Gaps In Student Achievement
in North Carolina on Selected
Variables
Dr. Tammy Howard
Director, Accountability Services
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
March 22, 2016
Presentation Areas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP)
End-of-Grade (EOG) Assessments
End-of-Course (EOC) Assessments
ACT
Advanced Placement (AP)
Cohort Graduation Rates
Short-Term and Long-Term Suspensions and
Expulsions
Educator Equity Plan
Recommendations
Selected References and Research Studies
Contact Information
2
3
The Gold Standard
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
2015 Statistic Summary Compared with 2013
North Carolina Performance Compared to the Nation’s Public Schools
READING
2013
2015
Grade 4
Scale Scores
Grade 8
Scale Scores
MATHEMATICS
2013
2015
222
226 ▲
245
244 =
265
261 ▼
286
281 ▼
69%
73% =
87%
85% =
Grade 4
At or above
Basic
Legend
Above the Nation (statistically)
Same as the Nation
(statistically)
Grade 8
At or above
Basic
76%
72% =
75%
69% =
▲
Grade 4
At or above
Proficient
35%
38% =
45%
44% =
33%
30% =
36%
33% =
Grade 8
At or above
Proficient
=
▼
Below the Nation (statistically)
NC Score/percentages in 2015
higher (statistically) than
previous administration (2013)
NC Score/percentages in 2015
same (statistically) as previous
administration (2013)
NC Score/percentages in 2015
lower (statistically)than
previous administration (2013)
4
NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 ─ Race/Ethnicity/Overall
Percent At or Above Basic: 2000-2015
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
NP Overall
2003
NC Overall
2005
White
2007
Black
2009
Hispanic
Asian
2011
American Indian
2013
2015
2 or More Races
NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
5
NAEP Mathematics Grade 4 ─ Race/Ethnicity/Overall
Percent At or Above Proficient: 2000-2015
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
NP Overall
2003
NC Overall
2005
White
2007
Black
2009
Hispanic
Asian
2011
American Indian
2013
2015
2 or More Races
NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
6
NAEP Reading Grade 4 ─ Race/Ethnicity/Overall
Percent At or Above Basic: 2003-2015
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
NP Overall
2003
NC Overall
2005
White
2007
Black
2009
Hispanic
Asian
2011
American Indian
2013
2015
2 or More Races
NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
7
NAEP Reading Grade 4 ─ Race/Ethnicity/Overall
Percent At or Above Proficient: 2003-2015
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
NP Overall
2003
NC Overall
2005
White
2007
Black
2009
Hispanic
Asian
2011
American Indian
2013
2015
2 or More Races
NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
8
NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 ─ Race/Ethnicity/Overall
Percent At or Above Basic: 2000-2015
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
NP Overall
2003
NC Overall
2005
White
2007
Black
2009
Hispanic
Asian
2011
American Indian
2013
2015
2 or More Races
NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
9
NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 ─ Race/Ethnicity/Overall
Percent At or Above Proficient: 2000-2015
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
NP Overall
2003
NC Overall
2005
White
2007
Black
2009
Hispanic
Asian
2011
American Indian
2013
2015
2 or More Races
NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
10
NAEP Reading Grade 4 ─ Race/Ethnicity/Overall
Percent At or Above Basic: 2003-2015
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
NP Overall
2003
NC Overall
2005
White
2007
Black
2009
Hispanic
Asian
2011
American Indian
2013
2015
2 or More Races
NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
11
NAEP Reading Grade 8 ─ Race/Ethnicity/Overall
Percent At or Above Proficient: 2003-2015
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
NP Overall
2003
NC Overall
2005
White
2007
Black
2009
Hispanic
Asian
2011
American Indian
2013
2015
2 or More Races
NOTE: Observed differences are not necessarily statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EOG Assessments
29
Percent Proficient on Math EOG Grades 3-8
By Race
College and Career Readiness Standard
80.0
71.2
72.4
73.3
53.8
54.8
56.1
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
43.1
42.3
44.1
42.0 32.7
27.0
33.5
27.0
34.5
42.6
27.3
22.2
22.9
24.2
2013
2014
2015
42.4
10.0
0.0
All Students
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Two or More Races
White
30
Percent Proficient on Math EOG Grades 3-8
Disadvantaged Subgroup Comparison
College and Career Readiness Standard
80.0
70.0
60.1
61.3
46.8
47.3
59.3
60.0
50.0
30.0
20.0
45.7
44.6
43.8
40.0
49.0
42.3
27.7
43.1
28.2
44.1
29.1
17.4
12.4
17.9
12.5
18.9
2013
2014
2015
13.0
10.0
0.0
All Students
Limited English Proficient
Economically Disadvantaged
Students with Disabilities
31
2014-15 Percent Proficient on Math EOG Grades 3-8
Race and Disadvantaged Status
College and Career Readiness Standard
90.0
82.2
80.5
76.1
80.0
70.0
65.0
56.2
52.1
50.0
40.0
61.5
57.2
60.0
47.4
45.7
36.9
42.442.8
39.4
37.2
35.2
30.931.1
30.0
21.0
27.4
38.0
30.6
24.2
19.9
19.1
20.0
30.7
27.8
24.4
22.6
19.2
16.3
9.6
10.0
9.9
18.7
12.8
5.7
0.0
NOT Economically
Disadvantaged
Economically Disadvantaged
American Indian
NOT Limited English
Proficient
Asian
Black
Limited English Proficient
Hispanic
Two or More Races
NOT Students With
Disabilities
Students With Disabilities
White
32
Percent Proficient on Reading EOG Grades 3-8
By Race
College and Career Readiness Standard
80.0
70.0
63.0
57.8
64.5
60.0
61.5
56.6
50.0
45.7
46.1
45.9
40.0
43.9
29.0
44.7
29.2
45.1
30.0
58.4
30.0
28.6
28.8
20.0
25.6
26.3
2013
2014
28.8
26.7
10.0
0.0
All Students
American Indian
Asian
Black
2015
Hispanic
Two or More Races
White
33
Percent Proficient on Reading EOG Grades 3-8
Disadvantaged Subgroup Comparison
College and Career Readiness Standard
80.0
70.0
62.5
63.7
48.7
49.1
60.7
60.0
50.0
50.0
47.2
46.1
40.0
30.0
20.0
46.8
45.1
29.7
43.9
28.7
44.7
29.3
12.9
13.2
13.5
9.4
10.3
10.6
2013
2014
2015
10.0
0.0
All Students
Economically Disadvantaged
Limited English Proficient
NOT Economically Disadvantaged
NOT Limited English Proficient
Not Students With Disabilities
Students with Disabilities
34
2014-15 Percent Proficient on Reading EOG Grades 3-8
Race and Disadvantaged Status
College and Career Readiness Standard
90.0
80.0
74.8
73.6
67.2
66.7
70.0
59.6
60.0
64.0
58.6
51.0
50.0
40.0
38.6
43.4
39.2
30.0
46.1
40.2
22.0
40.6
35.1
25.7
21.9
39.1
28.9
32.3
26.8
21.7
20.0
18.9
14.9
13.6
9.2
10.0
33.2
30.5
19.3
14.0
17.3
9.3
9.0
7.5 7.8
0.0
NOT Economically
Disadvantaged
Economically Disadvantaged
American Indian
NOT Limited English
Proficient
Asian
Black
Limited English Proficient
Hispanic
