National Academies Press: OpenBook

Monitoring Educational Equity (2019)

Chapter: Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications

« Previous: Appendix A: Review of Existing Data Systems
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Assessment of Relevant Publications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 190

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs Appendix B Assessment of Relevant Publications In addition to reviewing databases, the committee conducted a broad review of organizations that compile data and prepare reports related to equity in K–12 education. Our review considered both government agencies and nongovernmental organizations; we also looked at efforts that targeted equity from the outset as their raison d’etre (such as briefs from the Civil Rights Data Collection [CRDC] and Race for Results—see below), in addition to efforts that included relevant indicators without a specific equity focus. The review identified 19 organizations that publish relevant reports: see Table B-1. TABLE B-1 Organizations and Their Reports with Indicators of Educational Equity Organization Report Alliance for Excellence in Education Graduation rates American Youth Policy Forum Various briefs Annie E. Casey Foundation Various briefs and reports, including: Kids Count Data Book and Race for Results Child Trends Various reports and briefs Council of Chief State School Officers Various reports and briefs Council of the Great City Schools Various reports and briefs, including: Academic Key Performance Indicators: 2018 Report Council of State Governments, Public Policy Various reports and briefs Research Groups Education Trust Various reports and briefs Education Law Center and Rutgers Is School Funding Fair: A National Report University Card on Funding Fairness Federal Interagency Forum on Child and America’s Children: Key National Indicators Family Statistics of Well-Being and America’s Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being Princeton University-Brookings Institution The Future of Children: Policy Briefs and Collaboration Special Topic Volumes, published spring and fall AppB-1

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs Organization Report Georgetown University, Center on Various reports and briefs Education and the Workforce National Assessment Governing Board (for The Nation’s Report Card: Reports of the National Assessment of Education achievement from main NAEP for 4th, 8th, Progress [NAEP]) and 12th graders in math, reading, science, and other subjects; Reports of achievement for the Trial Urban District Assessment National Association of School Boards Various reports and briefs (NASBE) National Center for Education Statistics Various reports and briefs, including: (NCES) Condition of Education (Highlights) and Status and Trends in the Education of Racial/Ethnic Groups National Governors Association Various reports and briefs National Institute for Early Education State of Preschool yearbooks Research (NIEER), Rutgers University U.S. Census Bureau Various statistical reports and briefs U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) Issue Civil Rights Briefs (national highlights on varied topics); CRDC Special Reports, highlights on English learners, discipline, and educational equity for school districts and schools The reports and briefs of these organizations are intended for a wide spectrum of audiences. Some of the organizations are involved in all the steps of producing indicator reports, from collecting data to reporting the results (e.g., NCES). Others make use of data collected by government agencies to develop their own indicators and associated reports (e.g., Child Trends). Still others make use of indicators developed by others to include in their own reports. Some organizations publish reports on a regular basis, most often annually (e.g., Kids Count); others publish briefs when the findings warrant (e.g., Child Trends, CRDC). In addition to the list of organizations in Table B-1, the Pell Institute for Higher Education has a publication series on indicators of equity in higher education, which we do not include because the committee’s charge is for K–12 education. The Pell Institute series covers such topics as high school students with college potential, who enrolls in college and what types of college, whether financial aid levels the playing field, how students pay for college, and graduation rates and early income outcomes. Indicators are presented for student groups identified by race and ethnicity and family income levels, and the Institute’s 2018 report AppB-2

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs provides indicators for states.1 The European Union has also undertaken work over the past decade on measuring education equity among member countries for student groups defined by family income and immigrant status. The committee’s review identified reports from seven organizations as meriting in-depth exploration, using the criteria in Box B-1:  Annie E. Casey Foundation: Kids Count Data Book and Race for Results  Council of the Great City Schools: Academic Key Performance Indicators: 2018 Report  Education Law Center and Rutgers University: Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card on Funding Fairness  Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics: America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being  National Center for Education Statistics: Condition of Education and Status and Trends in the Education of Racial/Ethnic Groups  National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University: State of Preschool yearbooks  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights: Civil Rights Data Collection First Look Issue Briefs and Special Reports These reports collectively include indicators that measure students’ academic achievement and progress; school systems’ mechanisms for monitoring access to the resources all students need; the inputs students bring to school with them from their home, families, and neighborhoods; and outcomes that extend from pre-K through K–12 and beyond. All of them publish some or all indicators for one or more student groups of interest. However, none of them includes a full set of the K–12 education equity indicators the committee identifies or the full spectrum of student groups or geographic units of interest. Indeed, most of them are limited in scope, student group coverage, and geographic detail, and almost none of them articulates an equity-focused framework for the selection of indicators to publish. Nonetheless, they illustrate how the topic of K–12 educational equity is currently addressed, identifying work that a set of K–12 educational equity indicators could draw on as well as gaps and data and methodological shortcomings (see Appendix C). In addition to these six reports, we note that the Council of the Great City Schools began a project in 2014 to develop key academic and cost performance indicators for its 74 urban members. To date, the project has resulted in a pilot study, which began with 8 member districts and included more than 50 member districts at its conclusion. The pilot study had a preliminary set of 200 indicators that was narrowed to 58 during the study. Academic Key Indicators: Pilot Report, released in October 2017, describes data sources (an on-line survey and Excel data sheets for districts to populate), methodology, and results for 12 academic indicators for the participating member districts. The data are considered preliminary. The indicators include pre-K enrollment relative to kindergarten enrollment; the percent of 4th and 8th graders proficient in reading and math on NAEP (districts participating in the Urban Trial Assessment only); Algebra I completion rates for credit by grade 9; 9th grade course failures (at least one course); 9th graders with a B average or higher; absentee rates by grade 1 See http://pellinstitute.org/indicators/reports_2018_data.shtml. AppB-3

