NAEP Power Point Version 2011

8/3/2019 NAEP Power Point Version 2011

1/24

NYC ACHIEVEMENT GAINSCOMPARED TO OTHER

LARGE CITIES SINCE 2003Changes in NAEP scores 2003 -2011

Leonie Haimson & Elli Marcus

Class Size Matters

January 2012

www.classsizematters.org


2/24

NAEP Scores: Why are they important? The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is largest

continuing assessment of the knowledge and abilities of American students.

NAEP assessments are given by the federal govt. every two years tostatistical samples of students, change little over time & are low-stakes, andso can be used as a reliable metric to compare achievement trends among

states and urban districts.

The Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) has been given in 10 large citiesincl. NYC since 2003 in four categories: reading and math in 4th and 8th

grades.

What follows is an analysis of the changes in NYC NAEP scores since 2003,when Bloombergs educational policies were first implemented, compared tochanges in scores in the 9 other cities, plus large cities in general (w/ at least250,000 inhabitants).


3/24

How did we compare trends among the

large urban districts? Since overall scores can change depending on changes instudent population, we compared changes in scores since2003 for six major NYC subgroups (white, black, Hispanic,

Asian, free lunch and non-free lunch students) compared totheir peers in other large cities.

Only major subgroups whose results we did not compare werestudents with disabilities and English language learners, sincerates of identification and exclusion from testing differ widelyamong the ten cities.

Our comparisons give insights into where NYC standsnationally, and allows us to assess the reality of DOEs claimsof great improvement.

Thesecomparisons giveinsightintowhereNYC stands nationally andprovides arobustexaminationoftheDOEs claims o


4/24

When 2011 NAEP scores were released this fall,

NYC DOE claimed great progress *

Claim: NYC students have improved significantly onthree of the four math and reading tests between 2003and 2011.

Reality: This is true in nearly every city tested since

2003.

Claim: .since 2003, the gap between black and whitestudents in New York City has narrowed on all fourexams, and on all four since 2009.

Reality: There has been no statistically significantnarrowing of the achievement gap between any of theracial/ethnic groups in NYC in any subject testedsince 2003.

*Source: NYC DOE Press release , December 7, 2011


5/24

DOEs other unfounded claims of progress Claim: On all four tests, low-income students in NYC now outperform their

peers across the nation, and thats a reason to be proud, said Chief

Academic Officer Shael Polakow-Suransky.

Reality: In 2003, NYC low-income students already outperformed their

peers nationwide in all four categories tested, and since then havemade fewer gains than peers in several other cities.

Claim: By the gold standard for measuring academic progress, our students

have made impressive gains since 2003especially compared to their peers

across New York State and the nation, said Chancellor Walcott.

Reality: When measured across subgroups, NYC students have made

less academic progress since 2003, compared to their peers, in every

other city except one.

*Source: NYC DOE Press release , December 7, 2011


6/24

NYC comes in 2ndto lastamong all 10 cities + large city

category when NAEP score gains are averaged across 6

subgroups*

1

4.3

7.9 8.8 8.9

10.3 10.4 10.912.4 12.9

15.3

0

2

4

6

810

12

14

16

18

Cleveland NYC Charlotte large city Chicago SD Houston DC LA Boston Atlanta

*Subgroups include white, Hispanic, Black, Asian, free-lunch &

non-free lunch

Test score gains since 2003, averaged across all four categories:

reading & math in 4th & 8th grades


7/24

Scores by subgroup: In NYC, Black students scores

rose less than

their peers in

most other cities In 4th grade reading, NYC black students dropped from

tied for 3rd to 4th place among all cities since 2003.

In 8th grade reading, NYC blacks were tied for 2nd anddropped to 3rd.

In 4th grade math, NYC blacks dropped from 3rd to 4th

place.

in 8th grade math, NYC blacks went from 3rd to tied for

4th place.


