Varying Rates of Improvement in Low-Performing Schools
*
Data from two states demonstrate differing trends in school performance and improvement,
Provide insights into ESEA reauthorization and strategies for identifying our nation’s “stuck” schools
A report by The Education Trust shows that schools often lumped together as “low performing” are not all alike. Examining data from reading and mathematics assessments for elementary and middle schools in ten states, the study’s authors found that some low-performing schools remain stuck year after year, and others that started low performing are among the fastest improvers in their states.
Amid conflicting claims about whether we have the know-how and will to reverse the course of troubled schools and at a time when the federal government is vastly increasing its investment in struggling schools, “Stuck Schools: A Framework for Identifying Schools Where Students Need Change—Now!” sheds much-needed light on what’s actually happening—and what is not—in our lowest performing schools.
“State and local educators and policymakers can apply an analysis like ours right now to better target their interventions. And given the tough budget situation in most states, strategic targeting is more important than ever,” said Daria Hall, director of K-12 policy at The Education Trust and coauthor of the report. “But we also hope this paper will help illuminate the conversation about reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This analysis points to a need to look not just at a school’s performance but at its rate of improvement as well.”
The report—the first in a four-part “Stuck Schools Series” that examines school achievement and improvement patterns—explores the data on improvement in initially low-performing schools in two states, Maryland and Indiana. These states were selected as examples because they illustrate quite different improvement patterns that are evident in the eight other states the authors examined. Some of the findings:
• Based on reading-proficiency rates, 267 elementary and middle schools in Maryland started out in the bottom quartile of performance. Tracking these initially low-performing schools over five years, the study found that 64 percent made gains that put them among the top-improving schools in the state, 29 percent made average improvement, and only 7 percent had gains (or declines) that put them among the slowest “improvers” in the state.
• Of the 370 elementary and middle schools in Indiana that started o
Data from two states demonstrate differing trends in school performance and improvement,
Provide insights into ESEA reauthorization and strategies for identifying our nation’s “stuck” schools
A report by The Education Trust shows that schools often lumped together as “low performing” are not all alike. Examining data from reading and mathematics assessments for elementary and middle schools in ten states, the study’s authors found that some low-performing schools remain stuck year after year, and others that started low performing are among the fastest improvers in their states.
Amid conflicting claims about whether we have the know-how and will to reverse the course of troubled schools and at a time when the federal government is vastly increasing its investment in struggling schools, “Stuck Schools: A Framework for Identifying Schools Where Students Need Change—Now!” sheds much-needed light on what’s actually happening—and what is not—in our lowest performing schools.
“State and local educators and policymakers can apply an analysis like ours right now to better target their interventions. And given the tough budget situation in most states, strategic targeting is more important than ever,” said Daria Hall, director of K-12 policy at The Education Trust and coauthor of the report. “But we also hope this paper will help illuminate the conversation about reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This analysis points to a need to look not just at a school’s performance but at its rate of improvement as well.”
The report—the first in a four-part “Stuck Schools Series” that examines school achievement and improvement patterns—explores the data on improvement in initially low-performing schools in two states, Maryland and Indiana. These states were selected as examples because they illustrate quite different improvement patterns that are evident in the eight other states the authors examined. Some of the findings:
• Based on reading-proficiency rates, 267 elementary and middle schools in Maryland started out in the bottom quartile of performance. Tracking these initially low-performing schools over five years, the study found that 64 percent made gains that put them among the top-improving schools in the state, 29 percent made average improvement, and only 7 percent had gains (or declines) that put them among the slowest “improvers” in the state.
• Of the 370 elementary and middle schools in Indiana that started o
New York City’s Changing High School Landscape
*
Complete report
New York City’s public high school system — the nation’s largest — underwent a sweeping transformation during the first decade of the twenty-first century. At the start of the decade, students were routinely assigned to their zoned high schools, which often had thousands of students and were overcrowded and low-performing. By the 2007-2008 school year, some 23 large and midsize schools with graduation rates below 45 percent were closed or on their way to closing. Simultaneously, many new schools that were intended to serve high school-age students came into being, including almost 200 new small schools.
In a break with past practices, the majority of the new small schools accepted students at all levels of academic proficiency and thus were open to those who would likely have attended the closed schools. While the new small schools have various themes and educational philosophies, they share three objectives: to prepare their students for college; to ensure strong student-teacher relationships; and to combine learning with real-world examples both inside and outside the classroom.
Concurrent with these changes in the supply of high schools, the City created a new system by which students exercised demand for them: school choice was extended to all incoming high school students in New York City — compelling rising ninth-graders to indicate up to 12 schools that they wanted to attend. A computerized process was then used to assign each student to his or her highest-ranked school with space available. While the
Complete report
New York City’s public high school system — the nation’s largest — underwent a sweeping transformation during the first decade of the twenty-first century. At the start of the decade, students were routinely assigned to their zoned high schools, which often had thousands of students and were overcrowded and low-performing. By the 2007-2008 school year, some 23 large and midsize schools with graduation rates below 45 percent were closed or on their way to closing. Simultaneously, many new schools that were intended to serve high school-age students came into being, including almost 200 new small schools.
In a break with past practices, the majority of the new small schools accepted students at all levels of academic proficiency and thus were open to those who would likely have attended the closed schools. While the new small schools have various themes and educational philosophies, they share three objectives: to prepare their students for college; to ensure strong student-teacher relationships; and to combine learning with real-world examples both inside and outside the classroom.
Concurrent with these changes in the supply of high schools, the City created a new system by which students exercised demand for them: school choice was extended to all incoming high school students in New York City — compelling rising ninth-graders to indicate up to 12 schools that they wanted to attend. A computerized process was then used to assign each student to his or her highest-ranked school with space available. While the