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs level; suspension rates; instructional days missed per student due to suspensions; AP participation rates; AP-equivalent participation rates; AP exam pass rates; early college enrollment; and 4-year graduation rate. The data in the pilot report are provided for districts, not schools. Most of the indicators are shown separately for selected student groups (e.g., Hispanic males, black males, students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch). This effort is useful to note for the processes and steps that were followed to assess the feasibility and burden of providing the indicators and reaching consensus among the districts as to their value. BOX B-1 Criteria for Assessing Publications for Education Equity Indicators The first seven criteria are the same as those for our review of data systems in Appendix A; the last three are unique to this list. 1. Published on a regular, frequent basis—at least annually. 2. Available for subnational geographic areas, including states, school districts, and, ideally, schools or school attendance areas, as appropriate. 3. High-quality when assessed on measures of nonsampling error (e.g., accurate reporting of student enrollment) and on measures of sampling error (for survey-based data). 4. Available for groups of children of interest for education equity (see Chapter 2 text), as defined by race and ethnicity, gender, family income (or equivalent measure of socioeconomic resources), disability status, immigrant status, and English language capability. a. For immigrant children, indicative of time of entry into the United States to appropriately include/exclude them in equity indicators (e.g., exclude from a high school graduation measure if they arrived only a year before graduation). b. For English-language learners, when possible, indicative of the number of years spent in an English-learner program, whether a student waived out of English-learner instruction, and time and type of reclassification to English-proficient status. 5. Measures contextual factors, such as neighborhood income and family type composition for student groups of interest (see Chapter 3).* 6. Measures students’ educational outcomes for student groups of interest in three domains comprising seven indicators, each with one or more constructs to be measured (see Chapter 4): Domain A: Kindergarten readiness Indicator 1: Disparities in academic readiness (reading/literacy, numeracy/math skills) Indicator 2: Disparities in self-regulation and attention skills Domain B: K–12 learning and engagement (measured at multiple levels/grades) Indicator 3: Disparities in engagement in schooling (attendance/absenteeism, academic engagement) Indicator 4: Disparities in performance in coursework (success in classes, accumulating credits to be on track to graduate, grades/GPA) Indicator 5: Success in classes (achievement in reading/math/science, learning growth in reading/math/science achievement) Domain C: Educational attainment AppB-4

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs Indicator 6: Disparities in on-time high school graduation Indicator 7: Disparities in postsecondary readiness (enrollment in college, entry into the workforce, enlistment in the military) 7. Measures school-provided opportunities to learn for student groups of interest in four domains comprising nine indicators, each with one or more constructs to be measured (see Chapter 5): Domain D: Extent of racial, ethnic, and economic segregation Indicator 8: Disparities in students’ exposure to racial, ethnic, and economic segregation (concentrated poverty in schools, racial segregation within and across schools) Domain E: Equitable access to high-quality early learning programs Indicator 9: Disparities in access to and participation in high-quality pre-K programs (availability and participation in licensed pre-K programs) Domain F: Equitable access to high-quality instruction and curricula Indicator 10: Disparities in access to effective teaching (teachers’ years of experience, teachers’ credentials/certification, racial/ethnic diversity of the teaching force) Indicator 11: Disparities in access to and enrollment in rigorous coursework (availability/enrollment in advanced, rigorous coursework, availability/ enrollment in advanced placement, international baccalaureate, and dual enrollment programs, availability/enrollment in gifted and talented programs) Indicator 12: Disparities in curricular breadth (availability/enrollment in coursework in the arts, social sciences, sciences, and technology) Indicator 13: Disparities in access to high quality academic interventions and supports (access to and participation in formalized systems of tutoring or other types of academic supports; access to and participation in appropriate academic content for English-language learners and special education children) Domain G: Equitable access to supportive school and classroom environments Indicator 14: Disparities school climates (perceptions of safety, academic support, academically-focused culture, teacher-student trust); Indicator 15: Disparities in nonexclusionary discipline practices (out-of-school suspensions/expulsion); Indicator 16: Disparities in non-academic supports for student success (supports for emotional, behavioral, mental, physical health) 8. Constructed in a manner that is intelligible to users of varying levels of analytic sophistication. 9. Constructed so that it is difficult to “game” the indicator to make a school district or school appear to be more equitable than it is. 10. Feasible to produce on a timely basis (i.e., soon after the underlying data are available). * Although we do not propose indicators of context, they would be critical to inform efforts of school systems to work with other sectors to combat root causes of poverty and other factors that adversely affect students’ educational attainment.   AppB-5

