NEPC Resources on High School and/or Secondary School
A Weak Defense of a Useless Report
NEPC Review: The Michigan Context and Performance Report Card: High Schools 2018 (Mackinac Center, January 2019)
A Mackinac Center for Public Policy report, The Michigan Context and Performance Report Card: High Schools 2018, seeks to measure and publicize high school performance by ranking schools according to their test scores. Although this has been done previously in many contexts, this publication touts as its major contribution taking socioeconomic status into account in its school rankings. While the stated goal of the report is laudable, the reality falls far short due to several shortcomings, detailed in this review. Given these shortcomings, the rankings presented in this report should be given no weight in any discussions of policy or practice. In fact, this report does a disservice by introducing questionable information in an easily readable form that is not substantiated by any credible analysis.
Update: Ben DeGrow and Michael Van Beek posted a response to the review in a blog post at: https://www.mackinac.org/critique-of-cap-report-card-fires-blanks.
John T. Yun’s response to the blog is posted immediately below the review. There is a corresponding newsletter at:
https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/newsletter-yun-response-050219.
NEPC Review: Systems for Success: Thinking Beyond Access to AP (The Education Trust, July 2017)
Amid burgeoning participation in AP coursework, a report by the Education Trust uses a case study of two exemplary high schools to address the question of how schools might support access to and success in AP programs by low-income students and students of color. It contends that a variety of interventions help promote access and success, including teacher support and development, analysis of class composition, careful scheduling, and provision of during- and after-school academic support. The report’s qualitative approach is well-suited to describing ways that schools can address the complex and deeply rooted problem of inequitable access to academic opportunity within secondary education. Encouraging underrepresented students to enroll in AP courses and then helping them succeed requires schools to engage in multilevel, holistic interventions that are not easily analyzed or described quantitatively. The report suffers, however, from lack of rigor in its description of methods and analysis. The scant detail on participants and data collection methods and the lack of discussion of how data were analyzed and used in the report weaken links between claims and evidence. The report, which focuses on two schools that enroll primarily Latinx students, would have also benefited from case studies of schools enrolling Black and Native American students—the groups that are most underrepresented in national AP enrollment and success rates.
Overall, while the report provides some inspiring examples, more detailed and rigorous description of methods and analysis would make a stronger case for the highlighted interventions.
Review of 2016 Brown Center Report on American Education Part II: Tracking and Advanced Placement
This report uses state-level data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress to describe a positive association between tracking in eighth grade and the proportion of students passing AP exams in high school. The relationship is moderately strong and holds true for White, Black, and Hispanic students. The report suggests that the separate learning environments for high achievers created by tracking are important for providing students (including students of color) with the skills and knowledge to succeed with the most demanding coursework offered in high schools. The findings are based on correlations and cannot establish a causal relationship, nor can they identify what mechanisms might be at work. However, they are consistent with prior research that has frequently (although not always) identified benefits of tracking for high-achieving students. A key weakness is that the report neglects to consider how tracking is likely to affect lower-achieving students. Tracking is often implemented in ways that hinder the learning of students assigned to low tracks. Because disadvantaged and minority students are disproportionally assigned to low tracks, the report’s conclusion that tracking could be “a potential tool for promoting equity” is dubious.
Texas Must Avoid a Return to the Vocational Track
NEPC Review: The State of High School Education in Wisconsin: A Tale of Two Wisconsins (January 2006)
This report documents "Two Wisconsins" separated by wealth. It concludes the difference in test scores between rich and poor is not attributable to school funding. To close the achievement gap, the author recommends that school districts require students to take more rigorous courses.
Suggested Citation:
Mathis, W. (2006). Review of "The State of High School Education in Wisconsin: A Tale of Two Wisconsins." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-the-state-high-school-education-wisconsin-a-tale-two-wisconsins