opportunity to learn 50 state report

8/9/2019 Opportunity to Learn 50 State Report

1/40

A 50 State Reporton theOpportunitytoLearn

In AmericaNational Summary

Report


2/40


3/40


In America

In 2008, Given Hal a Chance: Te Schott 50 State Report on Public Education and

Black Males, revealed that nationally, only 47 percent o Americas Black males

were graduating rom high school. As the Schott Foundation moved beyond

the surace level outcome data, we discovered even larger resource disparities

which, in many respects, explained the large outcome disparities. Tese inequities

extended ar beyond just dollars; the students were also less likely to have access

to highly eective teachers, early childhood education, and college preparatory

curriculum. In the states where Black males were more likely to have access

to those critical resources, they perormed better. Likewise, in the places where

White males were denied access to these same key resources, like in Detroi

and Indianapolis, their outcomes also suered severely. Simply put, what we

witness today in the achievement gap is the silhouette o a larger opportunity

gap that is identiable both by race and socio-economic status. Te achievement

gap is merely one o many symptoms o a larger systemic illness. o move beyond what Lani Guinier brandsas the, miners canary approach, we decided to go deeper and investigate at what level the states in the U.S

were providing every child a air and substantive opportunity to learn. Lost Opportunity: A 50 State Report on the

Opportunity to Learn in America is that deeper look.

Te Schott Foundation and the philanthropic eld are not new to this space. For years, we have been engaged with

philanthropic partners at the Ford Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Atlantic Philanthropies, Open Society Institute, Lumina Foundation or Education, Rauch Foundation, the

Donors Education Collaborative, Communities or Public Education Reorm (CPER) and many others to address

educational resource inequities. In New York our grantees call the eort Te Campaign or Fiscal Equity. Our

partners in New Jersey call it Abbott; in Caliornia, its the Williams case; in Massachusetts, its Hancock; and

in Ohio its DeRolph. All o these are state-level campaigns where parents and community advocates seek to

provide the necessary resources or their children to have an opportunity to learn. In the early 1990s, the Presiden

and Congress had a chance to address ensuring an opportunity to learn or all students but passed it to another

administration to take on the political burden. Eighteen years later, as Lost Opportunity clearly reveals, our children

are still in desperate need o an opportunity to learn. Not just to reach prociency or graduate rom high schoo

but, as the Lumina Foundation advocates and the President has articulated, to achieve success in post-secondary

education and in lie.

Lost Opportunity is not merely a report, its a platorm or change. A galvanizing call or philanthropic partners,our grantees, and grassroots, grasstops and netroots advocates to organize to build a public will movement to

strengthen our democracy, economy, communities and become better global citizens by guaranteeing that all

students have a air and substantive opportunity to learn.

John H. JacksonPresident and CEO


4/40

In its Lost Opportunity report, the Schott Foundation or Public Educationestablishes an initial metric or determining the Opportunity to Learn orstudents. Te Schott Foundation provides a state-by-state comparison o both

academic prociency (as illustrated by the percentage o students scoring at or aboveprocient on the eighth grade National Assessment o Educational Progress - NAEPreading exam) and access to high-perorming schools (as measured by the Schott

Foundations Opportunity to Learn Index, or OLI). Realizing i the U.S. is toprovide every student a true opportunity to learn, the country must rst ensure thatall students, even the most disadvantaged, have access to the high-quality resourcesnecessary or success. Te Schott Foundation used resource models to identiy theour core minimum resources that are necessary i a child regardless o race, ethnicity,or socioeconomic status is to have a air and substantive opportunity to learn:

High-quality early childhood education;1.

Highly qualied teachers and instructors in grades K-12;2.

College preparatory curricula that will prepare all youth or3.college, work and community; and

Equitable instructional resources.4.

Opportunity to Learn, NationallyTe reports data indicate that, nationally, students rom historically disadvantagedgroups have just a 51 percent Opportunity to Learn, when compared to White,non-Latino students, as measured by the OLI. Te eects o these inequitiesare disproportionately concentrated in a ew states. Caliornia and New York eachaccount or 15 percent o the nations Opportunity to Learn inequity impact. exasaccounts or an additional 12 percent. Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania accountor 5 percent each. New Yorks share o the economic eect o inequity is nearlythree times its percentage o the national population

Opportunity to Learn, State-by-StateTe interstate opportunity gap is stark. Looking at the 50 states and the District oColumbia, only eight states can be identied as providing both at least a moderatelyprocient and a high access education or all students. Sixteen states were oundto provide a moderately procient education or most students, but demonstrated

low access when it came to providing that education to historically disadvantagedstudents. Disturbingly, 17 states were ound to provide high-access, low-prociencyeducation to their students. While these states are to be recognized or breakingdown the barriers between White students and Black and Latino students, andbetween high income students and low-income students, it cannot be missed thatthese states are doing so at the lowest common denominator. In many cases theyprovide an equal, yet very inerior education to students. Most disturbing are thenine states at the bottom, which show both low-prociency and low-access publiceducation ratings. Even with signicant disparities in equity, these states are unableto provide even moderate quality education to any signicant number o theirstudents.

High-quality early childhood education;1.

Highly qualied teachers and instructors in grades K-12;2.