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s KIDS COUNT Data Center “. . . seeks to enrich local, state and national discussions concerning ways to secure better futures for all children—and to raise the visibility of children's issues through a nonpartisan, evidence-based lens.” The center draws on national, state, and local data sources and publications. Annually, the foundation publishes the KIDS Count Data Book: State Trends in Child Well-Being, based on the KIDS Count index, which ranks states on 16 indicators in four domains (with four indicators in each domain): (1) economic well-being, (2) education, (3) health, and (4) family and community. Table B-2 details the four education indicators in the index, showing their source, periodicity, student groups covered, geographic areas covered, and relevance to the committee’s proposed indicators.2 The economic well-being and family and community indicators provide context. TABLE B-2 Education Indicators in the KIDS Count Index Indicator Source Periodicity Student Groups Geographic Relevance and Latest of Interest for Areas for Which to Com- Year Avail- Which Data Are Data are mittee’s able (in par- Published (or are Published (or Indicators entheses)a Available in the Are Available in Data Center) the Data Center) 1. Young American Annual, Race/ethnicity Nation, states Indicator Children Not Community 2007-2009 (only published 9 in School: Survey, through for the nation; percent 3- averaged 2014-2016; available for and 4-year- over 3 years will be states) olds not updated enrolled in nursery school, pre- K, or K, in prior 3 months 2. 4th Grade Main Every 2 4th graders: Nation, states Indicator Reading NAEP years (2017) race/ethnicity 5 for Achievement (only published 4th grade Levels: for the nation; percent 4th available for graders not states) proficient in reading 3. 8th Grade Main Every 2 8th graders: Nation, states Indicator Math NAEP years (2017) 2 The Data Center provides additional education indicators not included in the index: see https://datacenter.kidscount.org/. AppB-6

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs Achievement race/ethnicity 5 for 8th Levels: (only published grade percent 8th for the nation; graders not available for proficient in states) math 4. High School Common Each school Race/ethnicity Nation, states Indicator Students Not Core of year from (only published (available for 8 Graduating Data 2010-2011 for the nation; school districts on Time: (different available for and schools) (ACGR)b rate used states) earlier) (2015-2016) a Latest year at time of latest publication (see SOURCE below). b For the definition of ACGR (Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate), see https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/what-is-the-difference-between-the-acgr-and-the-afgrfor definition. NOTE: NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress. SOURCE: Information from The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2018). The Annie E. Casey Foundation began publication of its KIDS Count index in 1990 and revised the index in 2012 to include the four domains and 16 indicators. The index is not published for groups of children, except at the national level by race and ethnicity (with data for the states available in the KIDS Count Data Center). The foundation subsequently developed an index, published in Race for Results: Building a Path to Opportunity for All Children, to focus explicitly on children’s prospects for success as an adult in each state. The new index, first published in 2014 and updated in 2017, was based on an aspirational goal: all children should grow up in economically successful families; live in supportive communities; and meet developmental, health, and educational milestones. The index comprises 12 indicators that were comparably and regularly collected in every state through surveys sufficient in size to allow valid estimates for the five largest racial groups (African- American, American Indian, Asian American and Pacific Islander, Latino, and White); 4 of the 12 indicators are the 4 education indicators that are part of the KIDS Count index.3 EDUCATION LAW CENTER AND RUTGERS UNIVERSITY The Education Law Center and Rutgers University have collaborated since 2010 on an annual publication that assesses the fairness of funding for K–12 public education state by state. Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card on Funding Fairness presents data on four indicators of “fairness” and three indicators of resource allocation. Box B-2 presents the principles on which the published fairness and resource allocation indicators are based; Table B- 3 describes each of the seven indicators, showing its source, periodicity, student groups covered, geographic areas covered, and relevance to the committee’s proposed indicators. 3 For the full set of indicators, see https://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-RaceforResults- 2014.pdf#page=33. AppB-7

