Maybe It’s the (Lack of) Money that Explains the Relationship Between Black-White Achievement Gaps and Disproportionate Disciplinary Suspensions?

Analyzing the Results of a New National Study: Why Some “Two-Dimensional Problems” Need “Three-Dimensional Thinking”

 

[CLICK HERE for the Entire Blog Message]

Dear Colleagues,

 

Introduction

   Every day, I get e-mail briefings discussing or analyzing a wide variety of world, national, and professional issues, reports, or perspectives. One of my favorites is Smartbrief’s “While You Were Working” (WYWW).

   Last month, WYWW had a story about an on-line personality assessment questionnaire with an invitation to take it.

   While I typically pass on these opportunities (why would a psychologist want to know “why he ticks”? . . . actually, I’m just joking), I jumped on this one.

   Fifteen minutes later—after completing the questionnaire using my “work persona,” I had my “psychological profile.”  It included the following descriptors:  

You like to think in plain and simple terms.  Others describe you as down-to-earth, practical, and conservative.  You do not react with intense emotions, even to situations that most people would describe as stressful.  You set clear goals and pursue them with determination. People regard you as reliable and hard-working.  You have a strong interest in others' needs and well-being.

   If anything, relative to my work as an organizational and school psychological consultant in districts across the country (and world), I think that I am a research-to-practice straight-shooter. 

   That is, while it is never my goal to offend, when the facts are clear, I am not afraid to share these facts—even if they are counter to someone else’s psychoeducational beliefs, actions, practices, or interventions.  Indeed, as a consultant, I truly believe that it would be inappropriate for me to withhold my opinions—for example, with a superintendent—even though I know said opinions may be counter to those of the superintendent him or herself.

   As a bottom line:  I am an advocate for students—working to ensure that their academic and social-emotional outcomes are maximized from preschool through high school—and beyond.  I believe that I need to be “true” to these students—many of whose “voices” are not heard in their classrooms, within their schools, or across their districts.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Describing a Recent National Study Investigating Racial Discrepancies in Achievement and School Suspensions

   In this context of advocating for all students, I want to review and analyze a study published last month on October 15, 2019 in AERA Open, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association.

   The article was titled, “Are Achievement Gaps Related to Discipline Gaps? Evidence from National Data.”

[CLICK HERE for original article]

   But then, I want to connect the results of this study with a topic that I have discussed in a number of Blogs this year: The Funding Inequity between Majority Black and Majority White schools.

   While a “hidden” variable in the “Achievement Gap” study, I believe that the inequitable funding between schools that serve mostly white versus mostly students of color may triangulate with the racial achievement and racial discipline gaps found.  In fact, I believe that it may be a primary predictor in the achievement and discipline gaps discussed in the AERA Open article.  Indeed, in my past Blogs, we have already discussed how inequitable funding correlates with some of the negative outcomes for students of color—especially African-American students.

_ _ _ _ _

The Achievement/Discipline Gap Study in a Nutshell

   This study, authored by Pearman, Curran, Fisher, and colleagues at Stanford University, the University of Florida, the University of Louisville, and Drexel University, analyzed the correlations between academic achievement and school suspension/disciplinary gaps for White, Hispanic, and Black students—from third through eighth grade—from over 2,000 school districts across the country.  The data were pulled from the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection and the Stanford Education Data Archive for the 2011-12 and 2013-14 school years, and the districts were chosen to be nationally representative.

   Overall, the statistical analyses showed that:

• Students of all races faced higher suspension rates in districts with bigger racial achievement gaps—but they took a particular toll on black students.

For every 10 percentage-point increase in a district’s gap in math and reading performance between white and black students, there was a 30 percent larger black-white gap in suspension rates than the national average for similar districts.

Likewise, a school district with a 10 percentage-point wider disparity in suspensions between black and white students would have a black-white achievement gap that was 17 percent larger than the average for similar districts nationwide.

_ _ _ _ _

• For every 1 percentage point increase in the discipline gap, there was a 0.02 standard deviation increase in the Black-White achievement gap, and a 0.03 standard deviation increase in the Hispanic-White achievement gap.

This means that the racial achievement gap in a district that suspended 10% of its Black or Hispanic students but only 5% of its White students would be predicted to have a Black-White and Hispanic-White achievement gap that was 0.10 and 0.15 standard deviations larger, respectively, than a district that suspended the same proportion of minority and White students.

_ _ _ _ _

• Academically, the racial discipline gap in a district whose White students scored, on average, 1 standard deviation higher than its minority students would be predicted to have a Black-White and Hispanic-White discipline gap that was 3.67 and 1.24 percentage points larger, respectively, than a district whose minority and White students achieved at similar levels academically.

