The Education Gadfly Weekly

A recent New York Times analysis suggests that a generation of policies meant to bring racial proportionality to our selective colleges has failed. “Even after decades of affirmative action, black and Hispanic students are more underrepresented at the nation’s top colleges and universities than they were 35 years ago,” declared the authors.

In 2015, black and Hispanic students made up 15 and 22 percent of the U.S. college age population, respectively, but just 8 and 14 percent of the enrollments at top universities. Those gaps are wider today than in 1980—and, in the case of Hispanic students, the gap has tripled over that time.

Yet these higher-education problems are a consequence and symptom of a systemic ailment that is typically caught as soon as students of color enter the classroom. Some, of course, have been immunized before they get there and some were hit well before kindergarten. For many, however, the K–12 system is where trouble begins. “Elementary and secondary schools with large numbers of black and Hispanic students are less likely to have experienced teachers, advanced courses, high-quality instructional materials and adequate facilities,” writes the Times, citing data from the Office for Civil Rights.

These school-level deficiencies are legion and—at least vis-à-vis the vexing gaps in elite colleges—they do the greatest harm to high-ability youngsters from disadvantaged circumstances, those being the kids most likely to gain acceptance into top universities, provided their primary and secondary schools cultivate their potential.

More than middle- and upper-middle-class pupils, these children depend on the public education system to do right by them. Many lack the supports from family and community that their more advantaged peers enjoy, and many attend schools awash in low achievement, places where all the pressures on teachers and administrators are to equip weak pupils with basic skills in the three R’s. Such schools understandably invest their resources in boosting pupils up to and over the proficiency bar. They’re apt to judge teachers by their success in accomplishing that. And they’re not apt to have much to spare—energy or time, incentive or money—for students who are already achieving adequately.

Fortunately, this is a treatable malady, so long as schools and school systems grasp the urgency of creating more opportunities for black and Hispanic students who show strong academic potential. The challenge is ensuring the poor kids also have access to those opportunities, ideally in the form of special programs of various kinds (STEM, English language arts, fine arts, etc.) designed for students with high ability. As we argue in our 2015 book, Failing Our Brightest Kids: The Global Challenge of Educating High-Ability Students, the best way to maximize the education of high-ability, disadvantaged children is to start by giving everyone a fair shot at what’s available. Schools can do that by taking advantage of universal screening when they measure student achievement in core subjects, inasmuch as such measures are required, starting in third grade, under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act. Use those results to identify the top 5 percent or so of test takers in each school, not the top 5 percent in the district or state. This will diversify the qualifying population, allowing more high-achieving black and Hispanic students to take part in programs that challenge them.

Indeed, economists Laura Giuliano and David Card have found that universal screening works especially well for minority students. And looking for top performers in every school is why Texas allots 75 percent of U.T. admissions to an equal proportion of top graduates from every high school rather than the top graduates statewide.

Next, ask elementary teachers to nominate another 5 percent of their pupils, children who may not be top scorers but who show uncommon potential. Encourage them to look at everything, not just grades and test scores.

This two-step process is not common in school districts across the country. But if more employed it, they’d locate about 10 percent of kids who are already high achievers or, in their teachers’ eyes, could be. And far more disadvantaged students would have access to advanced courses, teachers trained to educate high achievers, classes with similarly able peers, and other opportunities to realize their full potential.

That’s almost a no brainer. Yet federal and state laws largely ignore high-ability poor kids, making them among the most neglected populations in American public education. Which leads, along with many other forms of wasted human capital and suppressed mobility, to the sorry findings reported by the Times.

As long as there are racial differences in income and wealth, family structure, and early childhood experiences, we’re not going to close this gap entirely. But schools aren’t doing enough to narrow it. Smart kids deserve an education that meets their needs and enhances their futures, just like children with other distinctions. They have their own legitimate claim on our conscience, our sense of fairness, our policy priorities and our education budgets. And if we cannot bring ourselves to start pushing more of these smart kids from every background as far as they can go, we’ll keep suppressing the supply of tomorrow’s inventors, entrepreneurs, artists, and scientists. And we’ll keep robbing tens of thousands of black and Hispanic students of opportunities for which they’d otherwise qualify. 

On this week's podcast, special guest Yamuna Menon, vice president of advocacy and policy at 50CAN, joins Alyssa Schwenk and Brandon Wright to discuss the ins and outs of state education policy and how national organizations can more constructively influence it. During the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines how being among the older children in a grade affects cognitive development.

Amber’s Research Minute

Elizabeth Dhuey et al.,“School Starting Age and Cognitive Development,” National Bureau of Economic Research (August 2017).

The impacts of school closures on student achievement have been studied in various locales, including Louisiana, Michigan, New York City, and our home state of Ohio. But a new report from Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) is the most expansive analysis on this topic to date. Analysts examine 1,204 district and 318 charter school closures across twenty-six states occurring between 2006–07 and 2012–13. The study focuses on low-achieving schools—those whose students’ math and reading scores were in the bottom quintile in their respective states prior to closure. Most of the closures took place in urban areas—69 percent across both district and charter sectors. 

