Achievement in America

ACHIEVEMENT IN AMERICA:
A Fast Briefing on Trends and Patternsand Their Implications for Our Collective Future
National Defense University Washington, DC
March, 2012
2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
America: Two Enduring Stories
1. Land of Opportunity:
Work hard, and you can become anything you want to be.
2. Generational Advancement:
Through hard work and sacrifice, each generation of parents will be able to assure a better lifeand better educationfor their children.
Powerful Pervasive Wrong

Source:
Over past 30 years, earnings among the lowest income families have declinedwhile biggest increases have occurred at the top
80% Percent Growth Mean Family Income Constant Dollars, 1980-2010 60%
40% 51% 5% Second 20% 25%
78%
20% -7% Lowest 20%
14%
Third 20% Fourth 20% Top 20% Top 5%
0%
-20%
Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing 2011 (New York: College Board, 2010), Figure 16A.
2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
U.S. has the fourth-highest income inequality among OECD nations

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
United States
Gini coefficient
Note: Gini coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates total income equality and 1 indicates total income inequality Source: United Nations, UNdata, http://data.un.org/DocumentData.aspx?q=gini&id=230
Chile Mexico Turkey United States Israel Portugal New Zealand Italy United Kingdom Estonia Australia Poland Spain Ireland Greece Switzerland Belgium France Canada Korea (Republic of) Slovenia Netherlands Hungary Austria Germany Finland Norway Czech Republic Slovakia Sweden Japan Denmark
Not just wages, but mobility as well.
US intergenerational mobility was increasing until 1980, and has sharply declined since
0.6 Earnings Elasticity
The falling elasticity meant increased economic mobility until 1980. Since then, the elasticity has risen and mobility has slowed
0.4 0.58 0.2 0.4 0.46
0.35
0.34
0.33
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Source: Aaronson and Mazumder. Intergenerational Economic Mobility in the U.S.. 1940-2000. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago WP 2005-12: Dec. 2005.
2011 THEEDUCATION TRUST 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The US now has one of lowest rates of intergenerational mobility

Cross-country examples of the link between father and son wages
0.6 Earnings Elasticity
0.4 0.5 0.2
0.47
0.41 0.32
0.27
0.19
Canada
0.18
Finland
0.17
Norway
0.15
Denmark
0
United Kingdom United States France Germany Sweden
Source: Hertz, Tom. Understanding Mobility in America. Center for American Progress: 2006.
2011 THEEDUCATION TRUST 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
What does that mean?

That we have essentially hollowed out the middle class, and are fast becoming a country where those at the top stay at the top and those at the bottom stay there, too.
At macro level, better and more equal education is not the only answer.
But at the individual level, it really is.
What schools and colleges do, in other words, is hugely important.

So, how are we doing?
4th Grade Reading: Record Performance with Gap Narrowing

9 Year Olds NAEP Reading
250
240 230
Average Scale Score
220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150
African American
Latino
White 2008
1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004
*Denotes previous assessment format
Source: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress, NCES
4th Grade Math: Record Performance with Gap Narrowing

9 Year Olds NAEP Math
250
240 230
Average Scale Score
220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150
African American
Latino 2004
White 2008
1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999*

8th Grade Reading: Recent Gap Narrowing for Blacks, Less for Latinos
300
290
280
Average Scale Score
270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200
African American
Latino
White 2008
1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004
8th Grade Math: Progress for All Groups, Some Gap Narrowing
300
290 280
Average Scale Score
270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200
African American
Latino
White
1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999*

2004
2008
High School: Achievement Flat in Reading

17 Year Olds Overall - NAEP
340
330 320
Average Scale Score
310 300 290 280 270 260 250 240
289
285
285
1984
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1999
2004
2008
Source: NAEP Long-Term Trends, NCES (2004)
Math achievement flat over time

17-Year-Olds
350 340 330
Average Scale Score
320 310 300 290 280 270 260 250
304
300
298
302
305
307
306
307
308
305
306
1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999*

* Denotes previous assessment format
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress
2004
2008
12th Grade Reading: No Progress, Gaps Wider than 1988