Districts with higher levels of achievement for Black students had lower suspension rates for Black students.

_ _ _ _ _

• Even after controlling for unobserved district-level characteristics (see a discussion of these below), a 1 percentage point increase in the Black-White discipline gap was associated with a 0.01 standard deviation increase in the Black-White achievement gap.

In other words, two districts that were otherwise equivalent on observable and time-invariant unobservable characteristics but that suspended differing shares of Black relative to White students would also differ, on average, in racial achievement gaps, with the achievement gap being larger in the district that suspended greater shares of Black relative to White students.

Moreover, a 1 standard deviation increase in the achievement gap between Black and White students is associated with a 2.2 percentage point increase in the Black-White discipline gap after accounting for observable and time-invariant unobservable differences between school districts.

_ _ _ _ _

• One reason for the positive adjusted association between the Black-White discipline gap and the Black-White achievement gap is that Black students perform poorer, on average, in districts that suspend them at elevated rates compared with their White counterparts.  There is no evidence, however, that the racial discipline gap is predictive of White students’ achievement.

In other words, the Black-White discipline gap’s positive relationship with the Black-White achievement gap is attributable, in part, to the Black-White discipline gap being predictive of lower achievement for Black student—but unpredictive of White students’ achievement.

_ _ _ _ _

   Significantly, Pearman and his colleagues were very aware of the district, student demographic, and other variables that might confound the results of their study.  Thus, relative to the results documented above, they statistically controlled (to neutralize) these different variables—in essence, factoring their potential influence (or bias) out of the empirical analyses.

   Indeed, the authors stated:

(P)rior research has shown that out-of-school factors, especially those related to poverty, influence student achievement and disciplinary problems, with poverty-related factors being inversely related to student achievement and positively related to disciplinary problems (Gregory et al., 2010). Consequently, this study controls for a set of factors at the community level that approximate the amount of disadvantage within district neighborhoods.

The following characteristics were gathered from the 2009–2014 American Community Survey and aggregated to the level of the school district: median income, percentage of adults with bachelor’s degree or higher, percentage of households that are female headed, unemployment rates, and percentage of residents living at or below the federal poverty line.

It is also possible that discipline and achievement disparities may arise as the result of a broader racial climate in a school district that disproportionately favors White students over Black or Hispanic students, such as attitudes that lead teachers and administrators to differentially suspend students by race or that lead teachers to differentially cater to the academic needs of one group of students over the other (Mattison & Aber, 2007).

This study therefore controls for two proxies of a district’s broader racial climate: differential special education assignment by race and differential gifted and talented assignment by race.

In addition to differential treatment by race, a potential relation between racial achievement gaps and racial discipline gaps might also be confounded by racial disparities in other key educational inputs. For instance, discipline gaps and achievement gaps may arise because students of color are disproportionately of lower income or because they are in bigger classes.

Consequently, we also control for racial differences in free and reduced-price lunch status, and racial differences in student-teacher ratios.

_ _ _ _ _

   As is evident in the results above, the links between suspensions and test performance remained significant for black students even after the researchers controlled for other district characteristics, such as parents’ education levels, the concentration of poverty among students, and the level of racial segregation among districts.

_ _ _ _ _

Summarizing the Study

   The authors summarized the results as follows:

We find evidence that districts with larger racial discipline gaps have larger racial achievement gaps (and vice versa). Though other district-level differences account for the positive association between the Hispanic-White discipline gap and the Hispanic-White achievement gap, we find robust evidence that the positive association between the Black-White discipline gap and the Black-White achievement gap persists after controlling for a multitude of confounding factors (e.g., parents’ education levels, the concentration of poverty among students, the level of racial segregation among districts). We also find evidence that the mechanisms connecting achievement to disciplinary outcomes are more salient for Black than White students.

We also found evidence that the association between the Black-White achievement gap and the Black-White discipline gap was attributable, in part, to the tight coupling of achievement and discipline for Black students in particular, who experience higher suspension rates in districts with larger achievement gaps and who experience higher achievement in districts that suspend them less frequently. Notably, this tight coupling of discipline and achievement was not observed for White students. This pattern indicates that the mechanisms connecting achievement and discipline (e.g., teacher biases, peer effects, feelings of belonging) are more salient for Black than White students.

