Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools
Page 7
This is the foundational claim of the corporate reform movement.
But it is not true.
Let’s look at the evidence.
NAEP has tested samples of students in the states and in the nation every other year since 1992 in reading and mathematics.
Here is what we know from NAEP data. There have been significant increases in both reading and mathematics, more in mathematics than in reading. The sharpest increases were registered in the years preceding the implementation of NCLB, from 2000 to 2003.4
Reading scores in fourth grade have improved slowly, steadily, and significantly since 1992 for almost every group of students. (See graph 6.)
• The scale scores in reading show a flat line, but this is misleading. Every group of students saw gains, but the overall line looks flat because of an increase in the proportion of low-scoring students. This is known to statisticians as Simpson’s paradox.5
• The proportion of fourth-grade students who were proficient or advanced increased from 1992 to 2011. In 1992, 29 percent of students were proficient or above; in 2011, it was 34 percent.
• The proportion of fourth-grade students who were “below basic” declined from 38 percent in 1992 to 33 percent in 2011.
• The scores of white students, black students, Hispanic students, and Asian students in fourth grade were higher in 2011 than in 1992. The only group that saw a decline was American Indian students.6 (See graphs 7, 8, 9, and 10, which show rising scores for whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, but not for American Indians.)
Reading scores in eighth grade have improved slowly, steadily, and significantly since 1992 for every group of students.
• The proportion of eighth-grade students who were proficient or advanced increased from 1992 to 2011. In 1992, 29 percent of students were proficient or above; in 2011, it was 34 percent. (See graph 11.)
• The proportion of eighth-grade students who were “below basic” declined from 31 percent in 1992 to 24 percent in 2011.
• The scores of white students, black students, Hispanic students, Asian students, and American Indian students in eighth grade were higher in 2011 than in 1992. (See graphs 12, 13, 14, and 15.)
Don’t believe anyone who claims that reading has not improved over the past twenty years. It isn’t true. NAEP is the only gauge of change over time, and it shows slow, steady, and significant increases. Students of all racial and ethnic groups are reading better now than they were in 1992. And that’s a fact.
Mathematics scores in fourth grade have improved dramatically from 1992 to 2011.
• The proportion of fourth-grade students who were proficient or advanced increased from 1990 to 2011. In 1990, 13 percent of students were proficient or above; in 2011, it was 40 percent. (See graph 2.)
• The proportion of fourth-grade students who were “below basic” declined from 50 percent in 1990 to an astonishingly low 18 percent in 2011.
• The scores of white students, black students, Hispanic students, Asian students, and American Indian students in fourth grade were higher in 2011 than in 1992. (See graphs 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.)
Mathematics scores in eighth grade have improved dramatically from 1992 to 2011. (See graph 21.)
• The proportion of eighth-grade students who were proficient or advanced increased from 1990 to 2011. In 1990, 15 percent were proficient or above; in 2011, it was 35 percent. (See graph 22.)
• The proportion of eighth-grade students who were “below basic” declined from 48 percent in 1990 to 27 percent in 2011. (See graph 22.)
• The scores of white students, black students, Hispanic students, Asian students, and American Indian students in eighth grade were higher in 2011 than in 1992. (See graphs 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27.)
As it happens, there is another version of NAEP that the federal government has administered since the early 1970s. The one I described before is known as the “main NAEP.” It tests students in grades 4 and 8; scores on the main NAEP reach back to 1990 or 1992, depending on the subject. It is periodically revised and updated.
The alternative form of NAEP is called the “long-term trend assessment.” It dates back to the early 1970s and tests students who are ages nine, thirteen, and seventeen (which roughly corresponds to grades 4, 8, and 12). The long-term trend NAEP contains large numbers of questions that have been used consistently for more than forty years. Unlike the main NAEP, the content of the long-term trend NAEP seldom changes, other than to remove obsolete terms like “S&H Green Stamps.” The long-term trend NAEP is administered to scientific samples of students every four years.
Both the main NAEP and the long-term trend NAEP show steady increases in reading and mathematics. Neither shows declines. The long-term tests hardly ever change, so they provide a consistent yardstick over the past four decades.
Here are the changes in the long-term trend data in mathematics, from 1973 to 2008:7
The overall score does not reflect the large gains that were made over the past four decades, again because of Simpson’s paradox. Each of the four major groups of students saw significant gains. (See graphs 28 and 29).
White students over the past forty years show impressive gains: age nine, up 25 points; age thirteen, up 16 points; age seventeen, up 4 points.
Black students over the past forty years show remarkable gains: age nine, up 34 points; age thirteen, up 34 points; age seventeen, up 17 points.
Hispanic students also show remarkable gains: age nine, up 32 points; age thirteen, up 29 points; age seventeen, up 16 points.
On the main NAEP, from 1990 to 2011, here are the data for mathematics:
White students: fourth grade, up 29 points; eighth grade, up 23 points. (See graphs 16 and 23.)
