Ego, money and false promises: Michelle Rhee’s big secret and the collapse of education “reform” - Salon.com

Ego, money and false promises: Michelle Rhee’s big secret and the collapse of education “reform” - Salon.com:

Ego, money and false promises: Michelle Rhee’s big secret and the collapse of education “reform”

There's big money in education "reform," and now it's flowing to tech companies that want to disrupt public schools

JEFF BRYANT

 When Michelle Rhee left the center stage of the movement known as “education reform,” inquiring minds wanted to know why.

Was it because “she didn’t play well in the sandbox.” Was it to solidify her and her husband’s image as “the next Bill and Hillary Clinton?”

But here’s one theory that no one seemed to consider: It was a good business decision.

Regardless of how you feel about Michelle Rhee, you have to admit she has been an adroit business person – tapping into a growing market demand, using a clever publicity campaign to reach celebrity recognition, outmaneuver her competitors (such as teachers unions), and amassing significant amounts of capital to roll out a formidable new “product,” her organization StudentsFirst.

So it’s not beyond reasonable to wonder if Rhee got out of the business of “education reform” while the gettin’ was good and left StudentsFirst at a time when it has likely peaked in influence and may even be in decline.

If that’s indeed the case, is Rhee’s exit the first sign of a larger exodus from the reform movement soon to follow? Is the whole enterprise known as education reform starting to go south? And if so, where is all the big money behind it going to go to next?

Becoming the Bickersons

Perhaps Rhee realized, just in time, the reform venture was turning into a money pit, as forces and personalities dragged the effort down with inefficiency, contention and lack of productivity.

Take what’s going on in the saga of lawsuits against teacher labor contracts.

In their eagerness to lower the professional status of teachers and dilute their job protections, lead plaintiffs in two New York City lawsuits against teachers’ job protections are now squabbling with each other.

As Chalkbeat New York reported, a judge recently consolidated the two lawsuits into one, but the plaintiff in the first suit, Mona Davids, “made it clear that she wasn’t interested in forging a unified effort” with the person leading the second, Campbell Brown.

Brown, a “news-anchor-turned-activist” with a history of attacking teachers unions and challenging the due process teachers get when their employment is threatened, leads the group Partnership for Educational Justice. Her group contends, according to a report inThe Wall Street Journal, students suffer from laws “making it too expensive, time-consuming and burdensome to fire bad teachers.”

As Salon reported recently, Brown’s ventures are closely tied to TNTP, the group formerly known as The New Teacher Project. TNTP is another organization founded by Rhee that is strongly associated with attacks on teachers’ unions and job protections.

Brown may play well with Rhee and her colleagues, but the harmony appears not to extend to just any old “reformer.”

As the independent blog site Eclectablog recently explained, Brown appears to have forced out the attorneys representing the Davids lawsuit, so she can remain the figurehead. In an interview with the blogger, Davids, and her associate in the lawsuit Sam Pirozzolo, accuse Brown of acting “like a playground bully.” Davids and Pirozzolo contend Brown threatened “everyone who supported them to isolate them and leave them without resources so that she and her group could take over their suit once it was consolidated with hers.”

When asked why Brown would do this, Davids and Pirozzolo stated, “She wants to be the next Michelle Rhee … This is all about her.”

Brown’s antics have also been noticed by Gloria Romero – another mover and shaker in the education reform movement, credited with creating what have become known asEgo, money and false promises: Michelle Rhee’s big secret and the collapse of education “reform” - Salon.com:

9-19-14 All NEW Living in Dialogue - Yong Zhao Slays the Authoritarian Testing Dragon

Home - Living in Dialogue:

Yong Zhao Slays the Authoritarian Testing Dragon

By Anthony Cody. For progress to occur in China – or the US, the dragons of educational authoritarianism must be slain. Chinese-American professor Yong Zhao has been a bit of a contrarian regarding education reform in the United States. He comes at the subject with a unique perspective. He experienced the Chinese educational system himself, and has a deep understanding of its fundamental limitatio

6 by Anthony Cody / 10min 

9-16-14 All NEW Living in Dialogue - When Teachers Lose Rights, They Must Raise Test Scores or Go

Home - Living in Dialogue: When Teachers Lose Rights, They Must Raise Test Scores or GoBy John Thompson. I do not question the sincerity of most former Obama administration officials and other liberals who support Vergara v California and its spawn. Some have long and loudly blamed teachers for education underperformance, saying that it is our “low expectations” and not the legacies of generationa

1 by mike simpson / 23h 

International Benchmarking: State and National Education Performance Standards | American Institutes for Research

International Benchmarking: State and National Education Performance Standards | American Institutes for Research:

International Benchmarking: State and National Education Performance Standards

Gary Phillips

State performance standards represent how much the state expects the student to learn in order to be considered proficient in reading, mathematics, and science. This AIR report uses international benchmarking as a common metric to examine and compare what students are expected to learn in some states with what students are expected to learn in other states. The study finds that there is considerable variance in state performance standards, exposing a large gap in expectations between the states with the highest standards and the states with the lowest standards.

When the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law was enacted in 2001, it required states to show steady improvement in student performance in reading and mathematics, with the goal of having all students proficient by 2014. Each state was responsible for setting their standards to measure and define the term “proficiency.” The study used international benchmarks to grade states by statistically linking state tests to the state National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), then linking national NAEP to national TIMSS or PIRLS data. 