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs BOX B-2 Principles Used to Derive Indicators in Is School Funding Fair?  Varying levels of funding are required to provide equal educational opportunities to children with different needs.  The costs of education vary based on geographic location, regional differences in teacher salaries, school district size, population density, and various student characteristics. It is critical to account for as many of these variables as possible, given the availability of reliable data.  The level of funding should increase relative to the level of concentrated student poverty — that is, state finance systems should provide more funding to districts serving larger shares of students in poverty . . . .  Student poverty—especially concentrated student poverty—is the most critical variable affecting funding levels. Student and school poverty correlates with, and is a proxy for, a multitude of factors that increase the costs of providing equal educational opportunity—most notably, gaps in educational achievement, school district racial composition, English-language proficiency, homelessness, and student mobility. State finance systems should deliver greater levels of funding to higher-poverty settings, while controlling for differences in other cost factors.  While the distribution of funding to account for student need is crucial, the overall funding level in states is also a significant element in fair school funding. Without sufficient base or foundational funding, even a progressively funded system will be unable to provide equitable educational opportunities.  The sufficiency of the overall level of funding in any state can be assessed based on comparisons to other states with similar conditions and similar characteristics. Using available national data, average differences in state and local revenues between states, as well as within states, can be projected and indexed to compare expected state and local revenues per pupil under a given set of conditions. These expected values are derived from a statistical model that predicts funding levels while controlling for various school district characteristics. These predicted funding levels allow for more direct comparison of districts having similar characteristics across states. SOURCE: Baker, Farrie, and Sciarra (2018, p. 3). Reprinted with permission from the Education Law Center. TABLE B-3 Indicators in Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card Indicator Source Periodicity Student Groups Geogra- Relevance of Interest for phic Areas to Com- Which Data Are for Which mittee’s Published Data Are Indicators Published Fairness Measure Census Bureau Annual, N.A., but States #1, Funding Annual Survey of beginning indicator takes (states are Indicator 7 Level—adjusted School System 2010; account of ranked) a per pupil funding Finances; SAIPE; publication student poverty AppB-8

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs Taylor’s extended lags by 2-3 NCES years (e.g., Comparable 2018 Wage Index;b edition CCD; Census presents Bureau 2015 population estimates) estimates Fairness Measure See fairness See N.A., but States #2, Funding measure #1 fairness indicator takes (states are Indicators Distribution— Measure #1 account of grouped 13, 16 progressive, school district into six regressive, or flat poverty grades, A- distributionc F) Fairness Measure BEA GSP and See N.A. States N.A. #3, Fiscal Effort— SPI series; Urban fairness (states are local and state Institute- measure #1 grouped education spending Brookings into six relative to (a) gross Institution Tax grades, A- state product (GSP) Policy Center F) and (b) state Data Query aggregate personal System income (SPI) Fairness Measure ACS (3-year See N.A. States N.A. #4, Coverage— public-use fairness (states are proportion of microdata measure #1 ranked) school-aged samples) children (6-16) attending the state’s public schools averaged with ratio of household median income of public school students to other students Resource ACS (3-year See N.A., but gives States Indicator Allocation Measure public-use fairness extra weight to (states are 9 #1, Early microdata mMeasure enrollment of ranked) Childhood samples) #1 children in low- Education— income families enrollment of 3- and 4-year-olds in early childhood education programs by income level AppB-9

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs Resource ACS (3-year See N.A. States N.A. Allocation Measure public-use fairness (states are #2, Wage microdata measure #1 ranked) Competitiveness— samples) ratio of teacher to nonteacher wages Resource CCD—Local See N.A., but takes States Allocation Measure Education fairness account of (states are Indicator #3, Teacher-to- Agency Universe measure #1 school district ranked) 6.1 Student Ratios— Survey poverty fair: higher ratios in high poverty districts; unfair: comparable or lower ratios in, high poverty districts a The adjustment is based on a model that predicts average funding levels (state plus local), controlling for student poverty, regional wage variation, and school district size and density. b The NCES Comparable Wage Index (CWI) is a measure of regional variations in the salaries of college graduates who are not educators; see updated NCES CWI data beginning in 2005 based on 3-year average ACS data at http://bush.tamu.edu/research/faculty/Taylor_CWI/. c Progressive: high-poverty (30% +) districts receive at least 5 percent additional funds over low-poverty (0%) districts; regressive: high-poverty districts receive 5 percent less funding than low-poverty districts; flat: in between. NOTES: ACS, American Community Survey (Census Bureau program); BEA, Bureau of Economic Analysis; CCD, Common Core of Data (NCES program); N.A., not applicable; SAIPE, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (Census Bureau program). SOURCE: Information from Baker, Farrie, and Sciarra (2018). AppB-10

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs FEDERAL INTERAGENCY FORUM ON CHILD AND FAMILY STATISTICS The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics fosters coordination and collaboration among 23 federal agencies that produce or use statistical data on children and families. Through the America’s Children series, the forum makes federal data on children and families available in a nontechnical, easy-to-use format in order to stimulate discussion among data providers, policy makers, and the public. The forum publishes an annual report on the well-being of children and families, alternating between the longer America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well Being and America’s Children in Brief. The full reports and the forum’s website provide statistics on 41 indicators:4 . . . that must meet the following criteria: easy to understand by broad audiences; objectively based on reliable data with substantive research connecting them to child well-being; balanced, so that no single area of children’s lives dominates the report; measured regularly, so that they can be updated and show trends over time; and representative of large segments of the population, rather than one particular group. The indicators cover seven domains: family and social environment, economic circumstances, health care, physical environment and safety, behavior, education, and health. Because the briefer reports do not cover every domain every year, any one domain, such as education, is published at least biannually but not necessarily annually. Moreover, not all indicators within a domain are available annually. Of the 41 indicators, 6 are devoted to education. Table B-4 defines each of the six, indicating source, periodicity, student groups covered, geographic areas covered, and relevance to the committee’s indicators. Indicators in the family and social environment and economic circumstances domains provide context. TABLE B-4 Education Indicators in America’s Children Indicator Source Periodicity Student Groups Geographic Relevance to and Latest of Interest for Areas for Committee’s Year Which Data Are Which Data Indicators Available (in Published (or Are Published parentheses)a Can Be Made (or Can Be Available) Made Available) 1—Family NHES 1993, 1995, Gender, Nation, 4 N.A. Reading to 1996, 1999, race/ethnicity, regions Young Children: 2001, 2005, poverty status, percent children 2007, 2012, family type, ages 3-5 read to 2016— mother’s highest three or more future level of times in last periodicity education, and unknown mother’s                                                              4 Forum on Child and Family Statistics; available: https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/index.asp. AppB-11

