ERIC ED459264: State Summary of Texas. Ed Watch Online.

28 Pages·2001·0.58 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
UD 034 516
ED 459 264
State Summary of Texas. Ed Watch Online.
TITLE
Education Trust, Washington, DC.
INSTITUTION
Carnegie Corp. of New York, NY.
SPONS AGENCY
2001-00-00
PUB DATE
27p.; Also supported by the Washington Mutual Foundation.
NOTE
For the other State Summaries, see UD 034 472-523. For the
Summary of the Nation, see UD 034 472.
The Education Trust, 1725 K Street, NW, Suite 200,
AVAILABLE FROM
Washington, DC 20006. Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone].
For full text: http://204.176.179.36/dc/edtrust/edstart.cfm.
Numerical/Quantitative Data (110)
PUB TYPE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Academic Achievement; *Black Students; Curriculum;
DESCRIPTORS
Educational Attainment; Educational Finance; Elementary
Secondary Education; Equal Education; *Hispanic American
Students; Mathematics Achievement; Minority Group Children;
*Poverty; *Racial Differences; Reading Achievement; Science
Achievement; Special Needs Students; Tables (Data); Teacher
Effectiveness; Teaching Skills; White Students
African Americans; Latinos; National Assessment of
IDENTIFIERS
Educational Progress; Texas
ABSTRACT
This report provides data on the academic achievement gap
that separates low-income and minority students from other students,
examining how well different groups of students perform in Texas and noting
inequities in teacher quality, course offerings, and funding. Included are
tables and data that provide: a frontier gap analysis (a comparison of Texas
to the leaders in achievement and gap closing); student profile (the
demographic distribution of youth in Texas); state performance (academic
opportunity (well prepared teachers,
achievement and educational attainment) ;
challenging curricula, special student placements, effective instruction, and
annual per pupil investments); minority achievement gains, state by state;
and analysis of minority-white achievement gaps by subject area and grade
level. African American 8th graders in Texas out-perform African American 8th
graders in all other states in writing. African American 8th graders in Texas
also made more progress in math from 1990 to 1996 than African American
students in most other states. However, African American 8th graders in Texas
still score more than 1 year behind white 8th graders in the state in
writing, 3 years behind in math and science, and 2 years behind in reading.
Hispanic 8th graders in Texas are the second best performing of all Hispanic
8th graders in the country in reading and writing. Hispanic 4th graders in
Texas also made more progress in math and reading during the 1990s than
Hispanic 4th graders in most other states. However, Hispanic 8th graders in
Texas still score about 2 years behind white 8th graders in the state in
reading, writing, and math and 3 years behind in science. Eighth graders from
low-income families in Texas score about 2 years behind non-poor 8th graders
in the state in reading, writing, and science, and 3 years behind in math.
(Contains 24 references.)
(SM)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
State Summary of
Texas
\,\
T
Ieliminate the achievement gap that separates ,Jlow-income and minority students
from other students, we must understand whatrthat gap looks like and where it
originates. Consider first how well differentroups of students perform in your state.
Look for in-state inequities in teacher quality and course offerings.Attention must
also be paid to funding gaps.This State Summary Report provides a closer look at
how these and other factors may be contributing to the gap.
TEXAS HIGHLIGHTS
Texas is the current frontier state in writing for African American 8th graders. That
is,African American 8th graders in Texas out-perform African American 8th graders
in every other state in writing.
African American 8th graders in Texas also made more progress in math from 1990
to 1996 than African American 8th graders in most other states.
However,African American 8th graders in Texas still score more than one year
behind White 8th graders in the state in writing, three years behind in math and sci-
ence and two years behind in reading.
Latino 8th graders in Texas are the second best performing of all Latino 8th graders
in the country in reading and writing.
Latino 4th graders also made more progress in math and reading during the 1990s
than Latino 4th graders in most other states.
However, Latino 8th graders still score about two years behind White 8th graders
in the state in reading, writing and math, and three years behind in science.
Low-income 8th graders in Texas score about two years behind non-poor 8th
graders in the state in reading, writing and science, and three years behind in math.
(The description above is meant to provide a general overview of the state's gaps and
progress in student achievement. Readers who wish to compare states on these
measures should consult the precise figures reported on the "Frontier Gap Analysis"
page inside.)
The
try46/
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
Education
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
CENTER (ERIC)
BEEN GRANTED BY
(114his
document has been reproduced as
Trust
received from the person or organization
"P,Ictx
originating it.
0 Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
www.edtrustorg
2
Points of view or opinions stated in this
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
o
document do not necessarily represent
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
official OERI position or policy.
