Narrowing California's K-12 Student Achievement Gaps

Introduction

Student Achievement Gaps in California Are Large and Persistent. Year after year, Latino and African American students consistently have lower average state standardized test scores than white and Asian students. Latino and African American students also tend to have worse outcomes on other academic performance measures, such as attendance and suspension rates. Similar achievement gaps can be observed between students with and without disabilities and students who do and do not come from low‑income families.

Legislature Established Achievement Gap Work Group and Required Report. In response to concerns over these student achievement gaps, the Legislature tasked our office with convening a work group on the topic and submitting a report by February 1, 2020. As required by the Supplemental Report of the 2019‑20 Budget Act, the group needed to have representatives from both houses of the Legislature, the administration (including the Department of Finance), and the California Department of Education (CDE). The group met five times over the course of fall 2019. The required report needed to: (1) examine data on K‑12 student achievement gaps, (2) identify funding provided for disadvantaged and low‑performing students, (3) assess existing state efforts to serve these students, and (4) develop options for better supporting these students. The rest of this report contains four sections corresponding to these four requirements.

Work Group Did Not Examine Governor’s 2020‑21 Budget Proposals. The Governor’s budget plan for 2020‑21 contains two large one‑time initiatives focused on narrowing student achievement gaps. Specifically, he proposes $300 million for “opportunity grants” designed to provide integrated and intensive interventions to the state’s lowest performing schools and districts to help them close their achievement gaps. In addition, he proposes $300 million for community school grants to help districts coordinate student wraparound services, expand learning time, deepen community engagement, and promote collaborative school leadership. Because the work group held its final meeting in October 2019 (a few months prior to release of the Governor’s budget), it did not have the opportunity to evaluate these proposals. In the nearby box, we provide some of our office’s preliminary thoughts on those proposals. In our forthcoming “The 2020‑21 Budget: Proposition 98 Education Analysis,” we will provide a more detailed analysis.

Achievement Gaps

Gaps Between Several Student Groups Examined. The work group examined K‑12 achievement gaps by student race/ethnicity. It also examined gaps between the general population of students and low‑income students, English learners, students with disabilities, foster youth, and homeless youth. Figure 1 shows each of these student groups as a share of all public school students. More than 60 percent of students, for example, are low income.

African American and Latino Students Comprise a Disproportionate Share of Certain Student Groups. Although African American students comprise 5.4 percent of all public school students in California, they make up a greater share of certain student subgroups. For example, 19 percent of foster youth and 8.3 percent of homeless youth are African American. In a similar vein, Latino youth make up 55 percent of all students, but 81 percent of English learners and 71 percent of low‑income students.

Several Achievement Gap Measures Examined. For each student group, the work group looked at standardized test scores—the most common tool used to identify and measure achievement gaps. The group also looked at an assortment of other outcome measures, including high school graduation rates and chronic absenteeism rates. Figure 2 lists all the measures that the work group examined.

Achievement Gaps by Race/Ethnicity

Among Racial/Ethnic Groups, African American Students Have Lowest Standardized Test Scores. California administers standardized tests on an annual basis to all students in grades 3 through 8 and grade 11. The standardized tests cover proficiency in English Language Arts and mathematics. On average, across all grade levels, African American students had the lowest scores on the standardized tests administered in spring 2018. Latino students performed somewhat better, followed by white students, with Asian students having the highest average scores. As Figure 3 shows, racial and ethnic achievement gaps held even taking family income into account. For example, low‑income Latino students had lower average test scores than low‑income white students.

African American Students Also Have Lower Graduation and College/Career Readiness Rates. As the top part of Figure 4 shows, average high school graduation rates among student racial/ethnic groups range from 73 percent for African American students to 94 percent for Asian students. As with test scores, differences exist even when taking family income into account. For example, among non‑low‑income students, graduation rates still are highest for Asian students and lowest for African American students. Non‑low‑income African American students on average have the same graduation rate as low‑income white students. As the bottom part of Figure 4 shows, 21 percent of African American students who graduated in 2018 were considered prepared for college or career, compared to 52 percent of white students and 74 percent of Asian students. Latino students on average have lower rates of graduation and college/career preparedness than white students, although the gap between Latino and white students is narrower than the gap between African American and white students. Asian students have the best outcomes in these performance areas.

