Urban Debate Leagues: A Proven Solution to Improve Secondary Literacy in the Lowest Performing Urban Schools
Ensuring that students have the literacy skills to succeed in college and in the workplace is a fundamental educational challenge. Developing secondary literacy entails reading diverse and complex texts of sufficient complexity, quality, and range to prepare students for success at college and in their careers.
New research conducted in conjunction with the University of Michigan, the Consortium on Chicago School Research, and Chicago Public Schools demonstrates that participation in urban debate increases achievement on standardized tests that measure literacy skills. These findings confirm a growing body of evidence that urban debate is an effective tool to improve literacy skills among urban students.
Findings at a Glance
- Compared to their non-debating peers, African American males who participated in urban debate were 70 percent more likely to reach the ACT college readiness benchmark in Reading.
- Compared to their non-debating peers, African American males who participated in urban debate were twice as likely to reach the ACT college readiness benchmark in English.
- Compared to non-debaters, Chicago high school students who participated in urban debate were 50 percent more likely to reach the ACT college readiness benchmark in English.
- Debate participation did not affect scores on the ACT Science or Mathematics, suggesting that debate participation, rather than self-selection, explains improved English and reading scores.
I. Low-Performing Urban Schools Struggle to Teach Secondary Literacy Skills, Undermining Graduation Rates and College Readiness
Urban school systems face well-documented challenges and require the support of federal, state, and local policymakers to ensure all students graduate both college- and career-ready. The schools that serve the most densely populated cities represent a small fraction of the nation’s total schools, yet they educate about a quarter of American students, including 40 percent of the nation’s students of color and 30 percent of the nation’s low-income students.1 Students attending these schools consistently perform far below the national averages on key indicators of academic achievement, such as college readiness,2 college completion,3 and secondary literacy.4
“Secondary literacy” is defined as the set of skills that allows a reader to comprehend a range of complex texts, absorbing the content but also engaging and criticizing the text. Students with secondary literacy skills can do more than read the words on the page. They can extract and evaluate arguments advanced by a text, compare and contrast it against previously read texts, and incorporate the ideas of other texts into a broader understanding of a subject.5 Such skills are interdisciplinary,6 and the ability to process complex texts creates a higher level of competence across several fields of study.7 Unfortunately, students in urban high schools struggle to master these crucial skills. Secondary literacy rates are disproportionately low for students of color8 and have remained stagnant in urban schools over several decades.9
Educators have explored different strategies to address the specific literacy challenges faced by urban students. An emerging body of published and forthcoming research points to a strategy worth further consideration: Urban Debate Leagues (UDLs), which provide access for urban students to participate in policy debate. Research examining the academic achievement of urban debaters in the Chicago Public Schools compared student records over a ten year period and found that students who participated in urban debate significantly improved their secondary literacy skills, as measured by ACT results.10 The study also included an investigation of the outcomes for a specific subgroup, African American male students, and found that participation in urban debate produces even more dramatic increases in performance on both the ACT English and ACT Reading tests for these traditionally underperforming students.
The increase in academic achievement produced by UDLs merits the attention of educators working within urban districts, as well as state and federal policymakers. Identifying innovative solutions for students in the lowest performing urban schools is a national priority because the challenges facing these schools will not remain isolated. As immigration increases and American cities struggle to compete in the global economy, educators who have never before taught in settings with these structural challenges will need to embrace approaches that help secure academic success.11
Secondary literacy skills have significant implications not only for students’ career prospects but also for the national economy. Students who fail to master secondary literacy skills fall behind in high school and report feeling overwhelmed by incomprehensible assignments, both of which are established factors in the decision to drop out.12 High school dropouts face increased chances of serving jail time,13 requiring public assistance,14 and being jobless.15 These conditions create both individual and social negative feedback loops, increasing the likelihood that individuals and entire urban areas will face economic stagnation.16
Secondary literacy is also closely linked to college completion; promoting secondary literacy builds human capital to benefit individuals and local and national economies. College-educated students succeed more often in an increasingly competitive knowledge-based job market, improving the overall labor force.17 Resulting higher salaries broaden the tax base, creating potential for reinvestment in education and other priorities.18 Successful efforts to improve secondary literacy rates in school districts with the highest concentrations of low performing schools19 can thus have significant national impact, breaking negative feedback loops that perpetuate inequality while benefiting the national economy.20
