Ohio ACT College Readiness Report
This report focuses on:
Performance - student test performance in the context of college readiness
Access - number of your graduates exposed to college entrance testing and the percent of race/ethnicity participation
Course Selection - percent of students pursuing a core curriculum
Course Rigor - impact of rigorous coursework on achievement
College Readiness - percent of students meeting ACT College Readiness Benchmark Scores in each content area
Awareness - extent to which student aspirations match performance
Articulation - colleges and universities to which your students send test results
The Opportunity Gap - Is Ohio Providing Equal Access to Education?
ProPublica analyzed federal education data from the 2009-2010 school year to examine whether Ohio provided high-poverty schools equal access to advanced courses and special programs that researchers say will help them later in life.
The relative rigor of Ohio state proficiency standards in mathematics
This report contains the findings of a study that compared the relative rigor of Ohio proficiency standards in mathematics and reading using the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scale as a common yardstick.
Student achievement in Ohio's "Big 8" district & charter schools
Each year, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute conducts an analysis of urban school performance in the Buckeye State—targeting the “Big Eight” districts: Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown. This year, there is some good news to report. For example, the percentage of students in these cities attending a school that has met or exceeded “expected growth” (according to Ohio’s value-added metric) has risen significantly, from 67 percent in 2009-10 to 78 percent in 2010-11.
The Common Core and the Future of Student Assessment in Ohio
Ohio committed itself to embracing higher standards that cross state lines when it joined 45 other states and the District of Columbia in adopting the Common Core standards in math and English language arts (ELA) in June 2010.
But, adopting rigorous academic standards is just the first step in a long journey. High academic standards do not automatically translate into stronger student performance. These higher standards must be accompanied by adequate, on-going training for current and future teachers, principals, and district leaders to understand the new standards; new, aligned curriculum at the local level; and aligned and well-designed assessments.
Ohio could ultimately develop its own assessments, though that is costly, challenging, and time consuming. And even if Ohio were able to muster the money and capacity to develop its own rigorous, content-aligned assessments, it would not be able to compare Ohio students and schools with those in other states and the nation as a whole. Further, Ohio would have to go it alone in terms of developing curricula, professional development tools, and computer systems.
Alternately, Ohio can move forward with one of two voluntary consortia of states working, with nearly $200 million of Race to the Top funding apiece, to develop Common Core assessments: the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC). (Ohio is presently a member of both but a decision-maker in neither.) This report outlines the characteristics of SBAC and PARCC and raises implementation concerns for Ohio as it moves forward with this decision.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Friday, February 12, 2010
Ohio’s Educational Data System Evaluated
A new Data Quality Campaign (DQC) report finds that states are making impressive progress toward building longitudinal data systems and are taking the first steps to ensure that new information is used to improve student outcomes and system-wide performance. But the results, which are based on a survey of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, also show that most states have much work to do around key practices, such as following student progress from pre-school through college and the workforce, sharing student-level progress reports with teachers, and providing adequate training around data use.
Ohio Report:
Ohio Report:
Ohio’s Other Gap
While NCLB is closing the gap between rich and poor and ethnic groups at the proficient level, the gap at the advanced level is widening.
NAEP proficiency level and percentile data as well as results from state assessments demonstrate the existence of substantial excellence gaps for Black, Hispanic, and Free and Reduced Lunch Eligible students on most exams. White students had higher average AP scores than Black students on AP tests and were more likely to make a “5” on an AP exam or take an AP exam while Hispanic performance was more competitive. Ohio state assessments have fairly rigorous standards for advanced status.
According to NAEP proficiency data, the percentage of students at the advanced level increased in Math for non-FARM and white students, with additional improvements among FARM students in Grade 8 and among Black students in Grade 4. Declines among minority and FARM students in Reading Grade 4 and Black students in Grade 8 led to increases in the excellence gap.
NAEP scale scores at the 90th percentile increased for most subgroups in Math, with FARM and Hispanic students improving more rapidly than their peers in Math Grade 8. Achievement gaps increased in Reading in large part due to declines among FARM and minority students.
The proportion of high-achieving students increased across grade levels among income and ethnic subgroups on Math assessments (except for Hispanic students in Grade 4), with over-represented populations growing more rapidly than under-represented groups. The results in Reading were more ambiguous, with reductions in the excellence gap in Grade 4 and 7 due to stagnation or decline among white and affluent students while Grade 10 saw similar patterns in Math.