African American Students Have Higher Rates of Chronic Absenteeism and Suspension. African American students, on average, miss much more school than other students. Twenty percent of African American students are chronically absent—meaning absent for 10 percent or more of the school year. This rate is about double that of Latino and white students. Asian students, on average, are the least likely to be chronically absent. African American students also are suspended at nearly twice the rate of Latino and white students and more than four times the rate of Asian students, on average. Gaps on these measures exist even after taking family income into account. For example, low‑income African American students have a notably higher chronic absenteeism rate than other low‑income students.

Other Achievement Gaps

Several Other Student Groups Also Have Relatively Low Test Scores. In spring 2018, average standardized test scores of low‑income students were at the 39th percentile of all test takers. As a group, students with disabilities were at the 18th percentile. Data were not available for foster youth and homeless youth, but given those populations are overwhelmingly low income, they likely also had below‑average test scores. Because of reclassification issues, we did not average the scores of English learners across all grade levels. At any given grade, however, English learners have lower test scores. For example, in third grade, English learners’ average test scores were at the 27th percentile in English Language Arts and at the 30th percentile in mathematics.

These Groups Also Tend to Have Lower Graduation and College/Career Readiness Rates. As Figure 5 shows, the graduation rate for all these student groups is lower than the average for all students. Foster youth have the lowest graduation rate, with only about half graduating within four years. The share of students deemed prepared for college/career also is lower for all these student groups. For example, only 9 percent of students with disabilities and 10 percent of foster youth are deemed prepared for college/career, compared to 42 percent of all students. Moreover, all these student groups have lower college‑going rates than the overall population of students. (The college/career indicator is a relatively stringent measure of readiness compared to the actual college‑going rate.) Some of these student groups on some of these measures have notably worse outcomes than African American students.

Foster Youth Have Highest Chronic Absenteeism and Suspension Rates. More than one‑quarter of foster youth were chronically absent in 2017‑18—more than double the rate for all students. The chronic absenteeism rate for foster youth also was higher than the rate for African American students (26 percent compared to 20 percent, respectively). The suspension rate for foster youth is about five times higher than the rate for all students, while also being higher than the rate for African American students. Low‑income students, students with disabilities, and homeless youth also are somewhat more likely to be suspended than the general population of students.

Existing State Efforts to Narrow Gaps

Work Group Focused on School Factors. Achievement gaps are influenced by many factors outside and inside the education system. For example, experts have suggested that family characteristics, residential segregation, health disparities, public safety issues, and school quality all can influence achievement gaps. The work group, however, focused only on the school factors that contribute to achievement gaps. Among state agencies, only CDE was directed to be a part of the work group. Moreover, focusing only on school factors made for a more manageable scope of work for the group. Thus, in this section, we focus specifically on the role of the state and federal governments in supporting schools, with a particular emphasis on support for disadvantaged and low‑performing students.

Significant Ongoing Funding Allocated for Disadvantaged Students. As Figure 6 shows, California currently spends $15.2 billion annually to support disadvantaged or low‑performing students. The single biggest component of this spending is the $10 billion the state allocates through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) supplemental and concentration grants. The LCFF supplemental grant is intended to benefit students who are low income, English learners, or foster youth. Districts with a large share of these students also receive additional funding through the LCFF concentration grant. As the figure shows, the state funds many other programs intended to support students with disabilities, low‑income students, and low‑performing students. It also funds several programs that comprise the state’s current system of support for low‑performing districts. This system consists of a network of experts at the county and state levels designed to assist districts in their improvement efforts. (We describe the system in more detail later in this report.)

