Your search found 349216 results.

Descriptors:
Achievement Gains; Achievement Gap; African American Students; American Indians; Asian American Students; Comparative Analysis; Educational Trends; Gender Differences; Grade 4; Grade 8; Hispanic American Students; Low Income Groups; National Competency Tests; Private Schools; Public Schools; Racial Differences; Reading Achievement; Reading Comprehension; Reading Tests; Scores; Students; White Students

Abstract:
This report presents results of the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading at grades 4 and 8. Nationally representative samples of 213,100 fourth-graders and 168,200 eighth-graders participated in the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading. At each grade, students responded to questions designed to measure their reading comprehension across two types of texts: literary and informational. The results from the 2011 assessment are compared to those from previous years, showing how students' performance in reading has changed over time. Findings reveal: (1) Students' reading comprehension unchanged from 2009 at grade 4, and improves at grade 8; (2) Higher percentage of eighth-graders perform at or above "Proficient" than in 2009; and (3) Scores in 12 states higher than in 2009 at grade 4 or 8 and lower in 2 states. Appendix tables are included. (Contains 36 figures and 44 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (10091K)

Descriptors:
Achievement Gap; Algebra; Comparative Analysis; Disabilities; Educational Assessment; Educational Improvement; Elementary School Students; English (Second Language); Ethnic Groups; Geometry; Grade 4; Grade 8; Graphs; Low Income Groups; Mathematics; Mathematics Achievement; Mathematics Tests; Middle School Students; National Competency Tests; National Programs; Probability; Public Schools; Racial Differences; School Districts; Scores; Second Language Learning; Statistical Analysis; Statistics; Tables (Data); Urban Areas; Urban Education; Urban Schools

Abstract:
Representative samples of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students from 21 urban districts participated in the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics. Eighteen of the districts participating in the 2011 NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) participated in earlier assessment years, while three districts participated for the first time in 2011. Between 1,000 and 2,700 students in each district were assessed at grades 4 and 8. Findings include: (1) Scores higher than in 2009 for four districts at grade 4 and six districts at grade 8. At grade 4, average mathematics scores were higher in 2011 than in 2009 for public school students in the nation, large cities, and 4 of the 18 urban districts that participated in both years (figure A). At grade 8, average mathematics scores were higher in 2011 than in 2009 for public school students in the nation, large cities, and 6 of the 18 urban districts that participated in both years; (2) Among the 21 urban districts that participated in the 2011 mathematics assessment, scores for both fourth- and eighth-graders in 6 districts were higher than the scores for public school students attending schools in large cities (i.e., cities with populations of 250,000 or more) overall. Fourth- and eighth-graders in 10 districts scored lower than their peers in large cities; and (3) Compared to large cities, scores for lower-income students are higher in eight districts at grade 4 and five districts at grade 8. At grade 4, average scores for both higher- and lower-income students in Austin, Charlotte, and Hillsborough County were higher than the scores for their peers in large cities (figure B). At grade 8, average scores for both higher- and lower-income students in Austin and Boston were higher than the scores for their peers in large cities. (Contains 21 figures and 25 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (37788K)

Descriptors:
Economics Education; High School Seniors; Grade 12; Student Evaluation; Basic Business Education; Money Management; Free Enterprise System; National Norms; International Trade; Economic Factors; Economic Impact; Scores; National Competency Tests; Test Results; Private Schools; Public Schools; Economics; Achievement Gap; Achievement Gains; Ethnic Groups; African American Students; Hispanic American Students; Pacific Americans; Alaska Natives; Asian American Students; American Indians; White Students

Abstract:
Economic literacy is vital for functioning effectively in today's society. Consumers need to manage their finances, investors need to plan for their future, and voters need to choose among competing economic plans. As students move on to college or enter the workforce, their understanding of the economy will help them become financially responsible citizens. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) monitors students' attainment of these skills and knowledge with its twelfth-grade economics assessment. First administered in 2006, the NAEP economics assessment measures twelfth-graders' understanding of a wide range of topics in three main content areas: market economy, national economy, and international economy. This report provides results of the economics assessment in 2012 based on a nationally representative sample of nearly 11,000 twelfth-graders. Results from 2012 are compared with those from 2006 to investigate whether the nation's high school seniors are becoming increasingly literate in economics. Percentage of students and average scores in NAEP economics at grade 12, by selected characteristics: 2006 and 2012 are appended. Technical notes are included. (Contains 17 figures and 4 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (3782K)

Descriptors:
National Competency Tests; Science Tests; Grade 8; Scores; Test Results; Achievement Gains; Achievement Gap; Science Achievement; Gender Differences; Racial Differences; African American Students; Hispanic American Students; American Indians; Alaska Natives; Asian American Students; Pacific Americans; White Students; Low Income Groups; Public Schools; Private Schools; Hands on Science; Science Projects; Cooperative Learning; Science Activities; Physical Sciences; Biological Sciences; Earth Science; Space Sciences; Science Process Skills