IRFST nnpv AM/A II A DI
Table of Contents
Frontier Gap Analysis
1
a comparison of your state to the leaders in achievement and gap closing
Student Profile
2
the demographic distribution of youth in your state
State Performance
3
Academic achievement
3
NAEP, ACT/SAT scores by group
Attainment
7
high school & college by group
Opportunity
8
Well-prepared teachers
8
8
Challenging curricula
9
Special student placements
Effective instruction
9
Investments
1 0
Biggest Gainer
I 2
How big is the achievement gap in your state?
15
analysis of minority-White gaps by subject area and grade level
23
References
PLEASE NOTE that the State Summary Reports are merely
a selection of the data from the Education Watch Interactive
Data site. For more complete data, and for more cross-state com-
parisons, please visit the site at www.edtrust.org. Do remember,
however, that you may have fuller, richer or more current data
sets in your state for some of the indicators we report, because
we only use data that can be compared across states.We there-
fore encourage you to gather and examine a wide range of data
from your own state and local districts. In this way, communities
will come to see a full picture of how their students are faring
and what can be done to improve results.
TEXAS
(Frontier Gap Analysis
Education Watch Online introduces a new way to look at achievement gaps in each state: by comparing them with the "frontier"
state for a particular group of students, that is, the state with the highest average score for that group.The comparison shows that,
in most cases, achievement gaps would shrink dramatically if a state's poor or minority students performed as well as the same
group of students in the frontier state. But that's only part of a longer journey; visit the Education Watch Online interactive Web
site to see how far your state has to go before all groups of students perform at the "proficient" level on the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP).
How to read the table:
Group's Distance to Frontier State: For African American,
Within-State Achievement Gap: For African American and
Latino, and low-income students, this is the difference between
Latino students, this is the difference between that group's aver-
their average score and the average score for the same group of
age score and the average score of white students on a particu-
students in the frontier state.
lar test. For low-income students, this is the difference between
their average score and the average score of non-poor students
Example:"Latino students in Texas scored 18 points behind Latino
on the test.
students in Montana, the frontier state for Latino students on that
test."
Example: "On Average,Texas's Latino students scored 33 points
lower than the state's White students on NAEP's 1996 8th Grade
Amount State's Achievement Gap Would Shrink:This is
Science Assessment."
appromiately how much the state's achievement gap would
Frontier State for Group:This is the state where a particu-
shrink if its African American, Latino, and low-income students
scored as well as the same group of students in the frontier
lar group of students - African American, Latino, or low-income
state.
- scores the highest on the test. But, because such students can
achieve much higher than they do even in the frontier state, the
Example: "IfTexas's Latino 8th graders scored as well as those in
current frontier should be viewed as a short-term target rather
Montana, the state's math achievement gap between Latino and
than a long-term goal.
White 8th Graders would shrink by 55%."
Example: "Latino students in Montana out-perform Latino students
in all other states on NAEP's 1996 8th Grade Science
NOTE:A difference of 10 points is roughly equivalent to one year's
worth of learning.
Assessment"
Amount State's
Frontier
Within-State
Group's
Achievement Gap
State for
Distance to
Achievement
NAEP
Frontier
Would Shrink *
Group
Group
Gap
Assessment
TX
African American
0%
30
0
4th Grade
ND
24%
Latino
6
25
Math (1996)
ND
32%
Low-Income
8
25
20%
African American
NE
7
35
8th Grade
41%
IA
Latino
29
I 2
Math (1 996)
ND
22
73%
Low-Income
30
CO
African American
43%
35
15
8th Grade
MT
55%
Latino
33
18
Science (1996)
would close
ND
27
Low-Income
27
CT
African American
8
23%
35
4th Grade
IA
21%
28
Latino
6
Reading (1998)
46%
Low-Income
28
ME
13
African American
29%
8
28
KS
8th Grade
5%
VA
Latino
21
I
Reading (1998)
57%
Low-Income
ME
23
13
TX
African American
0
0%
I 8
8th Grade
VA
Latino
20
2
10%
Writing (1998)
OK
Low-Income
22
5%
I
Note: Low-Income refers to students eligible for
* Calculations take into account decimals. For clarity of presentation, data are displayed as whole numbers.
free or reduced price lunch.
Therefore, some figures may differ slightly from hand calculations,
SOURCE: Education Trust calculations based on average scale scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress as reported by the National Center for
Education Statistics.
4
la'
1
2001 Education Trust State Summaries
TEXAS
CStudent Profile
STUDENT PROFILE
Population and enrollments:These data will offer a picture of the student population in your state. Comparing the
demographic distribution of students across each educational level will show what happens to children as they journey
through the education system. Significant differences should raise questions about equity.
