DOC PREVIEW
CSUN SED 610 - High-Achieving Students

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4-5-6-40-41-42-43-44-81-82-83-84-85-86 out of 86 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 86 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

1016 16th Street, NW • 8th Floor • Washington D.C., 20036Copies of this report are available electronically at our website, www.edexcellence.netThe institute is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham UniversityHigH-ACHieviNg STUDeNTS iN THe erA oF NCLB Thomas B. Fordham instituteAN ANALySiS oF NAeP DATAby Tom LovelessreSULTS From A NATioNAL TeACHer SUrveyby Steve Farkas and Ann DuffettForeword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael J. PetrilliPART 1PART 2in the Era of NCLBHigh-Achieving StudentsTable of ContentsExecutive SummaryForewordPART 1: Analysis of NAEP DataData TreatmentQuestion 1: What has happened to the national NAEP scores of high and low achievers since the advent of NCLB?Question 2: What were the trends in NAEP scores of high and low achievers before NCLB?Question 3: Is it NCLB accountability or accountability in general that is associated with contraction of the achievement gap?Question 4: Who are America’s high-achieving students?A Closer Look: High-achieving students from three NCLB SubgroupsSummary and ConclusionAppendix APART 2: Findings from a National Teacher SurveyChapter 1: How much of a priority are academically advanced students?Chapter 2: Teachers talk about values and tradeoffsChapter 3: Teachers talk about the school environmentChapter 4: Teachers talk about solutionsAppendix A: MethodologyAppendix B: National survey of public school teachers grades 3-12281317 1820 242732354049515661687274page 2ExEcuTivE SummARyThis 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 high-achieving 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. 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.Here are the key findings:While the nation’s lowest-achieving youngsters made rapid gains from 2000 to 2007, the perfor-mance 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.page 3HigH-ACHieving STudenTS in THe erA of nCLBexecutive SummaryFigure A—4th Grade Reading NAEP Scores, 2000-2007(90th and 10th percentiles)Note: National means: 2000= 215, 2007=222, a change of +7Source: Main NAEP data explorer, National Public sample280260240220200180160140NAEP Score2000yEAR260262263+3157169169173+162002 2003 2005 200726226116710th percentile 90th percentile340320300280260240220200NAEP Score2000 2003 2005 2007yEAR320321323325+5221228230234+1310th percentile 90th percentileFigure B—8th Grade Math NAEP Scores, 2000-2007(90th and 10th percentiles)Note: National means: 2000 =274 and 2007= 281, a change of +7Source: Main NAEP data explorer, National Public sampleTable i—90th and 10th Percentile Gains, States with Accountability vs. States without Accountability (Pre-NCLB)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.1996-2000 4th Grade NAEP math (state sample)90th 10thAccountability | n=16 1.6 5.7Non-accountability | n=20 2.5 1.9page 4Teachers 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.)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.” 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. Figure C:Source: FDR National Teacher Survey, Questions 3 and 4Who is a “Top Priority” at your School?AcademicallyStruggling StudentsAcademicallyAdvanced Students70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%60%23%page 5HigH-ACHieving STudenTS in THe erA of nCLBexecutive SummaryFigure D:Source: FDR National Teacher Survey,


View Full Document

CSUN SED 610 - High-Achieving Students

Documents in this Course
Week 2

Week 2

6 pages

Week 11

Week 11

3 pages

Load more
Download High-Achieving Students
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view High-Achieving Students and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view High-Achieving Students 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?