Division of Instructional Services
Michael Lucas, Assistant Superintendent
School District of Oconee County
www.oconee.k12.sc.us
414 South Pine Street  PO Box 649  Walhalla, SC 29691  864.886.4400  864.886.4403 (fax)
MEMORANDUM
To:
Dr. Valerie Truesdale
From:
Michael Lucas
Re:
Instructional Services Report
October 17, 2006 - Board of Trustees’ Meeting
Action/Discussion Item Title: Update on Goal A3 – Reducing the Achievement Gap
Background: Under the accountability provisions in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act (federal) and state education policy, a spotlight has been placed on the achievement
gaps that exist based on socio-economic status, language proficiency, and race/ethnicity.
Under NCLB performance targets have been set for all for children who attend schools in
the district.
Recommendation: To share with the SDOC Board of Education, at the October 17
meeting, an update on Goal A3 (attached).
Programmatic Impact: If a school or district receiving Title I, Part A funds fails to
successfully meet the requirements for reducing such gaps in student performance for two
consecutive years, the school or district is subject to certain corrective action.
Signature Line:
Recommended for approval/discussion
Valerie Truesdale, Ph. D.
Board Goal Update – Closing the Achievement Gap
October 17, 2006
A3. Goal: To continue to reduce achievement gaps among subgroups of students as
measured by the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT) in grades 3-8
Measure: Strategies for reducing the academic achievement gaps among subgroups in the
following areas will be implemented:
a)
b)
c)
among groups of Black, White and Hispanic students,
between groups of students qualifying for free/reduced price lunch programs
and non-reduced price lunch students, and
among schools.
Progress toward this goal will be reported to the Board of Trustees in Fall 2006 and Spring
2007.
What is the achievement gap?
The “achievement gap” is a matter of differences among race, socio-economic status, and
handicapping condition. Across the U.S., a gap in academic achievement persists between minority and
disadvantaged students and their white counterparts. This is one of the most pressing education-policy
challenges that states currently face.
Changes at federal and state levels create urgency
Federal and state education policy has put the spotlight on the achievement gap. No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) requires states to set the same performance targets for children:




From economically disadvantaged families
With disabilities
With limited English proficiency
From all major ethnic and racial groups
Within a school, if any student subgroup persistently fails to meet performance targets, districts must
provide public school choice and supplemental services to those students – and eventually restructure the
school's governance. This is required even if the school performs well overall.
Measuring the achievement gap nationally
There are several ways to measure the achievement gap. One common method is to compare academic
performance among African-American, Hispanic, and white students on standardized assessments.
Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that reading scores for 17
year-olds narrowed dramatically for both African-American and Hispanic students from 1975 through
1988. From 1990 to 1999, however, these gaps either remained constant or grew slightly in both reading
and mathematics.
Looking at the NAEP data, the Education Trust concluded that, “By the time [minority students] reach
grade 12, if they do so at all, minority students are about four years behind other young people. Indeed, 17
year-old African-American and Latino students have skills in English, mathematics and science similar to
those of 13-year-old white students.”
Another way to measure the achievement gap is to compare the highest level of educational attainment
for various groups. Here too there are gaps at all levels.
Hispanic and African-American high school students are more likely to drop out of high school in every
state. Of these high school graduates, college matriculation rates for African-American and Hispanic highschool students remain below those of white high-school graduates – although they have risen in recent
years. Furthermore, of those students enrolling in college, Hispanic and black young adults are only half as
likely to earn a college degree as white students.
Measuring the achievement gap locally
Looking at the data reported by the SC Department of Education, we clearly see patterns. There is an
achievement gap. In both English/language arts and mathematics this gap is greatest by students who are
participants in special education. The gap continues with the racial/ethnicity groups of African-American,
Hispanic, Limited English Proficient students. In each case, students on free and reduced lunch represent
the smallest gap in the School District of Oconee County.
*Where are the greatest gaps in student performance?
English-Language Arts
Mathematics
Disabled Students
-29.4 Disabled Students
-29.8
Limited English Proficient
-20.2 African-American
-24.7
African-Americans
-18.4 Limited English Proficient
-23.5
Hispanic
-17.4 Hispanic
-13.2
Free-Reduced Lunch
-12.7 Free/Reduced Lunch
-12.2
*This comparison shows the variance between the subgroup and the all students category.
The data tables that follow provide more detailed information from the test scores that are summarized
above.
ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS, PACT 2006
SUBGROUP
NUMBER
ALL STUDENTS
White
African-American (3)
Asian/Pacific Is.
Hispanic (4)
Disabled (1)
Limited Eng. Prof. (2)
Subsidized Meals (5)
%
%
%
%
%
BELOW BASIC PROF ADV PROF
BASIC
& ADV
5674
4570
713
34
326
1033
164
2945
19.2
17.2
30.8
5.9
25.3
48
27.9
27
41.6
39.9
48.4
35.3
52.7
42
52.9
46.4
31.6
34.3
17.9
44.1
19.5
8.9
19.1
23.4
7.7
8.7
3
14.7
2.4
1
0
3.2
39.3
43
20.9
58.8
21.9
9.9
19.1
26.6
DIFFERENCE
PROF & ADV
COMPARED TO
ALL STUDENTS
0
+ 3.7
-18.4
+ 19.5
-17.4
-29.4
-20.2
-12.7
MATHEMATICS, PACT 2006
SUBGROUP
NUMBER
ALL STUDENTS
White
African-American (2)
Asian/Pacific Is.
Hispanic (4)
Disabled (1)
Limited Eng. Prof. (3)
Subsidized Meals (5)
5674
4570
713
34
326
1033
164
2945
%
%
%
%
BELOW BASIC PROF ADV
BASIC
17.3
15.3
31.9
8.8
15.4
45.2
13.2
24.8
40.1
37.5
50.2
41.2
55.1
42
67.6
44.8
23.7
25.7
13.3
11.8
20.5
9.2
16.2
19.7
18.9
21.5
4.6
38.2
8.9
3.6
2.9
10.7
%
DIFFERENCE
PROF
PROF & ADV
& ADV COMPARED TO
ALL STUDENTS
42.6
47.2
17.9
50
29.4
12.8
19.1
30.4
0
+ 4.6
-24.7
+ 7.4
-13.2
-29.8
-23.5
-12.2
Have we made any progress in our school district?
If we look at our disaggregated test scores for the past three years, we can see that progress is being made.
These tables are located on the next page and they indicate progress has been made in the following areas:
Progress Made in English-Language Arts
A slight improvement trend (33.9 to 30.8) in reducing the number of the
African-American Students
Hispanic Students
Limited-English Proficient
Free/Reduced Lunch
Students
subgroup scoring below basic, as well as a slight increase (2.4 to 3.0) in the
number scoring advanced.
A great deal of improvement (35.6 to 25.3) in reducing the number of
students scoring below basic, as well a slight increase (0.8 to 2.4) in the
number scoring advanced.
A tremendous amount of improvement (60.0 to 27.9) in reducing the number
of students scoring below basic, as well as an increase (11.4 to 19.1) in the
number of students scoring proficient.
A slight reduction in the number of students (12.8 to 11.1) in the number of
students scoring below basic, as well as an increase in those scoring proficient
or advanced (47.6 to 52.5)
Progress Made in Mathematics
A slight reduction (19.1 to 15.4) students scored below basic, as well a slight
Hispanic Students
increase (0.8 to 2.4) in the number scoring advanced.
A tremendous amount of improvement (30.7 to 13.2) in reducing the number
of students scoring below basic, as well as an increase (14.6 to 19.1) in the
number of students scoring proficient.
A slight increase in those scoring proficient or advanced (26.4 to 30.4)
Limited-English Proficient
Free/Reduced Lunch Students
The data tables that follow provide more detailed information from the test scores that are summarized
above.
DISAGGREGATED TEST SCORES: 2004, 2005, 2006
ENGLISH –
LANG. ARTS
% Below Basic
% Basic
% Proficient
% Advanced
2006
2005
2004
2006
2005
2004
2006
2005
2004
2006
2005
2004
ALL
STUDENTS
19.2
19.9
20.1
41.6
41.9
43.7
31.6
30.5
29.3
7.7
7.7
6.9
Male
24.2
25.0
24.6
43.7
42.5
44.6
26.4
27.0
25.8
5.7
5.5
4.9
Female
13.8
14.3
15.1
39.3
41.2
42.7
37.1
34.4
33.2
9.8
10.1
9.1
White
17.2
17.5
17.1
39.9
40.8
43.0
34.3
32.8
31.9
8.7
8.9
8.0
AfricanAmerican
30.8
32.5
33.9
48.4
46.2
45.6
17.9
19.4
18.2
3.0
1.9
2.4
5.9
3.6
6.9
35.3
46.4
44.8
44.1
32.1
34.5
14.7
17.9
13.8
25.3
29.1
35.6
52.7
48.0
51.4
19.5
21.8
12.3
2.4
1.1
0.8
7.7
0.0
0.0
30.8
0.0
0.0
61.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Disabled
48.0
42.9
39.8
42.0
42.9
46.5
8.9
13.0
12.5
1.0
1.2
1.2
Not Disabled
12.9
14.2
14.7
41.5
41.6
42.9
36.5
34.9
33.9
9.1
9.3
8.5
Limited Eng.
