NYC ACHIEVEMENT GAINS COMPARED TO OTHER LARGE CITIES SINCE 2003 Changes in NAEP scores 2003 -2011 Leonie Haimson & Elli Marcus Class Size Matters January.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Jamesville-DeWitt School Report Card Presented to the Board of Education May 10, 2010.
Advertisements

Achievement of Hmong Students in Saint Paul Public Schools Hmong Youth Educational Services Banquet – June 2006 Tom Watkins Director of Research, Evaluation.
1 Graduation Rates: Students Who Started 9 th Grade in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.
School Report Cards 2004– The Bottom Line More schools are making Adequate Yearly Progress. Fewer students show serious academic problems (Level.
School Report Cards For 2003–2004
2010 California Standards Test (CST) Results Lodi Unified School District Prepared by the Assessment, Research, and Evaluation August 17, 2010 Board Study.
1 Leanna Stiefel and Amy Ellen Schwartz Faculty, Wagner Graduate School and Colin Chellman Research Associate, Institute for Education and Social Policy.
Science Achievement and Student Diversity Okhee Lee School of Education University of Miami National Science Foundation (Grant No. REC )
Grade 3-8 English. 2 The Bottom Line This is the first year in which students took State tests in Grades 3,4,5,6,7, and 8. With the new individual.
1 Graduation and Other Results: Students Who Began 9 th Grade in 2000 and 2001.
Mark DeCandia Kentucky NAEP State Coordinator
Grade 3-8 English Language Arts and Mathematics Results August 8, 2011.
Friday, February 7 th 8:30am. Conversation 8:30-9:30 1. Welcome 2. Where is Georgia in comparison to other states? 3. What is making the difference? 4.
Understanding Wisconsin’s New School Report Card.
K-12 Student Performance and Efficiency Commission July 18, 2014 School Year Data.
New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) Summary of October 2011 Results Developed for the Providence School Board February 27, 2012 Presented by:
NYC ACHIEVEMENT GAINS COMPARED TO OTHER LARGE CITIES SINCE 2003 Changes in NAEP scores Class Size Matters August
© 2010 THE EDUCATION TRUST Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps Between Groups: Roles for Federal Policy.
1 Results for Students and Individuals with Disabilities September 2008.
Link Between Inclusive Settings and Achievement in Urban Settings Elizabeth Cramer Florida International University.
Educational Standards Cabinet January Early Years Performance  The percentage of pupils achieving the target expectations in the Early Years Foundation.
1 Results for Students with Disabilities and School Year Data Report for the RSE-TASC Statewide Meeting May 2010.
2007 Grade 3-8 English Test Results. 2 Raising Achievement Over past several years, Board of Regents has voted measures to raise standards and require.
1 The Nation’s Report Card: 2007 Writing. 2 Overview of the 2007 Writing Assessment Given January – March 2007 – 139,900 eighth-graders – 27,900 twelfth-graders.
Stuart Kerachsky Deputy Commissioner National Center for Education Statistics December 8, 2009.
1 Graduation Rates: Students Who Started 9 th Grade in 2000, 2001, and 2002.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Results of the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress.
English Language Arts (ELA) & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) Total Public In grades 5-8, the percentage of students meeting the ELA Learning.
Mark DeCandia Kentucky NAEP State Coordinator
NAEP 2011 Mathematics and Reading Results Challis Breithaupt November 1, 2011.
Jackson County School District A overview of test scores and cumulative data from 2001 – 2006 relative to the following: Mississippi Curriculum Test Writing.
NAEP 2011 Mathematics and Reading Results NAEP State Coordinator Mark DeCandia.
Grade 3-8 Math. 2 Regents: Raising Standards, with Extra Help to Achieve Them The Regents approved new, higher math standards in March A.
Grade 3-8 English Language Arts and Math Results.
Academic Excellence Indicator System Report For San Antonio ISD Public Meeting January 23, 2006 Board Report January 23, 2006 Department of Accountability,
This year’s PSSA results show that Pennsylvania is on track to move all students to proficiency by 2014 as required by the federal No Child Left Behind.
N ATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS BPS 2015 NAEP RESULTS Office of Data and Accountability OCTOBER 26, 2015.
The Pike County School Corporation “The Role of the School Administrator In School Improvement” The Learning Conference Indianapolis, IN January 30, 2006.
N ATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS BPS 2015 NAEP RESULTS Nicole Wagner Lam, Office of Data and Accountability Presentation to Boston School Committee.
Good things that are happening for kids. Texas Students Rank #1, #2, & #3 in the nation! When comparing students by subgroups, Texas 4 th and 8 th graders.
Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Findings and Recommendations Dr. Thomas Hehir Silvana and Christopher Pascucci Professor.
Graduation Rates: Students Who Started 9 th Grade In 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
Stuart Kerachsky Deputy Commissioner National Center for Education Statistics May 20, 2010.
The Nation’s Report Card: Trial Urban District Assessment: Science 2005.
The Nation’s Report Card: 2005 Reading and Mathematics Trial Urban District Assessments.
Graduation Rates: Students Who Started 9 th Grade in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 Supplemental Packet.
University of Colorado at Boulder National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Challenges for States and Schools in the No.
1 Grade 3-8 English Language Arts Results Student Growth Tracked Over Time: 2006 – 2009 Grade-by-grade testing began in The tests and data.
Graduation Rates: Students Who Started 9 th Grade In 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 Supplemental Packet.
2009 Grade 3-8 Math Additional Slides 1. Math Percentage of Students Statewide Scoring at Levels 3 and 4, Grades The percentage of students.
1 School Report Cards 2002–2003 An Overview. 2 School Report Card: Overall Trends Elementary school achievement is up in English and math over Middle.
Overview Plan Input Outcome and Objective Measures Summary of Changes Board Feedback Finalization Next Steps.
State of Wisconsin School Report Cards Fall 2014 Results
New Jersey Department of Education December 2012
Mesa Union School District “A Day in the Life of Data”
What is API? The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). It is required.
2017 TUDA NAEP Results for Miami-Dade
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Minnesota March 2015
2017 NAEP RESULTS: DC PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS
What’s Driving Chicago’s Educational Progress?
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in New York March 2015
Urban Charter Schools Impact in Washington DC March 2015
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Michigan March 2015
Lauren Kinsella Dr. Wright ITEC 7305
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Pennsylvania March 2015
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in Missouri March 2015
Urban Charter Schools IMPACT in New Mexico March 2015
2009 California Standards Test (CST) Results
Russell Elementary School By: Bridget Purdy April 2014
Mississippi Succeeds Unprecedented Achievement, Unlimited Potential
Presentation transcript:

NYC ACHIEVEMENT GAINS COMPARED TO OTHER LARGE CITIES SINCE 2003 Changes in NAEP scores Leonie Haimson & Elli Marcus Class Size Matters January

NAEP Scores: Why are they important? The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is largest continuing assessment of the knowledge and abilities of American students. NAEP assessments are given by the federal govt. every two years to statistical samples of students, change little over time & are low-stakes, and so can be used as a reliable metric to compare achievement trends among states and urban districts. The Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) has been given in 10 large cities incl. NYC since 2003 in four categories: reading and math in 4 th and 8 th grades. What follows is an analysis of the changes in NYC NAEP scores since 2003, when Bloomberg’s educational policies were first implemented, compared to changes in scores in the 9 other cities, plus large cities in general (w/ at least 250,000 inhabitants).

How did we compare trends among the large urban districts? Since overall scores can change depending on changes in student population, we compared changes in scores since 2003 for six major NYC subgroups (white, black, Hispanic, Asian, free lunch and non-free lunch students) compared to their peers in other large cities. Only major subgroups whose results we did not compare were students with disabilities and English language learners, since rates of identification and exclusion from testing differ widely among the ten cities. Our comparisons give insights into where NYC stands nationally, and allows us to assess the reality of DOE’s claims of great improvement. These comparisons give insight into where NYC stands nationally and provides a robust examination of the DOE’s claims o

When 2011 NAEP scores were released this fall, NYC DOE claimed great progress * Claim: “NYC students have improved significantly on three of the four math and reading tests between 2003 and 2011.” Reality: This is true in nearly every city tested since Claim: “….since 2003, the gap between black and white students in New York City has narrowed on all four exams, and on all four since 2009.” Reality: There has been no statistically significant narrowing of the achievement gap between any of the racial/ethnic groups in NYC in any subject tested since *Source: NYC DOE Press release, December 7, 2011NYC DOE Press release

DOE’s other unfounded claims of progress Claim: “’On all four tests, low-income students in NYC now outperform their peers across the nation, and that’s a reason to be proud,’ said Chief Academic Officer Shael Polakow-Suransky.” Reality: In 2003, NYC low-income students already outperformed their peers nationwide in all four categories tested, and since then have made fewer gains than peers in several other cities. Claim: “By the ‘gold standard’ for measuring academic progress, our students have made impressive gains since 2003—especially compared to their peers across New York State and the nation,” said Chancellor Walcott.” Reality: When measured across subgroups, NYC students have made less academic progress since 2003, compared to their peers, in every other city except one. *Source: NYC DOE Press release, December 7, 2011NYC DOE Press release

NYC comes in 2 nd to last among all 10 cities + “large city” category when NAEP score gains are averaged across 6 subgroups* *Subgroups include white, Hispanic, Black, Asian, free-lunch & non-free lunch Test score gains since 2003, averaged across all four categories: reading & math in 4 th & 8 th grades

Scores by subgroup: In NYC, Black students scores rose less than their peers in most other cities In 4 th grade reading, NYC black students dropped from tied for 3rd to 4th place among all cities since In 8th grade reading, NYC blacks were tied for 2nd and dropped to 3rd. In 4th grade math, NYC blacks dropped from 3rd to 4th place. in 8th grade math, NYC blacks went from 3rd to tied for 4th place.