College preparatory curricula that will prepare all youth or3.college, work and community; and

Equitable instructional resources.4.


5/40

Moving ForwardTe ederal government must make access to a high-quality opportunity to learna ederally guaranteed right or every American. We cannot have equity withoutquality. And we cannot have true quality without real equity. Te Lost Opportunitydata should serve as an eye-opener or every ederal, state and local policymakerand community advocate grappling with decisions on educational priorities.

Te ederal government should develop and implement a national opportunity tolearn resource accountability system to track student access to core educationalresources. o support this system, the ollowing recommendations are presented:

Te ederal government and community advocates should support, monitorand track states in the adoption and implementation o Opportunity toLearn plans or their states.

Te ederal government and community advocates should take steps to usedata systems to ensure that states and localities are achieving the highest

return on investments rom taxpayer dollars. With such data, policymakers,advocates and educators will be equipped with the inormation necessary toclose the opportunity gap and improve public education or all students.

A similar rame should be used to certiy that charter and magnet schoolsare Opportunity to Learn schools; corporation and local businesses areopportunity to learn businesses; communities are building opportunity tolearn environments; and amilies and parents are ostering opportunity tolearn homes.

Noting that President Obama has set a national goal or the United States

to produce the highest proportion o college graduates in the world by2020, advocates called on the President to immediately establish a NationalInteragency Commission on the Opportunity to Learn to determine thenecessary sustained investments, coordination and partnerships to ensure thatstudents in all states have a air and substantive opportunity to learn by 2020.

Te Federal Government should establish an Opportunity to LearnEducation rust Fund to provide resources to states to support theimplementation o the state Opportunity to Learn Resource Equity Plansand stabilize the implementation o the plans during economic down times.

Te nation now recognizes the strength o its public schools is directly andinextricably linked to its social, civic and economic strength. Te U.S. will be astronger nation and global citizeneconomically and sociallywith a better-educated citizenry when all Americans have access to the pathways o success andopportunity. I every child is to have an opportunity or success, every studentMUS rst receive a true Opportunity to Learn.

For urther recommendations, see the Opportunity to Learn Federal Recommendationsatwww.schottoundation.org.


6/40


7/40

1

More than 25 years ago,A Nation at Risk detailed the growing inequities and lack o opportunities in ourpublic education system, highlighting the obstacles the United States would have to overcome i theseproblems were not immediately addressed. Yet, our achievement gap remains at disastrously high levels

as evidenced by the 2009 NAEP Long-erm rend Data, which showed a 53-point gap in reading prociencybetween Black and White 17-year-olds and a 33-point gap in math prociency between Latino and White17-year-olds. Te Unites States is now paying a hety price or its opportunity and achievement gap. McKinsey& Company recently estimated that closing the achievement gap between White students and their Black andLatino peers could increase the annual Gross Domestic Product by more than hal a trillion dollars.

Collectively, policy makers have spent a great deal o time diagnosing the problem. While human resource

and structural reorms are key components to closing the learning gap, just as important to the reorm eort isaccountability: the development and implementation o outcome and resource accountability standards whichguarantee students the resources needed to have a air and substantive opportunity to learn. Reorm that islimited to terminating sta or restructuring individual schools may look like progress, but in a larger analysis onlybenets a ew. We are able to identiy today individual high-poverty, high-minority schools where the studentsare perorming well; however, we are not able to identiy high-poverty, high-minority districts where studenthave access to high-quality educational opportunities. We need true reorm that changes systems and aects allstudents, rather than approaches that save a ew to make us eel better or allow us to window dress our systemicailures. Without access to real, system-wide, high-quality learning opportunities, we can never maximize theeectiveness o public education and achieve ull participation in our democracy.

Under our current system, access to some o our nations districts or schools brings with it the virtual certaintyo high school graduation and access to and success in postsecondary education. Access to other districts oschools within the same states, however, brings near certainty o an education that ends well short o a high schooldiploma, with little prospect or college or employment with livable wages and the near certain perpetuation ointer-generational poverty.