Four Year
Two Year
Population
Private K-I 2
Public K-I 2
Colleges
Colleges
Ages 5-24
African American
9.2%
8.0%
11.2%
13.1%
14.4%
4.1%
Asian 5.3%
3.9%
2.6%
2.4%
Latino
26.7%
21.3%
37.9%
17.3%
37.0%
Native American
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
White
66.2% 63.4%
56.4%
47.1% 45.0%
Other
4.4%
1.1%
Total
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
437,467
Number
3,891,877
6,179,856 229,163
525,651
Population and Enrollment
100%
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
O African American
O Asian
50% -
O Latino
40%
O Native American
30% -
El White
O Other
20% -
10%
0%
Private K12
Four Year College
Population
Two Year College
Public K12
5
TEXAS
Estate Performance
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
NAEP achievement levels:The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is administered to representative sam-
ples of students nationally and in participating states. NAEP achievement is reported by percents in four categories:Advanced,
Proficient, Basic and Below Basic. "Proficient" indicates the desired level of competency for students at a particular grade in a
particular subject. In this indicator, closing the achievement gap between groups is critical, but it is not enough. Schools have a
long way to go to move all American young people to proficiency.
1998 NAEP 8th grade reading
Adv.
Prof.
< Basic
Basic
50
60
0..19,6141:11=1
African
799=3:199$
42
American
46
0
12
4 46
Asian
37
13
o
0
0
Latino
34
51
15
Native
American
.50
White
47
2 38
-50
13
All
48
24
27
1
Non-Poor
48
2
35
I 5
.100
Poor
48
39
0
13
1
-100
NonPoor
Poor
Native American
African American
Latino
Asian
Aft
ViThite
*Note:all proficiency level data in percents.
Ei Proficient 0 Basic
111 Below Basic
13 Advanced
1998 NAEP 8th grade writing
Adv.
< Basic
Prof.
Basic
50
60
.
African
American
20
0 63
17
Asian
39
2
8
51
0
Latino
20 62
0
18
Native
American
-50
White
52
2 39
.50
7
All
57
30
12
I
Non-Poor
53
2 38
7
.100
Poor
20
0 63
17
.100
NonPoor
I I
I I
Poor
I
I
African American Asian
Native American
All
Latino
'lA4-lite
*Note:all proficiency level data in percents.
Li Proficient 0 Basic
0 Advanced
Below Basic
1998 NAEP 4th grade reading
Adv. Prof.
< Basic
Basic
50
50
African
American
27
62
10
1
1.12.717.111:09.7
Asian
o
Latino
52
2
33
13
Native
American
-50
White
37
20
34
9
-50
All
24 34 37
5
Non-Poor
36
34
9
21
.100
Poor
2 53
33
12
1 1
-100
NonPoor
Poor
Latino
Native American
Vitiite
African American Asian
All
*Note:all proficiency level data in percents.
Lj Proficient 0 Basic
Below Basic
0 Advanced
6
TEXAS
(State Performance
1996 NAEP 4th grade math
< Basic
Adv.
Prof.
Basic
50
50
African
40
American
53
0 7
Asian
o
46
44
Latino
10
I
Native
American
0
-50
White
45
15
-50
35
5
44
22
All
31
3
Non-Poor
45
34
16
5
.100
Poor
48
43
0 9
1
-100
NonPoor
Poor
Native American
All
African American
Latino White
Asian
*Note:all proficiency level data in percents.
F.: Proficient 0 Basic
0 Advanced
Below Basic
1996 NAEP 8th grade math
Adv. Prof.
< Basic
Basic
50
1
African
American
4
69
26
1
50
43 29
Asian
14
14
0
58
Latino
34
7
1
Native
American
-50
White
22
4 45
29
-50
All
38
41
18
3
Non-Poor
26
27 43
4
-100
Poor
64
30
6
0
1
-100
I
I
NonPoor
Poor
I
I
I I
Native American Mite
African American
All
Latino
Asian
*Note:all proficiency level data in percents.
Proficient 0 Basic
0 Advanced
Below Basic
1,,,,].
1996 NAEP 8th grade science
< Basic
Adv.
Prof.
Basic
50
50
African
American
22 72
0
6
38 28
Asian
32
2
o
67
Latino
0
8 25
Native
American
-50
White
39
23
35
-50
3
All
32 45
2
21
Non-Poor
37
29
32
2
-100
Poor
66
0 9 25
1 1
-100
NonPoor
Poor
Native American
Mrican American
Asian
White
All
Latino
*Note:all proficiency level data in percents.