All Districts Must Develop Plans for Helping Low‑Performing Students Improve. In conjunction with establishing LCFF in 2013‑14, the state adopted a new system of accountability for school districts. A core part of the new accountability system is a requirement that each district develop a strategic plan known as a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). Districts must adopt an LCAP every three years and update the plan annually. State law specifies the various groups (such as teachers and parents) that districts must include in their planning process. In their LCAPs, districts must identify their achievement gaps, set performance goals, and track progress toward meeting those goals.

State Has New System for Supporting School Districts With Low‑Performing Students. In developing its new accountability system, the state moved to evaluating school district performance based upon multiple measures, including not only test scores and graduation rates but also chronic absenteeism and suspension rates, among others. A district that is identified as low performing in any of these areas is to receive targeted support—also known as Level 2 support, or differentiated assistance­—from its county office of education (COE), sometimes in consultation with other regional and state partners. For a district that has persistent performance issues, CDE is currently developing another tier of assistance—called Level 3 support, or intensive intervention. This level of intervention is likely to begin with CDE, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE), and other regional partners coming together to conduct a systemic review of the district’s instructional practices. Figure 7 provides a simplified illustration of the structure of the new system of support, outlining the basic roles of the organizations involved at each level.

State Has Funded Many One‑Time Initiatives Focused on Improving Outcomes. Over the past five years, the state allocated a total of $2.1 billion for numerous initiatives intended to benefit disadvantaged students (Figure 8). Among these initiatives, seven focused on improving services for students. These particular initiatives included efforts to increase college‑readiness at certain high schools, provide additional support for refugee students, and better coordinate services for foster youth. Another seven programs focused on professional development, with a focus on improving the effectiveness of teachers, administrators, and counselors, including those involved in preschool. The remaining seven programs included a variety of special initiatives, including those designed to improve school climate, community engagement, and intersegmental partnerships. One of these initiatives created a new state‑funded Center to Close Achievement Gaps.

State Piloted a Block Grant for Low‑Performing Students. Among the largest of the one‑time initiatives that the state funded over this period was the Low‑Performing Students Block Grant. The state provided $300 million for this initiative in 2018‑19, with districts allowed to use the funding through 2020‑21. Districts qualified for grant funding if they had students who were both low performing and not generating LCFF supplemental funding or special education funding. Districts are required to report how they spent their grant funding, but the report is not due to the Legislature until November 2021. In our conversations with districts, districts have indicated they are spending their grants for summer school, tutoring, and wraparound support.

Federal Funding Supports Many of the Same Purposes as State Funding. In addition to state funding, the federal government funds many education programs on an ongoing basis that are focused on addressing poor student performance and poverty (Figure 9). Most notably, the federal government supports supplemental educational services for low‑income students through the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and supports students with disabilities through the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Within ESSA and IDEA, the federal government funds several programs specifically designed to help low‑performing districts improve their academic practices. The federal government also funds Head Start, which is designed to ensure many children from low‑income families receive additional support in their preschool years. Though ESSA, IDEA, and Head Start are relatively large federal grant programs, together they amount to only about one‑third of what the state provides for disadvantaged students.

Assessment

Assessment Hones in on a Handful of Key Concerns. This section highlights key concerns emerging from the work group discussions. This section is not intended as a comprehensive account of everything discussed in the work group, nor is it intended to be an exhaustive list of all the potential shortcomings of California’s system of supporting schools and narrowing achievement gaps. Instead, this section reflects our view of the five most significant concerns raised during the work group sessions.

Linking Funding Directly to Low‑Performing Students Has Several Drawbacks. Many in the work group expressed a set of concerns with the Low‑Performing Students Block Grant. One concern was with its basic design, which allocated funding based upon students who were low performing but did not take into account longstanding student achievement gaps. Notably, as a result of this design, approximately one‑third of the block grant funds went to non‑low‑income white students. Some in the work group also expressed concern that linking funding to poor student performance might be perceived as an inappropriate reward. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the grant may have been undermined by its one‑time nature, especially given the persistence of the longstanding achievement gaps it desired to address. As we discuss in the “Legislative Options” section of this report, we believe the state has more promising ways of supporting districts with poor student performance.

