TESTING BRIEF National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) - Mathematics January 24 March 4, 2011

Similar documents
Shelters Elementary School

Cooper Upper Elementary School

Wisconsin 4 th Grade Reading Results on the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

A Guide to Adequate Yearly Progress Analyses in Nevada 2007 Nevada Department of Education

Supply and Demand of Instructional School Personnel

Student Mobility Rates in Massachusetts Public Schools

Transportation Equity Analysis

Cooper Upper Elementary School

Port Graham El/High. Report Card for

Iowa School District Profiles. Le Mars

Research Brief. Literacy across the High School Curriculum

John F. Kennedy Middle School

University of Utah. 1. Graduation-Rates Data a. All Students. b. Student-Athletes

File Print Created 11/17/2017 6:16 PM 1 of 10

Sunnyvale Middle School School Accountability Report Card Reported Using Data from the School Year Published During

Rural Education in Oregon

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD

Data Diskette & CD ROM

Idaho Public Schools

Missouri 4-H University of Missouri 4-H Center for Youth Development

Frank Phillips College. Accountability Report

46 Children s Defense Fund

YOUR FUTURE IN IB. Why is the International Baccalaureate a great choice for you? Mrs. Debbie Woolard IB Director Marietta High School

Peer Influence on Academic Achievement: Mean, Variance, and Network Effects under School Choice

World s Best Workforce Plan

Evaluation of Teach For America:

TRANSFER APPLICATION: Sophomore Junior Senior

Kansas Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Revised Guidance

George A. Buljan Middle School School Accountability Report Card Reported Using Data from the School Year Published During

5 Programmatic. The second component area of the equity audit is programmatic. Equity

SAT Results December, 2002 Authors: Chuck Dulaney and Roger Regan WCPSS SAT Scores Reach Historic High

EFFECTS OF MATHEMATICS ACCELERATION ON ACHIEVEMENT, PERCEPTION, AND BEHAVIOR IN LOW- PERFORMING SECONDARY STUDENTS

READY OR NOT? CALIFORNIA'S EARLY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AND THE TRANSITION TO COLLEGE

Annual Report to the Public. Dr. Greg Murry, Superintendent

Statistical Peers for Benchmarking 2010 Supplement Grade 11 Including Charter Schools NMSBA Performance 2010

Institution of Higher Education Demographic Survey

Invest in CUNY Community Colleges

HIGH SCHOOL PREP PROGRAM APPLICATION For students currently in 7th grade

African American Male Achievement Update

Enrollment Trends. Past, Present, and. Future. Presentation Topics. NCCC enrollment down from peak levels

NC Education Oversight Committee Meeting

Coming in. Coming in. Coming in

Elementary and Secondary Education Act ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) 1O1

Updated: December Educational Attainment

Guide for Test Takers with Disabilities

For international students wishing to study Japanese language at the Japanese Language Education Center in Term 1 and/or Term 2, 2017

Bellevue University Admission Application

Longitudinal Analysis of the Effectiveness of DCPS Teachers

Junior (61-90 semester hours or quarter hours) Two-year Colleges Number of Students Tested at Each Institution July 2008 through June 2013

UW-Waukesha Pre-College Program. College Bound Take Charge of Your Future!

Demographic Survey for Focus and Discussion Groups

Miami-Dade County Public Schools

Executive Summary. Lincoln Middle Academy of Excellence

Redirected Inbound Call Sampling An Example of Fit for Purpose Non-probability Sample Design

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

State of New Jersey

New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark College of Engineering

School Accountability Report Card Published During the School Year

Kahului Elementary School

Foreign Languages. Foreign Languages, General

BUILDING CAPACITY FOR COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM NAEP ITEM ANALYSES. Council of the Great City Schools

Race, Class, and the Selective College Experience

2013 TRIAL URBAN DISTRICT ASSESSMENT (TUDA) RESULTS

SMILE Noyce Scholars Program Application

An Introduction to School Finance in Texas

The Achievement Gap in California: Context, Status, and Approaches for Improvement

Dyer-Kelly Elementary School School Accountability Report Card Reported Using Data from the School Year Published During

Practices Worthy of Attention Step Up to High School Chicago Public Schools Chicago, Illinois

Effective Recruitment and Retention Strategies for Underrepresented Minority Students: Perspectives from Dental Students

Status of Women of Color in Science, Engineering, and Medicine

Bella Vista High School School Accountability Report Card Reported Using Data from the School Year Published During

International: Three-Year School Improvement Plan to September 2016 (Year 2)

Effectiveness of McGraw-Hill s Treasures Reading Program in Grades 3 5. October 21, Research Conducted by Empirical Education Inc.