Proficient 0 Basic
0 Advanced
Below Basic
7
416
TEXAS
(State Performance
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
NAEP multiyear trends: Looking at change over time both in absolute student performance and in achievement gaps can
show whether a state is making progress, holding static, or even backsliding.This can help states focus actions needed for
improvement, and measure whether existing initiatives are effectively meeting their goals in achievement and equity.
1992-98 4th grade reading
Gap Changes Over Time
Imati
usiA 11449it
S
S
280-
Latino-
African American-
Year
1.10..
White Gap
White Gap
224-
110-
23
24
1992
29
36
1994
kt10..
190*
28
35
1998
181)-
Change*
170
I
92-98
1934
5
1990
1E412
11
White -4. lintair
Mahn.
41. AOikan kxtertc-en -4" ittatne 0 Lana
n
Note: Change based on absolute difference in average group scale
scoreinterpret with caution (not necessarily statistically significant)
*positive change=gap widened; negative change=gap narrowed
1992-96 4th grade math
Gap Changes Over Time
'facet Gindi
Math Stale
African American- Latino-
280
Year
White Gap
White Gap
7413w.
-
20
30
1992
120 -
HO
30
25
1996
0-
Change*
190°
92-96
0
5
180
Note:Change based on absolute difference in average group scale
IC93
1892
1990
19811
scoreinterpret with caution (not necessarily statistically significant)
Mean 0 inano
Who. American -O. White '9. intri
*positive change=gap widened; negative change=gap narrowed
<0. diezke:s. Amencam
1990-96 8th grade math
Gap Changes Over Time
TEtati tateö8 amhstio4 somit
African American- Latino-
110
Year
100-
White Gap
White Gap
LSD-
190-0
28
38
1990
110*'
30
35
1992
ISO-
140-
29
35
1996
210-
120
Change*
90-96
-3
9399
1990
1999
16,99
19111"
1
.0 Mak= Amencan O Anna 0 Ltdinn -- Mahn* Atrer,...im ti Whits 4. 11 ate
Note:Change based on absolute difference in average group scale
scoreinterpret with caution (not necessarily statistically significant)
*positive change=gap widened; negative change=gap narrowed
8
TEXAS
(State Performance
Average scores on college admissions tests:While increasing numbers of minorities are taking college admissions tests, in
virtually every state,African American, Latino and Native American students still score well below other students.To close this
gap, states should ensure that all students complete a rigorous college preparatory sequence, and that all students are held to
the same expectations of postsecondary attainment.The SAT and ACT are the major nationally used college admissions tests.
Below we report the scores for the predominant test used by your state's colleges and universities.
SAT Performance
SAT Performance by Race/Ethnicity, 2000
1,600
1,000
i@R8
500
0
Mite
African American
Asian
Latino
.A1 I
Note: A perfect score for the SAT is 1600. A perfect score for the ACT is 36.
Distribution of SAT Test Takers, 2000
Test Takers
African American
%
12. 1
6.0%
Asian
Latino
23.4%
Native American
I.r.
White
58.5%
100.0%
Total
Number
94,715
I.r. low reliability
9
TEXAS
)
(State Performance
ATTAINMENT
In order to determine equity in attainment rates, we compare regular diploma recipients with the number of 8th graders four
years earlier, and report freshmen enrollments compared to bachelor's degrees four years later.Taken together, these show the
flow of groups of students from middle school to high school graduation and through postsecondary education.Although these
data do not track individual students from year to year, they should paint a fairly representative picture of who makes it through
high school and college.
8th Graders vs. Diplomas
8th Graders
Diplomas
1993-94
1998
African American
12.8%
14.3%
Asian
2.2%
3.2%
Latino
30.6%
34%
Native American
0.3%
0.2%
White
49.3% 53.1%
Total
100.0% 100.0%
Number
274,208
197,186
Chances For College, 1998
In the fall of 1998, the percentage of 19 year-olds in Texas who were enrolled in college was
(includes part-time and full-time students).
31 3%
Freshmen vs. Degrees Awarded
Freshmen*
Bachelor's Degrees
1993-94
1997
African American
7.3%
12.5%
Asian
4.6%
3.8%
Latino
20.9%
15.7%
Native American
I.r.
1.r.
White
68.7%
60.9%
Other
3.7%
1.9%
Total
100.0% 100.0%
Number
71,409
129,921
*Note:Includes first-time full time and part time freshmen at 2-year and 4-year institutions.
l.r. low reliability
4N