320
310 300
Average Scale Score
290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220
African American
Latino
White 2008
1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004
12 Grade Math: Results Mostly Flat Gaps Same or Widening

340
330 320
Average Scale Score
310 300 290 280 270 260 250 240
African American
Latino
White
1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999*

2004
2008
And on a test you know even better?
Source:
Source:
Source:
ASVAB Performance Below Threshold for Entry: Army Applicants

Scored below 31
White Applicants
16%
Black Applicants
39%
Hispanic Applicants
29%
Asian Applicants
Source:
25%
And no matter how you cut the data, our students arent doing well compared to their peers in other countries.
Compared to other countries?
Of 34 OECD Countries, U.S.A. Ranks 12th in Reading Literacy

2009 PISA - Reading
550
U.S.A.
Average Scale Score
500
450
400
350
300
Higher than U.S. average

Source: Highlights from PISA 2009, NCES, 2010
Not measurably different from U.S. average
Lower than U.S. average

Of 34 OECD Countries, U.S.A. Ranks 17th in Science

600
2009 PISA - Science

U.S.A.
Average scale score
550
500
450
400
350


Of 34 OECD Countries, U.S.A. Ranks 25th in Math

600
2009 PISA - Math
Average scale score
550
OECD
U.S.A.
500
450
400
350

A closer look at math
Of 29 OECD Countries, U.S.A. Ranked 24th

550
2003 PISA - Math

U.S.A.
Average Scale Score
500
450
400
350
300
Source: PISA 2003 Results, OECD
U.S. Ranks Low in the Percent of Students in the Highest Achievement Level (Level 6) in Math
10
Percent of Students
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST http://www.oecd.org/
U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29 OECD Countries in the Math Achievement of the HighestPerforming Students*
700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 Average Scale Score
* Students at the 95th Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at Percentile
http://www.oecd.org/
U.S. Ranks 23rd out of 29 OECD Countries in the Math Achievement of High-SES Students
600 550 Average Scale Score 500 450 400 350 300
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/ 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
PISA 2006 Science

Of 30 OECD Countries, U.S.A. Ranked 21st
550
U.S.A.
500 Average Scale Score
450
400
350
300

Source: NCES, PISA 2006 Results, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/
Percent of Students
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
0.0%
U.S.A.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Results, table 4.2c, http://www.oecd.org/
2nd Generation 1st Generation
Immigrants? The U.S.A. does have a larger percentage of immigrants and children of immigrants than most OECD countries
Lu xem Sw bo u itze rg rl Au a nd s Ne w Z tral ia ea la Ca nd Un it e na da dS t Ge ates rm a Be ny l giu Au m str Fra ia Ne th e nce rla OE Sw nds C e Un D Av de n e it e d K ra ge i ng d De om nm a Gr rk ee ce Sp a No in rw Po ay rt u g Ire al lan d Ita M ly Cz e c exi c hR o ep u Ice b la n d Hu ng a Fi n ry lan Slo Tu d vak rkey Re pu Ja b pa Po n l an d
But ranks 21st out of 30 OECD countries when only taking into account native student* scores
PISA 2006 Science
600
550
U.S.A.
Average Scale Score
500
450
400
350
300
*Students born in the country of assessment with at least one parent born in the same country Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Results, table 4.2c, http://www.oecd.org/
U.S.A. Ranks 24th Out of 29 OECD Countries in Problem-Solving

2003 PISA
600
Average Scale Score
550
U.S.A.
500
450
400
350
Source: PISA 2003 Results, OECD
We used to make up for at least some of this by sending more of our students on to college.
Only place we rank high?
Inequality.
PISA 2003: Gaps in Performance Of U.S.15 Year-Olds Are Among the Largest of OECD Countries
Rank in Performance Gaps Between Highest and Lowest Achieving Students * 8th 6th
Mathematical Literacy Problem Solving
*Of 29 OECD countries, based on scores of students at the 5th and
95th percentiles.
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA 2003 Results, data available at http://www.oecd.org/ 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Among OECD Countries, U.S.A. has the 4th Largest Gap Between High-SES and Low-SES Students
2006 PISA - Science
600
U.S.A.
Gap in Average Scale Score
550
500
450
400
350
Source: PISA 2006 Results, OECD, table 4.8b
Among OECD Countries, U.S.A. has the 5th Largest Gap Between High-SES and Low-SES Students
2009 PISA Reading
600
U.S.A.
OECD
550 Gap in Average Scale Score
500
450
400
350
Source: PISA 2009 Results, OECD, Table II.3.1
These gaps begin before children arrive at the schoolhouse door.

