High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB PART 1 An Analysis of NAEP Data by Tom Loveless PART 2 Results from a National Teacher Survey by Steve Farkas and Ann Duffett 1016 16th Street NW 8th Floor Washington D C 20036 The institute is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University Thomas B Fordham Institute Copies of this report are available electronically at our website w w w edexcellence net Foreword by Chester E Finn Jr and Michael J Petrilli Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Foreword 8 PART 1 Analysis of NAEP Data 13 Data Treatment 17 Question 1 What has happened to the national NAEP scores of high and low achievers since the advent of NCLB 18 Question 2 What were the trends in NAEP scores of high and low achievers before NCLB 20 Question 3 Is it NCLB accountability or accountability in general that is associated with contraction of the achievement gap 24 Question 4 Who are America s high achieving students 27 A Closer Look High achieving students from three NCLB Subgroups 32 Summary and Conclusion 35 Appendix A 40 PART 2 Findings from a National Teacher Survey 49 Chapter 1 How much of a priority are academically advanced students 51 Chapter 2 Teachers talk about values and tradeoffs 56 Chapter 3 Teachers talk about the school environment 61 Chapter 4 Teachers talk about solutions 68 Appendix A Methodology 72 Appendix B National survey of public school teachers grades 3 12 74 Executive summary This publication reports the results of the first two of five studies of a multifaceted research investigation of the state of high achieving students in the No Child Left Behind NCLB era Part I An Analysis of NAEP Data authored by Brookings Institution scholar Tom Loveless examines achievement trends for highachieving students defined like low achieving students by their performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP since the early 1990s and in more detail since 2000 Here are the key findings Part II Results from a National Teacher Survey authored by Steve Farkas and Ann Duffett of Farkas Duffett Research Group reports on teachers own views of how schools are serving high achieving pupils in the NCLB era page 2 While the nation s lowest achieving youngsters made rapid gains from 2000 to 2007 the performance of top students was languid Children at the tenth percentile of achievement the bottom 10 percent of students have shown solid progress in fourth grade reading and math and eighth grade math since 2000 but those at the 90th percentile the top 10 percent have made minimal gains This pattern big gains for low achievers and lesser ones for high achievers is associated with the introduction of accountability systems in general not just NCLB An analysis of NAEP data from the 1990s shows that states that adopted testing and accountability regimes before NCLB saw similar patterns before NCLB stronger progress for low achievers than for high achievers High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB Executive Summary Figure A 4th Grade Reading NAEP Scores 2000 2007 90th and 10th percentiles Figure B 8th Grade Math NAEP Scores 2000 2007 90th and 10th percentiles 280 260 261 262 262 240 320 263 3 NAEP Score NAEP Score 260 340 220 200 180 160 169 167 169 173 16 2002 2003 2005 2007 321 323 325 5 228 230 234 13 2003 2005 2007 300 280 260 240 220 157 140 320 221 200 2000 2000 YEAR 10th percentile YEAR 10th percentile 90th percentile Note National means 2000 215 2007 222 a change of 7 Source Main NAEP data explorer National Public sample 90th percentile Note National means 2000 274 and 2007 281 a change of 7 Source Main NAEP data explorer National Public sample Table i 90th and 10th Percentile Gains States with Accountability vs States without Accountability Pre NCLB 1996 2000 4th Grade NAEP Math state sample 90th 10th Accountability n 16 1 6 5 7 Non accountability n 20 2 5 1 9 Note This means for example that states with accountability systems in the 1990s saw their lowest achieving students the 10th percentile outpace their highest achieving students the 90th percentile gaining 5 7 points versus 1 6 points In non accountability states the pattern was reversed as high achievers slightly outpaced low achievers Source Tom Loveless s calculations from main NAEP data explorer State NAEP sample All data are in scale score points page 3 Teachers are much more likely to indicate that struggling students not advanced students are their top priority Asked about the needs of struggling students 60 percent of teachers say they are a top priority at their school Asked a similar question about academically advanced students only 23 percent of teachers say they are a top priority They could give multiple answers to this question Figure C Who is a Top Priority at your School 70 60 60 50 40 23 10 0 Academically Struggling Students Still teachers believe that all students deserve an equal share of attention Teachers were given the following choice For the public schools to help the U S live up to its ideals of justice and equality do you think it s more important that they A focus on raising the achievement of disadvantaged students who are struggling academically OR B focus equally on all students regardless of their backgrounds or achievement levels Only 11 percent chose the former while 86 percent chose the latter Low income black and Hispanic high achievers on the 2005 eighth grade math NAEP were more likely than low achievers to be taught by experienced teachers These disadvantaged high achievers termed NCLB HA in the study were also as likely as other high achieving students to have teachers who had majored or minored in math 30 20 Low achieving students receive dramatically more attention from teachers Asked Who is most likely to get one on one attention from teachers 81 percent of teacher named struggling students while only 5 percent named advanced students Academically Advanced Students Source FDR National Teacher Survey Questions 3 and 4 page 4 High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB Executive Summary Figure D Figure F Teacher Characteristics High Achieving Disadvantaged Students and Comparison Groups Drawn from the 2005 8th Grade Math NAEP Who is Most Likely to Get One on One Attention from Teachers 100 5 Academically Advanced Students 80 Academically Struggling Students 90 80 4 Average Students 70 84 80 78 71 64 65 56 60 9 It s Equal 50 45 40 Source FDR National Teacher Survey Question 11 30 20 Figure E Teachers