While the results of our study do not speak directly to solutions to discipline and achievement gaps, they do suggest that interventions aimed at addressing one gap may have potential to influence the other. First, recent research has found that teacher professional development focused on improving instructional capacity and other classroom practices improves classroom behavior and reduces racial disparities in discipline (Gregory, Allen, Mikami, Hafen, & Pianta, 2015), which may be particularly the case for curricular and pedagogical approaches deemed successful at raising the academic achievement of ethno-racial minorities, such as culturally relevant teaching and ethnic studies programs (see, for instance, Dee & Penner, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Milner, 2010). Second, a body of evidence is emerging on alternative disciplinary practices that can reduce the time students spend out of the learning environment.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Show Me the Money:  Does Discrepant Black-White School Funding Triangulate with These Achievement and Disciplinary Results?

   The Pearman and Colleagues study is both impressive and significant to our greater understanding of the relationship between academic achievement and disciplinary discrepancies among white students and students of color.

   And yet, it did not seem to emphasize a third, triangulated factor—the funding discrepancies between majority white versus non-white schools.

   To make sure that I was not misreading the article, I e-mailed Dr. Pearman to ask if I missed anything in the treatment of school funding in their analyses.

   Here is his response:

Thanks for the note, Howie—and thanks for your interest in the study.

Our study did not focus on spending so I would be cautious about extending our findings in that direction (we would have modeled things a little differently had spending been a focus).

Nevertheless, I think you can find a partial answer to your question in Columns 6 of Tables 1-4, which provides coefficient estimates for included covariates in the preferred model (district FEs), including per pupil spending.

Bear in mind that because we didn’t focus on spending, we didn’t do anything with it besides simply control for it. Consequently, the only thing the models reveal is whether school spending is related to either the discipline gap or the achievement gap, but not whether school spending is related to the relationship between the discipline gap and the achievement gap, which sounds like what you may actually be interested in.

At any rate, school spending does show up as significantly (and negatively) related to the Black-White and Hispanic-White achievement gap, as might be (optimistically) expected. Interestingly, and somewhat counterintuitively, school spending shows up as positively related to the Black-White discipline gap, as shown in Column 6 of Table 3, despite being negatively related in Models 1-5. Unfortunately, I have not thought much about this coefficient (it wasn’t of interest in our study), so I do not have any theories for this pattern at the moment. 

_ _ _ _ _

   So. . . in essence, Pearman’s research found that, as school spending increased in the districts that they studied: (a) Black-White and Hispanic-White achievement gaps decreased; and (b) Black-White discipline gaps increased.

   And yet, while Pearman’s research controlled for school spending, it did not—as he noted—differentiate between and explicitly analyze the funding gaps that have been previously established between majority white and majority students of color schools (see below).

   Had they run these analyses, Pearman and his colleagues may have confirmed some of the research-to-practice that we have previously discussed.

_ _ _ _ _

Summarizing What We Know about the Impact of School Funding Discrepancies

   Earlier this Spring, near the 65th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, I wrote two Blog messages addressing the national issue and reality of how students and schools are inequitably funded relative to their students’ psychoeducational and multi-tiered academic and behavioral needs. 

   One of the “bottom lines” discussed was that:

While segregated educational facilities were deemed by the Supreme Court to be inherently unequal, the quality of instruction and the availability of resources and money in today’s schools—for many students from poverty and students of color—is unequal.

   Indeed, at the root of this statement was an April, 2019 Report by the Shanker Institute, The Adequacy and Fairness of State School Finance Systems.  This Report demonstrated that there is a cumulative state education funding gap in this country of $23 billion per year favoring white over non-white districts—a gap that is experienced by approximately 12.8 million of our nation’s students.

[CLICK HERE for Part I of this Series:

Solving Student Crises in the Context of School Inequity: The Case for “Core-Plus District Funding” (Part I). When Schools Struggle with Struggling Students: “We Didn’t Start the Fire.”]

_ _ _ _ _

[CLICK HERE for Part II of this Series:

The Journey toward Real School Equity: Students’ Needs Should Drive Student Services … and Funding (Part II). The Beginning of the Next School Year Starts Now: The “Get-Go Process”

_ _ _ _ _

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Message that provides:

• An in-depth summary of the two previous Blog messages above—focusing on the impact on students from poverty and students of color especially when they attend disproportionate—and lower-funded schools, and how these students’ academic and behavioral status directly relates to the Pearman study reviewed above.

• A comprehensive review of the May 15, 2019 Report from the Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce: Born to Win, Schooled to Lose: Why Equally Talented Students Don’t Get Equal Chances to Be All They Can Be, and how this Report relates to the Pearman research.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   High-poverty non-white schools in this country receive significantly less money per pupil each year than high-poverty white schools and middle or upper class dominated schools, respectfully.  This disproportionate funding affects approximately 12.8 million students.