8/24

NYC scores by subgroup: Black Students4

th

and 8th

grade reading and math gains in average scale scores since 2003

-4

6 68 8 9 9 9

10

2023

change in 4th grade readingscores 2003-2011

13

67 7 8 8

10 10 10

14

Change in 4th grade mathscores 2003-2011

-5 -4

1 2 23 3 4

69

12


04

9 9 1012 12

15 15

21 21

change in 8th grade mathscores 2003-2011


9/24

Subgroup: White students fell sharply behind their

peers in

other large cities since 2003, especially i

n8

th

grade reading & math

In 4th grade reading, NYC white student scores droppedfrom 5th to 7th place.

In 4th grade math, NYC white students dropped from 5th

place to 8th place.

In 8th grade reading, NYC white students dropped from

tied for 2nd to 7th place, and came in last in score gains.

In 8th grade math, NYC white student scores droppedfrom 4th to 8th place and came in last in score gains.


10/24

NYC scores by subgroup: White Students

1 1 14 5 6

7 8 8 9

16


1

5 5 6 67 8

10

13

Change in 8th gr readingscores

2003-2011 white students

-1

24 5

7 810 11 11

15

21


38 10 10

1114 16 16

18 20

change in 8th gr mathscores

2003-2011 white students


11/24

Subgroup: Hispanic Students fell sharply behind

peers since 2003 In 4th grade reading, NYC Hispanic students dropped from

1st place among large cities to tied for 4th.

In 4th grade math, NYC Hispanic students dropped fromthird place to sixth place among other large cities.

In 8th grade reading, NYC Hispanic students dropped from

2nd to 5th place, with a net negative change in scores.

In 8th grade math, NYC Hispanic students came in last

place in score gains, falling from third place to 7th place.


12/24

NYC scores by subgroup: Hispanic Students

-5

4 5 6 6 67

1013

17

28

Change in 4th grade readingscores 2003-2011

-8

-1 0

6 7 78

12 13


1

79 10

11 1215 15

1719


-2

6 7 7 9 9 1013

18 19

Change in 4th grade mathscores

2003-2011


13/24

Subgroup: Asian Students were the only NYCgroup to make substantial gains compared to peers in

other cities.

4th grade reading, NYC Asian student scores droppedfrom first place to second place, and placed fourth inoverall score improvement among large cities.

In 4th grade math, Asian student scores dropped fromsecond place to third place among large cities.

In 8th grade reading, NYC Asian student scores movedup from third place to second place among large cities.

In 8th grade math, NYC Asian student scored moved upfrom third place to second place


14/24

Subgroup: Asian Students

1 23 3

7

15

large city SD NYC Boston LA Charlotte

Change in 4th gradereading scores 2003-2011

Asian students

-4

67

910

12

Chicago Boston SD NYC large city LA

change in 8th grade readingscores 2003-2011 Asian students

3 46

10 10

16

large city NYC Charlotte LA SD Boston

change in 4th grade mathscores 2003-2011 Asian

students

10 11

15 15

18 1920

Chicago Charlotte SD large city NYC Boston LA

change in 8th grade math scores2003-2011 Asian students


15/24

Changes in demographics: Asian student pop rising faster in

NYC than elsewhere; otherwise progress on NAEPS would have

been even smaller

0 0

31

3

6

5

8

1

8

52

3

68

19

0

5

10

15

20

Atlanta Boston Chicago DC Houston LA large city NYC

Asians as % of total students tested4th grade reading

2002

2011

0

8

4 31

2

67

12

18

1

8

56

23

68

19

15

02468

101214161820

Asians as % of total students tested4th grade math

2003

2011


16/24

NYC scores by subgroup: Free Lunch

students had only middling gains In 4th grade reading, NYC free lunch student scores remained

in 1st place but placed behind five other large cities in gainssince 2003.

In 4th grade math, NYC free lunch student scores dropped fromsecond place to third place, and placed fifth in score gainsamong large cities.

In 8th grade reading, NYC free lunch student scores remained

in 1st place but placed behind three other large cities in scoregains.