Two or More Races
NOT Students With
Disabilities
Students With Disabilities
White
35
Percent Proficient on Science EOG Grades 5 & 8
College and Career Readiness Standard
80
70.5
70
78.3
76.2
71.6
70.2
64.7
61.5
58.8
60
54.1
59.1
57.3
50
52.2
46.8
45
46.5
39.9
40
41.5
39.5
39.5
30
36.7
32.6
20
2013
All Students
2014
American Indian
Asian
Black
2015
Hispanic
Two or More Races
White
36
Percent Proficient on Science EOG Grades 5 & 8
Disadvantaged Subgroup Comparison
College and Career Readiness Standard
80.0
74.7
73.1
69.5
70.0
64.6
61.9
57
60.0
54.2
50.0
59.1
44.5
57.3
42.4
52.2
37.6
40.0
61
59.1
30.0
23.4
24.3
16.4
17.3
18.7
2013
2014
2015
20.6
20.0
10.0
0.0
All Students
Economically Disadvantaged
Limited English Proficient
NOT Economically Disadvantaged
NOT Limited English Proficient
NOT Students With Disabilities
Students with Disabilities
37
2014-15 Percent Proficient on Science EOG Grades 5 & 8
Race and Disadvantaged Status
College and Career Readiness Standard
90.0
86.4
86.0
80.8
78.4
73.6
80.0
76.9
71.7
67.1
70.0
60.0
57.6
59.2
59.9
61.7
56.6
56.4
51.5
53.1
52.2
46.8
50.0
42.5
38.3
40.0
51.1
44.9
39.6
33.9
31.0
30.4
27.5
25.9
22.2
16.6
30.0
20.0
29.8
16.9
33.6
26.5
17.4
13.7
10.0
0.0
NOT Economically
Disadvantaged
Economically Disadvantaged
American Indian
NOT Limited English
Proficient
Asian
Black
Limited English Proficient
Hispanic
Two or More Races
NOT Students With
Disabilities
Students With Disabilities
White
38
EOC Assessments
39
Percent Proficient on 2015 End of Course Assessments By Race
College and Career Readiness Standard
78.2
80
70
67.5
64.1
61.9
60.2
60
50
57.2
48.6
46.4
40
45.0
44.9
38.9
37.1
26.3
33.9
32.8
32.1
30.1
30
52.2
50
31.3
24.8
20
10
0
Math 1
Biology
All Students
American Indian
Asian
Black
English 2
Hispanic
Two or More Races
White
40
Percent Proficient on 2015 End of Course Assessments
Disadvantaged Subgroup Comparison
College and Career Readiness Standard
70
62.9
62.2
60
57.4
54.8
52.8
50
50
48.6
48.7
51.4
50
45.9
44.9
40
33.8
30.5
28.9
30
20
13.6
12.5
10.6 10.8
10
7.5
<5
0
Math 1
Biology
All Students
Economically Disadvantaged
Limited English Proficient
Not Economically Disadvantaged
Not Limited English Proficient
Not Students with Disabilities
English 2
Students with Disabilities
41
ACT
42
80.0
75.0
70.0
Percent of Students Scoring at Least UNC Minimum
Composite (17)
Grade 72.5
11 ACT
73.6
71.9
73.5
72.5
71.9
65.0
61.2
60.0
59.9
60.0
55.0
58.5
59.3
59.7
45.4
44.9
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
44.2
44.5
43.9
42.9
35.0
34.9
33.4
30.0
2013
All Students
American Indian
Asian
2014
Black
Hispanic
Two or More Races
2015
White
43
Advanced
Placement (AP)
44
NC Public School AP Data - 2015
• North Carolina saw growth in all three major
categories of AP Participation and Performance:
– 18.7% increase of exam takers over last year (67,678 students)
– 19.1% increase of exams taken over last year (125,547 exams)
– 9.0% increase of examinees attained 3+ score over last year
(63,837 exams)
AP Participation - NC Public School Students
Number AP
Exams
120,000
100,000
Number
Students
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2011
2014
2015
45
Racial Participation & Performance
Gains
46
AP Exam Performance
• 53.9% of public school AP Exam takers scored
3 or higher on at least one AP Exam in May
2015
– 28.1% of Black examinees scored 3 or higher.
