Learn About: 21st Century | Charter Schools | Homework
Home / Edifier


The EDifier

January 9, 2014

EdWeek Ranks State Education Systems

Today, Education Week (EdWeek) released its annual special report Quality Counts 2014, which included its annual State of the States report card. Massachusetts earned top honors in the Student Achievement category by earning a B while the nation as a whole earned a C-minus, up from a D-plus in 2008—the first year EdWeek graded states on measures of student achievement. The U.S. earned higher grades in the other two categories– School Finance and EdWeek’s Change for Success Index– where the nation as a whole earned a C and C-plus respectively.

EdWeek’s annual report card shows once again that states vary considerably not only in achievement but how they fund their schools and the opportunity children born in their state are likely to succeed later on in life. States such as Massachusetts and Maryland not only received high marks from EdWeek but have also been compared favorably to high performing countries in previous studies while those states receiving the lowest grades from EdWeek typically scored below most industrialized countries as well. In these lower performing states, the typical student will less likely to be able to compete in the global labor market upon graduating high school.

How states can boost student achievement in this post-recession era of fewer funds and more rigorous requirements is certainly not clear. EdWeek attempted to provide more clarity to this question by surveying school district administrators across the country about how to best improve our public schools. Respondents were generally supportive of charter schools, virtual learning, and homeschooling but didn’t see these alternatives as having a major impact. These district officials also didn’t feel state and federal policymakers had much influence on school policies. In their opinion, it was school district officials and local school board members who have the most impact on school policies, not state and federal officials who seem to drive more of today’s reforms. So for states to increase their grades and become more competitive internationally, real reforms need to come from the local level and for states and federal officials to support those efforts.

Here are some of the key findings from this year’s report card:

K-12 Achievement Index

How do states compare on the academic achievement of their students in elementary through high school?

  • Public schools improved slightly since 2012- the last time the index was reported—but still earned a C-minus just as in 2012.
    • The grade is based on the academic status and growth over time in math and reading scores, narrowing of poverty-based achievement gaps, as well as high school graduation rates and the performance on the advanced placement test.
  • Massachusetts was once again top of its class in 2014 just has it has since 2008 by earning a B. Maryland and New Jersey scored slightly lower, but still earned a B and B-minus respectively.
  • Just two states–Mississippi, and the District of Columbia– received failing marks in 2014 compared to four states in 2012.
  • Thirty-two states earned grades between a D and C-minus.

Chance for Success Index

What are the odds that the average child who grows up in a particular state will do as well as the average child in the top-ranked state, at each stage of his or her educational life? (these stages are: the early childhood years, participation and performance in formal education, and educational attainment and workforce outcomes during adulthood)

  • Massachusetts ranked first for the sixth consecutive year by being the only state to receive an A-minus, while Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and North Dakota earned a B-plus.
    • This means that children in Massachusetts have the best chance of achieving positive life outcomes, according to EdWeek.
  • On the other hand, children in Nevada, New Mexico, and Mississippi have the least chance of achieving positive life outcomes by earning a D and D-pluses, respectively.
  • The nation as a whole earned a C-plus just as in 2013.

School Finance

How much do states spend on their schools? Is the spending distributed equitably?

  • Overall, the nation earned a C in School Finance similar to last year.
  • Wyoming’s grade dropped from an A to an A-minus but still received the highest grade of any state just as in 2013. However, West Virginia, New York, and Connecticut were close behind, all earning a B-plus.
  • On the other hand, four states — Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — received a D while Idaho received a D-minus. No state received a failing grade.
  • Out of the 12 states that improved their school finance scores North Dakota, North Carolina and New Hampshire made the greatest improvements by boosting their grades a half a letter.
    • However, 35 states actually saw declines in their school finance score.
  • States vary greatly in how much they spend on education even when taking regional cost differences into account.
    • Wyoming spent the most per pupil with $19,534 and Utah spent the least with $6,905—a $12,629 difference in per pupil spending.
  • There are also major differences in per pupil spending within states as well.
    • On average states spend $4,566 more per pupil in districts at the 95th percentile in school spending than in districts at the 5th percentile.
    • Alaska has the greatest difference at $13,023, while Utah had the smallest difference at $1,997 per pupil.
    • Only seven states-Alaska, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming spent more in low-income districts than in the states’ wealthier districts.

