Growth rates varied tremendously between schools regardless of poverty, with top-quartile schools producing more than double the growth of the worst quartile¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2018: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Within high- and low-poverty schools alike, some schools showed extraordinary growth and others abysmal growth, and school quality mattered more than school poverty in determining high-achiever growth. → Michael Dahlin and Beth Tarasawa 2013 q2 i? The top high-poverty schools erased their achievement gap relative to the lowest-growth wealthy schools: 22 high-poverty elementary schools surpassed the 27 lowest-growth low-poverty elementary schools, and 13 high-poverty middle schools surpassed the 16 lowest-growth low-poverty middle schools. → Michael Dahlin and Beth Tarasawa 2013 (2)

Evidence¶

Michael Dahlin and Beth Tarasawa 2013¶

Michael Dahlin and Beth Tarasawa. (2013). A Level Playing Field? How College Readiness Standards Change the Accountability Game. Northwest Evaluation Association. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/a-level-playing-field-college-readiness-standards-whitepaper/

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive and HLM growth analyses of the school-defined cohorts show large between-school spread in growth among the top-10% students. The report concludes that "the quality of the school mattered a great deal more than the poverty rate of the school in determining student growth." No effect sizes are printed.

"Within high- and low-poverty schools, growth rates varied tremendously; some schools showed extraordinary growth and others showed abysmal growth."

Michael Dahlin and Beth Tarasawa 2013 (2)¶

Michael Dahlin and Beth Tarasawa. (2013). A Level Playing Field? How College Readiness Standards Change the Accountability Game. Northwest Evaluation Association. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/a-level-playing-field-college-readiness-standards-whitepaper/

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Comparison of the highest-growth high-poverty schools with the lowest-growth low-poverty schools shows the top high-poverty schools "entirely erased and surpassed their achievement gap" at both elementary (22 vs 27 schools) and middle school (13 vs 16 schools) levels, per the report's figures and foreword.

"the 22 high-poverty elementary schools with the best growth rates entirely erased and surpassed their achievement gap relative to the 27 low-poverty schools with the lowest growth rates. And the 13 high-poverty middle schools with the highest rates of growth closed and surpassed their achievement gap relative to the 16 low-poverty schools with the lowest growth rates."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• School test score averages are strongly related to the income of the families a school serves — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Most high-achieving middle schoolers were on track for college readiness, but students in wealthy schools were more often on track than those in poor schools — related
• The most extreme district disparity: District A's high-poverty middle schools had about 1 in 20 highest-performing math teachers versus about 12 in 20 in the lowest-poverty quintile — related
• High-poverty schools' high achievers had roughly even odds of above-average growth, and 75th-percentile growth would be needed to close the readiness gap — related
• Achievement of the lowest-growth schools varies dramatically, and fall achievement accounts for about 80% of spring achievement versus 14% for growth — related
• Average academic growth of high achievers was nearly equivalent in wealthy and poor schools — related