November 16, 2006
Most Students in Big Cities Lag Badly in Basic Science
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO, NY TIMES

LINK

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 — A least half of eighth graders tested in science failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the subject in 9 of 10 major cities, and fourth graders, the only other group tested, fared little better, according to results released here Wednesday.

The outcome of those tests, part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, often called the nation’s report card, showed that student performance in urban public schools was not only poor but also far short of science scores in the nation as a whole.

Half or a little more of the eighth-grade students in Charlotte, San Diego and Boston lacked a basic grasp of science.

In six of the other cities — New York, Houston, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles and Atlanta — the share of eighth graders without that knowledge was even higher, ranging from about three-fifths in New York to about four-fifths in Atlanta. By comparison, the corresponding share for the nation as a whole was 43 percent.

Among the 10 cities, only in Austin were the eighth graders who lacked a basic understanding in the minority, and just barely there.

“It’s a national disgrace,” said Rodger W. Bybee, director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which develops and evaluates science curriculums and promotes the teaching of science. “We as a nation should be able to do better than that.”

At the fourth-grade level, a majority of students in all the 10 cities except Austin, Charlotte and San Diego failed to demonstrate basic understanding in science, compared with 34 percent nationwide. According to a report accompanying the scores, this meant they lacked the skills and reasoning needed to learn science, and could not read simple charts or follow elementary experiments. A similar definition, though with expectations of a higher level of skill, applied to eighth graders.

Students in New York were on a par with those in other large cities, though white students there scored lower than whites in other cities and in the nation. The scores of blacks and Latinos in New York were not significantly different from those of similar students in the other cities.

New York’s schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, pointed out in a statement that low-income students there had done better than those in most other cities, but added, “We, like the rest of the country, have a lot more work to do in this critical area” of teaching science to the poor.

He noted that beginning with the next academic year, the city would begin testing students annually in science in Grades 3 to 8. Another innovation for the 2007-8 school year is that under the No Child Left Behind Act, public schools across the country must begin testing students in science at least once from Grades 3 to 8. But the results of these tests, like those of New York’s, will not determine whether schools have made sufficient progress under the law, which counts only reading and math to determine a school’s standing.

While states use a hodgepodge of tests to measure student achievement, the national assessment is the only exam given to students nationwide. The science test — in earth, physical and life sciences — was given in early 2005 to 280,000 students, including an extra 30,000 at public schools in the 10 cities, which had volunteered so that they could get a comparative snapshot of performance. The scores were grouped in four categories, from below basic to advanced.

The results prompted the Council of the Great City Schools, which represents the nation’s largest school districts, to call for national standards in science, and in reading and math as well.

Michael Casserly, the group’s executive director, acknowledged that political resistance to national standards was strong in a nation that generally considers education a prerogative of localities. But Mr. Casserly said such standards would lend clarity to efforts to improve achievement.

The fourth-grade national assessment, he said, tests students in subjects like electrical circuitry, the difference between plant and animal cells, and the formation of rocks. “But some state standards,” he continued, “don’t teach them until the fifth grade. It is not clear, then, what our teachers are supposed to teach when.”

Gerald Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, who wrote some of the questions asked on the national assessment, said he found the test results “extremely disappointing.”

“There’s no way these kids are going to be able to survive in our technological society,” Dr. Wheeler said.

With the exception of fourth graders in Austin, low-income students in urban schools performed significantly below the average for low-income students nationwide. “Student poverty, parent education, home resources, English-language proficiency and other factors outside our control work in tandem like a perfect storm to dampen our results in ways that few others have to contend with,” Mr. Casserly said.

But the results suggested that performance was influenced more by the disparities associated with race and income than by whether students attended school in cities or in other settings, said Darvin M. Winick, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees the test.

For example, while Atlanta was below the median in the ranking of urban performance, its white fourth graders not only did better on the exam than did 86 percent of fourth graders across the country but also outperformed the nation’s white fourth graders as a whole, who reached only the 62nd percentile. At the same time, the city’s black fourth graders were in the bottom 22 percent of fourth graders nationwide — two points below the national average for blacks.

