National Academies Press: OpenBook

Monitoring Educational Equity (2019)

Chapter: 6 Paths Forward: Recommendations

« Previous: 5 Indicators of Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Suggested Citation:"6 Paths Forward: Recommendations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"6 Paths Forward: Recommendations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"6 Paths Forward: Recommendations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"6 Paths Forward: Recommendations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"6 Paths Forward: Recommendations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"6 Paths Forward: Recommendations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"6 Paths Forward: Recommendations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"6 Paths Forward: Recommendations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Monitoring Educational Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25389.
×
Page 118

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: Do Uncorrected proofs 6 Paths Forward: Recommendations In Chapters 1 through 5 of this report we present our rationale and vision for monitoring equity in K-12 education with a set of indicators and more specific measures, which are detailed in Chapters 4 and 5. The committee’s intent is for these indicators to form the core of a national program to monitor educational equity by assembling information that can be reported at the national, state, and local levels and can be disaggregated for important population groups. This targeted set of indicators will shed light on the nature of between-group differences in academic achievement and educational attainment and disparities in access to critical educational resources. In so doing, they will provide a scientific basis for policies to address those inequities. This final chapter focuses on implementation: namely, how to transition from identifying research-based indicators of educational equity in concept to implementation of functioning system. READINESS OF INDICATORS FOR OPERATIONAL USE As detailed in Chapters 4 and 5, we propose indicators for seven domains. The first three domains (A, B, C) reflect transition points in students’ lives across K-12 education: readiness for the transition into kindergarten, steady progress through the grades, and readiness for the transition to post-secondary endeavors (see Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2). The other four domains (D, E, F, G) reflect structures and resources in the K-12 education system that can mitigate or exacerbate disparities: exposure to racial or socioeconomic segregation, access to high-quality early childhood education, access to high-quality curricula and instruction across all achievement levels, and access to supportive schools. For each of these domains, we propose one or more indicators that reflect factors that are (1) critical to academic success and education attainment and (2) sources of between-group differences. For each indicator, we suggest, mindful of parsimony, constructs to measure, track, and compare between-group differences. Some of the indicators we propose are ready to implement operationally: measures of the constructs have been developed and subgroup data are available at the school, district, state, and national levels. Attendance (or its converse, absenteeism) is an example: states and districts now have administrative data systems that enable reliable, valid, and accurate calculation of attendance rates (or absentee rates) and that support cross-state comparisons. Other indicators will require additional work before they can be implemented. For example, while many school systems evaluate readiness skills when children enter kindergarten, the assessments they use differ. They differ in terms of the skills assessed, the methods by which they are assessed, the timing of the assessments, and the way of determining readiness. These assessments can be useful in monitoring between-group differences in readiness at the local level, but further work is needed to implement them on a national basis. 6‐1 

Prepublication copy: Do Uncorrected proofs In our view, an equity indicator system must evolve, with structures, processes, and resources for continuous improvement in light of research, experience, and richer consensus. A corollary is that indicators or measures will not initially be identical in sophistication, or perhaps ever. As a practical matter, there will be differences in, among other characteristics: strength of research base; precise measures and data definitions across jurisdictions; availability of data disaggregation by population groups; and complexity arising from independent policy choices when there are no federal standards. For example, except for the federally constructed and administered National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), comparisons of achievement across jurisdictions are difficult because states use different tests for their assessments. For another example, for early childhood education states have different standards for quality, even for licensed providers. Differences in financial accounting systems will complicate comparison of resources. Therefore, an indicator system close to a researcher’s ideal is impossible, although a useful system is possible—especially if designed for continuous improvement, as we discuss below. Several of our proposed indicators and measures either exist or can be readily constructed from existing data collection systems mandated by federal or state policies; typically, these have the force of law by statute or regulation. In Chapters 2, 4, and 5—with addition details in Appendixes A, B, and C—described a vast array of nationwide data elements compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics, other agencies in the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Many, though not all, of the committee’s proposed indicators of education equity are available from existing data collection programs; not all data sources are collected on an annual basis, data sets vary in the extent to which indicators can be disaggregated by population group, and they vary in the unit of analysis (state, district, school, classroom). There is also variation in the availability of the data after collection. Many of the challenging key constructs (e.g., measures of socioeconomic status) are not always consistent among sources. Some indicators require modeling and linking of more than one data set. There has been innovative work to develop indicators in specific domains. One example is the work of the Stanford Education Data Archive in using calibration procedures to put state assessment results on a common scale based on the National Assessment for Education Progress (see description of the Stanford Education Data Archive in Appendix A). Another example is adjusted-per-pupil spending to measure equitable distribution of resources relative to student need (see description of the Education Law Center and Rutgers University collaboration in Appendix A). Such work indicates the potential for analytically meaningful indicators of education equity, although the effort required for the two examples cited is considerable and, at present, results in a lag in availability. There are many publications of key indicators for K–12 education and for child well- being more generally, and most publications link to more detailed underlying data. But none of the publications, including those that focus specifically on between-group disparities, presents a fully developed representation based on a carefully articulated concept of equity that covers all student groups of interest. In addition, the indicators in some reports are based on data sources that cannot support subnational detail, although in many cases the indicators could be developed from the bottom up by states and school districts for individual schools if there was a federal or national (meaning multistate) mechanism for coordination. In addition, data collection is not only a technical issue, but also a matter of public policy so there are political considerations and disagreement over such issues as compliance burdens and federalism: Which level of government has the “right” to impose data collection requirements and constructs? For example, 6‐2 