Findings include:

• States reporting the highest percent of proficient students had the lowest performance standards. More than two-thirds of the difference in state success is related to how high or low the states set their performance standards.
• The difference between the states with the highest and lowest standards is about two standard deviations – a statistical term denoting the amount of variation from the average. In many testing programs, a gap this large represents three to four grade levels.
• The percentage of proficient students for most states declined when compared with international standards. In Grade 8 mathematics, for example, Alabama went from 77 percent proficient to 15 percent; Colorado from 80 percent to 35 percent; Oklahoma from 66 percent to 20 percent; and New Jersey from 71 percent to 50 percent.
• Using international standards, Massachusetts climbed to 57 percent proficient from 52 percent under its own standards.

View chart: Vast Differences in What is Considered Proficient (PDF) comparing state and TIMSS Grade 8 mathematics proficiency standards

View complete report in PDF:

AIR_International Benchmarking-State and National Ed Performance Standards_Sept2014.pdf

2014’s Most and Least Educated Cities | WalletHub®

2014’s Most and Least Educated Cities | WalletHub®:

2014’s Most and Least Educated Cities

2014’s Most and Least Educated Cities | WalletHub®:

Call them what you will: the cream of the crop, the best and brightest, the intellectual elite. But it’s official; the college-educated third of Americans are society’s new upper crust. Research has shown that skilled workers who are also degree holders tend to pump the most money into their local economies over time. A city’s prosperity, one then can assume, depends in large part on the productivity of its educated citizens.

However expensive college may be in 2014, its economic returns “remain high and provide a pathway for individual economic mobility,” according to a recent report from the Treasury and Education departments. The latter further pointed out that education “expands job opportunities” and “boosts America’s competitiveness” in the global arena.

A little more than a year ago, the Economic Policy Institute also released its report on the effects of education on state finances. The EPI’s findings suggested that college degrees are supremely important in helping to resuscitate weak economies. One way to strengthen states is to attract well-paying employers “by investing in education and increasing the number of well-educated workers.”

As the fall semester commences, WalletHub analyzed the 150 largest metropolitan statistical areas in the United States to determine where the most educated Americans are choosing to settle. We examined each city across nine key metrics. Among the set are educational attainment, the percentage of workers with jobs in computer, engineering and science fields as well as the quality and size of each metro area’s universities.

2014’s Most and Least Educated Cities | WalletHub®:

2014’s Most and Least Educated Cities | WalletHub®:

Ask the Experts

As research has evidenced, a skilled and educated workforce can immensely boost the local, state and national economies. To gain insight on strategies that government authorities can employ as well as how we must approach educational development collectively, we asked a panel of experts to weigh in. Click on the experts’ profiles to read their bios and responses to the following key questions:

1. Should local authorities tailor programs that attract highly educated people? If so, what types of programs?
2. Should the federal government tailor programs that attract highly educated people from abroad? If so, what types of programs?
3. In your opinion, what is the most important step we need to take as a country in order to develop a more educated and skilled workforce?

2014’s Most and Least Educated Cities | WalletHub®:

Should Schools Be Responsible for Kids' Health? - The Atlantic

Should Schools Be Responsible for Kids' Health? - The Atlantic:

Should Schools Be Responsible for Kids' Health?

Educators have become the de facto enforcers of everything from nutrition standards to vaccinations and annual exams. But according to a recent poll, parents seem less than satisfied by the results.

 

USDAgov/Flickr

There’s a section in the new Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll out this week that hasn’t gotten much attention: what parents think about schools and student health. (You can read my overview of the full poll, which focuses heavily on questions about teacher quality and preparation, here.)

Interestingly, the percentage of parents who said they “strongly agreed” their child’s school “does things to help him or her be healthier” has declined since 2012, to 20 percent from 33 percent, according to the new poll.

While keeping in mind that correlation is not causation, the steepness of that dip took me by surprise. The role of schools in keeping kids healthy has been in an intense spotlight for the past four years, both with the push to improve federalschool nutrition requirements and the intensity of first lady Michelle Obama’s“Let’s Move” campaign.

While the quality of classroom instruction may be the single biggest predictor a student’s success, that doesn’t mean their overall learning environment isn’t a significant contributing factor. U.S. schools are continually bombarded with demands for improvement and required to implement new initiatives, programs, and educational approaches aimed at boosting achievement.

At the same time, schools have become the de facto provider of nutritional services for many children and teens—and, more and more commonly, basic health care like annual exams and vaccinations. And to a degree that makes perfect sense: How much can we expect teachers to accomplish in the classroom if kids come to class hungry, or with a toothache, or in need of glasses?

But where do we draw the line? After cutting back on fat, sugar and salt in school lunches, how much more of the responsibility for student health should rest on the shoulders of educators?

It turns out quite a bit of already does.

Some school districts have started tracking students’ body-mass index (weight in relationship to height) and sending health “report cards” home to parents, a practice the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says needs to becarefully managed. Many campuses have added early morning activity clubs to make up for missing gym classes, and parents are encouraged to take part, as well.

Some health advocates want an even more formalized curriculum. Last year the American Medical Association recommended that students in grades 1-12 be taught about the dangers of obesity and suggested its members could volunteer to help implement such educational programs in public schools.

Here are the follow-up questions I’d like PDK/Gallup to ask the next time around:

• How many of these parents have seen cuts to children’s recess, gym classes Should Schools Be Responsible for Kids' Health? - The Atlantic:

Marie Corfield: NEA President Lily Eskilsen Garcia has no time to be diplomatic – Part I

Marie Corfield: NEA President Lily Eskilsen Garcia has no time to be diplomatic – Part I:

NEA President Lily Eskilsen Garcia has no time to be diplomatic – Part I

"This is a test. This is only a test. If this had been an actual emergency..." Yea, you know the drill. More on this later...