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs week by a family employment member status 2—Math and Main Every 2 4th graders: by Nation (states Reading NAEP years (2015) gender and by and some large Indicator 5 Achievement: race/ethnicity; cities available) average math 8th and 12th and reading scale graders: by scores of 4th, gender, by 8th, and 12th race/ethnicity, graders and by parents’ education 3—High School CCD; Every other Type of course: Nation (states, Academic CRDC school year by gender, by school districts, Indicator 11 Course-Taking: (2013-2014) race/ethnicity, schools percent public and by gender available) high school by race/ethnicity students enrolled in selected mathematics and science coursesb 4—High School CPS Annual Race/ethnicity Nation (regions Completion: School (2015) are available, Indicator 6 percent adults Enrollment as are states ages 18-24 who Supplement with 3-year completed high averaging) school (including a GED) 5—Youth by CPS Annual Age (16-17, 18- Nation (regions Indicator 7 School (monthly (2016) 19): by gender, are available, Enrollment and for school by as are states Work Status: months) race/ethnicity, with 3-year percent youth and by averaging) ages 16-19 enrollment and (school includes working status high school and college) 6—College CPS Annual Gender, race/ Nation (regions Indicator 7 Enrollment: School (2015) ethnicity, and are available, percent high Enrollment income level as are states school Supplement (low, middle, with 3-year completers high) averaging) enrolled in college the following fall AppB-12

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs a Latest year at time of latest publication (see SOURCE below). b Algebra 1, geometry, algebra 2, advanced mathematics, calculus, advanced placement (AP) math, biology, chemistry, physics, AP science. NOTES: CCD, Common Core of Data (NCES program); CPS, Current Population Survey (Census Bureau program); CRDC, Civil Rights Data Collection (Office of Civil Rights program); GED, general education diploma; N.A., not applicable; NHES, National Household Education Survey (NCES program). SOURCE: Information from Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2017). NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS Condition of Education Condition of Education reports are issued annually by NCES in compliance with a congressional mandate. The reports contain indicators on the state of education in the United States, from pre-kindergarten through postsecondary education, as well as labor force outcomes and international comparisons. For pre-K through grade 12, there are indicators of family characteristics, enrollment, teachers and staff, assessments, high school completion, and school finance. More detailed information, on which the reports are based, is available in the annual Digest of Education Statistics.5 The data for these indicators are obtained from many different providers—including students and teachers, state education agencies, local elementary and secondary schools, and colleges and universities—using surveys and compilations of administrative records. Most indicators in the reports summarize data collected by surveys conducted by NCES or by the Census Bureau with support from NCES, such as the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS). The Condition of Education includes an At a Glance section, which allows readers to quickly make comparisons within and across indicators, and a Highlights section, which “spotlights” key findings for a few of the indicators. Table B-5 defines topic areas for which regularly collected indicators are provided for pre-K through grade 12 in the latest (2018) Condition of Education, indicating source, periodicity, student groups covered, geographic areas covered, and relevance to the committee’s indicators.6 5 See: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/. 6 In addition to the indicators shown, Condition of Education reports on children’s access to and use of the Internet, measured in CPS supplements in October 2010 and July 2015; family involvement in educational activities outside school, measured in 2012 and 2016 in NHES; school crime and safety, measured periodically in the NCES Survey on School Crime and Safety; public school teacher turnover, measured in a 2012-2013 Teacher Follow-up Survey to the 2011-2012 SASS; characteristics of public school principals, measured periodically in SASS (latest estimates for 2011-2012); public school principal turnover, measured in a 2012-2013 Principal Follow-up Survey to the 2011-2012 SASS; trends in reading and math scale scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds from 1971 through 2012, measured in long-term trend NAEP; technology and engineering literacy for 8th graders, measured by NAEP in 2014; and high school graduates by completion of math and science courses, measured in 2000 and 2009 NAEP high school transcript studies. AppB-13