School District Administrator Survey

  • Nearly 9 of 10 respondents believed that accountability pressures have been a major driver of change in their districts.
    •  A slightly higher percentage of respondents believed economic and fiscal challenges were major drivers of change.
  • About half believed private schools, virtual schools and homeschooling had some influence on their districts.
    • A smaller percentage indicating that charter schools had some influence (probably because charters are present in far fewer districts nationwide).
    • Keep in mind, just 1 in 10 respondents thought these other options had a significant influence on their district.
  • Fifty-four percent of respondents believed that there needs to be a change in the current governance structure to meet today’s challenges.
    • The most common change happening in districts surveyed were:
      • Changing superintendents (66 percent).
      • Expanding school choice (48 percent).
      • Central office reorganization (30 percent).
    • Mayoral takeover had happened in 3 percent of surveyed districts.
  • Most respondents supported non-traditional options such as virtual learning (74 percent), charter schools (59 percent), and homeschooling (58 percent).
    • Few supported vouchers (14 percent).





December 19, 2013

Urban districts improving faster than the average public school but still lag behind

Yesterday, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released the sixth installment of the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA), which reports on the performance of fourth- and eighth-graders on NAEP reading and mathematics in 21 participating urban districts. Results show that our nation’s urban districts have made gains that have outpaced the average public school— yet students in large urban districts still perform significantly below the average student nationwide.

It is important to point out that the gains being made are not shared by all urban districts. Some urban districts have made more dramatic gains than others. For example, Washington, DC made impressive gains both recently and in the long term. In three of the four grades and subjects that NEAP assessed, DC students acquired nearly an additional two years worth of learning than a decade ago. Large gains were also made in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Diego since 2003. However, out of these large gaining districts, only San Diego performed as well as the national average in at least one grade and subject area. Charlotte, on the other hand, has made moderate gains but still outperformed the national average on all assessments except for 8th grade reading. Austin outperformed the national average as well in 4th grade math and Hillsborough (FL) outperformed the national average in 4th grade reading.

Despite significant gains made by some districts, the report also indicates the gains made by urban districts may be subsiding. Fewer participating districts made significant gains between 2011 and 2013 than between 2009 and 2011. Taken together, schools in large cities continued to improve between 2011 and 2013, just not as strongly as in previous years.  In order to meet or even beat the national average, students attending schools in large urban districts had to literally outdo themselves.

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet on how to accelerate such gains. Some of the highest gaining districts were governed by elected school boards while others were under mayoral control. Some have charter schools while others do not. Some instituted high-stakes teacher evaluation systems while others have not. Some are in states that have implemented the Common Core State Standards while others are not. From this report alone it is not possible to determine what attributed to dramatic gains. What school boards need to do is examine what changes high gaining districts may have made and determine if such changes would be beneficial to their districts

The Findings

4th Grade Reading

  • Washington DC (5 points) and Los Angeles (4 points) were the only surveyed districts to make significant gains on their reading scores between 2011 and 2013.  During this same time period there was no significant increase in scores nationally.
    • Houston was the only district to see a significant decrease in scores (-5 points) between 2011 and 2013.
  • Atlanta (18 points) and Washington, D.C. (17 points) made the greatest gains from 2003 to 2013. Such increases are roughly equivalent to about a year and half worth of learning.
    • Cleveland was the only district to post a significant decline (-6 points) between 2003 and 2013.
  • Austin (TX), Charlotte (NC), Hillsborough County (FL), and San Diego scored higher than the average for large cities* (cities of populations of 250,000 or more).
  • The percentage of students in large cities scoring at or above the Proficient achievement level increased from 19 percent in 2003 to 26 percent in 2013.
  • The percentage of students scoring at or above proficient varied dramatically among urban districts from 40 percent in Hillsborough County and Charlotte to just 7 percent in Detroit.

8th Grade Reading

  • Five districts significantly increased their scores from 2011 to 2013, with Washington, DC posting the greatest gains with an 8 point improvement.  During this same time period, students nationally increased their scores by just 2 points.
    • From 2003 to 2013, only Atlanta (15 points), Los Angeles (15 points) and San Diego (10 points) made significant gains in their performance.
    • Cleveland was the only district to post a significant decline in their scores (-2 points) between 2003 and 2013.
  • Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Hillsborough County (FL), and Houston scored higher than the average for large cities. No district had a significant decrease in scores between 2011 and 2013.
  • Just as in the fourth grade, the percent of students in large cities scoring at or above the Proficient achievement level increased from 19 percent in 2003 to 26 percent in 2013.
  • The range of students scoring at or above proficient was nearly as wide as it was at the fourth-grade level. Charlotte had the highest percentage at 36 percent while Detroit once again had the lowest at just 9 percent.