Abstract:
This report presents results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) U.S. science assessment in 2011. A representative sample of 122,000 eighth-graders participated in the 2011 NAEP science assessment, which is designed to measure students' knowledge and abilities in the areas of physical science, life science, and Earth and space sciences. The average eighth-grade science score increased from 150 in 2009 to 152 in 2011. The percentages of students performing at or above the "Basic" and "Proficient" levels were higher in 2011 than in 2009. There was no significant change from 2009 to 2011 in the percentage of students at the "Advanced" level. Score gaps between White and Black students and between White and Hispanic students narrowed from 2009 to 2011. In comparison to 2009, average science scores in 2011 were 1 point higher for White students, 3 points higher for Black students, and 5 points higher for Hispanic students. There were no significant changes from 2009 to 2011 in the scores for Asian/Pacific Islander or American Indian/Alaska Native students. Average scores for both male and female students were higher in 2011 than in 2009. Male students scored 5 points higher on average than female students in 2011, which was not significantly different from the 4-point gap in 2009. The average science score for public school students was higher in 2011 than in 2009, while there was no significant change in the score for private school students. Private school students scored 12 points higher on average than public school students in 2011, which was not significantly different from the 15-point score gap in 2009. (Contains 12 figures and 2 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (3240K)

Descriptors:
Income; Federal Legislation; American Indians; Academic Achievement; Mathematics Tests; National Competency Tests; Scores; Grade 4; White Students; Educational Legislation; Reading Tests; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis; Achievement Gains; Achievement Gap; African American Students; Asian American Students; Hispanic American Students; Low Income Groups; Gender Differences; Racial Differences; Grade 8; Comparative Analysis

Abstract:
After eight years of implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and other school reforms, how much progress have states, school districts, and schools made in raising achievement for students from all backgrounds and closing achievement gaps based on race, ethnicity, income, and gender? To help answer this question, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) analyzed trends in reading and mathematics performance and achievement gaps for several groups of students: African American, Asian, Latino, Native American, and white students, as well as low-income, male, and female students. The authors looked at trends on state tests from 2002 (or a more recent year in some states) through 2009 at grades 4, 8, and the high school grade tested for NCLB. They also compared the direction of trends between 2005 and 2009 on state tests and the federally sponsored National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). All 50 states and the District of Columbia participated in this study, which marks the fourth year of CEP's research on student achievement. Not all states had the data needed for every analysis, however. States were considered to have sufficient data for an analysis if they had three or more years of comparable test data through 2009 and if the number of students in a particular subgroup was large enough to yield reliable trends. Four main conclusions emerged from this study: (1) Achievement gaps are large and persistent; (2) Every major student group has made gains since 2002 on state reading and math tests. But even when achievement has increased for all groups, gaps have not always narrowed; (3) For most student groups, gaps on state tests have often narrowed since 2002. Gap trends vary, however, based on the student group and indicator of achievement examined; and (4) Although gaps have narrowed more rapidly for some groups than for others, at the current rates of progress it would take many years to close most gaps. (Contains 52 tables and 11 footnotes.) [For "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 1: Rising Scores on State Tests and NAEP", see ED511842.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1113K)

Descriptors:
Achievement Gap; Achievement Gains; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Achievement Tests; Gender Differences; Comparative Analysis; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis; Racial Differences; African American Students; Asian American Students; Hispanic American Students; White Students; American Indians; Low Income; Females; Academic Achievement; Scores; Grade 8; Males; Disabilities; English (Second Language); Second Language Learning; Federal Legislation; Accountability; Educational Policy; Algebra; Geometry

Abstract:
This paper profiles the student subgroup achievement and gap trends in Utah for 2010. Utah implemented new standards and cut scores in math so trend data that include 2009 are not available. In grade 8 (the only grade in which subgroup trends were analyzed by achievement level), Utah showed across-the-board gains in reading at the basic, proficient, and advanced levels for all racial/ethnic subgroups, low-income students, and boys and girls. Progress was made in narrowing achievement gaps between most subgroups. Comparable data in reading were available for 2004-2009. (Contains 9 tables.) [For the main report, "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 2: Slow and Uneven Progress in Narrowing Gaps", see ED513914.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (105K)

Descriptors:
Achievement Gap; Achievement Gains; Achievement Rating; African American Students; Academic Achievement; Comparative Analysis; Cutting Scores; Disadvantaged Schools; Educational Trends; Elementary School Students; Educational Legislation; Educational Indicators; Educationally Disadvantaged; Educational Improvement; Grade 4; Grade 8; Grouping (Instructional Purposes); Federal Legislation; High School Students; High Schools; Hispanic American Students; Low Achievement; Low Income Groups; Mathematics Achievement; Mathematics Tests; Minority Group Children; Poverty; Reading Achievement; Reading Tests; Racial Differences; Scores; Secondary School Students; Statistical Data; Testing Programs; Trend Analysis; Test Results; White Students