II. Few Interventions Have Specifically Targeted Secondary Literacy, Although These Skills Are Key to College and Career Readiness
Educational interventions designed to improve literacy have so far mostly focused on basic literacy, pouring money and attention into initiatives targeted at early childhood and elementary schools.21 These programs have made great strides in ensuring that American students can read and write at a rudimentary level.22 However, research indicates that basic literacy is not enough; when students fail to master secondary literacy skills, they are less likely to complete high school or to demonstrate necessary qualifications for employment after high school.23 Thus, neglected secondary literacy skills ultimately undermine the value of investments in early childhood and elementary school literacy programs.24 The value of basic literacy programs can be retained and expanded by promoting secondary literacy skills thought interventions such as Urban Debate Leagues. These interventions should be a priority for educators who want to ensure the greatest return on investment from the resources and effort already invested in primary literacy.25
III. Research on the Effect of Urban Debate Participation for Students in the Lowest Performing Schools Finds Significant Gains in Secondary Literacy
A. Urban Debate Leagues – A Public-Private Partnership to Improve the Lowest Performing Schools
Urban Debate Leagues train and enable students to participate in competitive policy debate. Teacher-coaches supervise student-directed projects, including research for debate arguments, public speaking in time-pressured competitive settings, and argumentative advocacy. The National Association for Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL) builds, strengthens, expands and connects UDLs. The NAUDL organizes UDLs as partnerships between urban school systems and local private leaders. Following the NAUDL best practices approach, UDLs have already been established in many of the most populous urban school districts,26 and in most of the school systems with the highest number of critically low-performing schools.27 The NAUDL continues to bring the UDL approach to scale in cities around the country, aiming to facilitate participation in organized debate activities for as many urban students as possible.28
B. Research Indicates that Urban Debate Is Highly Effective for Urban Students
In a recent study, Dr. Briana Mezuk evaluated the effect of debate on secondary literacy scores among urban students. The study used ACT subject test scores as indicators of secondary literacy skills. The ACT Reading and English tests both measure specific skills associated with secondary literacy. The ACT Reading test measures a student’s ability to answer questions about complex reading passages. Questions involve high-level analysis of passages, testing critical evaluation skills in addition to comprehension. The ACT English test measures a student’s ability to integrate complex information from multiple sources to make an argument, inform, or explain. The tests also evaluate students’ ability to evaluate critically an author’s choices with respect to sentence framing, sentence construction, and word choice.29
Dr. Briana Mezuk’s research found that debate had a significant effect on these measures of secondary literacy, especially among African American males. Among the entire sample of students, those who participated in urban debate were 50 percent more likely to score above the college-readiness benchmark on the ACT English test.30 The effect was even great for African American males: those who participated in urban debate were 70 percent more likely to score above the ACT benchmark in Reading than their counterparts who did not debate.31 This particular population performs especially poorly on tests of secondary literacy; the improvements in ACT test scores by African American males participating in urban debate demonstrates the effectiveness of policy debate as an innovative tool to reach low performing students.32 Score increases had a dose-response correlation with intensity of participation, such that the students who participated the most intensely, defined as 25 rounds of debate or more, showed the most dramatic differences over their peers.33
A great deal of previously published research has established that activities with a similar design and set of practices as policy debate are effective strategies to increase secondary literacy. According to this research, effective interventions should offer training in argumentative interactions under the supervision of an educator, independent research projects, and the development of public speaking skills.34 Activities which foster students’ engagement with educational projects also lead to increased secondary literacy skills.35 Urban debate embodies these strategies with its focus on research, understanding and constructing arguments, and spoken argumentation.36 Students learn secondary literacy skills as they read vast amounts of policy literature, research specific arguments, extract arguments out of opponents’ research, and cultivate their ability to think critically about opponents’ arguments.
Selective improvements in debaters’ reading-oriented subject test scores indicate debate participation is responsible for raising ACT scores. Students who participated in urban debate exhibited higher scores than their peers in the ACT subject tests for reading-oriented subjects (English and Reading), but not for math and science.37 This outcome strongly suggests that urban debate participation was the cause of the increased scores, since the skills fostered by debate are mostly verbal and literacy-based. If the urban debaters were simply more motivated or engaged students, their ACT performance would likely be stronger across non-debate related tests. Dr. Mezuk’s latest research provides new evidence of a link between debate and secondary literacy.