Only in Austin, Houston and Charlotte did black and Latino fourth graders score higher than similar students in the nation as a whole. Still, their scores were in the bottom 25 percent to 32 percent of all students taking the exam.

The Nation's Report Card: Science 2005 Trial Urban District Assessment

Testimony on
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
before the
Committee on Education and the Workforce
U.S. House of Representatives
by the
Council of the Great City Schools
April 14, 1999
Washington, D.C.
LINK

Good afternoon, my name is Michael Casserly. I am the Executive Director of the Council of the Great City Schools. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee concerning Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The Council is a coalition of 54 of the nation’s largest urban public school systems. Our Board of Directors is composed of the Superintendent of Schools and one School Board member from each city, making the Council the only national organization comprised of both governing and administering personnel and the only one whose sole mission and purpose is urban.

Our member urban school systems educate over 6.5 million students or about 13.5% of the nation’s k-12 public school student enrollment. Some 63% of our students are eligible for a free or reduced price lunch; 21% are English Language Learners; and about 12% are students with special needs. Approximately 80% of our students are African American, Hispanic or Asian American.

In addition to my statement, I have provided to the Committee a copy of the Council’s recommendations for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and a copy of our recent report, Reform and Results: An Analysis of Title I in the Great City Schools, 1994-95 to 1997-98. I would ask that they be included in the hearing record.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus my brief remarks this afternoon to discussing what the Council has learned about the implementation of the 1994 Amendments. We have met repeatedly with our Title I Directors (who operate the largest Title I programs in the nation), our Superintendents and School Board members; and we have conducted a detailed survey of program activities and results in the nation’s Great City Schools.

A. Reform and Results

I am pleased to report that the indicators of progress in our cities look hopeful and encouraging. They are also consistent with data from other studies showing upward trend lines in urban student achievement.

We trust that the Committee will find our report on Title I particularly helpful, although there are substantial limitations to the data. We do not consider this analysis to be a full-fledged evaluation of the program, nor is it a comprehensive examination of every aspect of the 1994 legislation. It is intended, instead, to be a preliminary status report -- in the absence of data other than NAEP scores on high poverty schools -- on how the last reauthorization affected services and achievement in the nation’s major cities. Some highlights of the report’s findings:

1. Accelerated Achievement. We collected Title I test score data for two and three year periods on both norm-referenced and criterion referenced assessments for grades 4 and 8. Results were analyzed by examining the numbers and percentages of Title I students in urban schools scoring at or above both the 25th and 50th percentiles (in the case of norm-referenced exams) and the numbers and percentages of Title I students attaining a passing mark (in the case of criterion-referenced tests). The trends were particularly heartening, as 21 of 24 responding districts posted Title I reading gains and 20 of 24 districts showed math gains. Improvements were particularly strong in 4th grade reading.

The percentage of Title I 4th grade students in urban schools scoring at or above the 25th percentile in reading increased from 41.1% in 1994-95 to 55.5% in 1996-97 to 57.6% in 1997-98. (Conversely, the percentage of Title I students below the 25th percentile declined from 58.9% to 44.5% to 42.4%).
The percentage of Title I 8th grade students in urban schools scoring at or above the 25th percentile in reading increased from 40.8% in 1994-95 to 51.1% in 1996-97 to 56.3% in 1997-98.
The percentage of Title I 4th grade students in urban schools scoring at or above the 25th percentile in math increased from 49.2% in 1994-95 to 54.7% in 1996-97 to 58.5% in 1997-98.
The percentage of Title I 8th grade students in urban schools scoring at or above the 25th percentile in math increased from 43.4% in 1994-95 to 55.7% in 1996-97, before decreasing slightly to 54.4% in 1997-98.
These results should be considered cautiously, as they represent counts of students -- not test scores -- aggregated across several different standardized tests.

1. Standards Based Reforms. To get these results, urban schools have been implementing higher academic standards for Title I and non-Title I students alike. Despite the focus on state standards development, most cities have not waited for them to be completed. Urban school districts have actively embraced the standards movement on their own, helping to boost results for Title I students.

