, districts don’t think about closing the achievement gap only as “bringing

In part because of the push from NCLB, there’s been a lot of energy

Percentage Below Basic Over Time African-American Students (National Public) – Grade 8 NAEP Math Percentage of Students at Below Basic 100% 80% 79% 81% 75% 70% 61% 60% 59% 53% 51% 50% 49% 2007 2009 2011 2013 40% 20% 0% 1990* 1992* 1996 Source: 2000 2003 2005 *Accommodations not permitted National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http: //nces. ed. gov/nationsreportcard/nde/ © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Percentage Below Basic Over Time Latino Students (National Public) – Grade 8 NAEP Math Percentage of Students at Below Basic 100% 80% 67% 63% 60% 53% 50% 46% 44% 40% 38% 2011 2013 20% 0% 1990* 1992* 1996 Source: 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 *Accommodations not permitted National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http: //nces. ed. gov/nationsreportcard/nde/ © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

At the same time, though… © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Percentage Advanced Over Time White Students (National Public) – Grade 8 NAEP Math Percentage of Students at Advanced 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 9% 10% 8% 5% 6% 4% 3% 6% 7% 7% 2003 2005 10% 2009 2011 11% 3% 2% 0% 1990* 1992* 1996 Source: 2000 2007 2013 *Accommodations not permitted National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http: //nces. ed. gov/nationsreportcard/nde/ © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Percentage Advanced Over Time African-American Students (National Public) – Grade 8 NAEP Math Percentage of Students at Advanced 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0% 1990* 1992* 1996 Source: 0% 0% 2000 2003 1% 1% 2005 2007 2009 2011 2% 2013 *Accommodations not permitted National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http: //nces. ed. gov/nationsreportcard/nde/ © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Percentage Advanced Over Time Latino Students (National Public) – Grade 8 NAEP Math Percentage of Students at Advanced 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1990* 1992* 1996 Source: 0% 2000 1% 1% 2003 2005 2% 2% 2007 2009 3% 3% 2011 2013 *Accommodations not permitted National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http: //nces. ed. gov/nationsreportcard/nde/ © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST

We need to focus on growing students at all ends of the spectrum. ©

#4. In good schools, educators know that they have enormous power to shape children’s

They know that it’s not about heroic individuals. That path, as we all know,

But they have seen the awesome power of the collective—some describe it as the “huddle”—to lift children up. As well as the destructive power of individual adults to tear children down. © 2017 THE EDUCATION TRUST