Resource Center

• by María “Cuca” Robledo Montecel, Ph.D.,and José A. Cárdenas, Ed.D. • IDRA Newsletter • August 1994 • 

School Performance

How well are our schools doing their job? That question today is more important than it has ever been. The investment of billions of dollars into education, which constitutes the biggest business in the country, demands accurate information on the performance of schools.

Evaluating schools is an important part of the educational process. Through the years educators have used various indicators for measuring school performance. At different times school evaluation has focused on different aspects of education. At one time, evaluation was predominantly concerned with the quality of inputs into an educational system. Such inputs commonly included the preparation and experience of school staff, course offerings, instructional resources and even the levels of school expenditures. At other times, the emphasis has been on the quality of the educational process, e.g., the relationship between teacher and student. In recent years, the emphasis has moved to output measures. Based on the premise that the “proof of the pudding is in the eating,” student performance has become the primary indicator of the quality of schooling.

The growing number of students enrolled in each level of education has resulted in the use of more objective indicators of student performance such as standardized tests. It is estimated that approximately 5 million standardized tests were administered in American schools in 1930 and over 100 million in 1960. Haney, Madaus and Lyons (1993) estimate the number of standardized tests administered in schools during the late 1980s to be between 150 and 400 million per year. Currently, it is likely that more than 500 million standardized tests are being administered each year in American schools.

Minimum Competency Testing

One type of test that has become very popular is the minimum competency test. Central education agencies have developed such tests of student performance based on the curricular content considered most important and mandated by the state. Following the national trend, the Texas Legislature instituted a minimum competency test in 1979, the Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (TABS). The name was changed in 1985 to the Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills (TEAMS). In 1990 the TEAMS test was changed to the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). Included in this last change was the phase-in of measurement in an expanded number of curricular areas beyond the language, writing and math areas of the original minimum competency tests. The TAAS also includes higher order thinking skills in each curricular area.

The TAAS is now administered in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 (exit level). Since minimum scores are a part of Texas graduation requirements, the TAAS tenth grade test is re-administered at the eleventh and twelfth grade levels for those students who fail one or more subjects areas of the test.

District Score Reports

Performance in the TAAS is reported by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in a variety of ways. Reports include the percentages of students passing (meeting minimum criteria established by the State Board of Education) in each of the grade levels as well as composites of all grade levels for each school campus and district in the State. TEA reports commonly present separate data for various ethnic and socio-economic groups.

These disaggregated data, broken down by campus and student classifications, usually provide a much different picture of school performance than composite data. Average student performance data for an entire school or district are frequently interpreted as evidence of successful or unsuccessful performance on the basis of a single number, without consideration of the variation in student performance included in that single score. The disaggregating of the data may show that certain students, or certain types of students, may be performing at a high level, while other students, or types of students, may be performing deplorably.

Ethnicity and District Performance

For many years the authors of this paper have contended that children from ethnic minorities and economically disadvantaged homes have been poorly served by the educational system. This contention has been substantiated by recent information available from TEA.

Texas has a long history of irresponsibility in the funding of its educational system. For several decades, the State has ranked between 35th and 40th nationally in expenditures per pupil. In recent years, the Legislature has failed to provide full funding for the state educational program, resulting in severe shortfalls for districts enrolling large numbers of students in at-risk categories. The twenty-five year history of financial disparities and the unavailability of funds in low wealth districts have perpetuated the practice of providing the least program funds for the students who need them the most. Currently, the Texas Education Agency is involved in litigation, adamantly defending its long tradition of elitist education, providing adequate programs mostly for privileged students in privileged school districts.

While funding questions are debated, the lack of equity and adequacy of funding is exacerbated by an increase in the number of students from atypical populations. White students now comprise only 48% of the school population in Texas (Snapshot ’93). According to recently released information from TEA, an estimated 48% (1,077,417 students) are now participating in the free/reduced price lunch program during the current school year (Texas Education News, March 14, 1994)

A recently released five-year study by TEA documents the inadequacies of school programs for those students whom the system has had the most difficulty in teaching. This evaluation (Impact of Educational Reform on Students At Risk In Texas, TEA, 1994) cites a number of findings which question the desire and/or ability of school systems to provide adequate educational opportunities for students in at-risk situations. The following contribute to the poor performance of minority and poor students in Texas schools:

• Blaming the victim – School systems and school personnel still perceive minority and economically disadvantaged students in negative terms. The evaluation report noted that in determining risk status, educators focus on the characteristics of the students, rather than on inadequacies of the educational system.
• Not enough assistance offered – Previously enacted educational reform legislation, such as House Bill 72 in 1984, proved to be counterproductive for students in at-risk situations. Exclusion of poor performing students from co-curricular activities, establishing minimum number of days of school attendance and the denial of driver licenses to school dropouts turned out to be at best dysfunctional, at worst, counterproductive. The study concluded that raising student performance standards without providing additional and better assistance for students to meet those standards resulted only in more frustration and failure.
• Missing the target on assistance – Analyses of available student assistance in meeting higher standards revealed the following: 1) no information was available on the need for or provision of assistance for half of the students dropping out of school; 2) for the half of the students dropping out of school where information was available, 65% had received no support services prior to dropping out of school; 3) where assistance was provided, usually at the twelfth grade when the student was unable to meet the required TAAS score for graduation, it proved to be too little, too late. It is therefore not surprising that the study concluded that students in need of help did not profit from school assistance.
• Missing the target on identification – the TEA research report concludes that Texas schools are doing a poor job in the identification of at-risk students and are not providing the support services that might prevent them from dropping out. (Texas Education News, February 21, 1994)
• Making assignment errors – The study points out that school systems refuse to assign their best staff to students whose performance indicate the need for most assistance.– School systems and school personnel still perceive minority and economically disadvantaged students in negative terms. The evaluation report noted that in determining risk status, educators focus on the characteristics of the students, rather than on inadequacies of the educational system. – Previously enacted educational reform legislation, such as House Bill 72 in 1984, proved to be counterproductive for students in at-risk situations. Exclusion of poor performing students from co-curricular activities, establishing minimum number of days of school attendance and the denial of driver licenses to school dropouts turned out to be at best dysfunctional, at worst, counterproductive. The study concluded that raising student performance standards without providing additional and better assistance for students to meet those standards resulted only in more frustration and failure. – Analyses of available student assistance in meeting higher standards revealed the following: 1) no information was available on the need for or provision of assistance for half of the students dropping out of school; 2) for the half of the students dropping out of school where information was available, 65% had received no support services prior to dropping out of school; 3) where assistance was provided, usually at the twelfth grade when the student was unable to meet the required TAAS score for graduation, it proved to be too little, too late. It is therefore not surprising that the study concluded that students in need of help did not profit from school assistance. – the TEA research report concludes that Texas schools are doing a poor job in the identification of at-risk students and are not providing the support services that might prevent them from dropping out. (, February 21, 1994) – The study points out that school systems refuse to assign their best staff to students whose performance indicate the need for most assistance.

Data Analysis

TAAS data collected by TEA provide an opportunity to determine the effect of educational inadequacies for ethnic minorities on a district by district basis.

The following analyses are based on data provided by TEA in its publications, Snapshot ’93: 1992-93 School District Profiles and Special Supplement, Snapshot ’93: 1992-93 School District Profiles. Enrollment and test information are for comparable end-of-year periods in Spring, 1993.

Disaggregated data are provided for the following groups: White – students reported as White, non-Hispanic; African American – students reported as African American; Hispanic – students reported as Hispanic; Other – students reported as Asian and Native American; Economically Disadvantaged – students eligible for participation in the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Program or other public assistance.

Bexar County Analysis

Bexar County contains 15 independent school districts which include three military districts and 12 other districts ranging in wealth from one of the poorest to one of the richest in the State. The three military districts are extremely small (although not necessarily by Texas standards), four of the districts are close to the optimum size of 15,000 students, and three of the districts are among the 15 largest in the State. Minority student enrollments range from a low of 28% in one district to a high of 98% in another. The percentage of economically disadvantaged students varies from 21.5% in one district to 90.5% in another. The percentage of students passing the TAAS test in the 1993 administration varies from 21.4% of all students in one district to 70.5% in another.

Ethnicity and economic class are not independent of each other. The percentage of Hispanic students in the 15 school districts (Hispanic is by far the largest ethnic group in Bexar County) and the percentage of economically disadvantaged students have a positive correlation of +.943. On the other hand, percentage White and percentage economically disadvantaged students have a similar negative correlation of -.939.