Prepublication copy: Do Uncorrected proofs the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) contains bare-bones requirements for data collection but leaves many design and implementation choices to states. ESSA is in some respects a federal framework, but it deemphasizes national uniformity by leaving many important choices to individual states. Relatedly, and relevant to the equity discussion, there is now serious political division over the future scope of the Civil Rights Data Collection program. CONCLUSION 6-1: Existing publications are mixed in their ability to support the committee’s proposed set of K-12 education equity indicators. There is at present limited support for creating within the federal government an expanded structure of nationally uniform data collection. IMPLEMENTATION Clearly, refining and implementing the committee’s proposed system would be easier if there were available data and indicators that simply needed to be brought together or modified slightly to satisfy the goals of an equity indicator system. Our review reveals that this is not the case. Considerable effort will be needed to assemble the necessary data and conduct the necessary analyses and data manipulations to generate comparable indicators for the nation, states, districts, and schools. Substantial effort will also be required to implement, evaluate, and improve a system of education equity indicators on a continuing, regular basis. Yet the committee concludes that such a system, including its continuous improvement, is essential for myriad social, economic, and fairness reasons. As we state throughout this report, a problem cannot be addressed if it is invisible. A system of equity indicators with its design based on research and consensus would, we believe, be a major advance in the nation’s capacity to understand and address ubiquitous disparities in education opportunities and outcomes. This is important for each level of government. Indeed, we believe it is an essential step. Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches We do not anticipate that an indicator system will be built in a day. Rather, we envision that a system would be developed gradually, making use of existing data first, adapting them to the needs of the indicator system, and making use of that beginning until a fuller system is developed. We see two paths forward. The first path (bottom up) is for a set of “early adopter” states and districts to partner with each other, researchers, stakeholders, and governmental or philanthropic funders to develop the design and implementation details for the indicator system we describe. This effort would provide the early adopters with useful information, but the more important goal would be creation of a prototype for other jurisdictions to adopt. The prototype would build on existing data and indicator systems used by the early adopters and would also be informed by broader analysis of successes and failures in other jurisdictions. This approach would need to grapple with the existing variation in many indicators, both within and across jurisdictions, and offer a way to consolidate indicators or establish comparability with disparate indicators. The second path (top down) is for the federal government, working with relevant educational intermediaries--particularly national organizations, such as the National Governors’ Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the Council of Great City Schools-- to develop an initial version of the indicator system we propose. (This is somewhat analogous to 6‐3 