A 50 State Reporton the

OpportunitytoLearn

In America


8/40


9/40


10/40

4

State OLRank

Percent Scoringat or AboveNational Procient

Access:OLI 1

ProciencyQuartile

AccessQuartile

CombinedScore

Moderate Prociency/High Access

1. Vermont 42% 93% 4 4 8

2. Maine 37% 69% 4 4 8

3. New Hampshire 37% 67% 4 4 8

4. Minnesota 37% 56% 4 3 7

5. Oregon 34% 93% 3 4 7

6. Washington 34% 64% 3 4 7

7. Idaho 32% 82% 3 4 7

8. Virginia 34% 61% 3 3 6

Moderate Prociency /Low Access

9. South Dakota 37% 40% 4 2 6

10. Iowa 36% 39% 4 2 6

11. Connecticut 37% 32% 4 1 5

12. Massachusetts 43% 27% 4 1 5

13. New Jersey 39% 35% 4 1 5

14. Montana 39% 31% 4 1 5

15. Pennsylvania 36% 35% 4 1 5

16. Ohio 36% 26% 4 1 5

17. Colorado 35% 45% 3 2 5

18. Wisconsin 33% 45% 3 2 5

19. Maryland 33% 40% 3 2 5

20. Kansas 35% 33% 3 1 4

21. Nebraska 35% 31% 3 1 4

22. Wyoming 33% 36% 3 1 4

23. North Dakota 32% 35% 3 1 4

24. New York 32% 25% 3 1 4

Figure 1

1OLI compares the opportunity o students rom disadvantaged groups to that o White, non-Latino students or access to those 25 percent o the schools in a statewhere nearly all students graduate on-time and college ready. For example, i 40 percent o a states White, non-Latino students are enrolled in the top quartile o thastates schools, and 20 percent o students rom disadvantaged groups are given the opportunity to study in such schools, the OLI is 50 percent: disadvantaged studenthaving hal the Opportunity to Learn as White, non-Latino students in that state.


11/40

5

State OLRank

Percent Scoringat or Above

National ProcientAccess:

OLIProciency

QuartileAccess

Quartile Combined

Low Prociency/High Access25. Delaware 31% 73% 2 4 6

26. Utah 30% 64% 2 4 6

27. Alaska 27% 93% 2 4 6

28. Indiana 31% 61% 2 3 5

29. North Carolina 28% 61% 2 3 5

30. Kentucky 28% 60% 2 3 5

31. Florida 28% 57% 2 3 5

32. Oklahoma 26% 81% 1 4 5

33. Hawaii 20% 77% 1 4 5

34. Louisiana 19% 100% 1 4 535. New Mexico 17% 68% 1 4 5

36. Georgia 26% 56% 1 3 4

37. ennessee 26% 54% 1 3 4

38. South Carolina 25% 58% 1 3 4

39. Alabama 21% 59% 1 3 4

40. Caliornia 21% 54% 1 3 4

41. Mississippi 17% 58% 1 3 4

Low Prociency/Low Access

42. Missouri 31% 44% 2 2 443. exas 28% 39% 2 2 4

44. Rhode Island 27% 47% 2 2 4

45. Illinois 30% 37% 2 1 3

46. Michigan 28% 25% 2 1 3

47. Arkansas 25% 52% 1 2 3

48. Arizona 24% 51% 1 2 3

49. Nevada 22% 38% 1 2 3

50. West Virginia 23% 40% 1 2 3

51. District o Columbia 12% 29% 1 1 2


12/40

6

Essentially, only eight states provide almost all o their students regardless o race, ethnicity or amily incomewith an Opportunity to Learn in good schools. More disturbing are the 16 states that provide access to goodpublic schools to some o their students, but essentially restrict other studentsprimarily Black, Latino, NativeAmerican and those rom low-income amiliesto schools where they have little Opportunity to Learn. Mostdisturbing are the nine states and the District o Columbia that provide neither a moderately procient school

system nor equitable access to the systems best schools or resources.Figure 2 indicates Native American, Black, and Latino students, taken together, have just over hal o theOpportunity to Learn in the nations best-supported, best-perorming schools as the nations White, non-Latinostudents. A low-income student, o any race or ethnicity, also has just over hal o the Opportunity to Learn othe average White, non-Latino student. As our nation ocuses its attention on student achievement and schooimprovement, hal a chance is substantively no chance at all, particularly when we ocus on reversing the educationdisparities that have aected historically disadvantaged groups.

Disadvantaged

Student Group3Opportunity to Learn

(compared to White, non-Latino students)

Native American 61%

Asian American4 97%

Black 47%

Latino 53%

Low-income (FARL5) 53%

National Summary Opportunity to Learn forDisadvantaged Students: 51%1

Figure 2

2Te Schott 50 State Report on the Opportunity to Learn in America, Te Schott Foundation or Public Education, May 20093otal enrollments (2005/6): Native American: 130,968; Asian American: 1,950,425; Black, non-Latino: 5,570,253; Latino: 5,066,273; White, non-Latino:10,482,662; FARL: 10,260,933.4Perormance or sub-groups o the Asian American populations (Hmong, Cambodian, etc.) varies drastically. Further ederal and state disaggregation o data isneeded to more accurately speak to perormance results o Asian Americans.5Students eligible or Free and Reduced Price Lunch. Tis measure is similar to the percentage o children living in poverty: Native American (32%); Asian American

(20%); Black, non-Latino (41%); Latino (34%); White, non-Latino (32%).

2

51%


13/40

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Asian American White Native American FARL Latino Black

15%17%17%

19%

32%35%

Figure 3Student Access to

Well-Resourced, High-Performing Schools

E

ven within historically disadvantaged groups, the opportunity to learn varies. Figure 3 highlights thpercentages o American students, by race, ethnicity and income, enrolled in the top quarter o high

schools in each state. Nearly one-third o White, non-Latino students are in those schools, where nearlyall students graduate and where nearly all students score well on state tests. Fewer than 20 percent o studentsrom historically disadvantaged groups are enrolled in those well-resourced, high-perorming schools.

*

* Perormance or sub-groups o the Asian American populations (Hmong, Cambodian, etc.) varies drastically. Further ederal and state disaggregation o data isneeded to more accurately speak to perormance results o Asian Americans.