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs TABLE B-5 Indicators in the Condition of Education Indicator Source Periodicity Student Groups for Geographic Relevance to and Latest Which Data Are Areas for Committee’s Year Avail- Publishedb Which Data Indicators able (in par- Are entheses)a Publishedc Characteristics ACS Annual Race/ethnicity: by Nation; states Contextual of Children’s (2016) parents’ for factors (under age 18) educational percentage Families— attainment, by living in various family type, and poverty percentages of by poverty status; children living in poverty by race/ethnicity: by family type, and by parents’ educational attainment Pre-K and K CPS SES Annual 3- to 5-year-old Nation Indicator 9 Enrollment— (2017) enrollment by full- percent ages 3, or part-day: by 4, 5 enrolled race/ethnicity, and by parents’ educa- tional attainment Elementary and CPS SES Annual Percent enrolled: Nation; states Denominator Secondary for (2016, by age (3-4, 5-6, 7- by actual and for various Enrollment— percent projections 13, 14-15, 16-17, projected indicators percent enrolled enrolled; through 18-19); percentage (any type of CCD for 2027) Enrolled and change in school); number number projected: by public K–12 enrolled and enrolled school level enrollment projected in (elementary, public school secondary) Public Charter CCD Annual Percent public Nation; states N.A. School (2015-2016) charter school by percent Enrollment— distribution by public number by size; percent students school level; student enrolled in various distribution by charters percentages race/ethnicity Private School NCES Every 2 Number enrolled Nation N.A. Enrollment— Private years (2015- by grade level percent of all School 2016) (pre-K-8, 9-12) K–12 students Universe and by orientation in private Survey (Catholic, other schools; various religious, AppB-14

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs numbers and nonsectarian); percentages percent student distribution: by school level by orientation, and by race/ethnicity by orientation English- CCD, Every 2 Percent ELL of Nation; states Indicator 7.3 Language CRDC years (fall total pre-K through by percent of Learners (ELL) 2015) grade 12: by grade, public school in Public and by school enrollment Schools— locale (city, various suburban, town, percentages rural); number and percent distribu- tion of ELL students by home language Children and Office of Annual Percent served: Nation Indicator 13 Youth (Ages 3- Special (2015-2016) ages 3-21 by type 21) with Education (10 types), and by Disabilities— Programs, race/ethnicity; percent IDEA ages 6-21 by time receiving database in general classes; special ages 14-21 exiting education school by reason services under (regular diploma, IDEA, Part B alternative certificate) by race/ethnicity Characteristics CCD Annual Percent traditional Nation Indicator of Traditional (2015-2016) and public charter 8 and Charter schools: by level, Public by race/ethnicity Schools— concentration various (50%+ white, percentages black, Hispanic), by eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (0-25%, 25.1-50%, 50.1- 75%, 75%+), and by school locale Concentration CCD Annual Percent students Nation Indicator of Students (2015-2016) by “poverty” 48 Eligible for Free (categories defined AppB-15

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs or Reduced- by quartiles of Price Lunch— school lunch various eligibility): by percentages race/ethnicity, and by school locale Characteristics NTPS Every 2 Percent public Nation Indicator 10 of School years (2015- school teachers: by Teachers— 2016) gender by level, by various race/ethnicity, by percentages level by college degree/teaching certificate, and by years of teaching experience by average base salary and by highest degree Reading Main 4th, 8th Scale scores: by Nation; Indicator 5 Performance— NAEP graders: gender, by ELL change in 4th average scale every 2 years status, by race/ and 8th grade scores/four (2017); 12th ethnicity, and by scale scores achievement graders: school poverty by state levels for 4th, periodically (based on quartiles 8th, and 12th (2015) of students eligible graders for free or reduced -price lunch) Mathematics Main See reading See reading See reading Indicator 5 Performance— NAEP performance, performance, performance, see Reading above above above Performance, above Science Main Periodically Gender and Nation; Indicator 5 Performance— NAEP (2015) race/ethnicity change in average scale scale scores scores for 4th, by state 8th, and 12th graders High School Consoli- Annual Race/ethnicity Nation; states Indicator 6 Graduation dated (2015-2016) Rates—adjusted State cohort Perfor- graduation rates mance Report (in EDFacts) Status Dropout CPS SES Annual Gender, years of Nation Indicator 7 Rates—percent (2016) school completed, AppB-16

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs 16- to 24-year- and race/ethnicity olds not by native/foreign enrolled in born school and lacking a diploma or GED Revenue CCD Annual N.A. Nation; states Indicators Sources— (2014-2015) for all but 13, 16 percent federal, revenue state, local; state source revenue and property tax revenue as percent of total Expenditures— CCD Annual N.A. Nation Indicators current (2014-2015) 13, 16 expenditures, interest, and capital outlays per student; percent of current expend- itures for salaries, bene- fits, purchased services, supplies a Latest year at time of latest publication (see SOURCE below). b Additional student group detail available in the annual Digest of Education Statistics. c Additional geographic detail available in the annual Digest of Education Statistics. NOTES: The information covers public schools unless otherwise noted. ACS, American Community Survey; CCD, Common Core of Data; CPS SES, Current Population Survey School Enrollment Supplement; CRDC, Civil Rights Data Collection; ELL, English-language learner; GED, general education diploma; IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; N.A., not available; NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress; NCES, National Center for Education Statistics: NTPS, National Teacher and Principal Survey. SOURCE: Information from McFarland et al. (2018). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups NCES began issuing reports that focus on the educational progress and challenges facing students in the United States by race and ethnicity in 2003 with Status and Trends in the Education of Blacks and Status and Trends in the Education of Hispanics. These reports were followed in 2005 by Status and Trends in the Education of American Indians and Alaska Natives (updated in 2008). In 2007, 2010, 2015, 2016, AppB-17