C. Urban Debate Leagues Complement a Range of School Arrangements
The UDL approach deploys an evidence-based design firmly grounded in research on effective practices regarding what works in the urban educational settings in which it will be deployed. Now, an emerging body of literature examining urban debate’s effect on student achievement shows that the UDL approach is more than just evidence-based – it demonstrably improves student literacy outcomes.
Educators who have examined the challenge of cultivating secondary literacy in urban settings have declared the problem so pervasive that significant overhauls are necessary.38 Evidence suggests that urban debate, when implemented as a complement to existing school programs, raises secondary literacy skills within schools reflecting a range of governance and structural features. As policymakers work toward comprehensive systems improvement, they should consider simultaneous investments in strategies which require modest investment and can be implemented quickly while achieving significant results. Such innovative, targeted strategies deserve consideration, as they are highly effective yet low-cost solution that can be implemented quickly. UDLs complement existing curriculums by extending learning time and fostering academic skills, curiosity, and engagement among underserved urban students.
IV. Decision-Makers Should Increase Support for Urban Debate Leagues and Broaden Access to UDL Programs
Education practitioners and policymakers familiar with the evidence take seriously the notion that expanding access to UDLs is one proven, innovative approach to secure real improvement of students’ secondary literacy skills. Dr. Briana Mezuk has found important connections between debate participation and educational achievement in her recent research, conducted in conjunction with the University of Michigan, the Consortium on Chicago School Research, and Chicago Public Schools.
The best current evidence shows that, in order to effectively increase academic achievement, educators and decision-makers should strive to do the following: (1) broaden access to academically rigorous programs that extend learning opportunities throughout the school year, week, and day; (2) support co-curricular programs that focus on secondary literacy skills and incorporate complex reading materials into instructional time; (3) implement programs that prepare and motivate students to excel at school-based learning; and (4) invest in innovative programmatic approaches backed by empirical evidence. Broadening participation in academic debate for as many urban students as possible is a proven approach to realizing these objectives.
_______________________________
1. 100 school districts educate 24 percent of the nation’s children. Fredricks, L, & Dickson, S., Framing the Problem 1, in EDU. COMM’N OF THE STATES, IMPROVING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN URBAN DISTRICTS: WHAT STATE POLICYMAKERS CAN DO 1-10 (Edu. Comm’n of the States, Dec. 2003); see also GAROFANO, A. & SABLE, J. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 100 LARGEST PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE UNITED STATES: 2005–06 (NCES 2008-339) iii (Nat’l Center for Edu. Statistics, Institute of Edu. Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Edu.,2008), available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008339.pdf.
2. Steinberg, A., & Almeida, C., The Dropout Crisis: Promising Approaches in Prevention and Recovery 4 (White Paper for U.S. Dep’t of Education, Office of Vocational & Adult Education, published by Jobs for the Future, June 2004), available at http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/30/af/36.pdf.
3. Students of color have a higher incidence of being “incidental” college attenders who do not complete college. ADELMAN, C. PRINCIPAL INDICATORS OF STUDENT ACADEMIC HISTORIES IN POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, 1972-2000 30-35 (U.S. Dept. of Edu., Institute of Edu. Sciences 2004), available at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/prinindicat/prinindicat.pdf.
4. Snipes, J., & Horowitz, A., Advancing Adolescent Literacy in Urban Schools 3, RESEARCH BRIEF, (Council of the Great City Schools, Fall 2008), available at http://www.cgcs.org/Pubs/ResearchBrief_08.pdf.
5. U.S. DEPT. of EDU, READING FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS 36-38, 11 (Nat’l Assessment Governing Board 2009), available at http://www.corestandards.net/NAEP/NAEP36.pdf, cited in Coleman, D., Core Standards for Reading Literary and Informational Texts, available at http://www.corestandards.net/rs1_whattextsays.html.
6. Snipes & Horowitz, supra note 4, at 3.
7. Id. at 4-5.
8. Id.
9. Snipes & Horowitz, supra note 4, at 1.
10. Mezuk, B., Urban debate and high school educational outcomes for African American males: The case of the Chicago Debate League, J. of NEGRO EDU. 290, 292-93 (Oct. 2009).
11. Neild, R., & Balfanz, R,, An Extreme Degree of Difficulty: The Educational Demographics of Urban Neighborhood High Schools, J. OF EDU. FOR STUDENTS PLACED AT RISK 123, 126-27 (2006).
12. Miller, M. Seize the Moment: The Need for a Comprehensive Federal Investment in Adolescent Literacy 2 (Alliance for Excellent Education Policy Brief, July 2009), available at http://www.all4ed.org/files/PolicyBriefSeizeTheMoment.pdf.