But, rather than organizing our educational system to ameliorate this problem, we organize it to exacerbate the problem.
These gaps begin before children arrive at the schoolhouse door.
National Inequities in State and Local Revenue Per Student

Gap $773 per student $1,122 per student
High Poverty vs. Low Poverty Districts High Minority vs. Low Minority Districts
Source: Education Trust analyses based on U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Census Bureau data for the 2005-06 school year.
Even at the higher education level, we spend less per student in the institutions where most low-income students start.
Expenditures per student 2 Year Colleges $9,183
4 Year Colleges
$27,973
Source: NCES Digest of Education Statistics, 2003
Students in Poor Schools Receive As for Work That Would Earn Cs in Affluent Schools
100 87
Seventh Grade Math
Percentile - CTBS4
56 35 34 41 22 21 11 0 A B Grades C D
Low-poverty schools
High-poverty schools
Source: Prospects (ABT Associates, 1993), in Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes, PES, DOE, 1997.
African American, Latino & Native American high school graduates are less likely to have been enrolled in a full college prep track
50
percent in college prep
46 39
25
22
21
0 African American Asian Latino Native American White
Full College Prep track is defined as at least: 4 years of English, 3 years of math, 2 years of natural science, 2 years of social science and 2 years of foreign language Source: Jay P. Greene, Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United States, 2012 curriculum. Manhattan Institute, September 2003. Table 8. 2001 high school graduates with college-prep THE EDUCATION TRUST
Percent of Students Who Earned Credits in Advanced Math Courses

40 Percent of Students Who Earned Credits in Math Courses 32
20
18
20 16
White Black Hispanic 6 7
0 Pre-calculus/analysis Calculus
Source: MPR Research (2010). STEM Coursetaking Among High School Graduates 1990-2005. Available at http://www.mprinc.com/products/pdf/STEM_Coursetaking_Brief.pdf Data are for 2005. 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Percent of Students Who Earned Credits in Advanced Science Courses

60 Percent of Students Who Earned Credits in Math Courses 43 40 36 27 20 38 28 26 White Black Hispanic
0 Advanced biology Physics
Source: MPR Research (2010). STEM Coursetaking Among High School Graduates 1990-2005. Available at http://www.mprinc.com/products/pdf/STEM_Coursetaking_Brief.pdf Data are for 2005 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Percent of Classes Taught by Out of Field Teachers
More Classes in High-Poverty, High-Minority Schools Taught By Out-of-Field Teachers

50% 34% 29% 19% 21%
0%
High poverty Low poverty High minority Low minority
Note: High Poverty school-50% or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low-poverty school -15% or fewer of the students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch. High-minority school - 50% or more of the students are nonwhite. Low-minority school- 15% or fewer of the students are nonwhite.
*Teachers lacking a college major or minor in the field. Data for secondary-level core academic classes.
2012 THE EDUCATION Source: Richard M. Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania. Original analysis for the Ed Trust of 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey. TRUST
Poor and Minority Students Get More Inexperienced* Teachers

Percent of Teachers Who Are Inexperienced
25% 20%
21%
11%
10%
0%
High poverty Low poverty
High minority Low minority
*Teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience.