NYC scores by subgroup: Black Students 4 th and 8 th grade reading and math gains in average scale scores since 2003

Subgroup: White students fell sharply behind their peers in other large cities since 2003, especially in 8 th grade reading & math In 4 th grade reading, NYC white student scores dropped from 5 th to 7 th place. In 4 th grade math, NYC white students dropped from 5 th place to 8 th place. In 8 th grade reading, NYC white students dropped from tied for 2 nd to 7 th place, and came in last in score gains. In 8 th grade math, NYC white student scores dropped from 4 th to 8 th place and came in last in score gains.

NYC scores by subgroup: White Students

Subgroup: Hispanic Students fell sharply behind peers since 2003 In 4 th grade reading, NYC Hispanic students dropped from 1st place among large cities to tied for 4 th. In 4 th grade math, NYC Hispanic students dropped from third place to sixth place among other large cities. In 8 th grade reading, NYC Hispanic students dropped from 2nd to 5th place, with a net negative change in scores. In 8 th grade math, NYC Hispanic students came in last place in score gains, falling from third place to 7 th place.

NYC scores by subgroup: Hispanic Students

Subgroup: Asian Students were the only NYC group to make substantial gains compared to peers in other cities. 4 th grade reading, NYC Asian student scores dropped from first place to second place, and placed fourth in overall score improvement among large cities. In 4 th grade math, Asian student scores dropped from second place to third place among large cities. In 8 th grade reading, NYC Asian student scores moved up from third place to second place among large cities. In 8 th grade math, NYC Asian student scored moved up from third place to second place

Subgroup: Asian Students

Changes in demographics: Asian student pop rising faster in NYC than elsewhere; otherwise progress on NAEPS would have been even smaller

NYC scores by subgroup: Free Lunch students had only middling gains In 4 th grade reading, NYC free lunch student scores remained in 1 st place but placed behind five other large cities in gains since In 4 th grade math, NYC free lunch student scores dropped from second place to third place, and placed fifth in score gains among large cities. In 8 th grade reading, NYC free lunch student scores remained in 1 st place but placed behind three other large cities in score gains. In 8 th grade math, NYC free lunch student scores dropped from 1 st place to 3 rd place.

Subgroup: free lunch

NYC non-free lunch students made the smallest gains of any city in every category; and dropped sharply at 8 th grade In 4 th grade reading, NYC non-free lunch students fell from 1 st place to 2 nd place. In 4 th grade math, NYC non-free lunch students fell from 2 nd place to 3 rd place. In 8 th grade reading, NYC non-free lunch student scores dropped 11 points – the only city where scores dropped – and fell from 1 st place to 8 th place. In 8 th grade math, NYC non-free lunch students dropped seven points – the only city where scores dropped -- and fell sharply from 1 st to 8 th place In 8 th grade reading and math, basic and proficient levels of non-free lunch also dropped sharply.

Subgroup: non-free lunch

NYC is ONLY city where proficiency levels in 8 th grade reading and math have dropped for non-free lunch students

All other cities made gains in 8 th grade proficiency in reading & math for non-free lunch students, while in NYC they dropped

Summary of findings: When analyzing subgroup performance, NYC’s relative progress since 2003 compared to other large cities has been mediocre to poor. NYC came in 2 nd to last in NAEP gains among 10 cities and “large city” category tested since 2003 when averaged across six subgroups. All NYC subgroups fell in ranking, compared to peers in other large cities, with White, Hispanic and non-free lunch students dropping most sharply. White students made the smallest gains compared to their peers in other cities in both 8 th grade reading and math; Hispanics in 8 th grade math. Asian students were only NYC subgroup to advance in ranking in any subject or grade; NYC was only city in which non-free lunch students scored lower in 2011 than in 2003, in both 8 th grade reading and math, and their proficiency levels also dropped sharply.

What about mayoral control? Two districts under mayoral control made least progress & on average, cities with elected school boards have done better Cities with mayoral control since 2003 or earlier in red; DC has had mayoral control since 2007.

What else do these results suggest? The administration’s aggressive free-market strategies of high-stakes accountability, school report cards, “fair student funding”, principal empowerment, and the closing of more than one hundred schools & the opening of more than 400 new schools & charters, while allowing class sizes to increase sharply, have not worked to increase achievement compared to cities elsewhere. In fact, the relative positions of white, Hispanic and non- free lunch students in NYC have all dropped substantially, with the declines especially sharp at the 8 th grade level.