13. Tyler, J. & Lofstrom, M., Finishing High School: Alternative Pathways and Dropout Recovery, FUTURE OF CHILDREN 77, 88 (Spring 2009), available at http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/44/55/de.pdf.
14. Id.
15. LAIRD, J., DEBELL, M., KIENZL, G., and CHAPMAN, C. DROPOUT RATES IN THE UNITED STATES (NCES 2007-059) 1 (U.S. Dept. of Edu.: National Center for Education Statistics 2007), http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch (last visited Aug. 2009).
16. Kasarda, J., Cities as Places Where People Live and Work: Urban Change and Neighborhood Distress 20, in CISNEROS, H, Ed., INTERWOVEN DESTINIES: CITIES AND THE NATION 81–124 (W.W. Norton 1993).
17. WYNER, J., BRIDGELAND, J., & DIIULIO, J., ACHIEVEMENTRAP: HOW AMERICA IS FAILING MILLIONS OF HIGH-ACHIEVING STUDENTS FROM LOWER-INCOME FAMILIES 29 (Jack Kent Cooke Foundation & Civic Enterprises 2007), available at http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/41/df/69.pdf.
18. A college degree produces at least 17 percent more income over the lifetime of the household compared to a high school diploma only. See GOUSKOVA, E. & STAFFORD, F. TRENDS IN HOUSEHOLD WEALTH DYNAMICS, 2001-2003 4, 8-9 (Institute for Social Research, Univ. of Mich. 2005), available at http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/TrendsIndynamics1999-2001.pdf.
19. GAROFANO & SABLE, supra note 1.
20. BALFANZ, R., AND LEGTERS, N., LOCATING THE DROPOUT CRISIS: WHICH HIGH SCHOOLS PRODUCE THE NATION’S DROPOUTS? WHERE ARE THEY LOCATED? WHO ATTENDS THEM? (CRESPAR Report 70, Sept. 2004), available at http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/a3/a0.pdf.
21. Miller, supra note 12, at 1.
22. Id.
23. Neild & Balfanz, supra note 11, at 133, 135-36 (pointing out that urban students frequently cannot achieve the literacy targets set in high school, which leads to dropouts, poor preparation for college work and overall weak academic skills).
24. Miller, supra note 12, at 1.
25. Id.
26. See GAROFANO & SABLE, supra note 1 (listing the 100 largest school districts); www.urbandebate.org (listing the cities in which Urban Debate Leagues have been formed, which track the top fifty of that 100).
27. BALFANZ & LEGTERS, supra note 21, at 31-32 (listing the schools with the lowest promoting power); www.urbandebate.org (listing the cities in which urban debate leagues have been formed, which tracks the top range of the dropout factories).
28. http://urbandebate.org/mission.shtml
29. See US DEPT. OF EDU., supra note 5, at 37-38 (defining secondary literacy to include skills that allow the student to “consider alternatives to what is presented in text . . . . form questions . . . and make connections that draw on larger sections of text, often at an abstract level . . . . draw on their knowledge of the structure and elements of literary and informational text . . . . relate textual information to knowledge from other sources such as their previous content learning or to internalized criteria and logic. [....] The focus remains on the text itself but the reader’s purpose is to consider the text critically by assessing it from numerous perspectives and synthesizing what is read with other texts and other experiences. Items may ask students to evaluate the quality of the text as a whole, to determine what is most significant in a passage, or to judge the effectiveness of specific textual features to accomplish the purpose of the text . . . . To answer these questions, students draw on what they know about text, language, and the ways authors manipulate language and ideas to achieve their goals.”).
30. Mezuk, supra note 10, at 298.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 301.
33. Id. at 299.
34. Miller, supra note 12, at 3-4.
35. Snipes & Horowitz, supra note 4, at 6.
36. Snipes & Horowitz, supra note 4, at 6.
37. Mezuk, supra note 10, at 300.
38. Snipes & Horowitz, supra note 4, at 3-4 (advocating an overhaul of the standards used to evaluate teachers, the inclusion of secondary literacy teaching strategies at the curricular level, and a fundamental attitudinal change in the way teachers bracket secondary literacy into the realm of English classes); see also Miller, supra note 12, at 3 (advocating that programs be implemented which will integrate secondary literacy standards into all subjects, and cultivating resources and tools for teachers to use to inculcate secondary literacy skills).