Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
NAEP Power Point Version 2011

NAEP Power Point Version 2011

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,455 |Likes:
Published by leoniehaimson
An analysis of the change in scores in NYC since 2003 among subgroups compared to their peers in other cities
An analysis of the change in scores in NYC since 2003 among subgroups compared to their peers in other cities

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: leoniehaimson on Jan 09, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/20/2014

pdf

text

original

 
NYC ACHIEVEMENT GAINSCOMPARED TO OTHERLARGE CITIES SINCE 2003
Changes in NAEP scores 2003 -2011
Leonie Haimson & Elli MarcusClass Size MattersJanuary 2012
www.classsizematters.org 
 
NAEP Scores: Why are they important?
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is largestcontinuing 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 amongstates 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 4
th
and 8
th
grades.
What follows is an analysis of the changes in NYC NAEP scores since 2003,when Bloomberg¶s educational policies were first implemented, compared tochanges in scores in the 9 other cities, plus large cities in general (w/ at least250,000 inhabitants).
 
How did we compare trends among thelarge 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 DOE¶s claimsof great improvement.
Thesecomparisons giveinsightintowhereNYC stands nationally andprovides arobustexaminationoftheDOE¶s claims o

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->