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs 2017, and 2019, NCES published Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups; presumably, this report will be a continuing series. Table B-6 defines topic areas for which regularly collected indicators are provided for pre-K through grade 12 in the latest Status and Trends report, indicating source, periodicity, student groups covered, geographic areas covered, and relevance to the committee’s indicators. Note that some indicators in Status and Trends are similar to those in the Condition of Education, but Status and Trends contains some additional indicators.7 TABLE B-6 Indicators in Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups Indicator Source Periodicity Student Geographic Relevance to and Latest Groups for Areas for Committee’s Year Which Data Which Data Indicators Available (in Are Published Are parentheses)a Published Demographics— Census Annual Race/ethnicity Nation Contextual percent 5- to 17- Bureau (2017, 2016) (detailed factors year-olds; Population Asian, percent Estimates; Hispanic distribution of ACS; CPS groups for under 18 by ASEC nativity, nativity, family family type, type, living in official poverty and poverty) mother-only households living in poverty (official, supple- mental poverty measures) Elementary and CCD; Annual Race/ethnicity Nation, four Denominator Secondary Private (2015) regions for various Enrollment— School (public indicators percent enrolled Universe school in public schools Survey enrollment) (pre-K to 12); distribution by region, tradi- tional or charter; private school 7 Status and Trends in the Education of Race and Ethnic Groups, 2018 (February 2019) also reports on: childcare arrangements for children under 6 (measured periodically in the National Household Education Survey); high school course taking and whether earned AP or IB credits (measured in the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009); and school safety (measured in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey for 2015). AppB-18

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs distribution by type of school English- CCD; Annual Race/ethnicity Nation Indicators Language EDFacts (2015) 13, 16 Learners (in public schools)— number; percent of total enrollment Students with CCD; Office Annual Race/ethnicity Nation Indicators Disabilities— of Special (2015-2016, 13, 16 percent of Education 2014-2015) students ages 3- Programs, 21 served under Individuals IDEA, Part B; with distribution by Disabilities type of Education disability; Act (IDEA) percent ages 14- database 21 who exited school by reasons Reading Main NAEP Every 2 Race/ethnicity Nation Indicator 5 Achievement— years, 4th, average scale 8th grade score, 4th, 8th, (2017); 12th grade periodically, 12th grade (2015) Mathematics Main NAEP See Reading Race/ethnicity Nation Indicator 5 Achievement— Achievement see Reading Achievement Absenteeism and Main NAEP Every 2 Race/ethnicity Nation Indicator 3 Achievement— years (2017) percent 8th graders absent by number of days; average math/ reading scale scores by number days absent AppB-19

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs Retention, CPS SES; Annual Race/ethnicity Nation Indicator 15 Suspension, and CRDC (retentions, by gender Expulsion— 2016); every (suspensions) percent retained 2 years in grade by (suspensions, school level; 2013-2014) percent received out-of-school suspensions High School ACS Annual Race/ethnicity: Nation Indicator 7 Status Dropout (2016) by gender and Rates—percent by nativity; of 16- to 24- Hispanic and year-olds Asian by dropping out subgroup High School CPS SES Annual Race/ethnicity Indicator 7 Status Comple- (2016) and tion Rates— Hispanic/non- percent of 18- to Hispanic by 24-year-olds recency of completing high immigration school a Latest year at time of latest publication (see SOURCE below). NOTES: ACS, American Community Survey; CCD, Common Core of Data; CPS ASEC, Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement; CPS SES, Current Population Survey School Enrollment Supplement; CRDC, Civil Rights Data Collection; NAEP: National Assessment of Educational Progress. SOURCE: Data from de Brey et al. (2019). NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR EARLY EDUCATION RESEARCH NIEER at Rutgers University in 2003 began issuing annual reports on the extent and quality of state pre-K education for children ages 3 and 4. The latest yearbook (NIEER, 2017, p. 5) notes that, as of the 2001-2002 school year, just two states had pre-K programs that served more than 50 percent of their 4-year-olds, and 13 states had no state-funded pre-K program. As of 2017, 10 states served more than 50 percent of their 4-year-olds, and only 7 states had no state-funded program. The NIEER yearbooks provide indicators for access, resources, and quality of pre-K programs for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. States are ranked on measures of access and resources, and the number of quality benchmarks they meet is totaled (from 1 to 10). Table B-7 defines topic areas and indicators for each state in the latest (2017) State of Preschool yearbook, indicating source, periodicity, student groups covered, geographic areas covered, and relevance to the committee’s indicators. Because pre-K programs vary among and within states, the state profiles in the NIEER yearbooks contain text explaining each state’s programs—for example, whether they are offered in all school districts or those meeting a poverty criterion, AppB-20