Abstract:
Title I provides extra instructional services designed to raise achievement for low-performing students in schools with relatively high poverty rates, and for all students in many of the nation's highest-poverty schools. To learn more about how well Title I students are performing academically, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) compared achievement trends since 2002 (or a more recent year in some states) on state reading and mathematics tests for Title I students and for students not participating in Title I. In particular, the authors looked at whether Title I students have made gains in reading and math at grades 4, 8, and the high school grade tested for NCLB (usually grade 10 or 11). They also examined whether achievement gaps between Title I and non-Title I students have narrowed. They used two indicators of achievement on each state's test--average (mean) scores on the scoring scale for that test, and the percentages of students scoring at or above the proficient level. Key findings from this study include the following: (1) Achievement on state reading and math tests has improved for Title I students in most states with sufficient data; (2) Gaps between Title I and non-Title I students have narrowed more often than they have widened since 2002, although trends were less encouraging at grade 4 than at grade 8 or high school; (3) When gaps narrowed, it was most often because achievement improved at a faster rate for Title I students than for non-Title I students; and (4) The size of achievement gaps between Title I and non-Title I students varied greatly among states but was often smaller than gaps for low-income students or for certain racial/ethnic groups. Details about Study Methods are appended. (Contains 11 tables and 3 footnotes.) [For related reports, see "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 1: Rising Scores on State Tests and NAEP" (ED513962); "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 2: Slow and Uneven Progress in Narrowing Gaps" (ED513914); and "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 3: Student Achievement at 8th Grade" (ED518144).] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (420K)

Descriptors:
Achievement Gap; Achievement Gains; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Achievement Tests; Gender Differences; Comparative Analysis; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis; Racial Differences; African American Students; Asian American Students; Hispanic American Students; White Students; American Indians; Low Income; Females; Academic Achievement; Scores; Grade 8; Males; Disabilities; English (Second Language); Second Language Learning; Federal Legislation; Accountability; Educational Policy; Algebra

Abstract:
In grade 8 (the only grade in which subgroup trends were analyzed by achievement level), Arkansas showed across-the-board gains--improvements in reading and math at the basic, proficient and advanced levels for all racial/ethnic subgroups, low income students, and boys and girls. The gains were quite large in most instances, especially at the proficient level. However, progress on narrowing of achievement gaps was mixed, because comparison groups (white and non-low income students) also improved their performance on state tests. Comparable data were available from 2005 through 2009 for grades 4 and 8, and from 2001 through 2009 for high school. (Contains 9 tables.) [For the main report, "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 2: Slow and Uneven Progress in Narrowing Gaps", see ED513914. For the 2009 Arkansas report , see ED507933.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (101K)

Descriptors:
Achievement Gap; Achievement Gains; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Achievement Tests; Gender Differences; Comparative Analysis; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis; Racial Differences; African American Students; Asian American Students; Hispanic American Students; White Students; American Indians; Low Income; Females; Academic Achievement; Scores; Grade 8; Males; Disabilities; English (Second Language); Second Language Learning; Federal Legislation; Accountability; Educational Policy; Algebra; English

Abstract:
This paper profiles the student subgroup achievement and gap trends in Oklahoma for 2010. Oklahoma made progress in narrowing achievement gaps for most major subgroups on the End-of-Instruction (EOI) test in Algebra I. Trends in achievement gaps could not be determined for other grades in math, or for any grades in reading, because the state changed its performance standards in 2009, making it inappropriate to compare current and previous years' test results. For the same reason, subgroup trends by achievement level at grade 8 could not be determined. (Contains 9 tables.) [For the main report, "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 2: Slow and Uneven Progress in Narrowing Gaps", see ED513914.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (108K)

Descriptors:
Achievement Gap; Achievement Gains; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Achievement Tests; Gender Differences; Comparative Analysis; Educational Trends; Trend Analysis; Racial Differences; African American Students; Asian American Students; Hispanic American Students; White Students; American Indians; Low Income; Females; Academic Achievement; Scores; Grade 8; Males; Disabilities; English (Second Language); Second Language Learning; Federal Legislation; Accountability; Educational Policy; Algebra

Abstract:
In grade 8 (the only grade in which subgroup trends were analyzed by achievement level), California students made gains across the board in reading at the basic, proficient, and advanced levels for racial/ethnic subgroups, low income students, and boys and girls. In math, there were some declines at the basic achievement level. In terms of percentages proficient, achievement gaps between racial/ethnic subgroups, low income and non-low income students, and boys and girls (in reading) narrowed almost across the board. However, this was not confirmed by the mean (average) score measure. Comparable data were available from 2004 through 2009. [For the main report, "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 2: Slow and Uneven Progress in Narrowing Gaps", see ED513914. For the 2009 California report, see ED507934.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (107K)