On the AP exam, there were increases in achievement gaps in mean AP scores and the number of tests taken, weighted by enrollment. In the percentage of tests that scored a 5 (unweighted), the gap between white and Black students increased while the gap between white and Hispanic students decreased. The gap between white and Black students increased in the percentage of test that scored a 5 (weighted).
NAEP proficiency level and percentile data as well as results from state assessments demonstrate the existence of substantial excellence gaps for Black, Hispanic, and Free and Reduced Lunch Eligible students on most exams. White students had higher average AP scores than Black students on AP tests and were more likely to make a “5” on an AP exam or take an AP exam while Hispanic performance was more competitive. Ohio state assessments have fairly rigorous standards for advanced status.
According to NAEP proficiency data, the percentage of students at the advanced level increased in Math for non-FARM and white students, with additional improvements among FARM students in Grade 8 and among Black students in Grade 4. Declines among minority and FARM students in Reading Grade 4 and Black students in Grade 8 led to increases in the excellence gap.
NAEP scale scores at the 90th percentile increased for most subgroups in Math, with FARM and Hispanic students improving more rapidly than their peers in Math Grade 8. Achievement gaps increased in Reading in large part due to declines among FARM and minority students.
The proportion of high-achieving students increased across grade levels among income and ethnic subgroups on Math assessments (except for Hispanic students in Grade 4), with over-represented populations growing more rapidly than under-represented groups. The results in Reading were more ambiguous, with reductions in the excellence gap in Grade 4 and 7 due to stagnation or decline among white and affluent students while Grade 10 saw similar patterns in Math.
On the AP exam, there were increases in achievement gaps in mean AP scores and the number of tests taken, weighted by enrollment. In the percentage of tests that scored a 5 (unweighted), the gap between white and Black students increased while the gap between white and Hispanic students decreased. The gap between white and Black students increased in the percentage of test that scored a 5 (weighted).
REPORT GIVES OHIO A GRADE OF 'D+' FOR POLICIES THAT IMPACT QUALITY OF TEACHERS
A new report by the not-for-profit, non-partisan National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) finds that Ohio's teacher policies largely work against the nation's goal of improving teacher quality. While the national focus on teacher quality has never been greater, the broad range of state laws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession too often impede rather than promote serious reform.
NCTQ's 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook examined state policy across five areas that include teacher preparation, evaluation, tenure and dismissal, alternative certification and compensation. Ohio earned the following grades, resulting in an overall grade of D+:
• Delivering Well Prepared Teachers: D
• Expanding the Teaching Pool: D
• Identifying Effective New Teachers: C-
• Retaining Effective New Teachers: C
• Exiting Ineffective New Teachers: D
NCTQ President Kate Walsh said, "The release of the 2009 Yearbook comes at a particularly opportune time. Race to the Top, the $4.5 billion federal discretionary grant competition, has put unprecedented focus on education reform in general, and teacher quality in particular. We believe that the Yearbook provides a road map for achieving a Race to the Top grant, identifying where states are on the right track and where they have considerable work to do.
Walsh continued: “Unfortunately, states have tremendous ground to make up after years of policy neglect. There is much more Ohio can do to ensure that all children have the effective teachers they deserve."
Among the findings about Ohio:
• Ohio's evaluation and tenure policies do not consider what should count the most about teacher performance: classroom effectiveness. Ohio does not require any objective measures of student learning in teacher evaluations and does not require annual evaluations for all teachers. It also does not require that districts collect or consider any evidence of teacher effectiveness as part of tenure decisions.
• Ohio makes it too difficult for districts to attempt to dismiss poor performers by failing to articulate a policy for dismissing teachers for poor performance separate from dismissal policies for criminal and morality violations. Ohio also allows multiple appeals of dismissals.
• Although Ohio claims to offer an alternative route to certification, its burdensome requirements block talented individuals from entering the profession.
• Ohio's requirements for the preparation of elementary teachers do not ensure that these teachers are well prepared to teach mathematics. While the state's policies do address the science of reading instruction, Ohio fails to ensure that its elementary teachers are well prepared to teach reading through an appropriate test.
• Ohio sets low expectations for what special education teachers should know, despite state and federal expectations that special education students should meet the same high standards as other students.