   Because of this financial inequity, these high-poverty schools have fewer resources than middle or upper class-dominant schools, and they are typically staffed by less experienced teachers who have more skill gaps, and who resign from their schools more often and after fewer years in-rank.  In addition, the students in these schools typically have less access to high level science, math, and advanced placement courses, and less access to needed multi-tiered academic and social, emotional, and behavioral services, supports, programs, and interventions.  

   In their October 15, 2019 AERA Open study, Pearman and Colleagues found that:

• Districts with larger racial discipline gaps had larger racial achievement gaps (and vice versa).

• The positive association between the Black-White discipline gap and the Black-White achievement gap persisted after controlling for a multitude of confounding factors.

• The association between the Black-White achievement gap and the Black-White discipline gap was attributable, in part, to the tight coupling of achievement and discipline for Black students in particular, who experience higher suspension rates in districts with larger achievement gaps and who experience higher achievement in districts that suspend them less frequently.

• This tight coupling of discipline and achievement was not observed for White students. This pattern indicates that the mechanisms connecting achievement and discipline (e.g., teacher biases, peer effects, feelings of belonging) are more salient for Black than White students.

   And while Pearman and Colleagues controlled for school spending in their study, they did not differentiate between and explicitly analyze the funding gaps established in the Shanker Institute and Georgetown University studies, respectively.

   Nonetheless, Pearman’s research did find that, as school spending increased in the districts that they studied: (a) Black-White and Hispanic-White achievement gaps decreased; and (b) Black-White discipline gaps increased.

   But until they re-analyze their data to differentiate the funding in their majority white versus majority students of color districts, we will not know whether there is a significant funding-achievement-discipline triangle, and whether the seemingly contradictory results immediately above are real or an artifact of the analyses conducted.

_ _ _ _ _

   What we do know from the entire Blog discussion [CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Discussion] is that:

• There is a relationship between the White-Black achievement and discipline gaps (Pearman and Colleagues);

• There is a significant funding discrepancy between majority white and majority students of color schools (Shanker Institute);

• The funding gap does significantly impact the academic achievement of students experiencing socio-economic inequity who attend schools with large numbers of poor students; and  

• The funding gap correlates with factors whereby students demonstrating social, emotional, and behavioral (including disciplinary) challenges are not receiving the multi-tiered prevention, strategic intervention, and intensive need/crisis management services, supports, programs, and interventions that they need.

_ _ _ _ _

   In the end, districts and schools have more permission and flexibility (especially under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) to distribute their funds to differentially address the students and schools with the greatest need (i.e., Core-Plus Funding).

   But funding aside, there are ways to implement effective, evidence-based approaches that address disproportionate curriculum, instruction, achievement, and disciplinary practices. 

   For begin this process, feel free to review two of our free monographs:

Implementing Project ACHIEVE at the School and District Levels: School Improvement and Positive Behavioral Support Systems/Social-Emotional Learning Overview

and

A Multi-Tiered Service & Support Implementation Blueprint for Schools & Districts: Revisiting the Science to Improve the Practice

[CLICK HERE and Look at the Bottom of the Page]

   While evidence-based practices may long out-impact increases in funding, we still need to “level the funding playing field,” and there are still too many districts—especially in the rural areas of our country—who simply need more funding.

_ _ _ _ _

   As always, I appreciate those of you reading these thoughts.  If you have comments or questions, please feel free to contact me. 

   And please also feel free to take advantage of my standing offer for a free, one-hour conference call consultation with you and your team at any time.

   Meanwhile, have a Happy Thanksgiving—filled with good food, fellowship, and the warmth of your families celebrating together.

Best,

Howie

Closing Secondary Students’ Significant Academic Skill Gaps: Teach at Their Grade Level or Their Skill Level? (Part II)

Reviewing Two Recent Studies of Math Deficient Students

 

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Message]

Introduction

   Two Blog messages ago (on September 28th), I began a two-part discussion on:

Closing Academic Gaps in Middle and High School:  When Students Enroll without Mastering Elementary Prerequisites (Part I)

The MTSS Dilemma—Differentiate at the Grade Level or Remediate at the Student Skill Level?

[CLICK HERE to link to that Blog Message]

   While I usually publish two-part messages back-to-back, my October interview with Education Talk Radio host Larry Jacobs on:

The Traps and Troubles with “Trauma-Informed” Schools:  Most Approaches Are Not Scientifically-Based, Field-Tested, Validated, or Multi-Tiered

was too time-sensitive to delay even a few weeks.

[CLICK HERE for the actual 28-minute October 4th Education Talk Radio Interview—if you missed it]

[CLICK HERE for the related Full Blog Message on how to implement effective science-to-practice Trauma Sensitive schools]

. . . But now we’re back on track.  
_ _ _ _ _

   In this Blog (Part II), we will briefly:·      

• Revisit our Part I discussion of how secondary schools currently do and (recommended) should address students who enter with academic skills so low that they can’t conceivably succeed in grade-level coursework; and then 

• Review and apply the results of two important and topic-relevant research studies, one published in 2018—but referenced in a the74 Million article about a month ago, and another published this Fall by New Classrooms that addresses the results and implications of district, state, and federal policies that suggest—or even require—teachers to focus on grade-level standards regardless of their difficulty or their students’ mastery of the prerequisite skills that predict successful learning and advancement.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Revisiting the Secondary-Level MTSS Dilemma: When Students “Rise-Up” without Mastering Elementary- or Readiness-Level Prerequisites

   In Part I, we discussed a common middle and high school pedagogical problem that occurs when students transition in (or up), and they haven’t mastered the prerequisite academic skills to succeed at the next grade level. 

[CLICK HERE to Link to Blog Discussion, Part I]

   While this occurs most often in the areas of English, reading, and literacy, or mathematics, calculation, and numeracy, we sometimes forget the impact on students’ learning when they are also unprepared to effectively write or communicate verbally at their grade levels.

   And then there are the “lateral effects” when students’ low literacy or mathematics skills negatively impact their learning and performance in science, the social sciences, or in other transdisciplinary areas.

   Typically, when students’ prerequisite academic skills are so low that everyone knows that they have virtually no chance of passing the next middle or high school course, most schools use one of the following Options:

·       Option 1.  Schools schedule the “not-ready-for-prime-time” students into their existing course sequences, and teach them at their grade levels—hoping that effective differentiated instruction will close the existing achievement gaps at the same time that the students learn and master the new, course-related content and skills.

_ _ _ _ _

·       Option 2.  Schools use Option 1—scheduling the “not-ready-for-prime-time” students into their existing course sequences, and then they offer/provide tutors or tutoring (usually before or after school) to supplement the instruction and “close” the gaps.

_ _ _ _ _

·       Option 3.  Schools “double-block” the students—scheduling them into the existing course sequences while also giving them an additional academic period a day (or less) to remediate their skills gaps. 

_ _ _ _ _

·       Option 4.  Schools “double-block” the students, but the students have the same teacher for both blocks.  This allows the teacher to follow the grade-level course’s syllabus, but s/he can spend time remediating students’ prerequisite skills gaps and adapting the instruction so they are prepared for and can learn and master the grade-level course material.

 

_ _ _ _ _

   The Part I discussion emphasized the importance of completing, for all students with significant academic skill gaps, a data-based problem-solving process—including diagnostic assessments to determine the depth, breadth, and root causes of the gaps—so that needed services, supports, instructional strategies, and interventions are accurately identified.

   While we understand the time, effort, and good intentions of our school colleagues, we still noted that:

Unfortunately, many schools have some data, but it is descriptive and not diagnostic data.  And then they use these data to inadvertently play “intervention roulette”—throwing “interventions” at problems without really knowing the root causes as to why they exist.

   To demonstrate the benefits of the recommended diagnostic assessment, data-based problem-solving process, we also noted that:

In reality, based on their data-based student analyses, schools may be well-advised to have Options 1, 3, and 4 available in order to maximize the learning and mastery of different students with different learning histories and instructional needs.

   For example, while Option 2—Tutoring can be effective for students with narrow skill gaps, these Options will not work for students with significant academic skill gaps.

   [For Option 3, obviously, schools need to coordinate the curriculum, instruction, and interventions in order to attain the strongest student outcomes.]

_ _ _ _ _

   The Part I discussion then differentiated between middle schools versus high schools that have students with critical academic skill gaps.

   Here we noted that middle schools (if they choose to take it) have more flexibility to “individualize” their students, staff, and courses than high schools—especially when the latter are not allowed (usually, by their state education codes) to give course credit for “remedial” courses.  This helps deliver the targeted interventions that students with significant skill gaps need.

   Indeed, we recommended that middle schools, if they know the academic and behavioral status of their rising 6th graders in April or May (an implicit recommendation), they can align their students, staff, and courses to flexibly meet the needs of different clusters of students—from those entering with significant academic skill gaps, to those whose academic skills already exceed the 6th grade courses they might “repeat.”

   We concluded that, if middle school students with significant academic skill gaps “pass” their courses, but do not master the “elementary” and “middle school” skills that they need, we have simply passed the “problem” on to the high school “to solve.”

_ _ _ _ _

   At the high school level, we described a number of “stark realities” (please see the original post).  These led up to an Option 5 that we said—under explicit conditions—should be allowed, if not encouraged, by every state department of education and the U.S. Department of Education.

   Option 5 is for students who have no chance of passing their next middle or high school course even using Options 1, 3, or 4 above—because their prerequisite academic skills are so low.  This appraisal is based on objective, multi-instrument, diagnostic skill gap analyses of each struggling student—conducted at the relevant secondary school level.

   Option 5 involves scheduling students into a course (or a double-blocked course) in their academic area(s) of deficiency that targets its focus and instruction on the students’ functional, instructional skill level.  That is, the course takes students from their lowest points of skill mastery (regardless of level), and moves them flexibly through each grade level’s scope and sequence as quickly as they can master and apply the material. 

   This should be an instructional—not a credit recovery or computer/software-dependent—course with a teacher qualified both in instruction and intervention. 

   Moreover, this is the students’ only course in the targeted academic area, and the course instructors are responsible for making the content and materials relevant to the grade level of the student, even as they are teaching specific academic skills at the students’ current functional skill levels.

   Thus, students are not concurrently taking a grade-level course in the same academic area (as in Options 1 through 4 above).  In addition, the teachers in these students’ science, social science, or other courses also know the students’ current functional skill levels—differentiating their instruction as needed, while providing additional supports, so that the students’ areas of academic weakness do not negatively impact their learning in these “lateral” courses.

_ _ _ _ _

   Possible Student Candidates for Option 5.  Part I of this Series discussed the possible (combination of) reasons why rising-secondary students transition from elementary to middle school—or middle school to high school—without the prerequisite academic skills to succeed at the next grade level. 

   For students with significant academic skill and mastery gaps at the secondary level, the most common root causes described were:

·     There were significant instructional gaps during the student’s educational history such that the student did not have the opportunity to learn and master essential academic skills.

This includes, for example, students who were (a) home-schooled, (b) had new teachers who were unprepared to teach, (c) had long-term substitute or out-of-field teachers for lengthy periods of time, or (d) were in classrooms with too many different student skill groups for the teachers to effectively teach.

_ _ _ _ _

·     There were significant curricular gaps during the student’s educational history such that the student did not have the opportunity to learn and master essential academic skills.

This includes, for example, (a) schools without the appropriate evidence-based curricula or curricular materials to support teachers’ goals of effectively differentiating instruction; (b) schools where teachers—at the same grade level—were teaching the same content but with different algorithms, rubrics, or skill scripts that were then not reinforced by the next year’s teachers—especially as they “inherited” a mix of students who were taught specific skills in vastly different ways; or (c) schools that adopted grade-level curricula that were not aligned with state academic standards, and that did not articulate with the curricular expectations at the next grade level.

_ _ _ _ _

·     The schools, attended by the student during his/her educational history, had an absent, inadequate, or ineffective multi-tiered system of supports that did not address his or her academic needs.

_ _ _ _ _

·     The student was taught, over a long or significant period of time, in a school or classroom where the relationships or climates were so negative (or negatively perceived by him/her) that they impacted his/her long-term academic engagement, motivation, attendance, and access or ability to learn.

_ _ _ _ _

·     The student had known or has newly-diagnosed (due to the root cause analysis) biological, physiological, biochemical, neurological, or other physically- or medically-related conditions or factors that significantly impacted his or her learning and mastery, or the speed that s/he learns and masters new skills.

_ _ _ _ _

·     The student had (and may still have) frequent or significant personal, familial, or other traumatic life events or crises that impacted his or her academic engagement, motivation, attendance, and access or ability to learn.

_ _ _ _ _

·     The student’s skill gaps created such a level of frustration that the resulting social, emotional, or behavioral reactions by the student (along an “acting out” to “checking out” continuum) overshadowed the original and present academic concerns—resulting in the absence of (or the student’s avoidance of) needed services or supports.

_ _ _ _ _

   We concluded that the vast majority of these root causes point to the fact that students who will most benefit from Option 5 are students who did not have the opportunity to originally learn and master the academic skills that are now embedded in their significant skill gap.

   At the same time, we emphasized that many of these student will need additional social, emotional, or behavioral services and supports so that the academic interventions can be successful. . . and that their motivation and positive, active engagement in the Option 5 course(s) and classroom will be a key factor in determining success. 

   This is especially true at the high school level, when students are confronted with the reality of a four-plus year high school career (which—from an adolescent’s perspective—may look worse than dropping out, or going for a GED).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

   Connecting Root Cause Analyses with a Continuum of Academic Supports and Interventions.  Finally, in Part I, we emphasized that:

Option 5 will only succeed if the best services, supports, strategies, and interventions are matched to the root causes that explain why secondary students have such significant academic skill gaps.

   Expanding on this discussion, we described the key components of our Positive Academic Supports and Services (PASS) continuum. . . a science-to-practice blueprint that, in the context of the current discussion, is tailored to each individual student’s needs (see the Figure below).

                    

[CLICK HERE to Link to Blog Discussion, Part I]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Validating the Magnitude of the Problem for Students with Significant Skill Gaps

   To the continue the discussion begun in Part I, we are now going to focus on the impact and implications when students have significant skill gaps in mathematics at the secondary level. 

   Pedagogically, and in contrast to literacy, math tends to be more finite (i.e., there are right and wrong answers), more dependent on specific mathematical algorithms (e.g., formulae or clear problem-solving steps), and more sequentially scaffolded—with certain skills laying the “foundation” as prerequisite skills to a next set of skills.  Thus, math is a perfect area to investigate the “impact and implications” noted above.

   In a the74 article published on September 24, 2019, Joel Rose the CEO of New Classroom Innovation Partners, and Daniel Weisberg the CEO of TNTP—organizations that both focus on helping schools to address the needs of underachieving students—discussed their work with students with significant skill gaps in mathematics.

[CLICK HERE for the74 article, “Do Kids Fall Behind in Math Because There Isn’t Enough Grade-level Material, or Because There’s Too Much?  It’s Both”]

   Citing a 2018 TNTP Report, “The Opportunity Myth,” they stated that this Report found:

when students don’t meet grade-level standards, the problem usually isn’t that they tried and failed but that they were never given a real chance to try in the first place. The 4,000 students TNTP studied across five school systems spent hundreds of hours each year on work that was below their grade level. Those who started the year behind academically were the least likely to have grade-appropriate assignments—even when they were capable of succeeding on them—making it nearly impossible for them to ever catch up to their peers.

   In essence, Rose and Weisberg are talking about (what we call) Instructional or Curricular Casualties. 

   These are students who “rise up” to middle or high school with significant skill gaps because of (a) the poor quality of previous mathematical instruction; (b) the poor quality of the progress monitoring, early intervention, or intensive intervention systems; (c) the poor selection or design of effective curricular lessons and materials in math; and/or (d) the poor sequencing or scaffolding of the math curriculum—including providing students opportunities for massed, distributed, and applied practice.

   Critically, Instructional or Curricular Casualty Students can learn, they just have not had the sustained opportunity to learn.

_ _ _ _ _

   This is in contrast to students who have legitimate difficulty learning and independently mastering their mathematical skills—even in the face of good, differentiated instruction, and well-designed and implemented curricular materials.  While a small number of these students may have a specific learning disability in math, the vast majority need more strategic instruction a different instructional approach, smaller learning and mastery “chunks,” higher ratios of known to unknown material, and more positive practice repetitions relative to memorization and automatic recall or application.

_ _ _ _ _

   Regardless of why a student has a significant skill gap in mathematics, the impact and implications are notable.

   In their the74 article, Rose and Weisberg reproduced a figure (see below) from a 2012 ACT report that longitudinally analyzed tens of thousands of students who were behind in math in fourth versus eighth grade, respectively.  The goal was to identify—from a normative perspective—how  many students academically “caught up” over a four-year period of time.

   As is evident in the figure:

·       Students who began 4th grade “at grade level,” had an 82% probability of being on grade level in 8th grade—four years later.

·       Students who began 8th grade “at grade level,” had an 70% probability of being on grade level in 12th grade—four years later.

·       Students who began 4th grade “off track,” had an 46% probability of being on grade level in 8th grade—four years later.

·       Students who began 8th grade “off track,” had an 19% probability of being on grade level in 12th grade—four years later.

·       Students who began 4th grade “far off track,” had an 10% probability of being on grade level in 8th grade—four years later.

·       Students who began 8th grade “far off track,” had an 3% probability of being on grade level in 12th grade—four years later

   From the Report, it appears that most of the (especially) “far off track” students were receiving Options 1 through Option 4 above.  This Report and these data simply reinforce that these Options have a low probability of significantly improving the learning, mastery, and math proficiency of students with significant skill gaps—in both middle and high school.