Prepublication copy: Do Uncorrected proofs development of the Common Core State Standards.) This path would capitalize on data currently available as a first step and outline a plan and timetable to add other indicators as conceptual, methodological, and data issues are satisfactorily addressed. We see these paths as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. In the best case, they would operate concurrently and interact so that the on-the-ground experience of the prototypes can inform the national effort, and the national effort can facilitate ways for districts to improve their data and measures. Oversight and Guidance This country has a great deal of experience with national indicator systems. In the context of education, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is now more than 40 years old and commands respect throughout the field of education. It is overseen by a governing board (NAGB) that is charged with its oversight and who update and modify it so that it continues to be useful. NAEP provides a model that may be useful in designing the indicators system we propose. We note the involvement of federal, state, and local stakeholders, research firms with survey and test development expertise, and private foundations in the development, evaluation, and improvement of NAEP. We also note the time it took to establish NAEP as a valued national resource, which culminated with congressional action in 1988 to establish NAGB as the NAEP oversight body and in 2001 to require states to participate in math and reading assessments. NAEP is still evolving, having, for example, recently added a technology and engineering literacy assessment: see Box 6-1 for a chronology of key milestones in NAEP’s development. We see a need for such collaboration in the development of a national equity indicator system and suggest that interested stakeholders use it as a model. In particular, we see value in a governing body that would serve a role analogous to NAGB’s role in NAEP and that partners with the National Center for Education Statistics. We also note that other data collection efforts, such as the Current Population Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau also have oversight or advisory boards, as do several international education endeavors, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). There are many technical issues to address in formulating the system so the indicators are valid and useful, and a panel of experts to advise on these issues would be essential. There is also a need for input and buy-in from a range of stakeholders who can address not only the content of and process for producing an informative and coherent set of education equity indicators, but also guidance on how users can interpret the results. RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION 1: The federal government should coordinate with states, school districts, and educational intermediaries to incorporate the committee’s proposed 16 indicators of educational equity into their relevant data collection and reporting activities, strategic priorities, and plans to meet the equity aspects of the Every Student Succeeds Act. 6‐4 

Prepublication copy: Do Uncorrected proofs RECOMMENDATION 2: To ensure nationwide coverage and comparability, the federal government should work with states, school districts, and educational intermediaries to develop a national system of education equity indicators. Such a system should be the source of regular reports on the indicators and bring visibility to the long- standing disparities in education outcomes in the United States and should highlight both where progress is being made and where more progress is needed. RECOMMENDATION 3: In designing the recommended indicator system, the federal government in coordination with states, school districts, and educational intermediaries, should take care that the system enables reporting of indicators for historically disadvantaged groups of students and for specific combinations of demographic characteristics, such as race and ethnicity by gender. The system also should have the characteristics of effective systems of educational equity indicators identified by the committee. We note that the system of indicators we propose focuses on the role the education system should play in addressing academic disparities. Although unaddressed in this report, other child-serving agencies play an equally important role in helping children. The effects of adversity on a child or adolescent depends not only on individual resilience and natural variations in child development, but also on the child’s opportunity for experiences, interventions, and supports that may mitigate or even undo the effects of adversity, both material and psychological. That is, learning obstacles born of context are not student deficits barring success, but student needs that can be met with appropriate opportunities. Research is needed to increase understanding of how various interventions or opportunities map onto individual student needs that are rooted in context. Consensus-building is needed to create indicators and measures that should be included, eventually, in a broader equity indicator system. For many student needs, screening and responses can best be provided outside of the school settings. Therefore, an indicator system that encompasses all the domains of opportunity important for equity would need to monitor how well student success is supported by other child-serving agencies and nonprofit organizations. RECOMMENDATION 4: Governmental and philanthropic funders should work with researchers to develop indicators of the existence and effectiveness of systems of cross- agency integrated services that address context-related impediments to student success, such as trauma and chronic stress created by adversity. The indicators and measures should encompass screening, intervention, and supports delivered not only by school systems, but also by other child-serving agencies. A concerted effort is needed to create the system of equity indicators. Demonstration projects and early prototypes will help catalyze interest in the system and test its feasibility and usefulness. RECOMMENDATION 5: Public and private funders should support detailed design and implementation work for a comprehensive set of equity indicators, including an operational prototype. This work should involve: (1) self-selected “early adopter” states and districts; (2) intermediaries, such as the Council of Great City Schools, the Council of 6‐5 