This is Ethan Rediske and his parents. Ethan is an 11-year old Florida boy who was born with cerebral palsy. He is also blind and brain damaged. He is perhaps the poster child for all that is toxic and outright dangerous in education 'reform'—especially standardized testing. More on him later...

"I don't have time to be diplomatic."

This is Lily Eskilsen-Garcia, newly elected President of the National Education Association.


What do all three have in common? Keep reading...

A woman on a mission

Lily is on a mission to energize fellow education professionals and parents to fight high stakes testing and she's taking it to the streets. As part of her 50-state Back-to-School tour, she declined a meeting with the Star Marie Corfield: NEA President Lily Eskilsen Garcia has no time to be diplomatic – Part I:

Universal School “Choice”: Schools Ultimately Do the Choosing | Cloaking Inequity

Universal School “Choice”: Schools Ultimately Do the Choosing | Cloaking Inequity:

Universal School “Choice”: Schools Ultimately Do the Choosing

I have a question for you… Can you use your finger and identify Chile on a map? I only ask because there are lots of ideas and theories in the US educational policy discourse about schools choice and what would happen if we had a universal school “choice” market. Well, we don’t actually have to imagine or theorize what a universal school choice market would look like. All we have to do is put our finger on Chile— it has been happening there for the past few decades since a dictator prioritized “choice” to reduce the government’s role in education funding. The universal school “choice” market has actually enhanced segregation and inequality instead of remedying it (See New Research: Vouchers Increase Segregation and Offer Benefits to the Few). As you might remember, we asked you the readers of Cloaking Inequity to support a student led research trip to Chile to get a better picture of the reforms that have been rumored to the Chilean privatization of education (See Sponsor a Student!: Inform Your Policymaker Why Vouchers Have Failed). To my knowledge, mainstream US media haven’t discussed the reforms being contemplated in Chile to the universal school “choice” system and the reasons for them. While the team was on the ground in Chile, this happened: Exclusive: Students Tear Gassed By Police While Protesting School “Choice”

The students are back from Chile. Unfortunately I had to cancel the ticket I bought due to my departure from the University of Texas at Austin to accept a promotion at California State University Sacramento. However, the research team has submitted a blog post for you the readers of Cloaking Inequity as a thank you for your support of the Chile research. Here is what they have to say about the new reforms in Chile.

Chile is not repealing its voucher system… not just yet anyhow.

Chileans have, however, begun an important national conversation about opportunity, segregation, and outcomes within what is essentially an unregulated market based education system. It is a system, within which, the majority of stakeholders are not happy. The competition of the open market place has not improved test scores; school choice has led to further socioeconomic segregation; and school stability is dependent on the marketplace. And yet, the idea of choice is still very popular in the country.

Chileans are in the very early stages of exploring regulatory fixes to this system that many people hope will make choice, and the voucher system, more equitable. Presently, there are three reforms they are trying to pass and implement within the next year, and they all seek to mitigate the inequities resulting from an unregulated market system that has been in place for more than three decades.

The first reform focuses on eliminating extra fees that private voucher schools charge students and families. Chile no longer wants to allow private schools to charge more than the price of the governmental voucher amount. This is widely seen as something they should have never allowed. All descriptive evidence has shown that after the government allowed these “add-on fees” school segregation, by social and economic class, grew rapidly. Although no one disputes the increase in segregation in the Chilean 

Universal School “Choice”: Schools Ultimately Do the Choosing | Cloaking Inequity:

2013-14 California High School Exit Exam Results - Year 2014 (CA Dept of Education)

2013-14 California High School Exit Exam Results - Year 2014 (CA Dept of Education):

State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Releases
2013-14 California High School Exit Exam Results

SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson today announced that the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) rate for the Class of 2014 was 95.5 percent—matching the record high passage rate from last year.

"I am pleased California's high school students continue to pass this graduation exam at record rates," Torlakson said. "Dedicated educators have worked hard in difficult times to prepare students for college and careers, but we must keep striving for even higher levels of achievement so all students have the skills, knowledge, and tools they need to be successful."

The CAHSEE is administered each year to ensure students who graduate from public high schools demonstrate competency in reading, writing, and mathematics. Students who do not pass the CAHSEE in grade ten have two opportunities in grade eleven and up to five opportunities in grade twelve to pass the exam.

The preliminary 2013–14 results are for the July, October, November, and December 2013 and the February, March, and May 2014 test administrations.

The estimated 95.5 percent of the students (totaling 417,960) from the Class of 2014 who met the CAHSEE requirement by the end of their senior year equals the same overall pass rate achieved by the Class of 2013—and represents a 5.1 percentage point increase since 2006, when the test was first required for graduation (Tables 1 and 2).

Students from the Class of 2014 did better than their counterparts from the Class of 2013 when taking the test for the first time as sophomores, when the exam is first given to all tenth grade students. Approximately 74.8 percent of the Class of 2014 passed both the mathematics and English language arts (ELA) portions of the exam on their first attempt—a 1 percentage point increase over first-time test takers in 2013 and a 10.5 percentage point increase over first-time test takers in 2006 (Table 2).

When broken into subgroups, the estimated CAHSEE passage rate for the Class of 2014 was 98.6 percent of white students, 94.2 percent of students from low-income families, 93.8 percent of Hispanic or Latino students, and 80.6 percent of students who are learning English (Table 1).