4th Grade Math

  • Washington, DC (7 points), Chicago (7 points), Los Angeles (5 points), and Atlanta (5 points) were the only districts to significantly increase their scores from 2011 to 2013. During this same time period, the national average rose by 1 point.
  •  Washington, D.C. made the greatest gains from 2003 to 2013 by increasing their score 24 points which equates to nearly two and half years of learning. Boston and Atlanta had the next highest gains with 17 points. Such increases are roughly equivalent to about a year and half worth of learning.
    • Charlotte, Cleveland, Houston, and New York City made no significant improvements during this time period.
  • Six urban districts scored higher than the 2013 average for students attending schools in large cities. In 2011, eight districts outperformed the national average.
  • The percentage of students in large cities scoring at or above the Proficient achievement level increased from 20 percent in 2003 to 33 percent in 2013.
  • The percentage of students scoring at or above Proficient varied dramatically among urban districts, from 50 percent in Charlotte to just 4 percent in Detroit.

8th Grade Math

  • Three districts (Washington, DC, Fresno, and Charlotte significantly increased their scores from 2011 to 2013. On the other hand, Cleveland was the only district to see a significant decline in their scores (-6 points) during this time period.
  • From 2003 to 2013, 7 out of 10 districts made significant gains in their performance, with Atlanta (23 points) and Boston (22 points) all making gains roughly equivalent to two years’ worth of additional learning.
    • Charlotte, Cleveland, and New York City were the only districts that didn’t make significant progress during this time period.
  • Four urban districts (Austin, Charlotte, Hillsborough County (FL), and Jefferson County (KY) scored higher than the 2013 average for students attending schools in large cities.
  • The percentage of students in large cities scoring at or above the Proficient achievement level increased from 16 percent in 2003 to 27 percent in 2013.
  • The percentage of students scoring at or above proficient varied just as it did at the fourth grade level. Charlotte had the highest percentage at 40 percent, while Detroit once again had the lowest percentage at just 3 percent.

*All cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more.

2013TUDATable1

TUDA Table 2

For more information on NAEP check outThe Proficiency Debate: How NAEP Achievement Levels are Defined






December 3, 2013

Disappointing results from latest international assessment

Results from the 2012 Program for International Assessment (PISA) were released today that compared the reading, mathematics, and science literacy of 15-year olds in 65 countries including the United States. Unfortunately, the overall results were not positive for our nation’s schools. In fact, the U.S. failed to improve on any of the three subjects tested since 2000- the first year PISA was administered. Due to this lack of improvement a greater number of countries outperformed the U.S. in 2012 than did in 2009—the last year PISA was administered—in all three subject areas. In particular, in mathematics the U.S. was significantly outperformed by 29 countries in 2012 compared to 24 countries in 2009. Even in reading where the U.S. has compared much more favorably, U.S. 15-year olds were outperformed by 19 countries in 2012 compared to just 9 countries in 2009.

What the results indicate is that while the U.S. performance remains relatively unchanged, other countries are leapfrogging over the U.S. by making significant gains in reading, mathematics, and science just between 2009 and 2012. These include countries such the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Poland, and Australia which all have among the highest child poverty rates in the world and all these countries outperformed the U.S. in mathematics.  Certainly, poverty impacts student achievement but the U.S. can learn from these countries on how to more successfully educate poor students. One bright point from the PISA results for the U.S. is that the achievement gap between high and low-socioeconomic status (SES) did narrow slightly between 2009 and 2012. However, even if every other country had a similar SES rate as the U.S. the U.S. performance would actually drop slightly while the performance of many other countries would actually improve. This provides evidence that the mediocre U.S. performance is not simply due to demographics.