14/40


15/40

9

As Figure 5 indicates, dividing the percentages o Native American, Asian American, Black, Latino and low-income students in what are oten called drop-out actoriesschools where most students do not graduate andthose that do are not educated to high standardsby the percentage o White, non-Latino students in thoseschools gives us the comparative disadvantageo each group:

Figure 5

Group Comparative Disadvantage*

Native American students 210%

Asian American students** 140%

Black, non-Latino students 280%

Latino students 230%

Low-income students (who may be in any racial/ethnic group) 230%

Comparison is to all White, non-Latino students 100%

* Higher numbers are worse: moreo a disadvantage.

** Perormance or sub-groups o the Asian American populations (Hmong, Cambodian, etc.) varies drastically. Further ederal and

state disaggregation o data is needed to more accurately speak to perormance results o Asian Americans.


16/40


17/40


18/40

1 2

he Opportunity to Learn gap, and the educational and economic eects o that gap, are highly concentratedand over-represented, in a handul o states. Caliornia and New York each account or 15 percent o the

nations nearly $60 billion annual economic burden attributable to Opportunity to Learn inequity. exasaccounts or an additional 12 percent. Te next three statesIllinois, Michigan and Pennsylvaniaaccount or5 percent each. New Yorks share o the economic eect o inequity is nearly three times its percentage o thenational population.

Geographically, the interstate quality and access Opportunity to Learn disparities are vast. As the Figure 8 mapindicates, with the exception o Virginia, the states where historically disadvantaged students have the most accessto the nations best schools are in places where they are the least likely to be ound in critical mass. As the mapindicates, southern and southwestern states that have large Latino and Black populations have essentially loweredthe bar or all students and relegated their students to subpar educational systems. On average, the best schoolsthat these states oer all short o national and international standards. Northeastern and Midwestern states areachieving higher results but have policies or practices which essentially limit access to those districts and schoolscapable o producing high results to those who are not part o a historically disadvantaged group. Furthermorethe map also reveals the existence o an opportunity denied belt that runs rom Michigan, to Illinois, MissouriArkansas, and exas, where the educational systems are subpar and disadvantaged students remain locked out oeven their states subpar systems best schools. Federal support, state action and community advocacy are neededto assist these states to address the policy, practice and resources challenges that are maintaining these geographictrends.


19/40


20/40

1 4

States Sorted by 8th Grade NAEP Prociency or Above

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

M A VT M T N J ME N H SD M N CT I A PA O H N E K S C O O R WA VA W Y M D WI I D N D N Y MO D E I N U T I L F L K Y T X N C M I A K R I O K G A T N A R S C A Z W V N V C A A L H I L A MS N M D C

Figure 9 highlights the educational quality disparities among states as measured by the states studentperormance, at the procient or above level, on the National Assessment or Education Progress 8thGrade Reading exam. As the data indicate, where a child is born denitely infuences the childs educationa

possibilities. Students in states like Massachusetts, Vermont and New Jersey are clearly out pacing students in theDistrict o Columbia and states like New Mexico, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Tis chart tells the tale o a uniondivided and unequal.

Figure 9


21/40

1 5

F

igure 10 combines the Opportunity to Learn probabilities or all disadvantaged groups or each state. We seethat a students Opportunity to Learn is best in states with small minority populations (with the exception

o Louisiana) and worst in industrialized states with highly concentrated minoritypredominately Blackpopulations.

Figure 10

0%

30%

60%

90%

120%

150%

L A A K O R V T I D O K HI D E ME NM N H U T WA I N N C V A K Y A L M S S C F L G A MN C A T N A R A Z RI CO W I MO MD S D WV I A T X N V I L W Y N D N J P A K S CT M T N B D C MA O H M I N Y

All Disadvantaged Groups Opportunity to Learn

All Disadvantaged GroupsOpportunity o Learn Index Comparisons

Te stark inequities and absence o real Opportunity to Learn in statessuch as Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and Ohio (states thatare traditionally known as educationally strong) are particularly striking

While these states have rich resources intended to oer a world-classeducation to all students, resources are currently allocated in such a

way as to deny students rom historically disadvantaged groups thopportunities to learn that always have, and continue to be, extended totheir White, non-Latino peers.

* Louisianas population is disproportionately comprised o historical ly disadvantaged populations (low-income, Black, Latino, Native American). Louisianas situation isurther complicated by the tradition o middle class students attending non-public schools and, possibly, by eects rom the Katrina displacements. Tereore, althoughthe top quartile o schools in Louisiana enroll approximately 20,000 Black students, 1,000 Hispanic students, 28,000 White, non-Hispanic students and 24,000 low-income students, this high degree o equity in access is o-set by the academic deciencies o those schools themselves.


22/40

1 6

he Opportunity to Learn in a states best schools varies or Native Americans rom nearly equal or betterthan that o White, non-Latino students in 10 states to just 25 percent or less in six states.