Note: High poverty refers to the top quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. Low povertybottom quartile of schools with students eligible for free/reduced price lunch. High minority-top quartile; those schools with the highest concentrations of minority students. Low minority-bottom quartile of schools with the lowest concentrations of minority students
2012 Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Monitoring Quality: An Indicators Report, December 2000.THE EDUCATION TRUST
Tennessee: High poverty/high minority schools have fewer of the most effective teachers and more least effective teachers
Note: High Poverty/High minority means at least 75% qualify for FRPL and at least 75% are minority.
Source: Tennessee Department of Education 2007. Tennessees Most Effective Teachers: Are they assigned to the schools that need them 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST most? http://tennessee.gov/education/nclb/doc/TeacherEffectiveness2007_03.pdf
Los Angeles: LOW-INCOME STUDENTS LESS LIKELY TO HAVE HIGH VALUE-ADDED TEACHERS
ELA
A low-income student is more than twice as likely to have a low value-added teacher for ELA A student from a relatively more affluent background is 62% more likely to get a high value-added ELA teacher.
MATH
In math, a student from a relatively more affluent background is 39% more likely to get a high valueadded math teacher. A lowincome student is 66% more likely to have a low valueadded teacher.
Results are devastating.

Kids who come in a little behind, leave a lot behind.
What Can We Do?

An awful lot of Americans have decided that we cant do much.
What We Hear Many Educators Say:

Theyre poor Their parents dont care They come to schools without breakfast Not enough books Not enough parents
Source: N/A
But if they are right, why are lowincome students and students of color performing so much higher in some schools
George Hall Elementary School

Mobile, AL
530 Students 100% African American 99% Low-Income
Source: Alabama Department of Education
Four years ago, school was lowest performing in the district and among the bottom few in the state. District reconstitutedand restaffed.
George Hall Elementary, Grade 5 Math 2008

100 80 60 40 20 0 School District-White Students State--White Students 59.1 53.2 96.5
Level IV
Source: Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama, Does the System succeed with All Kinds of Kids.
George Hall Elementary, Grade 5 Reading 2008

62 61.4
Level IV
60 58 56 54 52 50 48
School
53.5
54.7
District-White Students
State--White Students
Source: Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama, Does the System Succeed with All Kinds of Kids.
Halle Hewetson Elementary School

Las Vegas, NV
962 students in grades PK 5

85% Latino 7% African American
100% Low Income 71% Limited English Proficient

Note: Data are for 2010-2011 school year Source: Nevada Department of Education
Big Improvement at Halle Hewetson Elementary

Latino Students Grade 3 Reading
100%
Percentage Meets Standards and Above
80%
78%
60%
50%
40%
Hewetson Nevada
26%
20%
7%
0%
2004
Source: Nevada Department of Education
2010
High Performance Across Groups at Halle Hewetson Elementary

Grade 3 Math (2011)
100%
Percentage Meets Standards or Advanced
91%
95%
91%
95%
80%
69%
60%
63%
61%
61% Halle Hewetson
40%
Nevada
20%
0%
All
Latino
Low Income Limited English Proficient
Exceeding Standards at Halle Hewetson Elementary

Low-Income Students Grade 3 Math (2011)
100%
29%
80%
Percentage of Students
63%
60%
33%
40%
Exceeds Standards Meets Standards Approaches Standards Emergent/Developing
20%
28% 6% 4%
25%
14%
0%
Halle Hewetson
Nevada
Halle Hewetson Elementary School
Elmont Memorial Junior-Senior High

Elmont, New York
1,895 students in grades 7-12

77% African American 13% Latino
25% Low-Income
Source: New York Department of Education
Outperforming the State at Elmont

Secondary-Level English (2010)
100%
95%
96%
93%
Percentage Meeting Standards or Above
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
79%
73% 67%
Elmont New York
All Students
African American Students
Low-Income Students
Source: New York State Department of Education
Improvement and High Performance at Elmont Memorial Junior-Senior High

African-American Students Secondary-Level Math
100%
93%
96%
93%
93%
96%
Percentage Meeting Standards or Above
90%
85%
80%
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
46%
51%
55%
57%
61%
64%
Elmont New York
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
High Graduation Rates at Elmont Memorial High School