While the PISA results are disappointing they are the exception rather than the rule when it comes measuring U.S. performance. On other international assessments such as TIMSS and PIRLS the U.S. has made significant progress over the past decade or so. In fact, in math the U.S. is among the world leaders in gains between 1995 and 2011. The U.S. has also made significant gains on domestic assessments such as NAEP. And the U.S. estimated on-time graduation rate has improved from 67 percent in 2000 to 74 percent in 2010—which is nearly at an all-time high. This makes the lack of improvement on PISA all that more surprising. We need to take a deeper look into PISA data to find out why the U.S. is making such gains on other indicators that are not showing up in PISA. Without knowing the answer to this question limits our ability to use the PISA results to improve our schools.

The Findings

Mathematics Literacy

  • The U.S. score of 481 was significantly lower than the international average* of 496.
  • The U.S. was outperformed by 29 of 64 countries**.
    • Shanghai-China was the highest performing country (613) followed by Singapore (573), Hong-Kong-China (561), Chinese Taipei (560), and Korea (554).
    • The U.S. performed similarly to 9 countries including Norway, Italy, Russia, and Hungry.
    • The U.S. performed significantly better than 26 countries such as Israel (466), Greece (453), Mexico (413), and Brazil (391).
  • Scores for the U.S. have not improved.
    • Scores for the U.S. were similar between 2009 and 2012 as well as between 2000 and 2012.
    • Twenty-nine countries outperformed the U.S. in 2012 compared to 24 countries in 2009.
      • In 2009 Poland, Austria, Ireland, Czech Republic, and United Kingdom performed similarly to the U.S. but outperformed the U.S. in 2012.
  • The U.S. has fewer advanced students and more low performing students than most countries.
    • A smaller percentage of U.S. students (9 percent) scored within the top two PISA achievement levels than the international average (13 percent).
    • Twenty-seven countries had a higher percentage of high performing students. Shanghai-China led the world with more than half (55 percent) reaching these advanced levels followed by Singapore (40 percent), Chinese Taipei (37 percent), Hong Kong-China (34 percent), and Korea (31 percent).
    • The U.S. also had a larger proportion of low-performing students**(26 percent) than the international average (23 percent) and 29 counties had a lower percentage of low-performing students than the U.S.

Science Literacy

  • The U.S. did not score significantly different from the international average of 501.
  • The U.S. was outperformed by 22 of 64 other countries.
    • Shanghai-China was the highest performing country (580) followed by Hong-Kong-China (555), Singapore (551), Japan (547), and Finland (545).
    • The U.S. performed similarly to 13 countries including France, Italy, Norway, and Croatia.
    • The U.S. performed significantly better than 29 countries such as Russia (486), Sweden (485), Mexico (415), and Brazil (405).
  • Scores for the U.S. have not improved.
    • Scores for the U.S. were basically unchanged between 2009 and 2012.
    • The 2012 scores were also similar to the scores in 2000.
    • Twenty-two countries outperformed the U.S. in 2012 compared to 18 countries in 2009.
      • In 2009 Poland, Ireland, and the Czech Republic performed similarly to the U.S. but outperformed the U.S. in 2012.
  • The U.S. has fewer advanced students and more low performing students than most countries.
    • Seven percent of U.S. students scored within the top two PISA achievement levels which is similar to the international average.
    • Seventeen countries had a higher percentage of high performing students than the U.S. Shanghai-China led the world with 27 percent of students reaching these advanced levels followed by Singapore (23 percent), Japan (18 percent), and Finland (17 percent).
    • Twenty-one countries had a lower percentage of low-performing students than the U.S. However, the U.S. had a similar proportion of low-performing students (18 percent) than the international average.

Reading Literacy

  • The U.S. did not score significantly different from the international average of 496.
  • The U.S. was outperformed by 19 of 64 other countries.
    • Just like in mathematics and science Shanghai-China was the highest performing country (570) followed by Hong-Kong-China (545), Singapore (542), Japan (538), and Korea (536).
    • The U.S. performed similarly to 12 countries including France, Italy, United Kingdom, and Israel.
    • The U.S. performed significantly better than 34 countries such as Russia (475), Greece (477), Mexico (424), and Brazil (410).
  • Scores for the U.S. have not improved.
    • Scores for the U.S. were basically unchanged between 2009 and 2012.
    • The 2012 scores were also similar to the scores in 2000.
    • Ten more countries outperformed the U.S. in 2012 than in 2009.
      • In 2009 Poland, Ireland, Estonia, Switzerland, and Germany performed similarly to the U.S. but outperformed the U.S. in 2012.
  • The U.S. has fewer advanced students and more low performing students than most countries.
    • Eight percent of U.S. students scored within the top two PISA achievement levels which is similar to the international average.
    • Fourteen countries had a significantly greater share of high performers with Shanghai-China leading the world with 25 percent followed by Singapore (21 percent), and Japan (18 percent).
    • The U.S. also had a similar proportion of low-performing students (17 percent) than the international average although 14 countries had a higher percentage.