Figure 11

0%

30%

60%

90%

120%

150%

N V WV S C N H O K A R I D DE H I O R T N A K C T A L W I FL I N RI PA GA U T MO V A C O T X K Y M E WA C A I A N J O H NB KS I L M I MS MD MA L A VT NY A Z MN NM N C ND W Y DC S D M T

Native American Opportunity o Learn Index State Comparisons

In general, those states oering Native American students theleast Opportunity to Learn are those with the most NativeAmerican students. Oklahoma is a positive exception, oeringslightly better Opportunity to Learn or Native Americanstudents than or White, non-Latino students, and the Districto Columbia is a negative exception, where the ew NativeAmerican students in that system have little Opportunity toLearn.


23/40


24/40

1 8

en states oer Latino students airly good Opportunity to Learn in high perorming schools. Tese stateshave comparatively ew Latino students. For those states that have signicant numbers o Latino studentsthe Opportunity to Learn is signicantly lower.

Figure 13

0%

30%

60%

90%

120%

150%

VA V T L A AK O R S C ME A R H I I D M S SD N M M T NC I N GA M N DE N D MD K Y A L F L T N N H O K O H U T WA MO W I C A PA A Z D C R I W V CO I L N V M I I A W Y NJ T X K S CT NB N Y M A

Latino Opportunity o Learn Index State Comparisons

States oering Latino students the least Opportunity to Learninclude those where most schools have good educationaloutcomes, such as those in the Northeast, as well as someMidwestern and Southwestern states. Te latter is particularlydisturbing because so many o these states have large Latinopopulations.



25/40

1 9

C

ompared to other historically disadvantaged groups, low-income students, or those eligible or reeor reduced price lunch, have the best chance or an Opportunity to Learn, equal to that o Whitenon-Latino students. Tis is particularly true in those states where most low-income children are

themselves White, non-Latinos. While these statistics oer general promise or low-income students, theyurther illustrate the growing opportunity disparity between White, non-Latino students and studentso color.

Figure 14

0%

30%

60%

90%

20%

50%

ND LA WV ID ME VT NB OK W Y U T A R S D IA MS A K HI KY DE AL MT N H WA IN MN VA NC N M OH FL MO P A N Y S C RI KS GA MI CO CA OR AZ TX M D NJ IL CT DC M A

ow- ncome ppor un y o earnLow-income Opportunity o Learn Index State Comparisons

Te Opportunity to Learn gaps or low-income students are mosprevalent in those states where the low-income population iscomprised primarily o children who are Black or Latino. Tose states

with large low-income, White, non-Latino populations generally doa better job at addressing equity and opportunity issues.



26/40

2 0

W

e cannot have equity without quality. And we cannot have true quality without real equity. All childrenregardless o skin color, ethnicity or socioeconomic status, deserve access to high-quality education anda air and substantive Opportunity to Learn. Tey deserve access to: 1) high-quality early education

2) highly qualied and skilled teachers and instructors in grades K-12; 3) college preparatory curricula thatwill prepare them or college, work and community; and 4) equitable instructional resources. And yet todaydisadvantaged studentsBlack, Latino, Native American and low-incomehave hal the Opportunity to Learnas their White, non-Latino ellow students.

Moving orward, it should be the responsibility o every state to adopt Opportunity to Learn resource accountabilityplans and annual benchmarks. Te ederal government and philanthropic partners should play a signicant role insupporting and monitoring the states in the implementation o these OL Plans. And it should be our nationagoal to dene true educational quality as more than just moderate prociency on NAEP but as a higher goal osuccess in postsecondary education

As a nation, we must recognize that the strength o our public schools is directly and unbreakably bound to oursocial, civic and economic strength. Access to a high-quality public education should be a guaranteed right thatevery American enjoys, regardless o his or her race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, or zip code.

In 1973, the U. S. Supreme Court in San Antonio v. Rodriguezwas asked i education is a ederally protected rightand the court responded, no; leaving it to the states to protect the opportunity to learn or Americas childrenSince that point, in over 40 states parents and advocates have spent millions o dollars and hours ling suits andleading campaigns to achieve equitable access to resources with little state-level legal, legislative or executiveredress. When a group o parents rom Ohio sought relie rom the ederal courts they were locked out. Why?Because education is not a ederally protected right.

Te ederal government should develop and implement a national opportunity to learn resource accountability

system to track student access to core educational resources. o support this system, the ollowing recommendationsare presented:

Te ederal government and community advocates should support, monitor and track states in the adoptionand implementation o Opportunity to Learn plans or their states.

Te ederal government and community advocates should take steps to use data systems to ensure thatstates and localities are achieving the highest return on investments rom taxpayer dollars. With suchdata, policymakers, advocates and educators will be equipped with the inormation necessary to close theopportunity gap and improve public education or all students.

A similar rame should be used to certiy that charter and magnet schools are Opportunity to Learn schools;

corporation and local businesses are opportunity to learn businesses; communities are building opportunityto learn environments; and amilies and parents are ostering opportunity to learn homes.

Noting that President Obama has set a national goal or the United States to produce the highestproportion o college graduates in the world by 2020, advocates called on the President to immediatelyestablish a National Interagency Commission on the Opportunity to Learn to determine the necessarysustained investments, coordination and partnerships to ensure that students in all states have a air andsubstantive opportunity to learn by 2020.


