Low Achievers' Gains Outpace High Achievers' Gains Since NCLB Enacted

Overview:

Title: High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB

Conducted by: Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Author(s):    Tom Loveless, Brown Center of Education Policy at the Brookings Institution
                       Steve Farkas, FDR Group
                       Ann Duffett, FDR Group

Research Methods: Quantitative and Survey

Peer Reviewed: No

Funder(s): John Templeton Foundation

Released: June 2008

The question(s): What has happened to the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) scores of high and low achievers since No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was enacted? What were the trends in NAEP scores of high and low achievers before NCLB? Is it NCLB or accountability in general that is associated with shrinking the achievement gap? Who are America's high-achieving students? What are teachers' views of how schools are serving high-achieving students in the NCLB era?

The study: This report is actually two studies in one. The first study analyzes NAEP 4th and 8th grade reading and math scores to determine whether students scoring in the top 10 percent (high achievers) are making as much gains as those students scoring at the bottom 10 percent (low achievers). The report compared both groups’ gains from before NCLB to their gains after NCLB was enacted, as well. The second analysis surveyed a random sample of 900 teachers across the country on their experiences with and beliefs about teaching low- and high-achieving students.

Full Report: Read here

Low-achieving students have made greater achievement gains since NCLB was enacted than before, according to the Fordham Institute’s latest report High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB. However, the achievement gains made by high achieving students have remained the same both before and after NCLB.

The Findings

Comparing low and high achievers

Since NCLB was enacted, students scoring in the bottom 10 percent (low achievers) on NAEP have made greater gains than students scoring in the top 10 percent (high achievers) in math and reading at both the 4th and 8th grade levels.
- In 4th grade reading, low achievers increased their NAEP scores by 16 points, compared to a 3 point gain for high achievers.
- Similar results were found in 4th grade math. Low achievers increased their NAEP scores by 13 points, while high achievers increased their scores by 5 points.
The gains high-achieving students have made have remained constant from before NCLB to after. However, low-achieving students made about four times as much gain after NCLB was enacted than before.
Prior to NCLB, many states had accountability systems in place. Low-achieving students within those states made greater gains than low-achieving students in states without accountability systems, particularly at 4th grade.
High-achieving students tend to be white and from higher-income families than low-achieving students. Only 10 percent of high achievers are low-income, while two-thirds of low achievers are low-income.
High achievers are more likely than low achievers to be taught by a teacher with a major or minor in their subject area (64 percent of high achievers vs. 45 percent of low achievers).

What teachers experience and believe about low- and high-achieving students

Sixty percent of teachers believe the needs of low achieving students are a top priority. Just 23 percent believe high achievers are a top priority.
About half (51 percent) of teachers feel low-achieving students will be exposed to curriculum and instruction designed to meet their abilities, while just 10 percent feel the same about high achieving students.
Three out of four teachers (78 percent) believe high-achieving students are neglected due to the pressures of testing. However, a majority (58 percent) have not received any professional development on teaching high-achieving students and 63 percent received little or no training in their teacher preparation programs.
Just over half (55 percent) of teachers feel NCLB should require schools to break out test scores of advanced students.

Keep in Mind

NAEP data cannot be used to determine whether NCLB caused an increase in scores for low-achieving students. At most NAEP data can show relationships and patterns. Though low-achieving students’ scores increased after NCLB, there is no way of determining NCLB caused that increase.

Furthermore, as with all survey data, keep in mind what respondents say and what they actually do is not always the same. For example, just because teachers say they focus instruction on low-achieving students does not necessarily mean that is what they do in their class. All survey responses should be interpreted with some caution.

Related Content:

A Guide to the No Child Left Behind Act

Measuring student growth: A guide to informed decision making

Conclusion

NCLB appears to be having its desired effect of improving low-achieving students’ performance. The big question is: Is it at the expense of high-achieving students?

According to the teachers, the answer is yes. They say they are focusing more on students at the lower end of the achievement spectrum and would like to focus more on their high-achieving students. However, according to NAEP, high-achieving students’ gains have remained constant, while gains for low achievers have increased dramatically. Since low-achieving students have been making greater gains in states that had accountability systems prior to NCLB this may be due to how accountability systems such as NCLB are designed.

To encourage schools to raise the achievement of their high-achieving students, particularly minority and low-income high-achieving students, the report recommends a pilot program where schools would be offered rewards for improving the test scores of their high-achieving students and even higher rewards for increasing the achievement of high-achieving low-income and minority students. The program would encourage schools to focus on high-achieving students by using incentives instead of the penalty method currently used by NCLB. By including these incentives in NCLB or state accountability systems schools will focus on all students across the achievement spectrum then truly No Child Left Behind can live up to its name.

Posted: June 26, 2008