Demographics

  • The U.S. is not uniquely diverse.
    • The U.S. has about the same proportion of ‘disadvantaged’ students as the international average.
    • The U.S. has the 6th largest share of immigrant students.
    • When controlling for the socioeconomic status (SES) of students across countries the U.S. ranking would actually decline compared to other countries.

For more information about PISA and other international assessments of student achievement check out the Center’s More than a horse race: A guide to international tests of student achievement.

 

* The OECD average is used at the international average
** OECD used the term education systems instead of countries.
*** Students who scored below the 2nd PISA achievement level.






November 7, 2013

U.S. Students Make Improvements in Math, According to NAEP

According to the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 4th and 8th graders scored higher in math on the assessment than in any other year. The average score increases at both levels increased by 1 point since 2011.  More students than ever in 4th grade reached the Proficient and Advanced levels and more students than ever in 8th grade reached the Proficient level.  Achievement has consistently been on the rise since 1990 — so much so that 4th and 8th graders today are 2 to 3 years ahead in math than their counterparts two decades ago.

It should be noted, however, that increases have lagged since 2003. The national average for 4th graders has improved by 29 points since 1990. Only 7 of those 29 points, however, have been made in the past 10 years. A similar trend is true for 8th graders. The past ten years is only responsible for 7 of the 22 points gained in the past 23 years.

 

The Findings

Fourth Grade State Level

  • At the state level, scores increased between 2011 and 2013 in fifteen states (Arizona, District of Columbia, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming)
    • No state saw a decrease in its average 4th grade mathematics score.
  • Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Hampshire were the highest performing states, while the District of Columbia, Louisiana, Mississippi were the lowest performing.
  • In terms of minority achievement, Black students in North Dakota scored higher than Black students in any other state. Hispanic students in Indiana scored higher than Hispanic students in any other state.

Fourth Grade National Level

  • Nationally, scores increased by 1 point between 2011 and 2013.
    • Student achievement in math has increased by 29 points (3 year’s worth of learning) since 1990, the 1st year of NAEP. 
  • The percent of fourth-graders scoring at or above NAEP’s Proficient level has more than tripled since 1990 (13 percent in 1990 vs. 42 percent in 2013).
    • Moreover, the percent of fourth-graders scoring below NAEP’s Basic level has decreased from 50 percent in 1990 to 17 percent in 2011.
  • Since 2011, achievement gaps widened slightly for White and Black students. The gap narrowed for White and Hispanic Students.
    • The Black/White achievement gaps narrowed from 25 points to 26 points, while the Hispanic/White gap narrowed from 20 points to 19 points. Blacks remain a little less than 3 years behind Whites, while Hispanics are about 2 years behind.
    • Furthermore, since 2003, the Black/White achievement gap has only decreased by 1 point. The Hispanic/White gap has shrunk by 3 points in that time.

Eighth Grade State Level

  • At the eighth grade level, 6 states improved their scores between 2011 and 2013, while Montana, Oklahoma and South Dakota saw a decline. 
  • Massachusetts continues to post the highest eighth grade math scores, with New Jersey, Minnesota and Vermont close behind. The District of Columbia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and New Mexico scored the lowest.
  • Black eighth graders in Massachusetts outperformed Black eighth graders in all other states. Hispanic students in New Jersey outperformed Hispanics in all other states

Eighth Grade National Level

  • Nationally, scores increased one point from 2011 to 2013. However, students in 2013 have obtained about two more years’ worth of math than students in 1990.
  • The percent of students reaching NAEP’s proficient level has more than doubled from 15 percent in 1990 to 35 percent in 2013. The percent scoring below NAEP’s Basic level decreased from 48 percent to 26 during the same time period.
  • At the eighth grade level, achievement gaps between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics did not change from 2011 to 2013.
    • In 1990, the Black/White gap was 33 points. It rose to 40 in 2000 and has since shrunk down to 31. The Hispanic/White gap started at 24 points in 1990, increased to 31 in 2000 and decreased to 22 in 2013.
    • The Black/White gap has not significantly changed since 2005. The Hispanic gap has not changed since 2009.