– 45.5% of Hispanic examinees scored 3 or higher
– 30.7% of Native American examinees scored 3 or
higher.
• Represents 36,504 public school students,
compared to 33,307 in 2014 and 27,093 in
2011.
47
Cohort Graduation
Rates
48
4-Yr Cohort Graduation Rate 2006-2015
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
All Students
68.3
69.5
70.3
71.8
74.2
77.9
80.4
82.5
83.9
85.6
American Indian
51.1
55.6
53.8
60
68
69.7
73.7
77.3
79.4
82
Asian
75.2
78.9
81
83.7
85.2
86.9
87.5
89.9
91.3
92.1
Black
60.4
61.4
62.7
63.2
66.9
71.5
74.7
77.5
79.9
82.2
Hispanic
52.3
53.7
56.4
59
61.4
68.8
73
75.2
77.4
80
66
65.4
68.4
71.5
71.1
77.2
80.6
81.5
82.7
84.5
73.5
75
75.7
77.7
79.6
82.6
84.7
86.2
87.1
88.3
Two or More Races
White
49
Short-Term and
Long-Term
Suspensions and
Expulsions
(http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/research/discip
line/reports/consolidated/2013-14/consolidatedreport.pdf)
50
Short-Term Suspensions by
Race/Ethnicity
Note: Race/Ethnicity was not reported or was reported as “Other” for 1,776 short-term suspensions in 2009-10, 77 in
2010-11, 110 in 2011-12, 264 in 2012-13, and 264 in 2013-14.
51
Short-Term Suspensions by
Race/Ethnicity
Note: Race/Ethnicity was not reported or was reported as “Other” for 1,776 short-term suspensions in 2009-10, 77 in 2010-11,
110 in 2011-12, 264 in 2012-13, and 264 in 2013-14. Rates calculated by dividing number of suspensions in race/ethnicity
category by membership in that race/ethnicity category and multiplying by ten.
52
Short-Term Suspensions by
Race/Ethnicity and Gender
Note: Race/Ethnicity was not reported or was reported as “Other” for 1,776 short-term suspensions in 2009-10, 77 in
2010-11, 110 in 2011-12, 264 in 2012-13, and 264 in 2013-14. Rates calculated by dividing number of suspensions in
race/ethnicity category by membership in that race/ethnicity category and multiplying by ten.
53
Short-Term Suspensions by
Race/Ethnicity and Gender
Note: Race/Ethnicity was not reported or was reported as “Other” for 1,776 short-term suspensions in 2009-10, 77 in 2010-11, 110 in
2011-12, 264 in 2012-13, and 264 in 2013-14. Rates calculated by dividing number of suspensions in race/ethnicity category by
membership in that race/ethnicity category and multiplying by ten.
54
Long-Term Suspensions by
Race/Ethnicity
Note: Race/Ethnicity was not reported or was reported as “Other” for 44 long-term suspensions in 2009-10, two in 2010-11,
five in 2012-13, and 43 in 2013-14.
55
Long-Term Suspensions by
Race/Ethnicity
Note: Race/Ethnicity was not reported or was reported as “Other” for 44 long-term suspensions in 2009-10,
two in 2010-11, five in 2012-13, and 43 in 2013-14. Rates calculated by dividing number of suspensions in
race/ethnicity category by membership in that race/ethnicity category and multiplying by 100,000.
56
Long-Term Suspensions by
Race/Ethnicity and Gender
Note: Rates calculated by dividing number of suspensions in race/ethnicity*gender category by membership in that
race/ethnicity*gender category and multiplying by 100,000.
57
Long-Term Suspensions by
Race/Ethnicity and Gender
Note: Rates calculated by dividing number of suspensions in race/ethnicity*gender category by membership in that
race/ethnicity*gender category and multiplying by 100,000.
