Your search found 82414 results.

Descriptors:
National Competency Tests; Data Analysis; Grade 4; Probability; Grade 8; Comparative Analysis; Achievement Gains; Achievement Gap; African American Students; American Indians; Asian American Students; Educational Trends; Gender Differences; Hispanic American Students; Low Income Groups; Private Schools; Public Schools; Racial Differences; Mathematics Achievement; Mathematics Tests; Scores; White Students; Students; Disabilities; Educational Assessment; Student Evaluation; Academic Achievement; Statistics; Trend Analysis; Student Participation; Ethnic Groups; Tables (Data); Governing Boards; Eligibility; Geometry; Lunch Programs; Algebra

Abstract:
This report presents results of the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics at grades 4 and 8. Nationally representative samples of 209,000 fourth-graders and 175,200 eighth-graders participated in the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics. At each grade, students responded to questions designed to measure what they know and can do across five mathematics content areas: number properties and operations; measurement; geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra. The results from the 2011 assessment are compared to those from previous years, showing how students' performance in mathematics has changed over time. Findings reveal: (1) Both fourth- and eighth-graders score higher in 2011 than in previous assessment years; (2) Highest percentages to date of fourth- and eighth-graders performing at or above the "Proficient" level; and (3) Scores in 18 states and jurisdictions higher than in 2009 at grade 4 or 8 and lower in 2 states. Appendix tables are included. (Contains 42 tables and 34 figures.) 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 (8707K)

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; 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:
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:
Urban Schools; School Districts; Public Schools; National Competency Tests; Achievement Gains; Educational Trends; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Educational Improvement; State Standards; Academic Standards; Alignment (Education); Educational Practices; Grade 4; Grade 8; African American Students; Hispanic American Students; Asian American Students; White Students; Low Income Groups; Limited English Speaking; Special Education; Elementary School Students; Middle School Students; Leadership; Educational Change; Goal Orientation; Accountability; Curriculum; Teacher Effectiveness; Faculty Development; Educational Assessment; Data

Abstract:
This is an abridged, summary report of selected findings from "Pieces of the Puzzle: Factors in the Improvement of Urban School Districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress"--a comprehensive study prepared by the Council of the Great City Schools in collaboration with the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and with funding from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The purpose of this report--exploratory as it is--is to present new data on urban school districts that have made significant and consistent gains, have demonstrated high overall performance, or have not produced consistent improvements on NAEP reading and mathematics assessments at grades 4 and 8. This report examines factors that might be driving those patterns, how alignment between state or district standards and NAEP, as well as the instructional programs and other features of the districts, might be affecting results, and what may be needed to further improve urban public schooling nationwide. The study also provides a preliminary framework for how future analyses might be conducted as more city school systems participate in TUDA. The results of this exploratory study are encouraging because they indicate that urban schools are making significant academic progress in reading and mathematics and may be catching up with national averages. The findings have special import because they suggest some reasons for this progress and the steps that might be required to accelerate this headway, particularly as the new common core standards are being implemented. Research Advisory Panel and Research Panel are appended. A bibliography is included. (Contains 16 tables, 4 figures and 24 footnotes.) [For related reports, see "Addendum to Pieces of the Puzzle: Recent Performance Trends of Urban Districts--A Closer Look at 2009 NAEP Results" (ED528219) and "Pieces of the Puzzle: Factors in the Improvement of Urban School Districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress" (ED528220).] 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 (4159K)

Descriptors:
Urban Schools; School Districts; Public Schools; National Competency Tests; Achievement Gains; Educational Trends; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Science Achievement; Educational Improvement; Case Studies; State Standards; Academic Standards; Alignment (Education); Educational Practices; Grade 4; Grade 8; African American Students; Hispanic American Students; Asian American Students; White Students; Low Income Groups; Limited English Speaking; Special Education; Elementary School Students; Middle School Students; Leadership; Educational Change; Goal Orientation; Accountability; Curriculum; Teacher Effectiveness; Faculty Development; Educational Assessment; Data

Abstract:
This report summarizes preliminary and exploratory research conducted by the Council of the Great City Schools and the American Institutes for Research on urban school systems participating in the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The study is one of the first large-scale analyses of urban NAEP trends, and the first to examine local instructional and organizational practices alongside changes in NAEP scale scores in the participating cities. This report is also preliminary in the sense that it attempts to lay out a framework for how NAEP data on the TUDA districts might be analyzed in the future as the number of participating cities grows and the amount of data expands. The purpose of this project was to identify urban school systems that are making academic progress and to examine possible factors in their improvement. The overarching goal was to identify variables that might be contributing to improvement in urban education across the nation and to explore what might be needed to accelerate those gains. The report also discusses broad lessons for the implementation of the common core state standards. This report wraps up with a short list of recommendations to urban school districts about what they might put into place based on the findings of this report and a set of conclusions about next steps. Appended are: (1) How NAEP Is Administered; (2) District Demographics, NAEP Trends, Funding, and Teachers; (3) NAEP Analysis Methodology; (4) Alignment Analysis Methodology; (5) Case Study Methodology and Protocol; (6) Atlanta Case Study; (7) Boston Case Study; (8) Charlotte-Mecklenburg Case Study; (9) Individuals Interviewed on Site Visits and Materials Reviewed; and (10) Research Advisory Panel and Research Team. Individual sections contain footnotes. (Contains 101 footnotes, 141 tables, and 30 figures.) [For related reports, see "Addendum to Pieces of the Puzzle: Recent Performance Trends of Urban Districts--A Closer Look at 2009 NAEP Results" (ED528219); and "Pieces of the Puzzle: Factors in the Improvement of Urban School Districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Abstract" (ED528222).] 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 (6580K)