• Ohio fails to exercise appropriate oversight of its teacher preparation programs. The state allows programs to admit candidates without passing a basic skills test. It also fails to hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.
• The financial sustainability of Ohio's retirement system is also uncertain, based on the state's own report.
Despite these findings, Ohio has some bright spots, including its support of differential pay for teachers in high-needs schools and shortage subjects. Ohio also passed legislation recently that may further bolster its teacher preparation and evaluation policies.
NCTQ's 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook examined state policy across five areas that include teacher preparation, evaluation, tenure and dismissal, alternative certification and compensation. Ohio earned the following grades, resulting in an overall grade of D+:
• Delivering Well Prepared Teachers: D
• Expanding the Teaching Pool: D
• Identifying Effective New Teachers: C-
• Retaining Effective New Teachers: C
• Exiting Ineffective New Teachers: D
NCTQ President Kate Walsh said, "The release of the 2009 Yearbook comes at a particularly opportune time. Race to the Top, the $4.5 billion federal discretionary grant competition, has put unprecedented focus on education reform in general, and teacher quality in particular. We believe that the Yearbook provides a road map for achieving a Race to the Top grant, identifying where states are on the right track and where they have considerable work to do.
Walsh continued: “Unfortunately, states have tremendous ground to make up after years of policy neglect. There is much more Ohio can do to ensure that all children have the effective teachers they deserve."
Among the findings about Ohio:
• Ohio's evaluation and tenure policies do not consider what should count the most about teacher performance: classroom effectiveness. Ohio does not require any objective measures of student learning in teacher evaluations and does not require annual evaluations for all teachers. It also does not require that districts collect or consider any evidence of teacher effectiveness as part of tenure decisions.
• Ohio makes it too difficult for districts to attempt to dismiss poor performers by failing to articulate a policy for dismissing teachers for poor performance separate from dismissal policies for criminal and morality violations. Ohio also allows multiple appeals of dismissals.
• Although Ohio claims to offer an alternative route to certification, its burdensome requirements block talented individuals from entering the profession.
• Ohio's requirements for the preparation of elementary teachers do not ensure that these teachers are well prepared to teach mathematics. While the state's policies do address the science of reading instruction, Ohio fails to ensure that its elementary teachers are well prepared to teach reading through an appropriate test.
• Ohio sets low expectations for what special education teachers should know, despite state and federal expectations that special education students should meet the same high standards as other students.
• Ohio fails to exercise appropriate oversight of its teacher preparation programs. The state allows programs to admit candidates without passing a basic skills test. It also fails to hold programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.
• The financial sustainability of Ohio's retirement system is also uncertain, based on the state's own report.
Despite these findings, Ohio has some bright spots, including its support of differential pay for teachers in high-needs schools and shortage subjects. Ohio also passed legislation recently that may further bolster its teacher preparation and evaluation policies.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Ohio Making Progress on Afterschool
Afterschool Alliance Survey of Ohio Households Finds Increase in Afterschool Enrollment Since 2004, But Also Vast Unmet Demand for Afterschool Programs
A new survey finds an increase in participation in afterschool programs by Ohio youth over the last five years, along with high satisfaction rates among their parents. The percentage of Ohio children in afterschool programs increased to 12 percent, up from just 7 percent in 2004. But a significant percentage of the state’s children are still unsupervised each afternoon after the school day ends. The data come from the landmark America After 3PM study, conducted for the Afterschool Alliance:
After School Care Arrangements
• 30% (608,657) of Ohio’s K-12 children are responsible for taking care of themselves after school. These children spend an average of 8 hours per week unsupervised after school.
• 12% (233,789) of Ohio’s K-12 children participate in afterschool programs. On average, afterschool participants spend 7 hours per week in afterschool programs. Participation averages 2 days per week.
• 71% of Ohio K-12 children spend some portion of the hours after school in the care of a parent or guardian.
• Other care arrangements include traditional child care centers (8%), sibling care (16%) and non-parental adult care, such as a grandparent or neighbor (32%).
Notes: The maximum amount of time in after school care arrangements is limited to 15 hours per week, which reflects the after school hours of 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. Care arrangements add up to greater than 100% due to multiple regular care arrangements for many children.