Lesson M4. page 1 of 2

DUAL ENROLLMENT ADMISSIONS APPLICATION. You can get anywhere from here.

A Diverse Student Body

Strategic Plan Dashboard Results. Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

STEM Academy Workshops Evaluation

Educational Attainment

Samuel Enoka Kalama Intermediate School

A Guide to Finding Statistics for Students

Executive Summary. Hialeah Gardens High School

4 th Grade Number and Operations in Base Ten. Set 3. Daily Practice Items And Answer Keys

Psychometric Research Brief Office of Shared Accountability

Arthur E. Wright Middle School 1

Hokulani Elementary School

Emergency Medical Technician Course Application

Raw Data Files Instructions

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS

Effective practices of peer mentors in an undergraduate writing intensive course

Financial aid: Degree-seeking undergraduates, FY15-16 CU-Boulder Office of Data Analytics, Institutional Research March 2017

Facts and Figures Office of Institutional Research and Planning

Principal vacancies and appointments

ACCESS TO SUCCESS IN AMERICA: Where are we? What Can We Learn from Colleges on the Performance Frontier?

2010 National Survey of Student Engagement University Report

Student Support Services Evaluation Readiness Report. By Mandalyn R. Swanson, Ph.D., Program Evaluation Specialist. and Evaluation

INTER-DISTRICT OPEN ENROLLMENT

Appendix K: Survey Instrument

Application for Fellowship Theme Year Sephardic Identities, Medieval and Early Modern. Instructions and Checklist

Transcription:

TESTING BRIEF National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) - Mathematics January 24 March 4, 2011 The Nation's Report Card, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is a nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, history, geography, and other fields. By making objective information on student performance available to policymakers at the national, state, and local levels, NAEP is an integral part of our nation's evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only information related to academic achievement is collected under this program. NAEP guarantees the privacy of individual students and their families. This report provides selected NAEP results for Georgia's public school students in mathematics at grades 4 and 8. Student performance is reported as an average score based on the NAEP mathematics scale, which ranges from 0 to 500. Beginning in 1990, mathematics has been assessed in nine different years at the state level (at grade 8 in 1990, and at both grades 4 and 8 in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011). This report presents results from 2000 to 2011. Grade 4 KEY FINDINGS IN MATHEMATICS The average mathematics score for students in Georgia was 238. This was significantly different than the score in 2009 (236). Georgia's average score in 2011 (238) was lower than that of the nation's public schools (240). The average mathematics score for White students in Georgia changed from 247 in 2009 to 249 in 2011. The average score for Black students changed from 221 in 2009 to 224 in 2011. The average score for Hispanic students changed from 231 in 2009 to 233 in 2011. The average mathematics score for students who were eligible for the National School Lunch (NSL) Program was 225 in 2009 and 227 in 2011. The percentage of students in Georgia who performed at or above Basic was 80 percent. This was not significantly different from 2009 (78 percent). The percentage of students in Georgia who performed at or above Proficient was 37 percent. Although this represents a three-percentage point increase over 2009 (34 percent), this gain was not significant. November 1, 2011 Page 1 of 8

KEY FINDINGS IN MATHEMATICS Grade 8 The average mathematics score for students in Georgia was 278, demonstrating no change from 2009. Georgia's average score (278) was lower than that of the nation's public schools (283). The average mathematics score for White students in Georgia changed from 289 in 2009 to 291 in 2011. Black students average score remained the same at 262 in 2009 and 2011. Scores for Hispanic students changed from 270 in 2009 to 277 in 2011. The average mathematics score for students who were eligible for the National School Lunch (NSL) Program in Georgia changed from 265 in 2009 to 267 in 2011. The percentage of students in Georgia who performed at or above Basic increased, although not significantly, from 67 percent in 2009 to 68 percent in 2011. The percentage of students in Georgia who performed at or above Proficient was 28 percent. This gain was not significantly different from 2009 (27 percent). November 1, 2011 Page 2 of 8

