Evaluation Brief
Public Schools of North Carolina, State Board of Education, Phillip J. Kirk Jr., Chairman
Department of Public Instruction, Michael E. Ward, State Superintendent
Volume 3, Number 3
August 2001
th
The 1996 NC NAEP 8 Grade Mathematics Assessment:
Equity in Environments Across Schools
Several studies have documented the relationship between aspects of the school
environment and student outcomes (U. S. Department of Education, 2000). For example, better
disciplinary environments have been linked to larger gains in achievement (Barton, Coley, &
Wenglinsky, 1998) as well as lower dropout rates (Grogger, 1997). Psychological and/or
attitudinal aspects of school environments have also been linked to various student outcomes.
For example, higher levels of parent involvement have been linked to higher student
achievement (Dornbusch & Ritter, 1988) as well as greater likelihood of pursuing postsecondary education (Plank & Jordan, 1997).
Although efforts at improving student outcomes sometimes focus solely on discrete
academic interventions, studies have demonstrated that other non-academic factors also play a
role in promoting high student achievement. In a study of over 28,000 middle school students,
Lee, Smith, Perry, and Smylie (1999) demonstrated that although student achievement is related
to a strong academic focus at the school level, even higher levels of achievement were found in
schools with a strong academic focus and where students had high levels of social support from
teachers, parents, peers and community members. More positive school environments have also
been linked to higher academic performance specifically for at-risk students. Borman and
Rachuba (2001) found that “resilient” students – students from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds who score high on measures of achievement – are more likely to be found in
schools with more safe and orderly environments and more positive student-teacher relations.
Interestingly, the Borman and Rachuba study also found that other more commonly-cited school
characteristics including class size, teacher experience, the availability of instructional supplies,
and student population characteristics (i.e., percent of students eligible for free/reduced price
lunch, percent who are ethnic minorities, percent who are low-achieving) were not related to
resilience.
In an effort to examine the school environments of 8th grade students across North
Carolina, the following study was conducted using data from the 1996 NC National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) Mathematics Assessment. The NAEP collects a variety of
information on the schools in which participating students are located via surveys of students,
Evaluation Section
1
Division of Accountability Services
parents, teachers, and administrators. Data from the administrator surveys were used for this
study, which sought to compare the school environments experienced by students from different
ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Psychological Environment
In looking at measures of the psychological environment of the school, 8th grade
minority1 students and 8th grade students who are eligible for free/reduced price lunch are more
likely to attend schools where parental support for achievement, students’ attitudes toward
achievement, and teacher morale are rated as ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ negative by the principal
(Figures 1 & 2). Interestingly, differences on these factors between students eligible for
free/reduced price lunch and students who are not eligible are somewhat larger than the
differences between students in the two ethnic groupings. It is also of note that the vast majority
of students in all groups were from schools where ratings on these factors were not negative.
% Students Whose Schools Were Rated
as Somewhat or Very Negative
Figure 1: Psychological Environment Ratings by Student Ethnicity
White/Asian
Black/Hispanic/American Indian
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
8.0%
20.0%
14.2%
26.1%
10.3%
16.4%
0%
Parent Support for
Achievement
Students' Attitudes
Toward Achievement
Teacher Morale
1
For this analysis, minority students are defined as students of Black, Hispanic, or American Indian ethnicity.
This grouping, along with the decision to put White and Asian students in the other group, was done due
to the relatively small numbers of Asian, Hispanic, and American Indian students in the NAEP sample. It
was also done because White and Asian students tend to have more positive school outcomes (higher
achievement, lower dropout rates, etc.) compared to Black, Hispanic, or American Indian students in
North Carolina.
Evaluation Section
2
Division of Accountability Services
% Students Whose Schools Were
Rated as Somewhat or Very Negative
Figure 2: Psychological Environment Ratings by Free/Reduced Price Lunch Status
Not Eligible
Eligible
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
6.9%
19.0%
14.5%
26.7%
9.1%
18.1%
0%
Parent Support for
Achievement
Students' Attitudes
Toward Achievement
Teacher Morale
Behavioral Environment
Involvement and Attendance. Minority students and students eligible for free/reduced
price lunch are also slightly more likely to attend schools that are rated by their principals as
having problems with parent involvement, student absenteeism or tardiness, and teacher
absenteeism (Figures 3 & 4). Similar to the analyses of the psychological environment variables,
the differences on these indicators between students who are and are not eligible for free/reduced
lunch are larger overall than between students from the two ethnic groupings.
