Slide 1 - Opening
The National Center for Education Statistics has released the latest Nation’s Report Card, which provides results of The National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, in Mathematics for 18 urban school districts nationwide.
The Trial Urban District Assessment, which includes the 4th and 8th grades, is a collaboration of the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Assessment Governing Board, and the Council of the Great City Schools.
Slide 2 - Trial Urban District Assessment Map for 2009
Since NAEP results were first provided in Math for urban districts in 2003, the number of participating districts increased from 10 to 18 in 2009.
Districts participate voluntarily because it allows them to compare themselves with similar districts across the country.
Slide 3 - Overview
About 900 to 2,200 students were assessed per district at each grade, depending on the size of the district.
This includes students attending public schools and charters, if the charters contribute to the district’s reporting of Adequate Yearly Progress.
Student performance is reported as scale scores and achievement levels.
Average scores are reported on a scale ranging from zero to five hundred for mathematics.
Achievement levels, developed by The Governing Board define what students should know and be able to do at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels.
We’ll compare students’ performance in the 18 districts to the nation, and to large cities with populations of 250,000 or more.
The comparison to large cities is made because the demographic characteristics of those students are most like the characteristics of students in urban districts.
Both the districts and large cities generally have higher percentages of Black or Hispanic students, lower-income students, and English language learners than in the nation as a whole.
Slide 4 - Results, Grade 4
Now, let’s take a look at results for grade 4.
Slide 5 - Score Changes for Grade 4 Mathematics
Here, we compare each district’s score in 2009 with the first math district assessment in 2003 and the next most recent one in 2007.
A red arrow, pointing upwards, means a statistically significant increase in scores.
A grey arrow, pointing sideways, in both directions, means no significant change.
Nationally, scores for 4th grade students did not change since 2007, but students in large cities made gains, as did students in two districts, Boston and the District of Columbia.
Since 2003, scores in all but two districts, Charlotte and Cleveland, have increased.
Slide 6 - 2009 Grade 4 Lower-Performing Students
Looking at the scores by percentiles that are broken down by the lowest to highest performing students, gives us a better picture of where progress is being made.
Nationally, from 2007 to 2009, there were no gains for any of the five percentiles.
But, in large cities, lower-performing students did make progress.
Slide 7 - 2009 Grade 4 Mathematics Score Comparisons
Now, let’s compare student performance in the districts to the nation and large cities.
Charlotte had a higher score than both the nation and large cities.
A total of seven districts had higher average scores than large cities: Austin, Boston, Charlotte, Houston, Miami-Dade, New York City, and San Diego.
Jefferson County’s score was not significantly different from large cities.
And ten districts scored lower than both the nation and large cities.
Slide 8 - Achievement-Level Results, Grade 4
Let’s look at achievement-level results, focusing on students at or above Basic, which includes those in the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels.
In the districts, the range was between 31 and 86 percent.
Seven districts had a larger percentage of students at or above Basic than large cities.
Jefferson County’s results were comparable to large cities, and ten districts had a lower percentage of students at or above Basic than large cities.
In addition, all of the districts had students performing at or above Proficient, ranging from about 3 percent in Detroit to about 45 percent in Charlotte.
Slide 9 - Comparison by racial/ethnic group
A different picture emerges when you look at specific demographic groups.
As you recall, only one district, Charlotte, scored higher than the nation.
As we see here, White students in most districts scored higher than or comparable to the national average for White students.
Only five districts had students scoring lower.
By comparison, Black students in 10 districts scored below the national average for Black students.
Hispanic students in most districts scored above or comparable to the national average.
In five districts, Asian/Pacific Islander students scored above or comparable to the national average; another five districts scored below.
Only those districts with student groups large enough to report results are listed here.
If we look across the columns, we see that in Houston, each group of students scored higher than the national average - but, because of the relative size of these groups in Houston’s student population,
Houston’s overall average score is lower than the nation.
A similar pattern occurs in several other districts.
Slide 10 - Sample 4th-Grade Question in Number Properties and Operations
Here is a question students may have been asked, subtracting 75 from 301.
Nationally, 67 percent of grade 4 students chose A, answering the question correctly, while 63 percent of large city students did so.
So, how did the districts do?
In these districts, more than 60 percent of students answered the question correctly.
In these, between 50 and 60 percent answered it correctly.
And in these, less than 50 percent got it right.
Slide 11 - Mathematics 2009 Grade 8 Results
Now, the results for 8th grade.
Slide 12 - Score Changes for Grade 8 Mathematics
Again, we compare each district’s score in 2009 with the first and the most recent assessments.
The average scores for students nationally and in large cities have increased in comparison to both 2003 and 2007.
Of the 10 districts that participated in 2003, only one, Cleveland, did not show an increase in 2009.
Two districts, Austin and San Diego, had higher scores in 2009 than in 2007.
Slide 13 - 2009 Grade 8 Mathematics Score Comparisons
Of all the districts participating in 2009:
Austin is the only district with an average score higher than the nation and large cities.
Five districts had higher scores than large cities, while three scored below the nation, but were comparable to large cities.
Ten districts had scores that were lower than both the national and large city average.
Slide 14 - Achievement-Level Results, Grade 8
The percentage of students performing at or above the Basic achievement level ranged from 23 to 75 percent.
Compared to large cities, six districts had a larger percentage of students performing at or above Basic, two districts were not statistically different, and, the rest of the districts had a lower percentage of students at or above the Basic achievement level.
Again, all of the districts had students performing at or above the Proficient level, ranging from about 4 percent in Detroit to 39 percent in Austin.
Slide 15 - Mathematics Grade 8 Sample Question
Here's a question students may have been asked. Marty has 6 red pencils, 4 green pencils, and 5 blue pencils.
If he picks out one pencil without looking, what is the probability that the pencil he picks will be green?
Nationally, 77 percent of students chose D, answering this question correctly.
In large cities, the number was 67 percent.
In these districts, more than 70 percent of students answered correctly.
In these, between 60 and 70 percent got it right.
And in these, less than 60 percent got it right.
Slide 16 - 2009 TUDA Conclusion
These have been just a few highlights of the 2009 Trial Urban District Assessment in Mathematics.
The results should be put into context with each individual district considering its demographics, initiatives, and challenges.
You'll find the full report, sample questions, and extensive data on each district on our website.