CREDO offers a comprehensive view of closures in these states, including the patterns of closures and their academic impacts on students. Though not an experimental analysis, by matching students on observable characteristics and baseline achievement, CREDO does offer solid evidence on the impacts of closure. There were a few striking findings.

First, the schools that closed were on downward trajectories prior to shutting. The analysis found that average math and reading achievement were deteriorating across these schools, as was average student enrollment. The enrollment data suggest that market-oriented pressures—less demand for these schools—played a role in these closures. Districts and charter authorizers then took the step of permanently shuttering these schools. 

Second, a majority of pupils displaced by closure landed in similar or better performing schools. CREDO found that 48 and 45 percent of students in closed charter and district schools, respectively, went on to higher-performing schools, while another one in three transferred to schools of similar quality. Although some media coverage focused only on students landing in higher-quality schools—perhaps portraying closures in a more negative light—just a small proportion of displaced students landed in a lower performing school (about 15 percent). To gauge whether closures induced transfers to higher or lower quality schools, CREDO compared schools’ percentile rankings on math and reading scores. That method departs somewhat from prior studies in Ohio and Louisiana, which examined the performance of students’ closed versus new schools based on value-added scores, a measure of student growth. In Ohio, we considered both changes in school-level achievement and growth, finding similar results across both methods.  

Third, the quality of the school students attended after closure made a big difference in their academic growth. CREDO estimates that displaced students attending higher-performing schools enjoyed gains of about ten to forty days of learning, post-closure. However, students who transferred to inferior quality schools lost considerable ground—losses that ranged from twenty to eighty days of learning. While this group represented just a fraction of displaced pupils, they experienced a double-whammy: Their education was not only disrupted but they also attended even weaker schools. This is also what we found in Ohio—and aligns with common sense. School closures can work if displaced students land in better schools. But that’s a big “if.”

The analysts conclude that “The quality of the alternatives matters greatly for the students affected by school closures.” ‘Tis true—whether closing dysfunctional schools benefits students hinges on the quality and capacity of the existing school supply. The key is to grow more high-quality schools, especially in urban communities, so that students stuck in chronically poor-performing schools can move to better ones. That means focusing as much on school openings as school closures.

Chunping Han, et. al., Lights Off: Practice and Impact of Closing Low-Performing Schools, Center for Research on Education Outcomes (2017).

Charter opponents have long claimed that charter schools siphon resources away from the traditional public school system. The ideological motivation for this line of reasoning is clear when touted by teachers unions and their friends: i.e., calling charters parasitic unless they conform to traditional school practices, including mandatory unionization, makes that bias obvious.

But what impact do charter schools actually have on traditional public schools and the students who remain there? Are such loaded accusations deserved? Or might the presence of charters improve student outcomes through competition or as effective charter practices spill over into district schools?  

Recent research from Temple University professor Sarah Cordes sheds needed light on this question. Cordes examined the impact of charter schools in close proximity to, or even co-located with, traditional public schools (TPS) in New York City over a fourteen-year time span. Her analysis departed from previous research examining charter effects at the district level or across a much-wider radius (up to 10 miles, versus Cordes’ one-mile radius), and was also the first peer-reviewed study of the academic impacts of co-location. Data came from 900,000 students in grades three through five. The study design (a difference-in-differences model) was similar to past research on charter effects, but Cordes added new statistical checks to avoid conflating possible student composition changes at the schools with performance gains. The study also examined school-level factors not previously well-studied that could explain charter effects on TPS performance.

So what did she find? Exposure to charter schools significantly increased student performance at nearby traditional public schools. The effects increased with proximity to the closest charter school; students at traditional publics schools co-located with charters experienced the greatest positive impacts. Small impacts were observed for schools close to charters but began dissipating when a half mile or more away. Students at traditional public schools also experienced reductions in grade retention when co-located with or close to a charter, as well as small positive effects on their attendance. As for the impact on student subgroups, the most positive impacts of charter exposure (for students in nearby traditional public schools) occurred for poor students and those eligible for special education services. There was no significant impact for public schools that co-located with another public school: In other words, it was the shared space with a charter that made the difference.

The study also examined possible school-level reasons for positive charter effects, using parent and teacher survey data. Several plausible explanations emerged. Traditional public schools co-located or nearest to charters experienced improved student and parent engagement, higher expectations for students, and improved perceptions of safety and school cleanliness—any or all of which could have translated to improved student performance. It’s also possible that those public schools’ increased per-pupil expenditures (PPE) of two to nine percent—resulting from student attrition (more dollars spread over fewer students)—helped have a positive impact.

More work remains on digging into the reasons why traditional public school students might experience positive effects from nearby charters so that others might emulate such improvements. Most importantly, the study confirms that charter schools can have a positive competitive effect on nearby public schools. This confirms previous research showing that not only charters, but other forms of choice like vouchers, can impact traditional public schools for the good. More districts—especially those with excess capacity in their school facilities—should consider co-location with charters for the mutual benefit of all students and families.

Sarah A. Cordes, “In Pursuit of the Common Good: The Spillover Effects of Charter Schools on Public School Students in New York City,” Education Finance and Policy (July 2017).