The table below provides the percentage of all students (Total) passing the TAAS in all grade levels in the Spring 1993 administration of the test, the percentage of White, African American, Hispanic and other ethnic group (not included in the previous three categories) passing the TAAS in all grade levels, and the percentage of economically disadvantaged students passing the TAAS in all grade levels.

TAAS Performance in Bexar County Districts

Overall performance at all grade levels of the TAAS is generally low for all districts in Bexar County. Ten of the fifteen districts have passing rates for all students at below 50%. Percent passing ranges from a low of 21.2% (Edgewood) to a high of 70.5% (Alamo Heights). In seven of the fifteen districts the passing rate was less than 28%.

There are extensive disparities in the passing rates between White, non-Hispanic students and minority and economically disadvantaged students. Passing rates are consistently higher for White students than for African Americans. This disparity is 3.68 times higher in one district (Alamo Heights).

Passing rates are consistently higher for White students than Hispanic students. The disparity is 2.52 times higher in one district (Southwest).

Economically disadvantaged students performed as poorly as minority students. In only one district (Randolph AFB) did more than one-half of the economically disadvantaged students pass the TAAS. With the exception of the three military districts, economically disadvantaged students had passing rates ranging from a low of 18.4% (Southwest) to a high of 37.9 (Alamo Heights).

Minority student performance was deplorable, except in the three military districts. With the exception of the three military districts, African American student passage of the TAAS ranged from a low of 12.7% (Edgewood) to a high of 33.9% (Judson). With the exception of the three military districts, the percentage of Hispanic students passing the TAAS ranged from a low of 20.3% (Southwest) to a high of 43% (Judson).

Bexar County Correlations

Table 2 presents the correlations among the variables. Correlations are always relative to the situation under which they are obtained, and the size of the correlation does not represent any absolute value. However, they do indicate the magnitude of the relationship between two variables. A perfect correlation (1.00) indicates a perfect relationship between two variables. Correlations in the .80s and .90s are deemed as very strong relationships. Correlations in the .10s and .20s are considered weak relationships. Positive correlations (+) indicate positive relationships; negative correlations (-) indicate inverse relationships.

Interpretation of Relationships

Test Performance

% Passing / % White: + .958

The very strong positive relationship between these two variables indicates that, to a great extent, the performance of a district in the TAAS is indicative of the percentage of White students enrolled in that district. Districts with high percentages of White students consistently outperform districts with low percentages of White students.

% Passing /% African American: + .439

There is a mild positive relationship between the performance of African American students and their percentage in a district. There is a mild tendency for African American students to perform better in districts with higher concentrations of African American students.

% Passing / % Hispanic: – .916

The very strong negative correlation between these two variables indicates that district performance in the TAAS is inversely proportional to the percentage of Hispanics in the district.

% Passing / % Other: + .774

The strong positive relationship indicates that district performance in the TAAS is proportional to the percentage of other minority students in the district. This impact is minimal, since only 2,651 students, less than 2% of the county student population, were reported in this category.

% Passing / % Economically Disadvantaged: – .902

The very strong relationship between these two variables indicates that district performance in the TAAS is inversely proportional to the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in the district.

Demographic Patterns

There is a medium strength relationship between the percentage of White and African American students in the districts (+.486). This relationship is not necessarily indicative of a high level of race integration, since African Americans could have a high level of segregation among schools within the specific districts.

The very strong negative relationship (-.963) indicates extensive segregation of Hispanic students among school districts in Bexar County.

The very strong negative correlation (-.939) indicates that economically disadvantaged students tend to be located in school districts with low percentages of White students.

There is a medium-strength negative relationship between the percentage of African American and economically disadvantaged students (-.592).

The strong negative relationship between % Hispanic and % Other (-.858) indicates that students in the Asian and Native American category are not usually located in school districts in Bexar County with high Hispanic enrollments.

The very high relationship between % Hispanic and % Economically Disadvantaged (+.943) indicates that Hispanic students in Bexar County districts have a very strong tendency to be economically disadvantaged.

There is a medium-to-strong negative relationship between students in the Asian and Native American category and % Economically Disadvantaged in Bexar County (-.763).