( Please note: The statewide passing rates in Tables 1, 2, and 3 combine the results for both the mathematics and ELA sections of the CAHSEE. These results are taken from specially prepared reports produced by the CAHSEE independent evaluator, the Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO). Other results provided by ETS®, the CDE testing contractor, including those for counties, districts, and schools are not combined and give the percentages of students passing either mathematics orELA. (To see these tables correctly, please view them in HTML.)

During the 2013-14 CAHSEE administration, 608,720 students took the ELA section with 459,864 passing and 596,043 took the mathematics section, with 461,607 passing.

There is a slight increase in the percentage of students passing the CAHSEE as first-time test takers during their sophomore year. An estimated 83.2 percent of the Class of 2015 (who were eleventh graders this past school year) and 83.2 percent of the Class of 2016 (who were tenth graders this past school year) already have passed the ELA portion of the exam compared to 83 percent of the Class of 2014 (Table 4). For mathematics, the passage rate was 84.1 percent for the Class of 2015 and 85.1 percent for the Class of 2016, compared to 83.6 percent for the Class of 2014 (Table 5).

Overall, long-term progress has been made to narrow the achievement gap between subgroups, but for the Classes of 2015 and 2016, results have been mixed so far. The gap in passage rates between Hispanic and white students in ELA widened between the Class of 2015 and Class of 2016, while it narrowed in mathematics (Table 6). The achievement gap between African American and white grade ten students increased slightly in English language arts and decreased slightly in mathematics (Table 7).

The posting of CAHSEE-related items on social media has been minimal. Similar to last year, a small number of social media postings was identified by the CDE's testing contractor and taken down immediately with the cooperation of schools and districts. Only three partial test questions and no full test questions were posted and none of the postings had any impact on the exam.

Results for the CAHSEE, which is one of several state and local graduation requirements for all students, will be provided at the school, district, county, and state levels and will be posted on the CDE CAHSEE 2013-14 Summary Results page. Individual student CAHSEE results are confidential and are not included in the Internet posting.

In addition to releasing the CAHSEE results, the CDE is also releasing the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Reports and the Program Improvement (PI) Reports on the Accountability Progress Reporting Web page.

The CDE is producing 2014 AYP Reports only for high schools and high school districts with enrollment in grades nine, ten, eleven, and/or twelve. High school AYP determinations are based on grade ten CAHSEE and California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) assessment results. Because all California students participated in the Smarter Balanced Field Test, and no assessment results are available for grades three through eight, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) granted a one-year waiver that allows flexibility in making AYP determinations. Therefore, elementary and middle schools and elementary and unified school districts will not receive a 2014 AYP Report. In addition, if these schools and districts were in PI in 2013–14, they will carry over their PI placement to 2014–15.

2013–14 California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) Results

Background

In 1999, state law authorized the development of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE), requiring students in California public schools to pass this test to earn a high school diploma in addition to meeting other graduation requirements.

The standards assessed on the CAHSEE are aligned to the 1999 English language arts and mathematics state content standards. Current law specifies that all public high school students must take the CAHSEE for the first time in grade ten, including students with disabilities (SWDs).

Students who do not pass the CAHSEE in grade ten have two opportunities in grade eleven and at least three and up to five opportunities in grade twelve to pass the examination.

Beginning with the 2009–10 school year, SWDs were exempted from passing the CAHSEE as a graduation requirement; however SWDs must take the CAHSEE in grade ten to fulfill the requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. Sec. 7114).

Summary of CAHSEE Results

A summary of statewide student performance on the CAHSEE is provided below. Note that while final data are available for years 2004 through 2013, the results reported for 2014 are preliminary.

The data displayed on Tables 1, 2, and 3 are taken from reports produced by the CAHSEE independent evaluator, Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO). In the annual report to be released in fall 2014, HumRRO will provide additional CAHSEE results by grade.

Table 1 Findings

The results presented in Table 1 display the estimated cumulative percentage of students meeting the CAHSEE requirement for the Class of 2014 in grades ten, eleven, and twelve. (These data are taken from reports produced by HumRRO.) The passing rates presented in Table 1 for grades ten and eleven include SWDs in all demographic subgroups. The grade twelve passing rates exclude SWDs in all demographic subgroups, as SWDs are exempt from meeting the CAHSEE graduation requirement.

• Approximately 95.5 percent of the students from the Class of 2014 met the CAHSEE requirement by the end of their senior year.

• Approximately 80.6 percent of the English learners (ELs) met the CAHSEE requirement by the end of their senior year.

• Approximately 57.2 percent of the SWDs met the CAHSEE requirement by the end of their senior year.

• Approximately 94.2 percent of the economically disadvantaged students met the CAHSEE requirement by the end of their senior year.

• Over 90 percent of all subgroups, except ELs and SWDs, are meeting the CAHSEE requirement by the end of their senior year.

Table 2 Findings

The results displayed in Table 2 show the estimated cumulative percentage of students meeting the CAHSEE requirement by grade for the Classes of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. The passing rates presented in Table 2, when grade 12 students took the CAHSEE in grade 10 and grade 11, include SWDs. The grade twelve passing rates in Table 2exclude SWDs, as SWDs are exempt from meeting the CAHSEE graduation requirement. Grade 10 students must take the CAHSEE to fulfill ESEA requirements.

• There was an increase of 1.0 percentage point for grade ten students from the Class of 2014 who met the CAHSEE requirement on their first attempt as compared to grade ten students from the Class of 2013.

• There was a 10.5 percentage point increase in grade ten students from the Class of 2014 who met the CAHSEE requirement on their first attempt as compared to the grade ten students from the Class of 2006.