Some 94% of all major urban school systems now report having content standards in
Some 78% report having performance standards in reading at the elementary and middle schools.
Over 90% of urban school districts report having content standards in math for their elementary and middle school students.
About 75% report having performance standards in math for their elementary and middle school students.
2. Reaching More Needy Students. The 1994 Amendments to Title I profoundly altered the numbers of schools and students served by Title I in the Great City Schools between the 1994-95 school year and 1997-98.

The number of urban school students receiving service from Title I increased by about 71% (1,250,612 to 2,138,358).
The percentage of all urban school students receiving service from Title I jumped from about 31% to 51%.
The number of urban schools participating in Title I grew by about 18% (3,064 to 3,618).
The number of urban schools that participated in Title I on a schoolwide basis more than doubled (976 to 2,379).
The number of private school students receiving service from Title I in the major cities increased by about 14% (75,321 to 86,014).
The number of private schools in major cities served by Title I increased by nearly 7% (838 to 896).
These promising results are consistent with other studies and indicators of progress in urban schools:

NAEP data indicate that African American, Hispanic, central city, and poor students have made gains in reading and math since 1994 that are consistent with the results from our Reform and Results study. It is very possible, in fact, that major urban school systems are driving the improving NAEP scores for these students.
ACT scores collected by the Council of the Great City Schools and ACT, Inc., show slight gains for urban school students between the Spring, 1997 and 1998 testing, despite national scores that remain constant. Increases are posted across all urban student racial groups, except for Mexican Americans.
The Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I, Promising Results, Continuing Challenges, indicates that ten of thirteen major urban school systems examined showed increased Title I achievement scores since 1994-95.
B. Successful Title I Strategies

Urban schools have been pursuing a number of strategies with Title I funds to boost achievement, including reducing class size, improving planning, implementing research-based reforms, providing professional development, conducting after-school and summer programs, and improving parent involvement.

About 65% of the Great City Schools report that reducing class sizes with Title I funding is one of their most successful strategies for improving achievement.
Some 50% report that using research-based reform models and improving planning in schools with chronically poor achieving schools has been among their best Title I strategies.
About 45% report that their most successful strategies for boosting Title I performance has involved improving professional development, boosting parental involvement, and providing extensive after-school programming.
Over a third credit the use of higher academic standards in boosting their Title I scores.
Less than 13% rate state interventions as an effective strategy for improving urban Title I achievement.
The Title I program in Fort Worth (TX) is a good illustration of what is occurring in many major city school systems across the country. It is a turn-around that started with a "get tough" school superintendent, Tom Tocco, and his refusal to accept the poor performance that the Title I program had been yielding. Fort Worth has strengthened its early-elementary school reading program, including using Title I funds for pre-k programs, recruited teachers, improved discipline, and implemented special efforts for English Language Learners and students with disabilities.

The result in Fort Worth was that the percentage of the district’s 4th grade students passing the criterion-referenced TAAS reading exam improved from 36.6% in 1994-95 to 58.7% in 1996-97 to 73.3% in 1997-98. In addition, the achievement gap between students of various racial groups has narrowed appreciably. "Title I funds, used appropriately, can have a significant and positive impact on student achievement," claims Superintendent Tocco. "This has clearly been the case in Fort Worth".

The story is similar in Philadelphia, one of the pioneers in the use of schoolwide projects. The Philadelphia Schools have strengthened its accountability measures, raised standards for all students, implemented a number of proven school reform models, and reduced the size of schools. The result was that the percentage of Title I 4th grade students scoring in the lowest quartile (i.e., below the 25th percentile) in reading on the Stanford-9 declined from 71.0% in 1994-95 to 52.0% in 1996-97 to 47.3% in 1997-98.

Progress at Philadelphia’s John Marshall Elementary School is an example of what can happen with Title I funds. School Principal Stanley Szymendera has combined schoolwide funds from Title I with foundation support to strengthen their early literacy program, making Marshall the second most improved school in the city. Says Szymendera, "Without Title I funding, we could have never made the progress we have made. This school owes a lot to Title I".