27/40

2 1

Over 30 years o intrastate and interstate inequities and millions o lost children in our schools should have taughtus that providing a air and substantive opportunity to learn is a national interest. We cannot achieve PresidentObamas goal o producing the highest proportion o college graduates in the world by 2020 i we do not aordevery child a high-quality Opportunity to Learn in K-12. We will be a stronger nationeconomically andsociallywhen we have a better-educated citizenry, when all Americans have access to the pathways o success andopportunity. Americas greatest asset is ound in the opportunities possible or each American. Te ground that welose globally and within each state is directly related to our ability to decrease the number o lost opportunities andmake signicant investments towards actualizing the individual value and innovation that every citizen brings to

amilies, communities, the labor market, our democracy and nation. Simply stated, the success o our communitiesdemocracy, economy and nation depends on the depth o ederal, state, and local investments and partnershipsto destroy the fowing American pipeline o lost opportunities. Te ederal government and states must takeadvantage o the present opportunity to reverse these trends beore Americas opportunity is lost.


28/40

2 2


29/40

2 3

JurisdictionsAll Students at or

above Procient

National Public 29%

1 Massachusetts 43%

2 Vermont 42%

3 Montana 39%

3 New Jersey 39%

5 Maine 37%5 New Hampshire 37%

5 South Dakota 37%

5 Minnesota 37%

5 Connecticut 37%

10 Iowa 36%

10 Pennsylvania 36%

10 Ohio 36%

13 Nebraska 35%

13 Kansas 35%

13 Colorado 35%

16 Oregon 34%

16 Washington 34%

16 Virginia 34%

19 Wyoming 33%

19 Maryland 33%

19 Wisconsin 33%

22 Idaho 32%22 North Dakota 32%

22 New York 32%

25 Missouri 31%

JurisdictionsAll Students at or

above Procient

25 Delaware 31%

25 Indiana 31%

28 Utah 30%

28 Illinois 30%

30 Florida 28%

30 Kentucky 28%30 exas 28%

30 North Carolina 28%

30 Michigan 28%

35 Alaska 27%

35 Rhode Island 27%

37 Oklahoma 26%

37 Georgia 26%

37 ennessee 26%

40 Arkansas 25%

40 South Carolina 25%

42 Arizona 24%

43 West Virginia 23%

44 Nevada 22%

45 Caliornia 21%

45 Alabama 21%

47 Hawaii 20%

48 Louisiana 19%49 Mississippi 17%

49 New Mexico 17%

51 District o Columbia 12%

States Sorted by 8th Grade NAEP Prociency(Percentage o all students at or above procient)


30/40

2 4

State Native American Black Latino FARL OLI1. Louisiana * 53% 101% 112% 96% 100%

2. Alaska 92% 93% 106% 70% 93%

3. Oregon 97% 68% 97% 42% 93%

4. Vermont 46% 1% 114% 86% 93%

5. Idaho 106% 107% 78% 95% 82%

5. Oklahoma 109% 45% 63% 84% 81%

7. Hawaii 98% 56% 83% 70% 77%

8. Delaware 99% 74% 66% 69% 73%

9. Maine 74% 56% 93% 87% 69%

10. New Mexico 40% 65% 75% 59% 68%

11. New Hampshire 111% 105% 63% 66% 67%

12. Utah 87% 48% 61% 81% 64%

12. Washington 72% 69% 60% 66% 64%

14. Indiana 89% 56% 70% 65% 61%

14. North Carolina 29% 60% 71% 60% 61%

14. Virginia 84% 46% 124% 61% 61%

17. Kentucky 78% 60% 65% 70% 60%

18. Alabama 91% 57% 65% 68% 59%

19. Mississippi 59% 58% 78% 72% 58%

19. South Carolina 112% 55% 96% 54% 58%

21. Florida 89% 50% 65% 57% 57%

22. Georgia 87% 54% 69% 50% 56%


States Sorted by Opportunity to Learn Index


31/40

2 5

22. Minnesota 43% 53% 69% 64% 56%

24. Caliornia 68% 52% 54% 43% 54%

24. ennessee 93% 53% 64% No data 54%26. Arkansas 107% 44% 87% 78% 52%

27. Arizona 43% 69% 51% 41% 51%

28. Rhode Island 89% 45% 46% 53% 47%

29. Colorado 82% 44% 43% 45% 45%

29. Wisconsin 90% 31% 55% No data 45%

31. Missouri 84% 40% 57% 57% 44%

32. Maryland 58% 33% 66% 39% 40%32. South Dakota 24% 86% 76% 78% 40%

32. West Virginia 113% 38% 44% 96% 40%

35. Iowa 67% 33% 42% 76% 39%

36. exas 83% 43% 37% 40% 39%

37. Nevada 139% 27% 43% No data 38%

38. Illinois 61% 33% 43% 32% 37%

39. Wyoming 28% 26% 40% 84% 36%40. New Jersey 67% 30% 39% 33% 35%

40. North Dakota 29% 46% 66% 104% 35%

40. Pennsylvania 88% 28% 53% 55% 35%

43. Kansas 65% 27% 34% 52% 33%

44. Connecticut 92% 33% 30% 30% 32%

45. Montana 21% 54% 74% 68% 31%

45. Nebraska66% 24% 31% 85% 31%

47. District o Columbia 25% 28% 48% 30% 29%

48. Massachusetts 55% 32% 24% 25% 27%

49. Ohio 67% 21% 62% 58% 26%

50. Michigan 61% 20% 43% 47% 25%

51. New York 45% 25% 25% 54% 25%

States Sorted by Opportunity to Learn Index


32/40

2 6

he key Opportunity to Learn our core resources are access to: 1) high-quality early childhood education2) highly eective teachers; 3) a college preparatory curriculum; and 4) equitable instructional materialsAt a minimum, all students must have equitable access to these key educational resources i they are to

have a air and substantive opportunities to learn and opportunity or success. Te ollowing chart provides therank among the states and the District o Columbia or each o these our resources. Further data systems andanalysis are needed to develop a universal index or determining the access and quality o the resources providedin each state.