• There was an approximate 7.5 percentage point increase in grade eleven students from the Class of 2014 who met the CAHSEE requirement as compared to grade eleven students from the Class of 2006.

• An increase of approximately 5.1 percentage points of the grade twelve students from the Class of 2014 met the CAHSEE requirement as compared to grade twelve students from the Class of 2006.

Table 3 Findings

Table 3 displays a point-in-time comparison of the percentage of students for each class meeting the CAHSEE requirement by May in their respective senior years. Table 3 includes SWDs in all subgroups for the Classes of 2008 and 2009. For the Classes of 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, SWDs were exempted from passing the CAHSEE as a graduation requirement and have been excluded for all subgroups except the special education subgroup.

• Approximately 95.5 percent of students from the Class of 2014 have met the CAHSEE requirement by the end of their senior year.

• The Achievement Gap for meeting the CAHSEE requirement for Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino students is narrowing when compared to White students. Though White students achieved a 1.3 percentage point increase for the Classes of 2006–2014, the percentage point increase for Black or African American students is 8.5 percentage points, a 7.2 percentage point difference. The percentage point change for Hispanic or Latino students is 8.3 or a difference of seven percentage points compared to white students.

• Hispanic or Latino students in the Class of 2014 display an increase in passing rates when compared to other subgroups. In the Class of 2014 compared to the Class of 2013 the Hispanic or Latino students show no change but when compared to the Class of 2006, an 8.3 percentage point increase was realized at the same point in time of their senior year.

• Additionally, Economically Disadvantaged students in the Class of 2014 demonstrated a 0.7 percentage point increase compared to the Class of 2013.

• In the Class of 2014, American Indian or Alaska Native students show a percentage point increase of 0.1 compared to the Class of 2013. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander students show a percentage point increase of 1.0 compared to 2013.

• Black or African American students show a percentage point increase of 0.4 when the Class of 2014 is compared with the Class of 2013. Black or African American students show an 8.5 percentage point increase, when comparing the Class of 2014 to the Class of 2006 at the same point in time of their senior year.

• ELs in the Class of 2014 show a percentage point decrease of 1.6 in passing rates when compared to the ELs in the Class of 2013 at the same point in time of their senior year. ELs show a percentage point increase of 4.6 when the Class of 2006 is compared to the Class of 2014. SWDs in the Class of 2014 show an increase in passing rates of 3.6 percentage points when compared to SWDs in the Class of 2013.

Tables 4 and 5 Findings

Tables 4 and 5 present the passing rates for grade ten students in ELA and mathematics, respectively. The grade ten passing rates presented in Tables 4 and 5 include SWDs in all subgroups. The data displayed in Tables 4 and 5 are taken from preliminary reports from DataQuest.

• The passing rate on the ELA portion of the CAHSEE for grade ten students in the Class of 2016 was 83.2 percent, an improvement of 8.5 percentage points from the passing rate for grade ten students in the Class of 2006 (Table 4).

• Economically disadvantaged grade ten students in the Class of 2016 compared to economically disadvantaged grade ten students in the Class of 2006 have increased passing rates of 16.6 and 19.0 percentage points in ELA and mathematics, respectively (Tables 4 and 5).

• Additionally, the change in percent for economically disadvantaged students compared to non-economically disadvantaged is approximately eleven percentage points higher for the ELA and mathematics portions of the CAHSEE (Tables 4 and 5).

• For the mathematics portion of the CAHSEE, the passing rate for the students in the Class of 2016 was 85.1 percent, an 11.4 percentage point increase over the passing percentage for grade ten students in the Class of 2006 (Table 5).

Tables 6 and 7 Findings

Tables 6 and 7 display the differences in the percentage of Hispanic or Latino and Black or African American grade ten students passing the CAHSEE compared to White students (i.e., achievement gap) from the Classes of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 for ELA and mathematics. The grade ten data presented in Tables 6 and 7 includesSWDs in the passing rates. While there was a slight increase in percentage point change in ELA and mathematics for grade 10 students in the 2015—16 comparison, the achievement gap between both Hispanic or Latino, African American and White students continues to narrow in mathematics.

• For the ELA portion of the CAHSEE, the gap between Hispanic or Latino and White students has narrowed by 12.8 percentage points from the Class of 2006 to the Class of 2016.

• For the mathematics portion of the CAHSEE, the gap between Hispanic or Latino and White students has narrowed by 14.1 percentage points from the Class of 2006 to the Class of 2016 (Table 6).

• For the ELA portion of the CAHSEE, the gap between Black or African American and White students has narrowed by 6.7 percentage points from the Class of 2006 to the Class of 2016.

• For the mathematic portion of the CAHSEE, the gap between Black or African American and White students has narrowed by 12.5 percentage points from the Class of 2006 to the Class of 2016 (Table 7).

To see these tables correctly, please view them in HTML.

Table 1: Class of 2014 – Grade 10, Grade 11, and Grade 12 Estimated Cumulative Percentage Meeting the CAHSEE Requirement by Subgroup^1,2,3

Demographic Subgroup	Grade 10 Class of 2014 Percent Passed4	Grade 11 Class of 2014 Percent Passed4	Grade 12 Class of 2014 Percent Passed5
All Students	74.8%	85.9%	95.5%
Females	77.9%	87.9%	95.9%
Males	71.9%	83.9%	95.1%
Black or African American	59.5%	74.7%	92.2%
American Indian or Alaska Native	69.1%	84.0%	95.6%
Asian	89.3%	93.9%	97.7%
Filipino	88.4%	94.5%	98.4%
Hispanic or Latino	68.1%	81.6%	93.8%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	73.3%	85.0%	95.2%
White	84.9%	92.9%	98.6%
Two or More Races	76.4%	84.7%	90.9%
English Learner	34.3%	55.8%	80.6%
Reclassified Fluent English	88.2%	95.5%	98.9%
Economically Disadvantaged	66.6%	81.0%	94.2%
Special Education	25.9%	42.8%	57.2%

¹ For the purposes of this table, "meeting the CAHSEE requirement" is defined as passing both the English-language arts and mathematics portions of the CAHSEE. Students who satisfied the CAHSEE requirement through the local waiver process are notincluded in this table.