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs hours of operation, teacher qualifications, whether they partner with Head Start, and other pertinent information. TABLE B-7 Indicators in the State of Preschool Yearbooks Indicator Source Periodicity Student Geographic Relevance to and Latest Groups for Areas for Committee’s Year Which Data Which Data Indicators a Available Are Published Are Published Access (1) — Census Annual Special States Indicator 9 percent 3-year- Bureau (2017) education olds and percent Population enrollment 4-year-olds Estimates; (includes enrolled in state- NIEER State unduplicated funded pre-K, Survey; count of Head Start, Department disabled Special of Education students under Education, and (Special IDEA other/none Education); Preschool DHHS (Head Grants Start) program) Access (2)— NIEER State Annual N.A. States Indicator 9 percent school Survey (2017) districts that offer state pre-K program and income requirement Access (3)— NIEER State Annual N.A. States Indicator 9 minimum hours Survey (2017) of operation and operating schedule (e.g., school year) Quality NIEER State Annual N.A. States Indicator 9 Standards Survey (2017) Checklist— number and which of 10 standards metb Resources— NEA state Annual N.A. States Indicator 9 total state surveysd (2017) spending; state Head Start spending; state spending per AppB-21

Prepublication copy- Uncorrected proofs child enrolled; all spending per child enrolledc a Latest year at time of latest publication (see SOURCE below). b The 10 policy areas and latest benchmarks are: (1) early learning and development standards: comprehensive, aligned, supported, culturally sensitive; (2) curriculum supports: approval process and supports; (3) teacher degree: B.A.; (4) teacher specialized training: specializing in pre-K; (5) assistant teacher degree: Child Development Associate or equivalent credential; (6) staff professional development: at least 15 hours/year, individual development plans, coaching; (7) maximum class size: 20 children or fewer; (8) staff-child ratio: 1:10 or lower; (9) screening and referral: vision, hearing, and health screenings and referral; and (10) monitoring/continuous quality improvement system: structured classroom observation, program improvement plan. Area/benchmark (2) is new as of 2015-2016; a previous area/benchmark related to meals has been discontinued. c Spending includes current operating expenditures plus annual capital outlays and interest on school debt. d In Rankings and Estimates: Rankings of the States 2016 and Estimates of School Statistics 2017; see http://www.nea.org/home/73145.htm [April 2019]. NOTES: DHHS, Department of Health and Human Services; IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; N.A., not available; NEA, National Education Association; NIEER, National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University. SOURCE: Information from Friedman-Krauss et al. (2018). U.S. OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION The CRDC program in the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education regularly issues “First Look” issue briefs from each biannual cycle of data collection. The topics of these briefs differ from year to year. The two briefs issued to date (in April 2018) from the 2015-2016 data collection are the STEM [science, technology, engineering, and math] Course Taking Issue Brief and the School Climate and Safety Issue Brief. The brief on STEM course taking presents 10 figures: one example is a bar graph of the percentage of high school enrollment by race and ethnicity; the percentage enrolled in algebra 1 for grades 9-10 and 11-12, by race and ethnicity; and the percentage passing algebra 1 for grades 9-10 and 11-12, by race and ethnicity. The CRDC also provides ready access through a search feature to three special reports for school districts and schools: English Learner Report, Discipline Report, and Educational Equity Report, which are provided in Excel spreadsheets. Underlying the CRDC issue briefs and special reports are detailed tables of all data elements in the CRDC program for school districts and schools, together with summaries for states and the nation. We do not further describe the particular elements in the special reports or underlying CRDC database because, while very easy to access, they are not presented in the form of regularly published indicators as in the reports described above.8   8 For more information about the CRDC and ways to access the data, see https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html?src=rt. AppB-22

Next: Appendix C: Data and Methodological Opportunities and Challenges for Developing K12 Educational Equity Indicators »
Monitoring Educational Equity Get This Book
×
Buy Prepub | $74.00 Buy Paperback | $65.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Disparities in educational attainment among population groups have characterized the United States throughout its history. Education is sometimes characterized as the “great equalizer,” but to date, the country has not found ways to successfully address the adverse effects of socioeconomic circumstances, prejudice, and discrimination that suppress performance for some groups.

To ensure that the pursuit of equity encompasses both the goals to which the nation aspires for its children and the mechanisms to attain those goals, a revised set of equity indicators is needed. Measures of educational equity often fail to account for the impact of the circumstances in which students live on their academic engagement, academic progress, and educational attainment. Some of the contextual factors that bear on learning include food and housing insecurity, exposure to violence, unsafe neighborhoods, adverse childhood experiences, and exposure to environmental toxins. Consequently, it is difficult to identify when intervention is necessary and how it should function. A revised set of equity indicators should highlight disparities, provide a way to explore potential causes, and point toward possible improvements.

Monitoring Educational Equity proposes a system of indicators of educational equity and presents recommendations for implementation. This report also serves as a framework to help policy makers better understand and combat inequity in the United States’ education system. Disparities in educational opportunities reinforce, and often amplify, disparities in outcomes throughout people’s lives. Thus, it is critical to ensure that all students receive comprehensive supports that level the playing field in order to improve the well-being of underrepresented individuals and the nation.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!