State

High-QualityEarly

Childhood

Education

HighlyEfective

eachers

Well-FundedInstructional

Materials

CollegePreparatory

CurriculumAlabama 27 26 46 19

Alaska No Program 2 11 23

Arizona 35 10 50 48

Arkansas 7 1 33 1

Caliornia 23 25 29 43

Colorado 32 13 37 10

Connecticut 4 34 3 34

Delaware 11 48 9 37

District o Col. No Program 2 5 51

Florida 17 21 44 20

Georgia 3 35 25 31

Hawaii No Program 8 18 16

Idaho No Program 36 47 22

Illinois 14 46 24 42

Indiana No Program 49 21 29

Iowa 33 15 28 11

Kansas 27 33 31 7Kentucky 8 22 42 44

Louisiana 4 30 34 46

Maine 31 16 8 12

Maryland 21 32 13 35

Opportunity to Learn Core Resource Rankings


33/40


34/40

2 8

State Native American Black Latino FARL OLI

Alabama 91% 57% 65% 68% 59%

Alaska 92% 93% 106% 70% 93%

Arizona 43% 69% 51% 41% 51%

Arkansas 107% 44% 87% 78% 52%

California 68% 52% 54% 43% 54%

Colorado 82% 44% 43% 45% 45%

Connecticut 92% 33% 30% 30% 32%

Delaware 99% 74% 66% 69% 73%

District of Columbia 25% 28% 48% 30% 29%

Florida 89% 50% 65% 57% 57%

Georgia 87% 54% 69% 50% 56%

Hawaii 98% 56% 83% 70% 77%

Idaho 106% 107% 78% 95% 82%

Illinois 61% 33% 43% 32% 37%

Indiana 89% 56% 70% 65% 61%

Iowa 67% 33% 42% 76% 39%

Kansas 65% 27% 34% 52% 33%

Kentucky 78% 60% 65% 70% 60%

Louisiana 53% 101% 112% 96% 100%

Maine 74% 56% 93% 87% 69%Maryland 58% 33% 66% 39% 40%

Massachusetts 55% 32% 24% 25% 27%

Michigan 61% 20% 43% 47% 25%

Minnesota 43% 53% 69% 64% 56%

Opportunity to Learn Index, Sorted by State


35/40

2 9

State Native American Black Latino FARL OLI

Mississippi 59% 58% 78% 72% 58%

Missouri 84% 40% 57% 57% 44%

Montana 21% 54% 74% 68% 31%

Nebraska 66% 24% 31% 85% 31%

Nevada 139% 27% 43% No data 38%

New Hampshire 111% 105% 63% 66% 67%

New Jersey 67% 30% 39% 33% 35%

New Mexico 40% 65% 75% 59% 68%

New York 45% 25% 25% 54% 25%

North Carolina 29% 60% 71% 60% 61%

North Dakota 29% 46% 66% 104% 35%

Ohio 67% 21% 62% 58% 26%

Oklahoma 109% 45% 63% 84% 81%

Oregon 97% 68% 97% 42% 93%

Pennsylvania 88% 28% 53% 55% 35%

Rhode Island 89% 45% 46% 53% 47%

South Carolina 112% 55% 96% 54% 58%

South Dakota 24% 86% 76% 78% 40%

Tennessee 93% 53% 64% No data 54%

Texas 83% 43% 37% 40% 39%

Utah 87% 48% 61% 81% 64%

Vermont 46% 1% 114% 86% 93%

Virginia 84% 46% 124% 61% 61%

Washington 72% 69% 60% 66% 64%

West Virginia 113% 38% 44% 96% 40%

Wisconsin 90% 31% 55% No data 45%

Wyoming 28% 26% 40% 84% 36%

Opportunity to Learn Index, Sorted by State


36/40

3 0

NAEP groups: 1= 12% to 26%, 2= 27% to 31%, 3= 32% to 35%, 4= 36% to 43%; OLI groups: 1= 25% to 37%, 2= 38% to 52%, 3= 53% to 61%, 4= 62% and higher.

he Combined Opportunity to Learn State Ranking ranks U.S. states based on access o historicallydisadvantaged students to the states best schools where students have the opportunity to achieve academic

prociency or above.

State public education systems in which students achieve at least a moderate level o academic prociency aredened as those where the National Assessment or Education Progress percentages or 8th grade Reading at theprocient or above levels are 32 percent or above.