Descriptors:
Urban Schools; School Districts; Public Schools; National Competency Tests; Achievement Gains; Educational Trends; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Comparative Analysis; Grade 4; Grade 8; African American Students; Hispanic American Students; Asian American Students; White Students; Low Income Groups; Limited English Speaking; Special Education; Elementary School Students; Middle School Students

Abstract:
In this study, the authors examined the academic performance of 18 urban districts that participated in the 2009 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). The districts participated in grade 4 and grade 8 reading and mathematics assessments. Eleven of these districts also participated in the 2007 TUDA. The authors examined the changes in student performance in these 11 districts from 2007 to 2009. Their analyses focused on the following questions: (1) How did each district perform in 2009--(a) compared to the national public sample and the large city populations?; (b) compared to one another when the authors control for relevant student background characteristics?; (c) compared to their expected performance based on relevant student background characteristics?; (d) across mathematics and reading subscales?; (e) at the item level? and (2) How did each district's performance change from 2007 to 2009? In the District Profiles section of this report, the authors answer these questions and also provide relevant fiscal and non-fiscal information on each district. It is evident that the academic performance of public school students in many of the urban districts the authors examined in this report is nowhere near what they would like it to be. However, the story is not uniform across all districts. Some districts, such as Charlotte, Boston, and Austin performed at levels similar to, in some cases even higher than, the national average. The authors also see districts that are performing below the large city and national averages, yet are making significant progress. The District of Columbia, for example, demonstrated significant gains in both grades and subjects. On the other hand, some districts have a longer path to travel in order to achieve their targets. For example, among the 11 districts that participated in 2007 and 2009 NAEP assessments, Cleveland and Chicago were the only two districts that performed lower than the national and the large city averages and showed no gains from 2007 to 2009. Like several other studies that use NAEP data, this study illustrates the depth and wealth of information available about academic performance of public school students in urban districts in the United States. Policy makers and practitioners can use this information. The variation in the profiles of the 18 urban districts examined in this report makes the case that there is much these districts can learn from each other. Appended are: (1) Adjusted Mean Scores; (2) Average Scores by Subscale and District: 2009; (3) Average Scores Adjusted for Relevant Background Variables, by District: 2009; (4) Average Expected Scores Based on Relevant Background Variables and District Effects, by District: 2009; (5) Average Scores Expressed in Percentiles, by Subscale and District: 2009; (6) Average Percentage Correct and Omission Rates by District: 2009; and (7) Characteristics of Differentially Difficult Items by District: 2009; and (8) Changes in Average Scores by Subscale and District: 2007 to 2009. (Contains 4 figures, 100 tables, and 14 footnotes.) [For related reports, see "Pieces of the Puzzle: Factors in the Improvement of Urban School Districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress" (ED528220); and "Pieces of the Puzzle: Factors in the Improvement of Urban School Districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Abstract" (ED528222).] 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 (2962K)

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; High Stakes Tests; Accountability; Testing; Standardized Tests; Grade 4; Grade 8; Followup Studies; Correlation; National Competency Tests; Reading Achievement; Racial Differences; Ethnicity; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Rating Scales; White Students; African American Students; Hispanic American Students; Achievement Gap; Trend Analysis; Mathematics Achievement

Abstract:
The present research is a follow-up study of earlier published analyses that looked at the relationship between high-stakes testing pressure and student achievement in 25 states. Using the previously derived Accountability Pressure Index (APR) as a measure of state-level policy pressure for performance on standardized tests, a series of correlation analyses was conducted to explore relationships between high-stakes testing accountability pressure and student achievement as measured by the National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP) in reading and math. Consistent with earlier work, stronger positive correlations between the pressure index and NAEP performance in fourth grade math and weaker connections between pressure and fourth and eighth grade reading performance were found. Policy implications and future directions for research are discussed. (Contains 7 footnotes, 17 tables, and 8 figures.) 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 (444K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

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:
Academic Achievement; Achievement Gap; Educational Opportunities; National Competency Tests; Neighborhoods; At Risk Students; Public Schools; Urban Areas; Low Achievement; Place of Residence; Racial Differences; Socioeconomic Status; White Students; Asian American Students; Pacific Islanders; Hispanic American Students; African American Students; Reading Skills; Grade 4; Grade 8; Family Income; Educational Quality; Mathematics Achievement

Abstract:
Every child deserves educational opportunity and the chance to achieve, no matter his or her school, neighborhood or background. Unfortunately, large and persistent disparities in achievement among public school students in the District of Columbia indicate that all children here may not have the same opportunities. This Data Snapshot examines citywide achievement on the DC Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), looking in greater depth at achievement in the fourth and eighth grades. This Data Snapshot also suggests the need for deeper analysis of the role that place and neighborhood--both where children live and where they attend school--may play in the achievement gap. (Contains 3 figures and 9 endnotes.) 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 (361K)