58
Expulsions by Gender
59
Expulsions by Race/Ethnicity
60
Educator Equity Plan
61
Educator Equity Plan
•
•
•
•
Required by the former ESEA
Involved Stakeholder Input
NC’s Plan Submitted on June 1, 2015
Finally Approved by the USED on November
18, 2015 after Two Rounds of Revisions
• The Educator Equity Plan Can Be Found at
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/program
-monitoring/titleIA/equity-plan/equity-
final.pdf
62
Educator Equity Plan
Strategies Included in Plan:
1) NC Virtual Public Schools
2) Expansion of Access to Teacher Preparation
Programs
3) Teacher and Administrator Preparation Programs
4) Troops to Teachers
5) Regional Leadership Academies
6) Mentoring and Induction into Teaching
7) Performance-Based Teacher and Principal
Evaluation
8) Financial Incentives
63
Educator Equity Plan
Strategies Included in Plan:
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
Teacher Working Conditions
National Board Certification
High-Quality Professional Development
Expansion of the Turnaround Teams for LowPerforming Schools
Technology Integration
Microsoft IT Academy
LEA Educator Equity Plans
Focus on Teacher Retention
Public Reporting
64
Figure 3
Teacher Effectiveness by Quartiles of
Economically Disadvantaged Students (EDS)
18%
16.69%
Quartile Range - EDS
16%
13.51%
14%
13.28%
Percentage of Teachers
12.17%
11.42%
12%
10.75%
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
0 - 43.4%
43.5 - 59.2%
59.3 - 74.8%
74.9 - 98.8%
10%
8%
7.64%
7.08%
Percent Teachers Designated
as "Highly Effective"
6%
4%
Percent Teachers Designated
as "Needs Improvement"
2%
0%
EDS_Q1
EDS_Q2
EDS_Q3
EDS_Q4
Note: Teacher Effectiveness is determined using NC Educator Effectiveness guidelines. Teachers’ observational data (2013-14
school year) are combined with a three year average (2011-12 through 2013-14 school years) of the teacher student-growth
data. These ratings are not official teacher ratings as the 2011-12 data are not formally used for determining teacher
effectiveness. These data serve as a baseline for future analyses.
65
Figure 4
Teacher Effectiveness by Quartiles of Minority
Students
16%
14.24%
Quartile Range - Minority
14.55%
14%
13.09%
12.15%
Percentage of Teachers
12%
11.53%
9.87%
10%
8%
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
0 - 25.4%
25.5 - 45.6%
45.7 - 69.3%
69.4 - 100.0%
9.42%
7.85%
6%
Percent Teachers Designated
as "Highly Effective"
4%
Percent Teachers Designated
as "Needs Improvement"
2%
0%
MINORITY_Q1 MINORITY_Q2 MINORITY_Q3 MINORITY_Q4
Note: Teacher Effectiveness is determined using NC Educator Effectiveness guidelines. Teachers’ observational data (2013-14
school year) are combined with a three year average (2011-12 through 2013-14 school years) of the teacher student-growth
data. These ratings are not official teacher ratings as the 2011-12 data are not formally used for determining teacher
effectiveness. These data serve as a baseline for future analyses.
66
Recommendations (To Name a Few)
•
•
•
•
•
Extend the School Day
Extend the School Year
Preschool Education
11 Month Contracts for Teachers
Targeted Professional Development for
Teachers and Administrators
• Additional Resources
67
Selected References and Research
Studies
• An annotated bibliography about the
achievement gap prepared by the Division
of Data, Research and Federal Policy at
the North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction can be found at
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/aer/achiev
ement-nc/
68
Contact Information
• Dr. Louis M. (Lou) Fabrizio
Director, Division of Data, Research and Federal
Policy, NCDPI
lou.fabrizio@dpi.nc.gov
• Dr. Vinetta Bell
Research Associate, Division of Data, Research and
Federal Policy, NCDPI
vinetta.bell@dpi.nc.gov
• Dr. Tammy Howard
Director, Division of Accountability Services, NCDPI
tammy.howard@dpi.nc.gov
69