Achievement Gap Information Could Be Made Easier to Access. Members of the work group also expressed concern that data on student achievement gaps can be difficult to access. Although the California School Dashboard contains information on performance by student group, progress in narrowing gaps is not prominently displayed. Moreover, members of the work group thought that some districts might benefit from having easier access to a list of districts that had made significant progress in narrowing their achievement gaps, along with information on the key improvement strategies those districts were using. Some work group members also were concerned that information on achievement gaps could be hard to find within districts’ LCAPs. They expressed interest in making these plans more user‑friendly.

School Leadership Is Key, but Leadership Training Might Be Lacking. Districts that have narrowed achievement gaps typically have benefited from several consecutive years of sustained, concerted efforts. Studies find that stable, experienced school district leadership is key to providing such continuity. In contrast, many of the districts that struggle with persistent achievement gaps experience high turnover at the top, such that they lack administrators with local expertise and demonstrated commitment to the long‑term plans that preceded them. These districts also often lack school leaders who know how to use student performance data to inform their improvement efforts. Building upon many earlier efforts to improve school leadership, the state created the California School Leadership Academy in 2019‑20, providing $13.8 million in ongoing federal funding for it. Similar to prior efforts, the core objective of the new academy is to train principals, school administrators, teacher leaders, and mentors such that they can lead successful school improvement efforts. It is still too early to know if the new academy improves upon the state’s past efforts in this area.

Review of LCAPs Focuses on Compliance Rather Than Improving Services. State law tasks COEs with reviewing whether districts fill out the LCAP template correctly, but it does not require COEs to do a qualitative review of district LCAPs. That is, COEs are not tasked with assessing if districts have ascertained their most pressing performance issues, identified promising strategies for improving their performance, and made budget decisions that are well aligned with their improvement plans. Instead, state law tasks COEs primarily with a compliance role—ensuring that the required tasks are undertaken even if undertaken poorly.

While New Systems Are Put in Place, Poor Performance Persists. Many members of the work group expressed frustration that the state had tried so many accountability and improvement strategies, but some districts persisted in having long track records of poor performance. They were concerned with the quality of education that children in those districts were receiving year after year. The group wondered if the state might have more effective options for dealing with these kinds of districts.

Legislative Options

Four Options Appear Most Promising for the State Moving Forward. After identifying shortcomings with the state’s current efforts to narrow student achievement gaps, the work group turned to considering possible options for addressing them. We believe four of the options discussed are particularly promising. Figure 10 lists these options, which we discuss in more detail below. We generally ordered the options from the one requiring the least to greatest amount of time and cost to implement. We encourage the Legislature to consider adopting all four options as a package, but the options could be pursued individually. The options are intended as a starting point for legislative deliberations. If the Legislature were interested in pursuing one or more of the options, more work would be needed to reconvene the affected agencies and craft detailed legislative proposals. Careful scrutiny and time would be needed to ensure the proposals consider all key facets of the issues involved and avoid negative unintended consequences.

Require Certain Achievement Gap Information Be Made More Readily Available. At a minimum, state law could require that CDE display certain achievement gap data in a more prominent way. For example, state law could require CDE to post the progress of the state and each district in narrowing student achievement gaps over the past five years. In addition to this data, the site might profile districts with particularly good outcomes—those that have made significant progress in narrowing their achievement gaps—along with contact information for the districts’ improvement leads. Knowing which districts are performing well could help other districts identify where to go for help. The site also could include ready access to information about the improvement strategies adopted by districts making good progress so that other districts could learn more easily about what might work for them. Beyond making this information available on CDE’s website, the state might revisit whether any improvements should be made to LCAPs. Though several state efforts have been undertaken to make LCAPs more user‑friendly, and the latest round of refinements was approved just earlier this year, some work group members wondered if further improvements still might be in order.