² Students identified as grade 12 from the Classes of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 are excluded from the 2014 calculation. Current grade twelve students who also tested as grade twelve students in the Classes of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 are excluded from this table.

³ Students with disabilities who used modifications were excluded from these analyses.

⁴ Students with disabilities were included in all rows.

⁵ Students with disabilities in grade 12 were excluded from all rows except the last row due to the exemption.

Table 2: Classes of 2006 through 2014 – Grade 10, Grade 11, and Grade 12 Estimated Cumulative Percentage Meeting the CAHSEE Requirement^1,2,3

All Students	Grade 10 Percent Passed4	Grade 11 Percent Passed4	Grade 12 Percent Passed5
Class of 2006	64.3%	78.4%	90.4%
Class of 2007	65.4%	78.7%	93.3%
Class of 2008	65.1%	78.0%	93.7%
Class of 2009	65.2%	81.9%	93.4%
Class of 2010	69.2%	82.9%	94.4%
Class of 2011	69.9%	83.9%	94.2%
Class of 2012	71.5%	84.3%	96.7%
Class of 2013	73.8%	85.8%	95.5%
Class of 2014	74.8%	85.9%	95.5%
Percentage Point Change 2013–2014	1.0	0.1	0.0
Percentage Point Change 2006–2014	10.5	7.5	5.1

¹ For the purposes of this table, "meeting the CAHSEE requirement" is defined as passing both the English-language arts and mathematics portions of the CAHSEE. Students who satisfied the CAHSEE requirement through the local waiver process are notincluded in this table.

² Cohorts for classes are determined when the student meets the CAHSEE requirement in grades 10 or 11, or when the student takes the CAHSEE for the first time in grade 12. The repeat or fifth-year grade 12 student's class is determined when the student took the CAHSEE the first time in grade 12 for the Classes of 2006 through 2014.

³ Students with disabilities who used modifications were excluded from these analyses.

⁴ Students with disabilities were included in all rows.

⁵ Students with disabilities in grade 12 were excluded from all of these rows.

Table 3: Estimated Cumulative Percentage of Students in the Classes of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014¹
Meeting the CAHSEE Requirement through the May Administration of Their Senior Year By Subgroup

Demographic Subgroup	Class of 20062through May 2006 Percent Passed	Class of 20072through May 2007 Percent Passed	Class of 20083through May 2008 Percent Passed	Class of 20093through May 2009 Percent Passed	Class of 20102through May 2010 Percent Passed	Class of 20112through May 2011 Percent Passed	Class of 20122through May 2012 Percent Passed	Class of 20132through May 2013 Percent Passed	Class of 20142through May 2014 Percent Passed	Percentage Point Change 2013–2014	Percentage Point Change 2006–2014
All Students	90.4%	93.3%	90.4%	90.6%	94.4%	94.2%	95.0%	95.5%	95.5%	0.0	5.1
Females	90.9%	93.6%	91.8%	91.9%	94.8%	94.7%	95.5%	96.0%	95.9%	-0.1	5.0
Males	89.9%	92.9%	89.0%	89.3%	93.9%	93.7%	94.6%	95.1%	95.1%	0.0	5.2
Black or African American	83.7%	88.4%	80.5%	81.4%	89.6%	89.6%	91.9%	91.8%	92.2%	0.4	8.5
American Indian or Alaska Native	na	na	89.2%	91.6%	95.4%	94.8%	97.2%	95.5%	95.6%	0.1	na
Asian	95.3%	96.3%	95.7%	95.3%	97.4%	97.1%	97.8%	97.8%	97.7%	-0.1	2.4
Filipino	na	na	na	96.3%	98.1%	97.9%	98.4%	98.5%	98.4%	-0.1	na
Hispanic or Latino	85.5%	88.6%	86.2%	86.6%	91.4%	91.7%	93.1%	93.8%	93.8%	0.0	8.3
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	na	na	na	90.7%	95.3%	93.6%	95.2%	94.2%	95.2%	1.0	na
White	97.3%	98.4%	96.0%	95.9%	98.1%	98.2%	98.6%	98.5%	98.6%	0.1	1.3
Two or More Races5	na	na	na	na	73.8%	76.4%	83.9%	92.4%	90.9%	-1.5	na
English Learner	76.0%	77.1%	73.5%	73.6%	81.0%	80.3%	81.7%	82.2%	80.6%	-1.6	4.6
Reclassified Fluent English	na	na	na	97.5%	98.5%	98.6%	98.9%	98.9%	98.9%	0.0	na
Economically Disadvantaged	85.7%	88.3%	85.5%	85.6%	91.3%	91.4%	92.8%	93.5%	94.2%	0.7	8.5
Special Education	47.8%	48.8%	54.5%	56.6%	53.3%	56.3%	55.5%	53.6%	57.2%	3.6	9.4

¹ A student's class (year of graduation) is determined by the local educational agency.