For more information on NAEP, check out the Center’s report The Proficiency Debate: A guide to NAEP achievement levels.

 

 






National 8th grade reading scores on the rise

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released the results of the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading for 4th and 8th graders earlier today which showed reading scores have continued to improve at the 8th grade level but remained relatively unchanged at the 4th grade level. However, achievement at both levels has consistently been on the rise since 1992. During this same time period, both the Black/White and Hispanic/White achievement gaps narrowed at both the 4th and 8th grades.

 

The Findings

Fourth Grade State Level

  • At the state level, public school students’ scale scores were higher in 2013 than 2011 in nine states (Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Maine, DoDEA [Department of Defense Schools] & the District of Columbia).
    • Three states saw decreases in their scores (Montana, North Dakota, & Massachusetts).
  • The percent of students reaching the Proficient level in 2013 ranged from 21 percent in Mississippi to 48 percent in Massachusetts.
  • Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, Connecticut and DoDEA achieved the highest scale scores, while the District of Columbia, New Mexico, Mississippi, and Alaska earned the lowest scale scores.
  • When it comes to improvement Tennessee, District of Columbia, Minnesota, Indiana, and Washington made the greatest gains between 2011 and 2013.
    • Each of these states improved their scores by 5 points which equates to about a half a year of learning.
    • Massachusetts suffered the greatest decline in scores by scoring 4 points lower in 2013 than in 2011.
  • When it came to educating minority students, Hispanic students in Florida scored higher than Hispanic students in any other state. Florida was also among the leaders in achievement of their Black students. 

 

Fourth Grade National Level

  • While the national average increased by one point from 2011 to 2013, the difference was not statistically significant. 
    • However, since the first year of NAEP in 1992, scale scores in reading have increased by nearly a half a year’s worth of learning (5 points). 
  • The percent of fourth-graders scoring at or above NAEP’s proficient level has continued to increase since 1992 (28 percent in 1992 vs. 35 percent in 2013).
    • Moreover, the percent of fourth-graders scoring below NAEP’s basic level continues to decrease going from 38 percent in 1992 to 32 percent in 2013.
  • Since 2011, achievement gaps have remained relatively unchanged, because there was no significant change in performance for Black or Hispanic students.
    • The Black/White achievement gap was 26 points while the Hispanic/White gap was 25 points.
    • However, since 1992 the Black/White achievement gap has decreased from 32 points to 26 points, which has reduced the gap by about 20 percent. 

 

Eighth Grade State Level

  • At the eighth grade level, 15 states made significant gains from 2011 to 2013. No states had significant declines.
    •  California (7 points), Tennessee (6 points), the District of Columbia (6 points) made the greatest gains during this time period.
  • Massachusetts and DoDEA schools obtained the highest scores, followed by New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland schools. On the other hand, the District of Columbia, Mississippi, and New Mexico lagged furthest behind.
  • DoDEA schools outperformed all other states systems in the achievement of both Black and Hispanic students. Maryland and New Jersey were also among the leaders in the performance of both groups of students.

 

Eighth Grade National Level

  • Nationally, scores increased from 265 to 268 from 2011 to 2013. They have also increased a total of eight points since 1992.
  • The percent of students reaching NAEP’s proficient level has increased from 29 percent in 1992 to 36 percent in 2013. The percent scoring below NAEP’s basic level decreased from 31 percent to 22 during the same time period.
  • As at the fourth grade level, the Black/White and Hispanic/White achievement gaps remained statistically unchanged between 2011 and 2013, although Hispanic students increased their score by four points during this time period.
    • But between 1992 and 2013, the Black/White gap has narrowed by four points.
    • While the Hispanic/White narrowed by six points since 1992.

 

For more information on NAEP, check out the Center’s report The Proficiency Debate: A guide to NAEP achievement levels.

 

 

 

 

 

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Assessments,NAEP,Public education,Report Summary — Jim Hull @ 4:04 pm





Older Posts »
RSS Feed