Class of 2010
Percentage of 2006 Freshmen Graduating in Four Years
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
96% 73%
98% 89%
99%
95% 80% 64%
58%
57%
Elmont New York
Overall
African American
Latino
Economically Not Disadvantaged Economically Disadvantaged
Available at Harvard Education Press (www.hepg.org) or Amazon.com
Source:
Very big differences at district level, tooeven in the performance of the same group of students.
Low-Income African American Students do Better in Some Districts (NAEP Reading 4th 2003)
210
200
190
180
District of Columbia Los Angeles Atlanta Chicago Cleveland National Public San Diego Charlotte Houston New York City Boston
* There is a 19 point gap between Poor African American 4th graders in the District of Columbia and Boston (roughly equivalent to 2 years worth of learning)
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial Urban District Reading Assessment.
Low-Income African American Students do Better in Some Districts (NAEP Math 8th 2003)
255
245
235
225
Los Angeles District of Columbia Atlanta Chicago National Public San Diego Cleveland Boston Charlotte New York City Houston
* There is a 28 point gap between Poor African American 8th graders in Los Angeles and Houston (roughly equivalent to 3 years worth of learning)
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST Progress (NAEP), 2003 Trial Urban District Reading Assessment.
Even big differences in whole states
Average Scale Score

Ne wH
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
2007 NAEP Grade 4 Reading
Average African American Scale Scores by State
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/ EDUCATION TRUST 2012 THE
am De pshi law re Vir ar e gin Ne Haw ia Ma w ss Jer aii ac se h y Co uset l or t s a Flo do Ka r ida ns Ne Mar y as w M lan d Ne exic wY o Ala ork s Te ka x Wa Ariz as on sh in a Ge gton or g ia Iow a Na Okl Ohi tio aho o n Co al Pu ma nn bli e c Ke cticu n t No N tuck y ev rt Weh Ca ada st roli V i na Ala rgini ba a m Illin a In ois C a di an lifo a Pe Mis rnia So nns sou uth ylv ri C an Mi aroli ia nn na e Rh Or sota od ego e n Mi Islan ch d A ig Mi rkan an ss sa i Lo ssipps u Ne isian i T e br as a nn k Wi ess a sc ee on sin
Proficient Scale Score: 238
Average Scale Score

180 190 200 210 220 230 240
2007 NAEP Grade 4 Reading

Average Latino Scale Scores by State
Mo De nta n la w a Fl o are ri Ne Virg da w J ini a ers ey Lo Ohi ui o Ma sian a r Mi vl and sso Ge uri or Te g ia Mi xas c Wy h iga om n Ma i ssa Kan ng Ne ch sas w H us So amp etts u th sh Da ire ko t Te Io wa nn Wi esse a sco e n In d sin ia A na Ne la sk Wa w Y a sh ork i ng Ha to n w No I ai i So rth C l lino i s a u Na th C rol in ti o aro a na lin l a Co Pub l ic lo r a Ne Id do w a Co Me ho nn xi c o e Ne cticu bra t Ar sk ka a ns as Mi Uta Pe nn n n e so h s t Ok ylvan a Rh l ah i a od om eI a Ala sla nd b Ar ama iz Ne ona Ca vad li fo a Or rn ia eg on
Average Scale Score

230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
2007 NAEP Grade 8 Math
Average African American Scale Scores by State
Co l or a Or do eg Ala on s Te ka Vir xas g Ka inia No A nsas r th rizo Ca na De rolin la a So Ma war e u r Ma th C ylan aro d ss ac lin N e hu s a w e Ne Je tts w rs Wa M ex ey sh ico in Ge gton Mi or g nn i a es Flo ota r id Na tio Indi a na an l a Lo P ubl u ic Ne isian wY a or Ok Oh k l ah i o om a Iow Pe Kent a nn uc Co sylva ky nn nia ec Ne ticut Ark vada T e an s n n as Ca esse lifo e rn Illin ia M o Mi isso is ss Rh iss uri o i We de I ppi st slan V Wi irgin d sc ia Ala onsin b Mi ama c Ne higa br a n sk a
Average Scale Score

