1. EDU 4245 Class 5: Achievement Gap (cont) and Diagnostic Assessments

2. NAEP “The Nation’s Report Card” Started 1969 Only nationally representative and continuing assessment for K-12 students Based on a sample of student population No individual scores; aggregate and by population (e.g. females/males, African- American/ Asian-American/ Caucasian/ Hispanic)

3. NAEP Includes public and private schools Grades 4, 8, 12 Test stays same; stability Reading, Math, Science, Writing, US History, Civics, Arts Levels: basic, proficient, advanced

4. NAEP Reading Results 2002 Based on 270,000 students at 11,000 schools 12 th graders at or above basic or proficient decreased between 1998 and 2002 8 th graders at or above basic was higher than in all previous years Females scored higher than males White and Asian students higher than black and Hispanic

5. NAEP Reading Results 2002 Students attending schools receiving Title I funds scored lower (average) than students attending schools not receiving Title I funds. Students who attended nonpublic schools had higher average scores than students in public schools. Students in “urban fringe/ large town” areas had higher average scores than students in central city or rural areas.

6. No Child Left Behind Re-tooled ESEA 1965 Focuses on –Increased funding for poor districts –Higher achievement for poor and minority students –New accountability measures for students’ progress –Dramatically expanding the role of standardized testing in schools

7. NCLB Reform principles –Accountability –Flexibility –Research-based reforms –Parental options States test every child in grades 3-8 Some states also have minimum competencies for graduation Funding issues – reading, reform, vouchers

8. NCLB Does not represent national curriculum Progress met through states setting targets for AYP in math and reading AYP – Goal is to have every student proficient in math and reading by 2014 If AYP not met –1-2 yearsSchool improvement –3 yearsCorrection action –4 yearsPossible restructuring

9. NCLB and Parents Receive report card with scores Scores disaggregated by subgroups based on race, ethnicity, gender, low- income status, disability status, migrant status, ELL (English Language Learners) Professional qualifications of teachers (“highly qualified”) Right to transfer if school failing 3 years

10. The illustrious achievement gap Equal access ≠ equal opportunities. WHY??

11. Barton 1 : Before and beyond school Birthweight Lead poisoning Hunger and nutrition Television watching Parent availability Student mobility Parent participation Reading to young children 1 Barton, P. E. (2004). Why does the gap persist? Educational Leadership, 62 (3), 8-13.

12. Barton 1 : In school Teacher experience and attendance Teacher preparation Class size Technology-assisted instruction School safety Rigor of curriculum 1 Barton, P. E. (2004). Why does the gap persist? Educational Leadership, 62 (3), 8-13.

13. Linking Things together Standards movement borne from belief that schools lagging More students with greater educational attainment highlighted achievement gap Attempts to ameliorate sociocultural NCLB –Standards & Standardization –Accountability –Equitable opportunities

14. The illustrious achievement gap Segregated schools persist. –Overbrook HS Overbrook HSOverbrook HS –Radnor HS Radnor HSRadnor HS Equal access ≠ equal opportunities. Tension between equity and excellence and questions about best way to achieve both.

15. Questions to Ponder What is your responsibility as educator in ameliorating the achievement gap? How should educators navigate the tension between equity and excellence? What is your responsibility as educator in meeting particular standards and meeting the needs of students?

16. Danielle Case How do standards affect Danielle? How does standardized testing affect Danielle? How does the achievement gap affect Danielle? What does she need to be thinking about in relation to how she can develop a thinking-rich classroom while keeping in mind issues related to standards, testing, and the achievement gap?

17. Danielle Case How should Danielle decide what to do with her students? Consider: –Demands of district –Professional opinion of Danielle as teacher –Needs of students

18. Diagnostic Tools How can we determine what students need and what readings are appropriate?

19. Diagnostic Assessments Text –Formal: Readability formulas –Informal: Readability checklist Student –Teacher generated: CARI –Student generated: FLIP

20. Doing a Fry Take the reading you brought to class. Do a Fry (see V&V p. 58) on one representative passage. Was this the outcome you expected? What may have skewed the outcome?

21. Diagnostic Assessments: Text Formal –Fry Benefits: accurate, includes both word and sentence complexity Problems: time consuming, easy to skew data depending on passages selected –Cloze Benefits: indicates students’ actual performance with course readings Problems: can be difficult to get accurate reading

22. Diagnostic Assessments: Text Formal –Fog Benefits: ease of use, fairly reliable Problems: time, doesn’t work as well with non- scientific reading

23. Diagnostic Assessments: Text Informal –Readability checklist Benefits: guideline for teacher to consider various aspects of a test Problems: based on teacher subjectivity, texts often mandated by district

24. Diagnostic Assessments: Student Teacher generated –CARI Benefits: flexible Problems: teacher generated comprehension questions may not be appropriate and decrease reliability –Betts’ Benefits: indicates students’ actual performance with course readings Problems: must administer individually

25. Diagnostic Assessments: Student Student generated –FLIP Benefits: gives students ownership of reading task Problems: reliability of student opinions

26. Next Class - Pre-Reading Do “Textbook Readability Checklist” Think about the reading sample you brought to class today. What are some ways you can pique students’ interest and tap into their prior knowledge before you assigned this reading? How would this reading be used in a thinking-rich classroom?