Scale Score Table 1: Average Scale Scores NAEP Grade 4 Mathematics 2000-2011 Table 1: Average Scale Scores All Students 219* 230* 234* 235* 236* 238 19 White 230* 241* 243* 246 247 249 19 Black 204* 217* 221 222 221 224 20 Hispanic 217* 219* 229 229 231 233 16 Asian NA 248* 255 255 256 263 15** Male 220* 231* 234* 236 237 238 18 Female 218* 229* 233* 234* 236* 239 21 FRL (NSL) 204* 219* 224* 224* 225 227 23 Students with Disabilities 196* 209 218 219 215 214 18 English Language Learner NA 208 208* 212 220 219 11** Figure 1: Average Scale Scores NAEP Grade 4 Mathematics 2000-2011 NAEP Grade 4: Math Average Scale Scores 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 2000 219 230 204 217 N/A 220 218 204 196 N/A 2003 230 241 217 219 248 231 229 219 208 208 2005 234 243 221 229 255 234 233 224 218 208 2007 235 246 222 229 255 236 234 224 219 212 2009 236 247 221 231 256 237 236 225 215 220 2011 238 249 224 233 263 238 239 227 214 219 November 1, 2011 Page 3 of 8

Percentage Table 2: Achievement Level At or Above Basic on NAEP Grade 4 Mathematics 2000-2011 Table 2: Achievement Level At or Above Basic All Students 57%* 72%* 76%* 79% 78% 80% 23 White 73%* 84%* 87% 90% 90% 91% 18 Black 36%* 56%* 61% 64% 62% 65% 29 Hispanic 58%* 60%* 73% 75% 75% 76% 18 Asian NA 87% 95% 90% 93% 93% 6** Male 59%* 72%* 76% 79% 77% 78% 19 Female 55%* 71%* 76%* 78% 79% 81% 26 FRL (NSL) 36%* 59%* 65%* 68% 68% 70% 34 Students with Disabilities 32%* 43% 54% 58% 53% 49% 17 English Language Learner NA 41% 42% 51% 59% 56% 15** Figure 2: Percent At or Above Basic NAEP Grade 4 Mathematics 2000-2011 NAEP Grade 4 Math: Percent At or Above Basic 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2000 57 73 36 58 N/A 59 55 36 32 N/A 2003 72 84 56 60 87 72 71 59 43 31 2005 76 87 61 73 95 76 76 65 54 42 2007 79 90 64 75 90 79 78 68 58 51 2009 78 90 62 75 93 77 79 68 53 59 2011 80 91 65 76 94 78 81 70 49 56 November 1, 2011 Page 4 of 8

Percentage Table 3: Achievement Level At or Above Proficient in NAEP Grade 4 Mathematics 2000-2011 Table 3: Achievement Level At or Above Proficient All Students 17%* 27%* 30%* 32%* 34% 37% 20 White 27%* 40%* 43%* 46% 48% 51% 24 Black 5%* 11%* 12%* 13% 15% 18% 13 Hispanic 12%* 13%* 22% 20% 26% 29% 17 Asian NA 53% 57% 63% 60% 70% 17** Male 19%* 29%* 30%* 33% 35% 37% 18 Female 16%* 25%* 29%* 30%* 32% 37% 21 FRL (NSL) 5%* 12%* 16%* 16%* 19% 21% 16 Students with Disabilities 4%* 11% 15% 18% 13% 14% 10 English Language Learner NA 8% 4% 5% 14% 13% 5** Figure 3: Percent At or Above Proficient NAEP Grade 4 Mathematics 2000-2011 NAEP Grade 4 Math: Percent At or Above Proficient 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2000 17 27 5 12 N/A 19 16 5 4 N/A 2003 27 40 11 13 53 29 25 12 11 8 2005 30 43 12 22 57 30 29 16 15 4 2007 32 46 13 20 63 33 30 16 18 5 2009 34 48 15 26 60 35 32 19 13 14 2011 37 51 18 29 70 37 37 21 14 13 November 1, 2011 Page 5 of 8