Satisfaction with and Support for Afterschool Programs
• 98% of Ohio parents are satisfied with the afterschool program their child attends.
• Ohio parents cited child enjoyment (81%), convenient location (77%) and the variety of activities (71%) as their top three reasons for selecting an afterschool program.
• 86% of adults surveyed in Ohio agree that there should be “some type of organized activity or place for children and teens to go after school every day that provides opportunities to learn” and 81% support public funding for afterschool programs.
Need or Demand for Afterschool
• 30% (534,490) of all Ohio children not in afterschool would be likely to participate if an afterschool program were available in the community, regardless of their current care arrangement.
• Parents of non-participants believe that their children would benefit most from afterschool programs in the following ways: by having fun, staying safe and out of trouble, receiving academic enrichment, taking advantage of opportunities for community service and learning and receiving help with homework.
“Ohio is making some progress, and can be proud of that,” said Afterschool Alliance Executive Director Jodi Grant. “But there’s still a long way to go. The great majority of Ohio parents who want their kids in afterschool programs aren’t able to find them, usually because programs aren’t available, they can’t afford the fees, or transportation issues make it impossible. These are all barriers we can and should overcome. Quality afterschool programs keep kids safe, inspire them to learn, and help working families. Every Ohio family that needs an afterschool program should have access to one.”
“We’re proud of the progress we’ve made in providing afterschool for Ohio’s kids and families,” said Liz Nusken, Director of the Ohio Afterschool Network. “But we’ve clearly got our work cut out for us. Too many children who need afterschool programs don’t have them, and families are carrying a heavier burden as a result. That’s particularly difficult during these hard economic times. For afterschool programs to meet the huge unmet demand from families, they’re going to need more support from all sectors – from the business and philanthropic communities, as well as from the government at all levels.”
In key respects, the Ohio results from the America After 3PM study reflect national findings:
• The number and percentage of children participating in afterschool programs in the nation has increased significantly in the last five years, with 8.4 million children (15 percent) now participating. That compares with 6.5 million children in 2004 (11 percent).
• But the number of children left alone after the school day ends also has risen, to 15.1 million children (26 percent of school-age children) in 2009. That is an increase of 800,000 children since 2004. Thirty percent of middle schoolers (3.7 million kids) are on their own, as are four percent of elementary school children (1.1 million children).
• The parents of 18.5 million children (38 percent) not currently participating in an afterschool program would enroll their children in a program if one were available to them, a significant increase from the 15.3 million (30 percent) seen in 2004.
• The vast majority of parents of children in afterschool programs are satisfied with the programs their children attend, and overall public support for afterschool programs is similarly strong. Nine in 10 parents (89 percent) are satisfied with the afterschool programs their children attend. Eight in 10 parents support public funding for afterschool programs
A new survey finds an increase in participation in afterschool programs by Ohio youth over the last five years, along with high satisfaction rates among their parents. The percentage of Ohio children in afterschool programs increased to 12 percent, up from just 7 percent in 2004. But a significant percentage of the state’s children are still unsupervised each afternoon after the school day ends. The data come from the landmark America After 3PM study, conducted for the Afterschool Alliance:
After School Care Arrangements
• 30% (608,657) of Ohio’s K-12 children are responsible for taking care of themselves after school. These children spend an average of 8 hours per week unsupervised after school.
• 12% (233,789) of Ohio’s K-12 children participate in afterschool programs. On average, afterschool participants spend 7 hours per week in afterschool programs. Participation averages 2 days per week.
• 71% of Ohio K-12 children spend some portion of the hours after school in the care of a parent or guardian.
• Other care arrangements include traditional child care centers (8%), sibling care (16%) and non-parental adult care, such as a grandparent or neighbor (32%).
Notes: The maximum amount of time in after school care arrangements is limited to 15 hours per week, which reflects the after school hours of 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. Care arrangements add up to greater than 100% due to multiple regular care arrangements for many children.
Satisfaction with and Support for Afterschool Programs
• 98% of Ohio parents are satisfied with the afterschool program their child attends.
• Ohio parents cited child enjoyment (81%), convenient location (77%) and the variety of activities (71%) as their top three reasons for selecting an afterschool program.
• 86% of adults surveyed in Ohio agree that there should be “some type of organized activity or place for children and teens to go after school every day that provides opportunities to learn” and 81% support public funding for afterschool programs.
Need or Demand for Afterschool
• 30% (534,490) of all Ohio children not in afterschool would be likely to participate if an afterschool program were available in the community, regardless of their current care arrangement.
• Parents of non-participants believe that their children would benefit most from afterschool programs in the following ways: by having fun, staying safe and out of trouble, receiving academic enrichment, taking advantage of opportunities for community service and learning and receiving help with homework.
“Ohio is making some progress, and can be proud of that,” said Afterschool Alliance Executive Director Jodi Grant. “But there’s still a long way to go. The great majority of Ohio parents who want their kids in afterschool programs aren’t able to find them, usually because programs aren’t available, they can’t afford the fees, or transportation issues make it impossible. These are all barriers we can and should overcome. Quality afterschool programs keep kids safe, inspire them to learn, and help working families. Every Ohio family that needs an afterschool program should have access to one.”
“We’re proud of the progress we’ve made in providing afterschool for Ohio’s kids and families,” said Liz Nusken, Director of the Ohio Afterschool Network. “But we’ve clearly got our work cut out for us. Too many children who need afterschool programs don’t have them, and families are carrying a heavier burden as a result. That’s particularly difficult during these hard economic times. For afterschool programs to meet the huge unmet demand from families, they’re going to need more support from all sectors – from the business and philanthropic communities, as well as from the government at all levels.”
In key respects, the Ohio results from the America After 3PM study reflect national findings:
• The number and percentage of children participating in afterschool programs in the nation has increased significantly in the last five years, with 8.4 million children (15 percent) now participating. That compares with 6.5 million children in 2004 (11 percent).
• But the number of children left alone after the school day ends also has risen, to 15.1 million children (26 percent of school-age children) in 2009. That is an increase of 800,000 children since 2004. Thirty percent of middle schoolers (3.7 million kids) are on their own, as are four percent of elementary school children (1.1 million children).
• The parents of 18.5 million children (38 percent) not currently participating in an afterschool program would enroll their children in a program if one were available to them, a significant increase from the 15.3 million (30 percent) seen in 2004.
• The vast majority of parents of children in afterschool programs are satisfied with the programs their children attend, and overall public support for afterschool programs is similarly strong. Nine in 10 parents (89 percent) are satisfied with the afterschool programs their children attend. Eight in 10 parents support public funding for afterschool programs
Ohio Students Exceed National Average
on 2009 Nation’s Report Card
Ohio students continue to outperform the nation as a whole on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Results for both fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics assessments were released today. Ohio’s students have maintained their position overall compared to other states and the national nation’s average for public schools.
All 50 states are required to participate in the biennial NAEP assessments in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics. NAEP – also known as the Nation’s Report Card – is the only nationally representative measure of student academic progress over time. The 2009 NAEP reading results are expected in spring, 2010.
Mathematics Results
Despite the positive performance of Ohio’s students as they continue to outperform their peers in other states, the 2009 mathematics scores have not changed significantly from the 2007 NAEP administration. Many states, as well as national results, demonstrate a similar scenario. A positive note, however, is that during the last decade, the percentage of Ohio’s students performing above the basic performance level has increased 12 percent and students performing at or above the proficient level have increased 20 percent.
The average scale score in mathematics for Ohio fourth graders was 244, above the national average of 239. Only four states scored significantly higher than Ohio: Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Ohio scored significantly higher than 24 states and Washington, D.C. in fourth-grade mathematics.
The average scale score in mathematics for Ohio eighth graders was 286, above the national average of 282. Nine states scored significantly higher than Ohio: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont. Ohio scored significantly higher than 19 states and Washington, D.C. in eighth grade mathematics.
Achievement Gaps
Achievement gaps continue to remain similar without any significant changes for fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics in 2009, compared to 2007. This trend mirrors national results where achievement gaps continue to be an area of attention.
Due to Ohio’s small Hispanic population, the difference in Hispanic eighth grade mathematics scores is not statistically significant between 2007 and 2009
Low-income students continue to score lower than those from wealthier families, based on average scores of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunches. Achievement gaps between low-income students and students from wealthier families remain constant for Ohio fourth- and eighth-grade in mathematics in 2009, compared to 2007.
Approximately 6,900 Ohio students participated in the 2009 NAEP mathematics assessment, including 3,500 in eighth grade mathematics, and 3,400 in fourth grade mathematics.