230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
2007 NAEP Grade 8 Math
Average Latino Scale Scores by State
Te xa Oh s Vir io gi Ala nia No Wy ska r th om Ca ing So Ma rolin uth r y a la Ne Caro nd w J lin er a Ma Flo sey ss ac r id hu a Mi setts ss Ka ouri n So Minn sas uth eso D t Wi ako a s ta De cons l aw i n Ind ar e Ge iana or g Illin ia Co o lor is a H a do wa Na Ne tiona Ida ii w H l P ho am ubl ps i c Pe New hire nn Yo Te sylva rk Wannes nia sh see in Ari gton zon a Ne Iow br a a Or ska Ne w M ego n Mi exico Ok chiga l ah n Ne oma Ark vad a Ca ansa lifo s rni Co Utaa R h nne od ctic h e u Ala Islan t ba d ma
Differences, too, in higher educationeven among institutions serving the same kinds of students.
College Completion
200
Number of Institutions
Source:
150
100
50
2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST 2012 THE EDUCATIONTRUST
Research Institutions Similar Students, Different Results

Median SAT Penn State University Size % Pell % URM Overall URM Grad Grad Rate Rate
1,200 35,702
15.0%
7.4%
84.0%
69.9%
Indiana University
Purdue University University of Minnesota
1,120 28,768
1,135 31,008 1,165 28,654
16.0%
17.7% 19.9%
6.9%
6.8% 7.5%
71.9%
69.1% 63.4%
53.5%
52.3% 43.8%
91
Masters Institutions Large Similar Students, Different Results

Median SAT Size % Pell Overall Graduation Rate
University of Northern Iowa Montclair State Eastern Illinois University of Wisconsin Whitewater
1,085 1,015 1,010 1,030
9,946 10,908 9,798 8,690
23.8% 26.5% 23.7% 20.3%
65.2% 61.2% 60.3% 53.1%
Tennessee Technological University
1,045
7,014
29.8%
43.5%
92
Historically Black Colleges Similar Students, Different Results

Median SAT Size % Pell Overall Graduation Rate
Elizabeth City Delaware State University of Arkansas Pine Bluff Norfolk State Coppin State
845 835 775 900
2,423 3,057 2,768 4,798
69.9% 47.8% 73.5% 54.5%
50.7% 37.3% 32.9% 30.8%
N/A
2,800
72.6%
18.9%
93
Source:
4-year for-profits have much lower graduation rates than non-profits

80
IPEDS Graduation Rate, 2008
60
Public
40
55 20 22 0 65
Private, Non-Profit
For-Profit
4-Year
Source: IPEDS First Look 2008-09, Table 5. Graduation rates at Title IV institutions, by race/ethnicity, level and control of institution, gender, and degree at the institution where the students started as fulltime, first-time students: United States, cohort year 2002.
Source:
2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST 2012 THE EDUCATIONTRUST
Bottom Line: At Every Level of Education, What We Do Matters!
Download this presentation. www.edtrust.org
Washington, D.C. 202/293-1217
Royal Oak, MI 734/619-8009
Oakland, CA 510/465-6444

Achievement in America

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Achievement in America

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACHIEVEMENT IN AMERICA:

National Defense University Washington, DC

America: Two Enduring Stories

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Powerful Pervasive Wrong

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

40% 51% 5% Second 20% 25%

20% -7% Lowest 20%

2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

U.S. has the fourth-highest income inequality among OECD nations

Not just wages, but mobility as well.

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

0.4 0.58 0.2 0.4 0.46

2011 THEEDUCATION TRUST 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

The US now has one of lowest rates of intergenerational mobility

0.6 Earnings Elasticity

0.4 0.5 0.2

2011 THEEDUCATION TRUST 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

What does that mean?

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

What schools and colleges do, in other words, is hugely important.

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

4th Grade Reading: Record Performance with Gap Narrowing

Average Scale Score

220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

4th Grade Math: Record Performance with Gap Narrowing

Average Scale Score

220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999*

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Average Scale Score

270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Average Scale Score

270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999*

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

High School: Achievement Flat in Reading

Average Scale Score

310 300 290 280 270 260 250 240

Source: NAEP Long-Term Trends, NCES (2004)

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Math achievement flat over time

Average Scale Score

320 310 300 290 280 270 260 250

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999*

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

12th Grade Reading: No Progress, Gaps Wider than 1988

Average Scale Score

290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

12 Grade Math: Results Mostly Flat Gaps Same or Widening

Average Scale Score

310 300 290 280 270 260 250 240

1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999*

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

And on a test you know even better?

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST

2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST