New report adds more evidence that Kentucky’s poor students get treated differently
On October 18, 2016 the Kentucky Office of Education Accountability (OEA) presented an important report about achievement gaps in Kentucky’s schools. Normally, it takes the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission many months after a report is approved before it appears in final, edited version in their web site, and the next legislative session will likely be over before that posting occurs.
However, “Overview of Achievement Gaps in Kentucky Schools” contains a lot of valuable information, information that could be important for policy decisions that will come up in the next legislative session.
So, I obtained a copy of the approved draft of the report and posted it online so that everyone can have access before the legislature goes into session.
Many important issues are discussed in this report, but one stood out for me right away. Some new data from the OEA’s research adds to other research I have been conducting regarding the large amount of social promotion to high school diplomas in Kentucky.
The OEA’s report provides still more evidence that Kentucky’s schools are pushing more poor kids through the program with less educational accomplishment than their more affluent classmates are getting.
The Bluegrass Institute has been discussing the problem of social promotion to high school diplomas for some time. Not long ago, we updated that discussion with a multi-part blog series based on new, 2016 Unbridled Learning data. One of those blogs discussed evidence that on a proportionate basis Kentucky’s poor kids experience notably higher levels of social promotion to diplomas than is found with wealthier students.
That analysis compared official on-time high school graduation rates for lunch and non-lunch eligible students to the proficiency rates each student group posted in the state’s Algebra II End-of-Course (EOC) tests. We looked at Algebra II specifically because Kentucky Administrative Regulation 704 KAR 3:305, “Minimum requirements for high school graduation,” stipulates that students must be competent in math through Algebra II in order to graduate.
The data shows that while official graduation rates for lunch and non-lunch eligible students only varies by about 6.2 percentage points, the proportion of students who score proficient or above on the state’s official Algebra II EOC tests varies dramatically by lunch eligibility. For those eligible for lunch, only 27.4 percent were able to score proficient or above on the EOC test. For wealthier students, the proficiency rate was nearly twice as high at 49.6 percent.
Clearly, our research shows that there is far lower math accomplishment behind the diplomas of the lunch eligible students.
Now, OEA’s new report adds more compelling information that true math achievement varies dramatically in Kentucky even for lunch and non-lunch students who get the same course grades in Algebra II.
Figure 1 below contains data from 2015 and was developed from data in Appendix K of the OEA’s new report. It shows that for students enrolled in schools with high poverty rates (where student school lunch eligibility is 76 percent or higher), among those poor students who earned an “A” in Algebra II, only 56 percent were able to score at least proficient on the Algebra II EOC test.
Figure 1
percent-of-students-scoring-p-or-more-on-alg-ii-for-grade-award-of-a-only
In very sharp contrast, in low poverty schools (where 25 percent or fewer of the students are eligible for school lunches), virtually all students, 91 percent of them, were able to score proficient on the Algebra II EOC test.
Clearly, an “A” grade performance in one school in Kentucky just isn’t comparable to an “A” performance elsewhere.
Furthermore, because Algebra II is indeed a graduation requirement, OEA’s Algebra II grading information points to the conclusion that on average a diploma awarded in a high poverty school does not represent the same level of academic performance generally required to earn that coveted piece of paper in a low poverty Kentucky school.
By the way, the disparity in testing versus grade awards isn’t just present for students who earn an “A” in the Algebra II course. Figure 2, which also shows 2015 data, shows the problem is present for students earning all other grades, as well.
Figure 2
percent-of-students-scoring-p-or-more-on-alg-ii-vs-grade-awarded
Of particular interest in Figure 2 are the results for students who get a minimal passing grade of “D” in Algebra II. In both high and low poverty schools, a considerable proportion of the students getting a minimal passing grade in the course is unable to score proficient or above on the Algebra II EOC test. In High poverty schools, only 4 percent of the “D” award students can pass the EOC, so 96 percent of the high poverty students in this course grade group probably get a social promotion to a diploma.
Things are still not very good for the low poverty students. A total of 23 percent of the recipients of a “D” grade in low poverty schools do pass the EOC with a proficient score, but that means 77 percent don’t.
In both cases, should students really be declared by the school as “competent” in Algebra II and therefore eligible for a diploma?
Another curious thing involves the students who flunk the Algebra II course but wind up scoring proficient or more on the EOC. Should those small percentages of students who score proficient on the EOC still be flunked in the course? Should students in that position have a right to appeal?
In any event, the OEA data adds more compelling reasons to be concerned about the lack of scoring consistency across Kentucky’s public high schools and the obvious implications for the corresponding lack of quality control in Kentucky’s high school diploma awards.