Te opportunity to learn or students rom historically disadvantaged students, the Opportunity to Learn Index(OLI), compares the percentage o White, non-Latino students who are in schools where nearly all studentsdo well to the percentages o students rom historically disadvantaged groups who are in those schools. I, orexample, 30 percent o a states White, non-Latino students are in the top quarter o the states schools and 15percent o Latino students are in such schools, the Latino OLI would be 50 percent (15% 30%). An OLI o

1.0 means that the percentage o disadvantaged groups enrolled in the top quartile o schools is equal to that orWhite, non-Latino students.

In order to produce the combined OL state rankings, the states were sorted twice: by the NAEP percentagesand by the OLI percentages. Each o these was then divided into our groups with approximately equal numberso states (quartiles), designated 1 (lowest) through 4 (highest)*. Te states in the NAEP groupings 3 and 4 weredesignated as Moderate Prociency. Tose states had 32% or more o their students reaching prociency or above

Te states in the OLI groupings 3 and 4 were those with 54% or higher OLI scores; these were designatedas High Access. Each states two quartile groups were added together to reach a combined score ranging rom2 to 8. Te states were then ranked, rom highest combined score numerical value to lowest, within each sub-group (e.g., Moderate Prociency/Low Access). Where two states combined OL score within a group were

the same, the state with the higher prociency percentage was ranked higher. Where the combined OL scorewithin a group was the same, and the prociency percentage was the same, the state with the higher OLI scorewas ranked higher. Each state and the District Columbia was then ranked rom 1-51according to their positionswithin the sub-groups in this order:

1) Moderate prociency and high access;

2) Moderate prociency and low access;

3) Low prociency and high access, and

4) Low prociency and low access.


37/40

3 1

14 Levin, Henry. Te Costs and Benets o an Excellent Education or All o Americas Students. Columbia University, January 2007, p. 1; 6.15 U.S. Census Bureau. Voting and Registration in the Election o November 2004; American Community Survey, Educational Attainment Adult Population. 2004Voting urnout Rate rom United States Election Project: elections.gmu.edu/Voter_urnout_2004.htmMorbidity and Mortality Weekly Report January 16.16 Alliance or Excellent Education: Saving Futures, Saving Dollars: Te Impact o Education on Crime Reduction and Earnings, Issue Brie, August 2006.17 Bureau o Justice Statistics, Special Report: Education and Correctional Populations, January 2003.

Notes on Data

Resource Access: High Quality Early Childhood Education: From National Institute or Early EducationResearchRutgers Graduate School o Education.Access to Highly Efective eachers: Ratio o disadvantaged to advantagedstudent access: State Consolidated Perormance Reports or School Year 2004/5 in Peske, Heather G. and Kati

Haycock: eaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students are Shortchanged on eacher Quality. TeEducation rust, June 2006. Per Pupil InstructionalExpenditure: U.S. Department o Education National Centeror Education Statistics.Access to College Preparatory Curriculum: U.S. Department o Education, Oce or CivilRights, Ratio o percentage o Native American, Black and Latino enrollment to Asian and White enrollment inAdvanced Placement Mathematics.

Earnings and Revenue: Increase in Average Earnings: U.S. Bureau o the Census, American Community Survey2006. Individuals who are not high school graduates can expect a decit in lietime earnings, while the costs tosociety or each student who does not graduate rom high school are substantial, including increases in socialservice costs and decreases in tax revenue. Te dierence in lietime earnings between those with a high schooldegree and those without is, on average, approximately $200,000. Proessor Henry Levin and his associates nd

that net lietime increased contributions to society associated with high school graduation can be estimated at$127,000 per student.14

Current Probability o College Graduation: Based on state educational attainment, bachelors degree or graduatedegree, U.S. Census.

Potential Civic Engagement is represented by national voting rates by educational attainment applied to adulteducational attainment o each state.15

Health: Current Health Status: Ratio o percentages answering health is excellent or very good (Indicator 6.1Health o Mother/Other Caregiver), National Survey o Childrens Health.

Incarceration: Including only annual crime-related savings or the state.16 National Incarceration Rate Dierentialsstate prison inmates Incarcerated (General Population):17 No High School Diploma 65 percent (18%); HighSchool Diploma 22 percent (33%) College Degree or more 2 percent (22%).


38/40

3 2

Te Schott Foundation is appreciative o the eforts o:

Michael Holzman, who led the research eortDr. Chandra M. Donnell

Dr. Olatokunbo S. Fashola

Rachel Slama

Amrit Tapa

Collaborative Communications Group

Ann E. Beaudry

and

Bailey Cunningham & Co. Graphic Design Services

For the ull Opportunity o Learn reportand more inormation on your states perormance, go to

www.OLstatereport.org.

Tis online database is designed to provide policymakers, school ocials, community-basedorganizations and philanthropic partners with access to the critical data, including individual state

proles, needed to lead reorm eorts as part o a national movement to provide all children with


39/40


40/40

W W W . S C H O F O U N D A I O N . O R G6 7 8 M a s s a c h u s e t t s A v e n u e | S u i t e 3 0 1 | C a m b r i d g e | M A | 0 2 1 3 9


In AmericaFull Report available at

www.otl50statereport.org

opportunity to learn 50 state report

Documents