Black students: fourth grade, up 36 points; eighth grade, up 25 points. (See graphs 16 and 23.)
Hispanic students: fourth grade, up 29 points; eighth grade, up 24 points. (See graphs 17 and 24.)
Asian students: fourth grade, up 31 points; eighth grade, up 28 points. (See graphs 18 and 25.)
In reading, the changes are less dramatic, but they are steady and significant.
On the long-term trend assessments, these were the changes in reading from 1971 to 2008:
White students: age nine, up 14 points; age thirteen, up 7 points; age seventeen, up 4 points.
Black students: age nine, up 34 points; age thirteen, up 25 points; age seventeen, up 28 points.
Hispanic students: age nine, up 25 points; age thirteen, up 10 points; age seventeen, up 17 points.
Compare this with gains on the main NAEP reading from 1992 to 2011:
White students: fourth grade, up 7 points; eighth grade, up 7 points. (See graphs 7 and 12.)
Black students: fourth grade, up 13 points; eighth grade, up 12 points. (See graphs 7 and 12.)
Hispanic students: fourth grade, up 9 points; eighth grade, up 11 points. (See graphs 8 and 13.)
Asian students: fourth grade, up 19 points; eighth grade, up 7 points. (See graphs 9 and 14.)
NAEP data show beyond question that test scores in reading and math have improved for almost every group of students over the past two decades: slowly and steadily in the case of reading, dramatically in the case of mathematics. Students know more and can do more in these two basic skills subjects now than they could twenty or forty years ago.
Why the difference between the two subjects? Reading is influenced to a larger extent by differences in home conditions than mathematics. Put another way, students learn language and vocabulary at home and in school; they learn mathematics in school. Students can improve their vocabulary and background knowledge by reading literature and history at school, but their starting point in reading is influenced more by home and family than in mathematics.
So the next time you hear someone say that the system is “broken,” that American students aren’t as well educated as they used to be, that our schools are failing, tell that person the facts. Test scores are rising. Of course, test scores are not
the only way to measure education, but to the extent that they matter, they are improving. Our students have higher test scores in reading and mathematics than they did in the early 1970s or the early 1990s. Of course, we can do better. Students should be writing more and reading more and doing more science projects and more historical research papers and should have more opportunities to engage in the arts.
But let’s recognize the progress that our educators and students have made, give credit where credit is due, and offer educators the encouragement and support to continue their important work.
CHAPTER 6
The Facts About the Achievement Gap
CLAIM The achievement gaps are large and getting worse.
REALITY We have made genuine progress in narrowing the achievement gaps, but they will remain large if we do nothing about the causes of the gaps.
One of the persistent claims of the corporate reform movement is that the reformers are leading the “civil rights issue of our time.” Reformers point to the disparity between the test scores of white students and students of color as proof that the public schools are failing and that black and Hispanic students must be liberated from public schools to attend privately managed charter schools or to use vouchers to enroll in private and religious schools.
It defies reason to believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would march arm in arm with Wall Street hedge fund managers and members of ALEC to lead a struggle for the privatization of public education, the crippling of unions, and the establishment of for-profit schools. Privatization inevitably means deregulation, greater segregation, and less equity, with minimal oversight by public authorities. Privatization has typically not been a friend to powerless groups.
Reformers make the case for privatization by insisting that black and Hispanic students are failing in the public schools and that they must be “saved.”
Reformers often say that African American and Hispanic students have made no progress for decades. But this is not true. The scores of black students in fourth-grade math increased dramatically in the two decades after 1990, when the federal tests were first offered; black student achievement was higher in 2009 than white student achievement in 1990. In addition, over this past generation there has been a remarkable decline in the proportion of African American and Hispanic students who register “below basic,” the lowest possible academic rating on the NAEP tests.
If white achievement had stood still, the achievement gap would be closed by now, but of course white achievement has also improved, so the gap remains large.
In mathematics, over the past two decades, all students made dramatic progress. In 1990, 83 percent of black students in fourth grade scored “below basic,” but that number fell to 34 percent in 2011. In eighth grade, 78 percent of black students were below basic in 1990, but by 2011 the proportion had dropped to 49 percent. Among Hispanic students, the proportion below basic in fourth grade fell from 67 percent to 28 percent; in eighth grade, that proportion declined from 66 percent to 39 percent. Among white students in fourth grade, the proportion below basic dropped in that time period from 41 percent to only 9 percent; in eighth grade, it declined from 40 percent to 16 percent. The proportion of fourth-grade Asian students below basic dropped from 38 percent in 1990 to 9 percent in 2011; in eighth grade, Asian students who were below basic declined from 36 percent to 14 percent. (See graphs 20 and 27.)
This is truly remarkable progress.