In 8th grade math, NYC free lunch student scores dropped from1st place to 3rd place.


17/24

Subgroup: free lunch

-2

6 6 7 7 78 8 8

1112


-4

0

23

5 56

78

11


1

6 79 9 9 10 10

11 12

16

change in 4th grade math scores2003-2011

3

9 11 1113 14 15

17 17 1921



18/24

NYC non-free lunch students made the smallest gains of

any city in every category; and dropped sharply at 8th grade

In 4th grade reading, NYC non-free lunch students fell from 1st place to 2nd

place.

In 4th grade math, NYC non-free lunch students fell from 2nd place to 3rd

place.

In 8th grade reading, NYC non-free lunch student scores dropped 11 points

the only city where scores dropped and fell from 1st place to 8th place.

In 8th grade math, NYC non-free lunch students dropped seven points the

only city where scores dropped -- and fell sharply from 1st to 8th place

In 8th grade reading and math, basic and proficient levels of non-free lunch

also dropped sharply.


19/24

Subgroup: non-free lunch

1 36

914 15 16 16

18

28

change in 4th reading scores2003-2011

-11

5 68 10 10

11 11

19 24


58 10

14 16 1618 19

29


-7

1014 14 15

20 2124

27

38



20/24

NYC is ONLY city where proficiency levels in 8th grade

reading and math have dropped for non-free lunch students

82

49

75

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

at or abovebasic

at or aboveproficient

8th grade math for non-free lunch students

2003

2011

87

48

79

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

at or abovebasic

at or aboveproficient

8th grade reading for non-free lunch students

2003

2011


21/24

All other cities made gains in 8th grade proficiency in reading &

math fornon-free lunch students, while in NYC they dropped

-7

7 711

14 15 16

2429

37

-8

10

15 14

22

16

24 2325

30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

NYC Chicago Charlotte large city Boston Houston SD DC Atlanta LA

change in % non-free lunch students at or above basic & proficient

in 8th grade math 2003-2011

diff basic

diff proficient

-8

25 6

710 10

12

19 21

-14

13

8

139

1511

1719 22

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2025

NYC Chicago Charlotte Boston large city SD Houston DC Atlanta LA

change in % non-free lunch students at or above basic &proficient in 8th grade reading 2003-2011

diff basic

diff proficient


22/24

Summary of findings: When analyzing subgroup performance, NYCs relative progress since

2003 compared to other large cities has been mediocre to poor.

NYC came in 2nd to last in NAEP gains among 10 cities and large citycategory tested since 2003 when averaged across six subgroups.

All NYC subgroups fell in ranking, compared to peers in other large cities,with White, Hispanic and non-free lunch students dropping most sharply.

White students made the smallest gains compared to their peers in othercities in both 8th grade reading and math; Hispanics in 8th grade math.

Asian students were only NYC subgroup to advance in ranking in anysubject or grade;

NYC was only city in which non-free lunch students scored lower in 2011than in 2003, in both 8th grade reading and math, and their proficiencylevels also dropped sharply.


23/24

What about mayoral control?Two districts under mayoral control made least progress & on

average, cities with elected school boards have done better

1

4.3

7.98.8 8.9

10.3 10.410.9

12.4 12.9

15.3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Cleveland NYC Charlotte large city Chicago SD Houston DC LA Boston Atlanta

Cities with mayoral control since 2003 or earlier in red;

DC has had mayoral control since 2007.


24/24

What else do these results suggest?

The administrations aggressive free-market strategies of

high-stakes accountability, school report cards, fair

student funding, principal empowerment, and the closing

of more than one hundred schools & the opening of morethan 400 new schools & charters, while allowing class

sizes to increase sharply, have not worked to increase

achievement compared to cities elsewhere.

In fact, the relative positions of white, Hispanic and non-

free lunch students in NYC have all dropped substantially,

with the declines especially sharp at the 8th grade level.

NAEP Power Point Version 2011

Documents