Tables and charts - Nonpartisan Education
NAEP-TUDA Tables and Charts See Tables 9-13, pp. 2-3
Erich Martel ehmartel@
1. Remove erroneous 2007 test averages; replace with averages from the NAEP website
The charts showing errors & correct score averages are copied on p.4, below.
(These are the average scores of all students on the 4 tests
Table 1: DCPS NAEP-TUDA w/Incorrect Scale Scores & Gains in red Italics
|Year |Reading |Reading |Math |Math | |
| |Gr4 |Gr8 |Gr4 |Gr8 | |
|2007 |198 |237 |214 |244 |Total |
|2015 |214 |245 |232 |258 |Incorrect Gains |
|07 > 15 Gains |+ 16 |+ 8 |+18 |+14 |+ 56 |
Table 2: Correction; source: (select DCPS)
|Year |Reading |Reading |Math |Math | |
| |Gr4 |Gr8 |Gr4 |Gr8 | |
|2007 |197 |241 |214 |248 |Total |
|2015 |214 |245 |232 |258 |Correct Gains |
|07 > 15 Gains |+17 |+ 4 |+18 |+10 |+ 56 |
Rank out of 11: 1st 6th* 1st 2nd* (*= tied w/ another district)
2. Targeted "urban" students were NOT "fastest improving"
Tables 3-6 show that Black, Hispanic and Disadvantaged DCPS students were "fastest improving" of the 11 urban districts only in grade 4 math; in grade 8 reading, all three fell below their group's 2007 averages.
Table 3: DCPS Grade 4 Reading Table 4: DCPS Grade 4 Math
Year |All |Bl |His |Wh |Elig |InEl | |All |Bl |His |Wh |Elig |InEl | |2007 |197 |192 |206 |258 |188 |216 | |214 |209 |220 |262 |207 |228 | |2015 |214 |202 |206 |262 |198 |256 | |232 |220 |233 |275 |219 |266 | |Gains |+17 |+10 |0 |+4 |+10 |+40 | |+18 |+11 |+13 |+13 |+12 |+38 | |Rank |1st |2nd* |7th |7th* |3rd |1st | |1st |1st |1st |2nd |1st |2nd* | |
Table 5: DCPS Grade 8 Reading Table 6: DCPS Grade 8 Math
Year |All |Bl |His |Wh |Elig |InEl | |All |Bl |His |Wh |Elig |InEl | |2007 |241 |238 |249 |n/a |234 |253 | |248 |245 |251 |n/a |243 |259 | |2015 |245 |236 |244 |299 |233 |281 | |258 |248 |263 |314 |247 |300 | |Gains |+ 4 |- 2 |- 5 |n/a |- 1 |+28 | |+10 |+ 3 |+12 |n/a |+ 4 |+41 | |Rank |6th* |9th |9th |n/a |9th* |1st | |2nd* |6th* |2nd* |n/a |8th |1st | |(* = indicates tied with one or more other urban school districts)
Links to District Snapshot Reports with group scores and each group's percentage of the tested students:
2007 2015
2007 Math, Gr4: 2015 Math, Gr4:
2007 Math, Gr8: 2015 Math, Gr8:
2007 Read, Gr4: 2015 Read, Gr4
2007 Read, Gr8: 2015 Read, Gr8:
3. Tables 7 & 8 show that DCPS led all urban districts in loss of Black students
Table 7: Grade 4 Math: % of Tests per Group Table 8: Grade 8 Math: % of Tests per Group
Test Year |Bl |His |Wh |Elig |Not El | |Test Year |Bl |His |Wh |Elig |NotEl | |2007 |84% | 9% |6 % |69% |31% | |2007 |88% |9% |3% |69% |31% | |2015 |64% |16% |16% |73% |27% | |2015 |72% |15% |9% |79% |21% | |% Pts Change |-20% |+ 7% |+10% |+ 4% |- 4% | |% Pts Change |-16% |+6% |+6% |+7% |-7% | |Change Rank |1st |4th |2nd | | | |Change Rank |1st |3rd* |2nd | | | |
4. Black, Hispanic and Disadvantaged students' rates of improvement were two to three times faster in the nine years immediately before 2007 than in the eight years from 2007 to 2015
Tables 9-12 compare 1998/2000 to 2007 NAEP score changes to changes from 2007 to 2015. Table 13 combines the four test changes (Tables 9-12) into combined pre- and post-2007 scores.