% Students Whose Schools Have
Problems in This Area
Figure 3: Involvement and Attendance Ratings by Student Ethnicity
White/Asian
100%
88.7% 90.9%
Black/Hispanic/American Indian
77.1% 81.8%
80%
72.5% 75.9%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Evaluation Section
Lack of Parent
Involvement
Student Absenteeism/
Tardiness
3
Teacher Absenteeism
Division of Accountability Services
% Students Whose Schools Have
Problems in This Area
Figure 4: Involvement and Attendance Ratings by Free/Reduced Price Lunch Status
Not Eligible
100%
Eligible
94.9%
85.3%
78.8%
80%
83.2%
71.1%
77.7%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Lack of Parent
Involvement
Student Absenteeism/
Tardiness
Teacher Absenteeism
Student Behavior. Analyses of principals’ ratings of school-wide behavior yield a more
mixed picture (Figures 5 & 6). Alcohol, tobacco and drug use was rated as equally problematic
in all students’ schools, while minority students and students eligible for free/reduced price lunch
were more likely to attend schools where gang activities were a problem. Racial/cultural conflict
problems were slightly more likely to be reported in the schools attended by minority students,
and also in schools attended by students from higher-income families.
Figure 5: Behavioral Environment Ratings by Student Ethnicity
% Students Whose Schools Have
Problems in This Area
White/Asian
Black/Hispanic/American Indian
100%
80%
57.6% 60.3%
60%
43.0% 41.3%
40%
30.6%
20.8%
20%
0%
Alcohol/ Tobacco/Drugs
Evaluation Section
Gang Activities
4
Racial/Cultural Conflicts
Division of Accountability Services
Figure 6: Behavioral Environment Ratings by Free/Reduced Price Lunch Status
% Students Whose Schools Have
Problems in This Area
Not Eligible
Eligible
100%
80%
60.6%
60%
56.4%
42.5% 41.6%
40%
29.7%
21.5%
20%
0%
Alcohol/ Tobacco/Drugs
Gang Activities
Racial/Cultural Conflicts
Summary
Compared to their peers, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students and students
eligible for free/reduced price lunch in North Carolina are somewhat more likely to attend
schools with less desirable psychological and behavioral climates. Principals at their schools are
somewhat more likely to report problems with parent involvement and support, teacher morale
and absenteeism, student attitudes and attendance, and gang activities. In many cases, however,
the socioeconomic differences are slightly larger than the differences based on student ethnicity.
Also of concern in these results is the large percentages of students from all backgrounds whose
principals report problems with teacher and student tardiness/absenteeism, parent involvement,
and racial/cultural conflicts.
Given these findings, along with previous research demonstrating the link between the
quality of school environments and various outcomes for students, the need to attend to the
behavioral and psychological health of schools appears important, particularly so for students
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. As stated by Lee et al. (1999), “Regardless of the
background characteristics of students and the demographic characteristics of their schools, when
either support or [academic focus] is strong and the other is weak, students learn less” (p. 16).
Efforts to promote positive outcomes for students from traditionally underachieving subgroups
will likely be more successful if they attend to both the specific academic needs of those students
as well as to the behavioral and psychological environments of the schools that those students
attend.
Evaluation Section
5
Division of Accountability Services
References
Barton, P. E., Coley, R. J., & Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Order in the classroom:
Violence, discipline, and student achievement. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
[Available online at http://www.ets.org/research/pic/orderclass/orderclss.html]
Borman, G. D., & Rachuba, L. T. (2001). Academic success among poor and minority
students: An analysis of competing models of school effects (Report #52). Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.
[Available online at http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/Reports/reports.html]
Dornbusch, S. M., & Ritter, P. L. (1988). Parents of high school students: A neglected
resource. Educational Horizons, 66(2), 75-77.
Grogger, J. (1997). Local violence and educational attainment. Journal of Human
Resources, 32, 659-682.
Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., Perry, T. E., & Smylie, M. A. (1999). Social support, academic
press, and student achievement. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research
[Available online http://www.consortium-chicago.org/acrobat/social%20support.pdf]
Plank, S. B., & Jordan, W. J. (1997). Reducing talent loss: The impact of information,
actions, and guidance, and actions on post-secondary enrollment (Report #9). Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.
[Available online at http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/Reports/reports.html]
U. S. Department of Education. (2000). Monitoring school quality: An indicators
report. Washington, DC: Author.
[Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001030]
Evaluation Section
6
Division of Accountability Services