Prof.
27.9
55.0
60.0
52.9
41.9
28.6
19.1
11.3
11.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
Non-LEP
19.1
19.4
19.6
41.4
33.8
43.9
31.7
30.8
29.5
7.8
7.8
7.0
Subsidized Meals
27.0
27.5
28.0
46.4
46.6
48.2
23.4
23.4
20.9
3.2
2.5
2.9
Full-Pay Meals
11.1
12.7
12.8
36.5
37.5
39.5
40.1
37.3
37.0
12.4
12.6
10.6
Asian/Pacific Is.
Hispanic
Am.
Indian/Alaskan
Language Prof
DISAGGREGATED TEST SCORES: 2004, 2005, 2006
MATH
ALL
STUDENTS
% Below Basic
2006
17.3
% Basic
% Proficient
% Advanced
2005
2004
2006
2005
2004
2006
2005
2004
2006
2005
2004
18.4
17.0
40.1
42.1
44.6
23.7
22.2
23.5
18.9
17.3
14.9
Male
18.6
19.8
18.2
39.2
40.5
43.0
22.5
22.8
23.9
19.8
16.9
14.9
Female
16.0
16.8
15.6
41.1
43.8
46.4
25.0
21.5
23.1
17.9
17.8
14.9
White
15.3
15.7
13.9
37.5
40.4
43.6
25.7
24.1
25.5
21.5
19.8
17.0
AfricanAmerican
31.9
35.1
25.3
50.2
48.7
47.5
13.3
12.0
13.1
4.6
4.2
4.2
8.8
3.6
3.3
41.2
35.7
23.3
11.8
28.6
36.7
38.2
32.1
36.7
Hispanic
15.4
21.1
19.1
55.1
53.6
56.4
20.5
17.1
17.5
8.9
8.2
7.0
Am.
Indian/Alaskan
15.4
0.0
0.0
38.5
0.0
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
38.5
0.0
0.0
Asian/Pacific Is.
Disabled
45.2
43.3
36.3
42.0
45.0
50.0
9.2
8.5
10.8
3.6
3.2
2.4
Not Disabled
11.3
12.2
11.6
39.7
41.4
43.0
26.8
25.6
27.0
22.2
20.8
18.4
Limited Eng.
Prof.
13.2
41.7
30.7
67.6
51.2
54.7
16.2
4.8
9.3
2.9
2.4
5.3
Non-LEP
17.4
18.0
16.8
39.7
41.9
44.5
23.8
22.5
23.7
19.1
17.5
15.1
Subsidized Meals
24.8
26.0
22.9
44.8
48.7
50.7
19.7
16.8
19.3
10.7
8.5
7.1
9.5
11.1
11.5
35.2
35.8
39.0
27.9
27.4
27.4
27.4
25.7
22.1
Full-Pay Meals
What practices are needed to reduce the achievement gap?
We need to continue to work diligently to reduce gaps that exist in our district based on socio-economic
status, language proficiency, and race/ethnicity.
A review of research on achievement gaps identifies the following are needed to help minority and
disadvantaged students be successful in school:
1) A consistent and solid curriculum – Our district is working to develop a curriculum that is
consistent and sets high expectations for all students (curriculum mapping);
2) An emphasis on appropriate teaching strategies – Our district is working to implement practices
that are differentiated and respectful of a student’s background and culture (staff development in
the areas of differentiated instruction, working with children of poverty, special education inclusion
practices);
3) Leadership with high expectations – Our district encourages principals to disaggregate the data and
work with the school/district instructional staff to plan for improvement (principal quarterly
visits);
4) Providing funding for acceleration programs – Schools are allocated funds for “targeted
assistance” and remediation/acceleration (EIA funding for Soar to Success and Math Bridges
programs, as well as allocations from EAA based on a base and an add on factor for students
below basic).