The changes in reading scores were not as dramatic as in math, but they nonetheless are impressive. In fourth-grade reading, the proportion of black students who were below basic in 1992 was 68 percent; by 2011, it was down to 51 percent. In eighth grade, the proportion of black students who were reading below basic was 55 percent; that had declined to 41 percent by 2011. Among fourth-grade white students, the proportion below basic declined from 29 percent to 22 percent in the same twenty-year period. Among fourth-grade Hispanic students, the proportion reading below basic dropped from 62 percent to 49 percent. Among eighth-grade Hispanic students, the proportion reading below basic declined from 51 percent to 36 percent. Among fourth-grade Asian students, the proportion below basic fell from 40 percent to 20 percent. In the eighth grade, it declined from 24 percent to 17 percent. (See graphs 30 and 31 for all racial, ethnic groups.)
Clearly, performance on NAEP is not flat. The gains in reading have been slow, steady, and significant. The gains in mathematics in both tested grades have been remarkable for whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.
Despite these increases, the achievement gaps remain between white and black students and between white and Hispanic students because all groups are improving their scores. Asian students perform as well as white students in reading and better than white students in math. Reformers ignore these gains and castigate the public schools for the persistence of the gap.
Closing the racial achievement gap has been a major policy goal of education policy makers for at least the past decade. There has been some progress, but it has been slow and uneven. This is not surprising: it is hard to narrow or close the gap if all groups are improving.
There is nothing new about achievement gaps between different racial and ethnic groups and between children from families at different ends of the income distribution. Such gaps exist wherever there is inequality, not only in this country, but internationally. In every country, the students from the most advantaged families have higher test scores on average than students from the least advantaged families.1
One of the major reasons for the passage of the No Child Left Behind law was the expectation that it would narrow, perhaps even close, the black-white and also the Hispanic-white achievement gaps. Policy makers and legislators believed in 2001, when NCLB was debated, that testing and accountability would suffice to close the gaps. Lawmakers believed that the combination of test-based accountability and transparency would produce the desired results.
The very act of publishing the disparate results, they expected, would compel teachers to spend more time teaching the students who had low scores, especially if there were punitive consequences for not raising those scores. President George W. Bush staked his claim to being a “compassionate conservative” because, as he put it, he opposed “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” If teachers were required by law to have high expectations for all students, the theory went, then all students would learn and meet high standards.
Now we know that, despite some gains, NCLB did not close the gaps. Paul Barton and Richard Coley of the Educational Testing Service wrote an overview of the black-white achievement gap over the course of the twentieth century and concluded that the period in which that gap narrowed most was the 1970s and 1980s, in response to such things as desegregation, class size reduction, early childhood education, the addition of federal resources to schools enrolling poor children, and wider economic opportunities for black families. From that time forward, the gap has wavered up and down without resuming the sharp narrowing of the earlier period.2
What was impressive about the 1970s and 1980s was that black students gained so much more ground than white students. In the years since then, both white and black students improved their test scores, which made it hard to narrow the gap. So, for example, the black-white gap in fourth-grade reading was 30 points in 2002, but narrowed to 25 by 2011. White student scores increased by 2 points, while black scores increased by 6 points. The gap narrowed by a few points. It is still a sizable gap of 25 points, but there was improvement, not stasis or decline.3 (See graph 7; also graph 40.)
In mathematics, where both white and black students made large test score gains, the gap in fourth grade narrowed from 31 points in 2000 to 25 points in 2011. That’s a narrowing of 6 points. Two-thirds of that improvement occurred before the implementation of No Child Left Behind. The scores of black students rose from 203 on the NAEP scale to 224. At the same time, the scores of white students increased from 234 to 249, and two-thirds of that gain happened before the implementation of NCLB. Bo
th groups recorded strong gains.4 (See graph 16.)
The black-white achievement gap has existed as long as records have been kept. The source of the gap is no secret. African Americans have been subject to a long history of social and economic oppression and disadvantage; they have experienced higher levels of poverty and lower levels of education than white Americans. After the Brown decision of 1954, the federal government and many states adopted policies to redress past inequities, but those policies were insufficient to overcome generations of racism, which limited access to jobs and education. Despite significant progress in expanding educational access, educational attainment, and economic opportunities for black citizens in the past half century, blacks continue to be disproportionately poor, to attend racially segregated schools, to experience high rates of incarceration, and to live in racially isolated communities where children are likely to be exposed to violence, gangs, and drug use.
Today’s reformers often imply that schools alone can close the achievement gaps among different groups. They like to point to exemplary charter schools with high test scores to prove their point. They say that teachers with high expectations can close the achievement gap. To date, no charter operator has taken responsibility for an entire school district and demonstrated that his or her pedagogical methods were powerful enough to overcome the disadvantages of poverty.
The impressive academic gains of the past two decades demonstrate that schools can significantly reduce the proportion of students who are poorly educated in reading and math. This is hugely important for students and for our society. But most people who study the achievement gap recognize that it cannot be sharply narrowed or closed without addressing the social and economic conditions that cause systemic disadvantages.