   This, at least, puts the consideration of Option 5 “on the table”—once again, in the context of both root cause analyses and multi-tiered systems of support.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Iceberg Problem in Mathematics:  How Policies, Practices, and Resources Limit Option 5

   Rose and Weisberg’s the74 article goes on to reference a September 2019 Report released by Rose’s New Classroom Innovation Partners:

“The Iceberg Problem: How Assessment and Accountability Policies Cause Learning Gaps in Math to Persist Below the Surface . . . and What to Do About It”

[CLICK HERE for Report]

   I encourage everyone to read this 75-page Report which provides compelling information on (a) how different math skills are scaffolded across most mathematics curricula; and (b) the cumulative (negative) effects that occur when students fall significantly behind in their learning and mastery of previous, now-prerequisite skills—and yet, they are scheduled into courses that teach at their current grade level.

   Below are the four “Key Insights” from Report—conclusions that support the primary theses of this two-part Blog Series.

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Message with expanded discussions of these Insights]

Key Insight #1:  Math is cumulative—unfinished learning from prior years makes it harder for students to master more advanced concepts.

Key Insight #2:  Current educational policies favoring grade-level instruction (i.e., teaching students at their current grade placements) are hindering many students’ longer-term success.

Key Insight #3: Balancing pre-grade level, on-grade level, and post-grade level skills to each student’s needs can better support their long-term success.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   This Blog Series has focused on the instructional dilemma that occurs when students transition from elementary to middle school—or middle school to high school—and their academic skill levels are so low that (a) they have no hope of learning or succeeding in the courses at the next grade level, and (b) their skill gaps are so significant that the different remedial options that most schools use will not close the gaps. 

   During the discussion, the four Options that most middle or high schools use to address this dilemma were described—noting their differential strengths and weaknesses, and how schools miss (or ignore) the fact that these options will not address these students’ significant needs.

   We then detailed a number “stark realities” that we summarized in the following ways:

·       If middle school students with significant academic skill gaps “pass” their courses, but do not master the “elementary” and “middle school” skills that they need, we have simply passed the “problem” on to the high school “to solve.”

·       Moreover, if these students “pass” courses and “graduate” from their high schools without mastering the academic and related skills needed to truly succeed at the “college and/or career level,” the schools have not accomplished their educational mission and a disservice has been done to the students.

   From a multi-tiered perspective, then, the goal is to complete (a) a data-based problem-solving process that links the results of a root cause analysis to strategic or intensive services, supports, strategies, and interventions; and (b) to consider a fifth option where students are taught at their functional skill and mastery levels, and where they receive the interventions and supports needed to learn, master, and progress through the academic skills needed to ultimately be successful at their true grade levels. 

_ _ _ _ _

   This current Part II presented information and data specifically in the area of mathematics.  It was noted that, in contrast with literacy, math tends to be more finite (i.e., there are right and wrong answers), more dependent on specific mathematical algorithms (e.g., formulae or clear problem-solving steps), and more sequentially scaffolded—with certain skills laying the “foundation” as prerequisite skills to a next set of skills. 

   In addition, large-scale longitudinal data were presented demonstrating that students in fourth and eighth grade, respectively, who are “off track” and “far off track” relative to their grade-level mastery and proficiency in math, maintained their low academic standings four years later.

   Additional information was presented demonstrating that the first four “catch-up” Options discussed in this Blog Series are questionable at best relative assisting students who are significantly behind in math in both middle and high school.

_ _ _ _ _

   All of this suggests that middle and high schools need to seriously consider Option 5 for significantly skill deficient students.  This Option involves scheduling students into courses (or a double-blocked course) in their academic area(s) of deficiency that target focus instruction at students’ functional, instructional skill levels (and not at their current grade placement).  These courses should take students from their lowest points of skill mastery (regardless of level), and move them flexibly through each grade level’s scope and sequence as quickly as they can master and apply the material. 

   These courses should be the students’ only course in the targeted academic area, and the course instructors are responsible for making the content and materials relevant to the grade level of the student, even as they are teaching specific academic skills at the students’ current functional skill levels.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

   I hope that the research, information, and ideas in this Blog Series have been useful, and I appreciate your ongoing support in reading this Blog.  As always, if you have comments or questions, please contact me at your convenience. 

   And please feel free to take advantage of my standing offer for a free, one-hour conference call consultation with you and your team at any time.

Best,

Howie