Implications

Data presented by the Texas Education Agency and analyzed by IDRA raises some serious questions about school performance in Texas as well as in Bexar County. The finding that the majority of all students in the State are unable to perform at the minimum level established by the state board is very disappointing. Even the performance of White students who have enjoyed a privileged position in the distribution of educational resources in Texas leaves much to be desired. The failure of more than one-third (38.2%) of White students in the state to meet minimum state expectations indicates the extent of inadequacies in the state educational system.

Broken down into different categories of students the picture becomes even more dismal. African American, Hispanic and economically disadvantaged students are failing at almost twice the rate of White students.

There is no school district in Bexar County with an exemplary performance in the education of all its student population. Higher passing rates for school districts are very much a function of the proportion of the student body which comes from the White, middle class. On the other hand, there are no school districts in which minority and disadvantaged students are performing well.

Although there may be a need for a drastic revision of Texas school practices as indicated by all performance on the TAAS, there is a desperate need for an immediate focus on the education of minority and disadvantaged students.

The past practice of blaming the victimized minority and disadvantaged population for its poor performance is thoroughly discredited by the TEA evaluation. It is readily evident that Texas schools are not providing the assistance necessary for raising the performance of students most in need of this assistance.

School Reform Efforts

State and national school reform efforts which focus on the raising of academic standards without providing more school assistance for the students to meet the standards are doomed to failure.

Similarly, quick fixes, such as the punitive educational reforms of the 1984 legislation, are not the solutions for the dismal performance of Texas students. Long range solutions must focus on the interaction between student and teacher, with assurances that the characteristics and needs of students are adequately addressed in the instructional program.

Staff training, individual diagnosis and prescription, enrichment experiences, and appropriate materials and methodology are essential for raising the performance of students.

Accountability

It is reasonable that the educational system, including its policy making board and its professional employees be held accountable for the performance of all of its students. Even high performing districts in Bexar County fail to provide adequate educational experiences for minority and disadvantaged students. The results of this study show that the recognition of exemplary performance should be discontinued for a district unless its scores are representative of all its students, including minority segments of the school population.

Each school district should be held accountable for satisfactory performance of all of its student body, not only for that segment of the student body that they find easiest to educate.

The enrollment of large numbers of minority and disadvantaged students should not be a rationalization for poor school performance. There is a sufficient number of innovative school programs in which the performance of minority and disadvantaged students is exemplary to argue against the use of deficit models. Schools cannot attribute poor performance to a large number of atypical students.

School Choice

An interesting by-product of this study is its application to a popular specific reform strategy – school choice. Minorities are skeptical of this strategy, in that there is little provision for adequate transportation that would guarantee a choice for the economically disadvantaged. In addition, there is a lack of guarantee that high performing schools will accept applicants without an overt or covert regard for race, ethnicity, socio-economic class, gender, or handicaps.

The results of this study raise an additional concern. Which are the high performing schools or districts? From a minority or economically disadvantaged perspective there are no high performing districts. The choice available between enrollment in a school district where only 20% of the ethnic group meet the minimum competency levels of the TAAS and enrollment in a school district where only 25% of the students meet the minimum competency levels does not provide a sufficient performance gain to justify the massive logistical problems of the choice strategy.

Table 1: Bexar County, Texas-All Grades % Passing-Spring 1993 TAAS Administration

Table 2: Coefficients of Correlation TAAS, Ethnicity and Economically Disadvantaged

Resources

Haney, Walter M., George F. Madaus & Robert Lyons. (1993). The Fractured Marketplace or Standardized Testing. National Commission on Testing and Public Policy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.

Texas Education Agency. (1994). Impact of Education Reform on Students At Risk in Texas. Austin, TX.

Texas Education Agency. (Fall 1993). Snapshot ’93: 1992-93 School District Profiles. Publication No. GE4 170 01, Austin, TX.

Texas Education Agency. (Fall 1993). Special Supplement, Snapshot ’93: 1992-93 District Profiles. Publication No. GE4 170 03, Austin, TX.

Texas Education News. (March 14, 1994). Austin, TX.

Dr. María Robledo Montecel is the executive director of IDRA. Dr. José A. Cárdenas is founder and directoremeritus of IDRA. Comments and questions may be directed to them via e-mail at feedback@idra.org.

[©1994, IDRA. This article originally appeared in the August 1994 IDRA Newsletter by the Intercultural Development Research Association. Permission to reproduce this article is granted provided the article is reprinted in its entirety and proper credit is given to IDRA and the author.]