Table 9: NAEP-TUDA, Grade 4 Reading: 1998 > 2007 vs 2007 > 2015
Year |All |Black |Hisp |White |FRL-Elig |Not Elig | |1998 |179 |174 |173 |247 |172 |215 | |2007 |197 |192 |206 |258 |188 |216 | |2015 |214 |202 |206 |262 |192 |256 | |Gains 98>07 |+18 |+18 |+33 |+11 |+16 |+1 | |Gains 07>15 |+17 |+10 |0 |+ 4 |+10 |+40 | |
Table 10: NAEP-TUDA, Grade 8 Reading: 1998 > 2007 vs 2007 > 2015
Year |All |Black |Hisp |White |FRL-Elig |Not Elig | |1998 |236 |233 |173 |280 |229 |253 | |2007 |241 |238 |249 | 301* |234 |253 | |2015 |245 |236 |244 |299 |233 |281 | |Gains 98>07 |+ 5 |+ 4 |+ 3 |+21 |+ 5 |0 | |Gains 07>15 |+ 4 |- 2 |- 5 |- 2 |- 1 |+28 | |(* No White average reported for 2007; 301 is the average from 2005)
Table 11: NAEP-TUDA, Grade 4 Math: 2000 > 2007 vs 2007 > 2015
Year |All |Black |Hisp |White |FRL-Elig |Not Elig | |2000 |192 |188 |190 |254 |186 |219 | |2007 |214 |209 |220 |262 |207 |228 | |2015 |232 |220 |233 |275 |219 |266 | |Gains 98>07 |+22 |+21 |+30 |+ 8 | +21 | + 9 | |Gains 07>15 |+18 |+11 |+13 | +13 | +12 |+38 | |
Table 12: NAEP-TUDA, Grade 8 Math: 2000 > 2007 vs 2007 > 2015
Year |All |Black |Hisp |White |FRL-Elig |Not Elig | |2000 |235 |231 |236 |300 |226 |258 | |2007 |248 |245 |251 | 317* |243 |259 | |2015 |258 |248 |263 |314 |247 |300 | |Gains 98>07 |+13 | +14 |+15 | +17 | +17 | + 1 | |Gains 07>15 |+10 |+ 3 |+12 | - 3 | + 4 |+41 | |(* No White average reported for 2007; 317 is the average from 2005)
Table 13: Four Test Gains Combined: 1998/2000 to 2007 vs. 2007 to 2015
Comp. Year Spans |All |Black |Hisp |White |FRL-Elig |Not Elig | |Gains 1998/2000 > 2007 |+58 | +57 |+81 | +57* | +59 | +11 | |Gains 2007 > 2015 |+49 |+22 |+20 | +12 | +25 |+147 | |(* Combined gains for White students use 2005 scores for Gr8 math & reading; in 2007 none were reported)
5. Four Charts with Inaccurate Information from the DCPS website
From the DCPS website:
Four charts: The numbers in red are erroneous. The numbers in blue are the correct numbers from the NAEP website.
"DCPS at a Glance: Performance
"National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)
"The NAEP TUDA allows comparisons of student performance across urban school districts in large cities (i.e. cities with populations of 250,000 or more). DCPS continues to be the fastest improving urban school district in the country according to data from the 2015 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA).
"The graphs below show the average scores of DCPS students on each NAEP TUDA from 2007 – 2015."
[pic]
198 should be 197 237 should be 241
Thus: +16 should be +17 Thus: +8 should be +4
See: Urban district scale scores for all years, 2002 - 2015:
(click DCPS)
[pic]
244 should be 248
Thus: +14 should be +10
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- how the department made determinations under section 616 d
- adapted version of naep s oral reading fluency scale
- guided reading chart socorro independent school district
- 2019 nation s report card results underscore importance of
- what can we learn from naep about the effect of schools
- tables and charts nonpartisan education
- evaluation of naep
- 2015 naep brief reading
- 2019 naep reading and mathematics summary of state results
- part i national assessment of vocational education
Related searches
- free stock charts and graphs
- mortgage charts principal and interest
- free tables and graphs worksheets
- excel graphs and charts templates
- 2020 federal income tax tables and brackets
- ratios tables and graphs worksheet
- creating tables and graphs ratios
- annuitization tables and factors
- 2021 federal income tax tables and brackets
- science graphs and charts practice
- oracle tables and views
- data tables and graph worksheets