Title I scores in San Francisco have shown similarly impressive gains, as the system has placed increasing emphasis with its Title I funds on the professional development of teachers, increasing standards, and strengthening the quality of classroom teaching. The percentage of Title I 4th graders scoring below the 25th percentile in reading on the ITBS has declined from 54.3% in 1994-95 to 40.2% in 1996-97 to 34.6% in 1997-98.

The same picture exists in Memphis, where Superintendent Gerry House is one of the nation’s most aggressive users of external reform models, including Equity 2000, Success for All, Accelerated Schools, and others. The percentage of Title I 4th graders below the 25th percentile in reading has declined in Memphis from 68.2% in 1994-95 to 46.3% in 1997-98.

One Memphis school benefiting from Title I is the Cummings Elementary School. Cummings has used its Title I funds for the "Roots and Wings" program to improve student reading skills in the first and second grades. The result has been substantial test score gains. "Our Title I program has brought reading to a new level in our school," says Angela Whitelaw, a teacher at the school. "Our students choose books as their reward for high achievement."

Results are similar in Denver, Chicago, San Antonio, Miami, St. Paul, and many other cities. Some cities are not showing the same upward movement, of course, but the general trend in Title I achievement scores for urban school children is encouraging.

The story of Juanita (not real name) might be a nice way to describe what the program can do. Juanita is a 5th grader in P.S. 130 in the Bronx (District 8). When Juanita was a third grader she scored well below the 50th percentile in math. She began participating in the district’s Title I-funded math program, the 24 Math Challenge (Jumping Levels), and by the end of the 4th grade, Juanita not only scored in the 90th percentile, she won the New York citywide 24 Challenge math tournament for her age group.

C. Recommendations

Despite the encouraging achievement gains that many urban school districts are experiencing with their Title I dollars, too many are not providing the education that our children deserve. We need to improve faster, for America’s urban schools are not satisfied with where we are. The Council of the Great City Schools proposes changes in Title I that are aimed at accelerating improvements in student achievement; at building capacity in urban schools to spur gains; and at strengthening local accountability for results.

1. Accelerate Gains.

Maintain and strengthen the standards-based approach to achievement in Title I and ESEA.
Shift emphasis from state standards development to local standards implementation;
Encourage use of local standards and locally defined "annual yearly progress" when they are more rigorous than the states’.
Retain a categorical approach for services to poor, limited English proficient and other children with special needs.
Require use of documented effective practices, approaches, and strategies that are working locally or nationally.
Strengthen and enforce the "mastery" provisions in Title I by periodically identifying children who are not learning necessary instructional material and intervening with additional services.
Maintain current national and within-district allocations based on poverty, and retain 50% threshold for schoolwide Title I eligibility.
2. Build Local Capacity and Increase Flexibility and Efficiency.

Expand the current Title I professional development plan into a broader school capacity-building effort.
Require Title I paraprofessionals (except those with second language skills) to be on a teaching career ladder before assuming any classroom instructional responsibilities.
Streamline Title I grantmaking into a more efficient federal-to-local allocation system, coupled with state monitoring and compliance, and elimination of state plans.
Simplify schoolwide program plans and harmonize with existing school-level strategic planning.
Allow local, rather than state, Title I funds to be used for intervention into and support of low-performing schools.
Use locally comprised, rather than state selected, school support teams to marshal internal capacity and external technical assistance to assist low-performing schools.
Move to a locally defined, market-driven approach to securing technical assistance for local school systems within ESEA.
3. Strengthen Local Accountability

Require dissaggregated Title I achievement data by major sub-groups of students (e.g., economic, racial, gender, language, etc.) and publicly disseminate results.
Replace duplicative accountability systems with local accountability when more rigorous than state system or Title I improvement system.
Authorize local school system Title I monitors who report directly to the Superintendent to "bird-dog" low-performing schools.
Establish local corrective action in low-performing Title I schools as both a required activity and a compliance issue that can trigger the withholding of funds to schools that fail to improve.
The Council of the Great City Schools strongly supports the rapid reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and encourages bipartisan collaboration on this cornerstone federal legislation. We stand ready to assist this Committee in any way that would be helpful and constructive.

Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer questions.