Addendum to Pieces of the Puzzle: Recent Performance Trends of Urban Districts--A Closer Look at 2009 NAEP Results
Author: Dogan, Enis
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: 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

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 &quot;Pieces of the Puzzle: Factors in the Improvement of Urban School Districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress&quot; (ED528220); and &quot;Pieces of the Puzzle: Factors in the Improvement of Urban School Districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Abstract&quot; (ED528222).]