Background on Assessment Trends, NAEP
NAEP is the only nationally representative and continuous assessment of what students across the country know and are able to do in various subjects. Results are reported in three ways: by scale scores, by selected percentiles and by percentage of students performing at or above basic, proficient and advanced achievement levels.
NAEP is a sample assessment and does not provide results for individual students, schools or districts. Schools are selected through demographic sampling. Students are selected through random sampling. Because no student takes a complete NAEP assessment, individual results are not possible.
NAEP began in 1969 as a national measure of student progress. Assessments are given in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, geography, civics, economics and the arts. State assessments began in 1990. Assessments are given in reading, mathematics, science and writing.
Effective with the 2003 NAEP assessment, the No Child Left Behind Act mandated that all states and districts receiving Title I funding participate in the biennial NAEP assessments in reading and mathematics in grades four and eight. In addition, Ohio law requires participation of all selected Ohio schools in any NAEP assessment.
The National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education is responsible for carrying out the NAEP project. NAEP policy is established by the National Assessment Governing Board, an independent, bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives and members of the general public. Congress created the 26-member Governing Board in 1988 to set NAEP policy.
Ohio students continue to outperform the nation as a whole on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Results for both fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics assessments were released today. Ohio’s students have maintained their position overall compared to other states and the national nation’s average for public schools.
All 50 states are required to participate in the biennial NAEP assessments in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and mathematics. NAEP – also known as the Nation’s Report Card – is the only nationally representative measure of student academic progress over time. The 2009 NAEP reading results are expected in spring, 2010.
Mathematics Results
Despite the positive performance of Ohio’s students as they continue to outperform their peers in other states, the 2009 mathematics scores have not changed significantly from the 2007 NAEP administration. Many states, as well as national results, demonstrate a similar scenario. A positive note, however, is that during the last decade, the percentage of Ohio’s students performing above the basic performance level has increased 12 percent and students performing at or above the proficient level have increased 20 percent.
The average scale score in mathematics for Ohio fourth graders was 244, above the national average of 239. Only four states scored significantly higher than Ohio: Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Ohio scored significantly higher than 24 states and Washington, D.C. in fourth-grade mathematics.
The average scale score in mathematics for Ohio eighth graders was 286, above the national average of 282. Nine states scored significantly higher than Ohio: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont. Ohio scored significantly higher than 19 states and Washington, D.C. in eighth grade mathematics.
Achievement Gaps
Achievement gaps continue to remain similar without any significant changes for fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics in 2009, compared to 2007. This trend mirrors national results where achievement gaps continue to be an area of attention.
Due to Ohio’s small Hispanic population, the difference in Hispanic eighth grade mathematics scores is not statistically significant between 2007 and 2009
Low-income students continue to score lower than those from wealthier families, based on average scores of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunches. Achievement gaps between low-income students and students from wealthier families remain constant for Ohio fourth- and eighth-grade in mathematics in 2009, compared to 2007.
Approximately 6,900 Ohio students participated in the 2009 NAEP mathematics assessment, including 3,500 in eighth grade mathematics, and 3,400 in fourth grade mathematics.
Background on Assessment Trends, NAEP
NAEP is the only nationally representative and continuous assessment of what students across the country know and are able to do in various subjects. Results are reported in three ways: by scale scores, by selected percentiles and by percentage of students performing at or above basic, proficient and advanced achievement levels.
NAEP is a sample assessment and does not provide results for individual students, schools or districts. Schools are selected through demographic sampling. Students are selected through random sampling. Because no student takes a complete NAEP assessment, individual results are not possible.
NAEP began in 1969 as a national measure of student progress. Assessments are given in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, geography, civics, economics and the arts. State assessments began in 1990. Assessments are given in reading, mathematics, science and writing.
Effective with the 2003 NAEP assessment, the No Child Left Behind Act mandated that all states and districts receiving Title I funding participate in the biennial NAEP assessments in reading and mathematics in grades four and eight. In addition, Ohio law requires participation of all selected Ohio schools in any NAEP assessment.
The National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education is responsible for carrying out the NAEP project. NAEP policy is established by the National Assessment Governing Board, an independent, bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives and members of the general public. Congress created the 26-member Governing Board in 1988 to set NAEP policy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