Prepublication copy: Do Uncorrected proofs Chief State School Officers, and the National Governor’s Association; (3) stakeholder representatives; and (4) researchers. This work should focus on cataloguing the available data sources, determining areas of overlap and gaps, and seeking consensus on appropriate paths forward toward expanding the indicator system to a broader set of states and districts. Regardless of the path chosen, a system of equity indicators needs input and buy-in from a range of stakeholders. This input is needed to develop a process for producing an informative and coherent set of education equity indicators, determine the content of the indicators, and ensure that the results will be understood by users. For these purposes, we believe a governing body is needed to provide governance and implementation. We suggest that one analogous to the National Assessment Governing Board that partners with the National Center for Education Statistics could be a useful model. RECOMMENDATION 6: Public or private funders, or both, should establish an independent entity to govern the committee’s proposed education equity indicators. The responsibilities of this entity would include establishing and maintaining a system of research, evaluation, and development to drive continuous improvement in the indicators, measures of them, reporting and dissemination of results, and the system generally. This entity might be structured like the National Assessment Governing Board and might report on both levels of the various outcomes the committee proposes and equity gaps in those indicators, as the Governing Board currently does with NAEP. Acting on these recommendations will keep in the public eye a critical goal for the nation: to ensure that all students receive the supports they need to obtain a high-quality pre-K to grade12 education. Educating all students is fundamental to the nation’s ability to grow and develop and to afford all of its people the opportunity to live full and rewarding lives. 6‐6 

Prepublication copy: Do Uncorrected proofs BOX 6-1 Milestones in the Evolution of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) Early 1960s: The idea of a national assessment gains impetus, fueled in part by the 1957 Sputnik launch, which led to the 1958 National Education Defense Act; the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which required a report on equality of education opportunity; the successes and challenges of one-time assessments, including Project Talent and the Equality of Educational Opportunity Survey). 1964: NAEP planning begins, with a grant from the Carnegie Corporation to set up the Exploratory Committee for the Assessment of Progress in Education. 1969: The first NAEP assessments are held, covering citizenship, science, and writing performance of national samples of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old in-school students, as well as out-of-school 17-year-olds. RTI International conducts the assessments under contract to the Education Commission of the States, which has a grant from the National Center for Education Statistics. 1971: Sample sizes for assessments are expanded to represent Hispanic students. 1971-1973: NAEP assesses 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds every 4 years in reading and math for “Long-Term Trend NAEP,” in which content is kept as comparable as possible over time. 1979: The sample of out-of-school 17-year-olds is dropped because of costs. 198n: A review of NAEP requested by NAEP’s-then governing body, the Assessment Policy Committee, and funded by the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation, and Spencer Foundation (see Wirtz and Lapointe, 1982), commends NAEP’s quality but calls for inclusion of a broader range of stakeholders in the development and interpretation of NAEP test items, for better reporting of results, and for providing more testing services to states and school districts. 1983: The Educational Testing Service (now, ETS) and Westat win a 5-year grant for NAEP with new design features, including matrix sampling to reduce the burden on students, the use of item response theory for summarizing results on a common scale for students given different test booklets, provision for testing special needs students, and identification of anchor points on the scale scores to present results. 1987: A second major evaluation of NAEP (see Alexander, James, and Glaser, 1987) recommends a change in the NAEP governing structure. 1988: Congress passes amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, authorizing an independent governing board, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to set NAEP policy, prepare assessment frameworks, and execute the initial release of each round of assessments in “The Nation’s Report Card.” 1990: Voluntary assessments for states begin on a trial basis and become a permanent feature of NAEP; achievement levels (basic, proficient, advanced), each of which indicates what a student is expected to know, replace scale anchoring points. 1990: Congress revises the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and renames it the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; NAEP includes students with disabilities and with limited English proficiency. 6‐7 

Prepublication copy: Do Uncorrected proofs 1990-1992: For math and reading, “main NAEP,” in which content is modified about every 10 years to reflect changes in school curricula, assesses 4th-, 8th-, and 12th- grade students. 2001: Congress mandates that all states participate in main NAEP every 2 years for 4th- and 8th-grade students and every 4 years for 12th grade students. 2002: Selected urban districts participate in state-level assessments on a trial basis and continue as the Trial Urban District Assessment. 2009: NAEP science assessment framework is revised and includes interactive computer tasks for a sample of students. 2011: Writing assessment for 8th- and 12th-grade students is administered entirely on computer. 2014: A new technology and engineering literacy assessment is conducted entirely on computer. SOURCE: Adapted from Beaton, et al. (2011). 6‐8 

Next: References and Bibliography »
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!