² Students identified as receiving special education services were excluded from all subgroups except the special education subgroup in these columns. CAHSEE exemption was available to students with disabilities for the Classes of 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. These percentages do not include students with disabilities who tested with modifications or received exemptions.

³ Students identified as receiving special education services were included in all subgroups in these columns. CAHSEE exemption was not available to students with disabilities for the Classes of 2008 and 2009. These percentages do not include students with disabilities who tested with modifications.

⁵ Federally mandated demographic subgroup.

English Language Arts

Table 4: Comparison of Passing Rates for Grade Ten Students in the Classes of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016¹

Demographic Subgroup	Class of 2006	Class of 2007	Class of 2008	Class of 2009	Class of 2010	Class of 2011	Class of 2012	Class of 2013	Class of 2014	Class of 2015	Class of 20162	Percentage Point Change 2015–2016	Percentage Point Change 2006–2016
All Students	74.7%	76.4%	77.1%	76.6%	78.8%	79.2%	80.6%	82.4%	83.0%	83.2%	83.2%	0.0	8.5
Females	79.0%	81.1%	81.6%	81.2%	82.9%	83.0%	84.4%	85.9%	86.9%	86.8%	86.6%	-0.2	7.6
Males	70.5%	71.9%	72.7%	72.1%	74.9%	75.6%	76.9%	79.0%	79.3%	79.8%	80.0%	0.2	9.5
Black or African American	62.6%	64.5%	65.8%	65.7%	68.5%	68.9%	71.1%	72.1%	73.2%	73.0%	72.8%	-0.2	10.2
American Indian or Alaska Native	73.4%	73.4%	77.2%	76.1%	77.1%	77.7%	79.2%	79.4%	80.1%	79.5%	78.2%	-1.3	4.8
Asian	84.7%	85.8%	86.6%	86.5%	88.4%	88.8%	90.9%	90.9%	91.6%	91.1%	91.5%	0.4	6.8
Filipino	87.2%	88.1%	89.0%	88.9%	89.8%	89.6%	91.7%	92.0%	92.4%	92.0%	92.1%	0.1	4.9
Hispanic or Latino	61.7%	65.1%	66.4%	66.2%	70.0%	70.9%	73.3%	76.4%	77.3%	77.9%	78.0%	0.1	16.3
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	71.2%	75.2%	75.4%	75.6%	79.1%	77.3%	79.3%	80.7%	81.9%	81.2%	81.4%	0.2	10.2
White	88.4%	89.2%	89.8%	89.4%	90.4%	90.7%	91.1%	91.5%	91.5%	91.7%	91.9%	0.2	3.5
Two or More Races3	na	na	na	na	na	na	82.8%	85.3%	87.9%	87.5%	87.4%	-0.1	na
English Learner	39.2%	42.4%	38.1%	35.9%	40.2%	40.3%	41.7%	44.2%	44.5%	41.6%	38.2%	-3.4	-1.0
Reclassified Fluent English	86.7%	89.2%	89.3%	88.9%	91.2%	91.4%	92.5%	93.7%	93.9%	93.5%	92.2%	-1.3	5.5
Economically Disadvantaged	60.0%	63.2%	64.9%	64.6%	68.5%	69.7%	72.3%	75.0%	76.1%	76.6%	76.6%	0.0	16.6
Non-Economically Disadvantaged	87.2%	88.2%	88.5%	88.2%	89.5%	90.2%	91.1%	92.0%	92.4%	92.7%	93.0%	0.3	5.8
Special Education	30.5%	32.8%	34.6%	33.0%	35.7%	37.2%	37.3%	39.2%	39.4%	39.6%	39.4%	-0.2	8.9

¹ Percent passing rates equal the number of students passing the CAHSEE divided by number of students taking the CAHSEE. Students with disabilities who used modifications are excluded from these analyses.

² Subgroup data are preliminary; school districts have the opportunity to make demographic data corrections.

³ Federally mandated demographic subgroup.

Mathematics

Table 5: Comparison of Passing Rates for Grade Ten Students in the Classes of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016¹

Demographic Subgroup	Class of 2006	Class of 2007	Class of 2008	Class of 2009	Class of 2010	Class of 2011	Class of 2012	Class of 2013	Class of 2014	Class of 2015	Class of 20162	Percentage Point Change 2015–2016	Percentage Point Change 2006–2016
All Students	73.7%	74.0%	75.5%	75.8%	78.3%	79.8%	80.7%	82.7%	83.6%	84.1%	85.1%	1.0	11.4
Females	74.4%	74.6%	76.1%	76.2%	78.6%	80.1%	81.3%	83.4%	84.6%	85.0%	86.1%	1.1	11.7
Males	72.9%	73.4%	75.0%	75.5%	78.0%	79.5%	80.2%	82.0%	82.6%	83.2%	84.1%	0.9	11.2
Black or African American	54.4%	54.9%	57.1%	58.4%	61.9%	64.0%	66.3%	68.4%	69.3%	70.6%	72.3%	1.7	17.9
American Indian or Alaska Native	69.2%	69.4%	72.9%	72.5%	75.7%	74.8%	77.8%	77.2%	79.5%	79.3%	78.8%	-0.5	9.6
Asian	91.2%	91.7%	92.1%	92.7%	94.1%	94.6%	95.0%	95.7%	96.0%	96.1%	96.6%	0.5	5.4
Filipino	86.9%	86.8%	88.1%	89.0%	90.1%	91.6%	92.0%	92.7%	93.5%	93.9%	94.3%	0.4	7.4
Hispanic or Latino	61.0%	62.2%	65.1%	65.7%	69.6%	72.3%	73.9%	77.1%	78.3%	79.1%	80.5%	1.4	19.5
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	71.2%	72.6%	73.5%	75.0%	78.9%	80.1%	79.8%	82.4%	83.6%	83.9%	84.4%	0.5	13.2
White	86.8%	87.0%	87.9%	88.2%	89.3%	89.9%	90.6%	90.8%	91.2%	91.6%	92.2%	0.6	5.4
Two or More Races3	na	na	na	na	na	na	82.0%	83.5%	86.2%	86.4%	87.7%	1.3	na
English Learner	49.2%	48.7%	47.6%	46.5%	50.2%	52.6%	52.2%	55.8%	55.9%	54.2%	54.3%	0.1	5.1
Reclassified Fluent English	82.8%	84.5%	85.3%	85.7%	88.6%	90.1%	90.8%	92.2%	92.9%	92.7%	92.6%	-0.1	9.8
Economically Disadvantaged	60.6%	61.4%	64.3%	65.0%	69.0%	71.8%	73.5%	76.4%	77.6%	78.3%	79.6%	1.3	19.0
Non-Economically Disadvantaged	85.1%	85.5%	86.2%	86.5%	88.1%	89.3%	90.1%	91.1%	91.7%	92.4%	93.1%	0.7	8.0
Special Education	29.7%	30.3%	32.5%	32.3%	35.4%	38.1%	38.6%	40.1%	41.2%	42.3%	42.5%	0.2	12.8