Scale Score Table 4: Average Scale Scores NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics 2000-2011 Table 4: Average Scale Scores All Students 265* 270* 272* 275* 278 278 13 White 279* 284* 284* 288 289 291 12 Black 244* 250* 255* 261 262 262 18 Hispanic NA 262* 258* 266 270 277 15** Asian NA 286 301 NA 300 303 17** Male 265* 270* 273* 275 277 279 14 Female 265* 269* 272* 274* 278 278 13 FRL (NSL) 246* 253* 257* 262* 265 267 21 Students with Disabilities 232 234* 241 246 245 244 12 English Language Learner NA 239 242 237 NA 245 6** Figure 4: Average Scale Scores NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics 2000-2011 NAEP Grade 8 Math: Average Scale Scores 300 280 260 240 220 200 2000 265 279 244 N/A N/A 265 265 246 232 N/A 2003 270 284 250 262 286 270 269 253 234 239 2005 272 284 255 258 301 273 272 257 241 242 2007 275 288 261 266 N/A 275 274 262 246 237 2009 278 289 262 270 300 277 278 265 245 N/A 2011 278 291 262 277 302 279 278 267 244 245 November 1, 2011 Page 6 of 8

Percentage Table 5: Achievement Level At or Above Basic on NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics 2000-2011 Table 5: Achievement Level At or Above Basic All Students 54%* 59%* 62%* 64%* 67% 68% 14 White 71%* 77%* 76%* 80% 80% 82% 11 Black 28%* 36%* 43%* 48% 50% 51% 23 Hispanic NA 49%* 48%* 55% 59% 69% 20** Asian NA 73% 84% NA 86% 88% 15** Male 55%* 60%* 62%* 64% 65% 67% 12 Female 54%* 59%* 62%* 64%* 68% 70% 16 FRL (NSL) 30%* 39%* 44%* 49%* 53% 58% 28 Students with Disabilities 26% 24% 29% 34% 28% 30% 4 English Language Learner NA 25% 27% 20% NA 28% 3** Figure 5: Percent At or Above Basic NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics 2000-2011 NAEP Grade 8 Math: Percent At or Above Basic 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2000 54 71 28 N/A N/A 55 54 30 26 N/A 2003 59 77 36 49 73 60 59 39 24 25 2005 62 76 43 48 84 62 62 44 29 27 2007 64 80 48 55 N/A 64 64 49 34 20 2009 67 80 50 59 86 65 68 53 28 N/A 2011 68 82 51 69 88 67 70 58 30 28 November 1, 2011 Page 7 of 8

Percentage Table 6: Achievement Level At or Above Proficient on NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics 2000-2011 Table 6: Achievement Level At or Above Proficient All Students 19%* 22%* 23%* 25% 27% 28% 9 White 27%* 32%* 34%* 37% 39% 40% 13 Black 4%* 7%* 8%* 11% 11% 12% 8 Hispanic NA 14%* 12%* 16% 18% 25% 11** Asian NA 40% 52% NA 49% 52% 12** Male 19%* 24%* 24% 26% 27% 29% 10 Female 18%* 20%* 23% 23% 27% 27% 9 FRL (NSL) 5%* 8%* 9%* 12%* 13% 16% 11 Students with Disabilities 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 4% -1 English Language Learner NA 4% 10% 1% NA 6% 2** Figure 6: Percent At or Above Proficient NAEP Grade 8 Mathematics 2000-2011 NAEP Grade 8 Math: Percent At or Above Proficient 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2000 19 27 4 N/A N/A 19 18 5 5 N/A 2003 22 32 7 14 40 24 20 8 6 4 2005 23 34 8 12 52 24 23 9 6 10 2007 25 37 11 16 N/A 26 23 12 6 1 2009 27 39 11 18 49 27 27 13 6 N/A 2011 28 40 12 25 52 29 27 16 4 6 November 1, 2011 Page 8 of 8