Monitor Implementation of New California School Leadership Academy. Given the importance of school leadership to school improvement efforts, the Legislature could closely monitor the results from the new California School Leadership Academy. State law directs the CCEE to evaluate the effectiveness of the academy but contains no detail about what CCEE is to track or when the evaluation is due. The Legislature could specify these details. If signs then emerge that the academy might have shortcomings in certain areas, the Legislature could seek to rectify them through subsequent legislation. For example, if recent graduates from the academy report that they still lack proficiency in using data to assess achievement gaps, the academy could be directed to place a greater emphasis on training in this area.

Create Standards for COE Review of LCAPs. Under this option, the Legislature would direct CDE, CCEE, and the COE geographic leads to develop a set of LCAP review standards. For example, COEs could be tasked with examining the link between a district’s identified achievement gaps and its strategies for addressing them. Based upon a holistic review of the district using the new review standards, a COE could assign a qualitative rating to the LCAP—for example, positive, qualified, or negative (borrowing terms COEs already use to review district budgets). A poor LCAP rating would trigger more COE support for the district. Such an approach would make COEs’ role in instructional oversight somewhat more analogous to their role in fiscal oversight. Though we think this is a promising option for the Legislature to consider, we note that COEs vary in their capacity and expertise to review plans. Nonetheless, especially given new support from geographic COE leads, we think LCAP review standards could make the review process more meaningful. Another perceived disadvantage of this option is that COEs have difficulty balancing their oversight and support functions, but this is a common issue among all entities tasked with management‑type functions. Many entities find constructive ways to fulfill both functions.

Support Intensive Intervention in Districts With Persistent Achievement Gaps. Though the state has a crisis assistance program for districts that are fiscally distressed, it has no comparable program for districts with poor academic performance. Under the fourth work group option, the Legislature would establish such a program for districts with significant achievement gaps that have not narrowed over time (despite multiple improvement efforts undertaken over the years). The CCEE would provide these types of districts with intensive intervention and include the applicable COE in the improvement redesign process. The CCEE estimates it could cost as much as $1.5 million per year for three years to work with one of these districts. With that funding, the involved groups (CCEE, COE, and the district) would undertake a comprehensive improvement redesign and realign core spending decisions within the district such that the district uses its ongoing funding more effectively.

Establish Key Elements of Academic Crisis Assistance Program. If the Legislature were to pursue this fourth option, we suggest making the program voluntary, as past state efforts to impose change on unwilling districts appear to have had little positive effect. To this end, the state could accept qualifying districts into the program on a first‑come, first‑served basis. We suggest the program focus on a small set of districts (for example, no more than ten). Keeping the number of districts small could help all the involved groups devote the attention needed to undertaking intensive intervention without spreading their efforts too thin. We also suggest thinking very carefully about accountability under the program. The Legislature would need to consider which of the involved groups to hold accountable if improvement does not occur after three to five years. It also would need to consider how to enforce whatever accountability provisions are established.

Conclusion

Encourage Legislature to Consider New Policies Carefully. If the Legislature is interested in pursuing any of the options laid out in this report or proposed by the Governor, we encourage it to take the time needed to work carefully through all major policy and implementation issues, with the potential goal of having corresponding legislation adopted within the next couple of years. We encourage the Legislature to pay particular attention to how it uses both ongoing and one‑time funding in this context. For example, some one‑time initiatives could have very large payoff whereas others could have no lasting effect. For example, using one‑time funding to provide crisis assistance to a small number of the lowest performing districts who have signaled a willingness both to work with supportive partners and change their spending habits could be the intervention strategy that finally helps them narrow their achievement gaps. In contrast, using one‑time funding so districts can provide summer school for only a year or two might have no sustained effect. Whatever one‑time initiative or set of initiatives the Legislature ultimately pursues, we think it is critically important that districts be required to fundamentally rethink how they use their existing funds on an ongoing basis.