¹ Percent passing rates equal the number of students passing the CAHSEE divided by number of students taking the CAHSEE. Students with disabilities who used modifications are excluded from these analyses.

² Subgroup data are preliminary; school districts have the opportunity to make demographic data corrections.

³ Federally mandated demographic subgroup.

Achievement Gap on CAHSEE

Table 6: Achievement Gap of Hispanic or Latino Grade Ten Students ELA and Mathematics Compared to White Students¹

ELA	Class of 2006	Class of 2007	Class of 2008	Class of 2009	Class of 2010	Class of 2011	Class of 2012	Class of 2013	Class of 2014	Class of 2015	Class of 20162	Percentage Point Change 2015–2016	Percentage Point Change 2006–2016
Hispanic or Latino	61.7%	65.1%	66.4%	66.2%	70.0%	70.9%	73.3%	76.4%	77.3%	77.9%	78.0%	0.1	16.3
White	88.4%	89.2%	89.8%	89.4%	90.4%	90.7%	91.1%	91.5%	91.5%	91.7%	91.9%	0.2	3.5
Gap	26.7	24.1	23.4	23.2	20.4	19.8	17.8	15.1	14.2	13.8	13.9	0.1	-12.8

Mathematics	Class of 2006	Class of 2007	Class of 2008	Class of 2009	Class of 2010	Class of 2011	Class of 2012	Class of 2013	Class of 2014	Class of 2015	Class of 20162	Percentage Point Change 2015–2016	Percentage Point Change 2006–2016
Hispanic or Latino	61.0%	62.2%	65.1%	65.7%	69.6%	72.3%	73.9%	77.1%	78.3%	79.1%	80.5%	1.4	19.5
White	86.8%	87.0%	87.9%	88.2%	89.3%	89.9%	90.6%	90.8%	91.2%	91.6%	92.2%	0.6	5.4
Gap	25.8	24.8	22.8	22.5	19.7	17.6	16.7	13.7	12.9	12.5	11.7	-0.8	-14.1

¹ Differences may occur as a result of rounding. Students with disabilities who used modifications are excluded from these analyses.

² Subgroup data are preliminary; school districts have the opportunity to make demographic data corrections.

Achievement Gap on CAHSEE

Table 7: Achievement Gap of Black or African American Grade Ten Students ELA and Mathematics Compared to White Students¹

ELA	Class of 2006	Class of 2007	Class of 2008	Class of 2009	Class of 2010	Class of 2011	Class of 2012	Class of 2013	Class of 2014	Class of 2015	Class of 20162	Percentage Point Change 2015–2016	Percentage Point Change 2006–2016
Black or African American	62.6%	64.5%	65.8%	65.7%	68.5%	68.9%	71.1%	72.1%	73.2%	73.0%	72.8%	-0.2	10.2
White	88.4%	89.2%	89.8%	89.4%	90.4%	90.7%	91.1%	91.5%	91.5%	91.7%	91.9%	0.2	3.5
Gap	25.8	24.7	24.0	23.7	21.9	21.8	20.0	19.4	18.3	18.7	19.1	0.4	-6.7

Mathematics	Class of 2006	Class of 2007	Class of 2008	Class of 2009	Class of 2010	Class of 2011	Class of 2012	Class of 2013	Class of 2014	Class of 2015	Class of 20162	Percentage Point Change 2015–2016	Percentage Point Change 2006–2016
Black or African American	54.4%	54.9%	57.1%	58.4%	61.9%	64.0%	66.3%	68.4%	69.3%	70.6%	72.3%	1.7	17.9
White	86.8%	87.0%	87.9%	88.2%	89.3%	89.9%	90.6%	90.8%	91.2%	91.6%	92.2%	0.6	5.4
Gap	32.4	32.1	30.8	29.8	27.4	25.9	24.3	22.4	21.9	21.0	19.9	-1.1	-12.5

¹ Differences may occur as a result of rounding. Students with disabilities who used modifications are excluded from these analyses.

² Subgroup data are preliminary; school districts have the opportunity to make demographic data corrections.

# # # #

Tom Torlakson — State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Communications Division, Room 5206, 916-319-0818, Fax 916-319-0100