Reading Results Brian Cramer Optimal Solutions Group Ebony Walton - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
reading results
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Reading Results Brian Cramer Optimal Solutions Group Ebony Walton - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jul 04, 2023 264 likes •582 views

Innovations in NAEP Analyses and Visualizations Using 2017 Mathematics and Reading Results Brian Cramer Optimal Solutions Group Ebony Walton and Grady Wilburn July 27, 2018 National Center for Education Statistics Overview Abstract of

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Innovations in NAEP Analyses and Visualizations Using 2017 Mathematics and Reading Results

Brian Cramer Optimal Solutions Group Ebony Walton and Grady Wilburn National Center for Education Statistics July 27, 2018

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Overview

  • Abstract of the session
  • Introduction to NAEP
  • Examination of 3 major findings from 2017 NAEP

Mathematics and Reading

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Abstract

Building on innovations from The Nation’s Report Card, this presentation will highlight additional innovative analyses and visualizations from the 2017 mathematics and reading results. The focus will be on highlighting

  • student attitudes,
  • school spending,
  • teacher practices,
  • student and school educational resources, and
  • equity measures

at the state and district levels as well as relationships between these contextual variable and NAEP performance.

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

National Assessment of Educational Progress

  • NAEP is a congressionally mandated project

administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

  • NCES collects, analyzes, and makes

available data related to education in the US and other nations

  • NAEP provides a common measure of

student achievement across the country in a variety of subject areas since 1969

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

Assessed at the national, state, and district level at grades 4, 8, and 12

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Overview of 2017 NAEP

  • Administered mathematics and reading assessments

January – March 2017

  • National samples:
  • 298,200 fourth-graders
  • 286,800 eighth-graders
  • Results available for:
  • Nation
  • 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense school system, and

Puerto Rico (in mathematics only)

  • 27 school districts participating in the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)
  • Large cities with populations of 250,000 or more
  • Performance reported as:
  • Average scale scores (0–500 scale)
  • Achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, Advanced)

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Grade 8 reading scores increase nationally and for 10 states

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Participating TUDA districts

8

2003 Reading 8, National Score Changes –

Nationsreportcard.gov

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Reading 8, National Percentile Score Changes

9

* 2017 scores significantly different (p < .05).

Nationsreportcard.gov

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Scores increase for the nation and 10 states in Reading 8: 2015-2017

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Participating TUDA districts

11

2003 Reading 8, State Percentile Score Changes –

Jurisdiction 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th National public (265) ↑1 ↑2 ↑2 California (263) ↑6 Florida (267) ↑4 ↑4 Georgia (266) ↑4 ↑5 Hawaii (261) ↑5 ↑4 Indiana (272) ↑5 Maine (269) ↓7 ↑7 Massachusetts (278) ↑4 Mississippi (256) ↑4 ↑5 ↑5 New Jersey (275) ↑5 ↑6 ↑6 New Mexico (256) ↑4 ↑6 Washington (272) ↑5 DoDEA (280) ↑3 ↑4 ↑5

Arrows indicate significant score increases or decreases from 2015 to 2017. Jurisdictions in italics had significant overall score increases.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Participating TUDA districts

12

2003 Reading grade 8 percentile score changes for all states: 2015-2017

https://public.tableau.com/profile/keval.bhanushali#!/vizhome/ChangeinPercentileScoreby10th25th75thand90thPer centile/Breakdownofstatescoresbypercentile?publish=yes https://public.tableau.com/profile/keval.bhanushali#!/vizhome/ChangeinPercentileScorefrom2015to2017foreachstat e/ReadingGrade8PercentileScore?publish=yes

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Profiles of states with reading grade 8 score changes: 2015–2017

13

https://public.tableau.com/profile/nana.dompreh#!/vizhome/ProfilesforStateswith2015- 2017Reading8ScoreChanges/Dashboard1?publish=yes

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Score for students eligible for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) decline in grade 4 mathematics

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Mathematics grade 4 NSLP eligible score decline for nation

15

  • Nationsreportcard.gov
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Mathematics grade 4 NSLP eligible significant score changes by district: 2015-2017

16

NOTE: Up arrows indicate significant score increase. Down arrows indicate significant score decrease. Districts in blue = overall significant score increase. Districts in red =

  • verall significant score decline.

Jurisdiction NSLP Eligible Sinificant Score Change, 2015-2017

National public ↓1 Large City ↓3 Boston ↓7 Charlotte ↓6 Cleveland ↓6 Fresno ↑4 Jefferson County ↓5 Miami-Dade ↑3 New York City ↓4 Philadelphia ↓6 San Diego ↑5

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Mathematic grade 4 NSLP eligible percentages and scores for districts: 2017

17

Large city Albuquerque Atlanta Austin Baltimore City Boston Charlotte Chicago Clark County (NV) Cleveland Dallas Denver Detroit District of Columbia (DCPS) Duval County (FL) Fort Worth (TX) Fresno Guilford County (NC) Hillsborough County (FL) Houston Jefferson County (KY) Los Angeles Miami-Dade Milwaukee New York City Philadelphia San Diego Shelby County (TN) R² = 0.1155

190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 245 250 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Average scores of NSLP eligible students Percentage of NSLP eligible students Percentage distribution and average scores for grade 4 mathematics, by students who are eligible for the National School Lunch Program: 2017

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Trends in mathematics grade 4 NSLP eligible scores and percentages for districts

18

https://public.tableau.com/profile/nana.dompreh#!/vizhome/NSLPscoresandpercentagesbydistrictvariousyears_1/ Dashboard1?publish=yes

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Mathematics grade 4 changes in NSLP eligible scores and percentages: 2015-2017

19

Clark County, Denver, Fort Worth (TX), Guilford County (NC), Milwaukee, and Shelby County not tested in 2015. Blue = NSLP eligible score increase. Red = NSLP eligible score decrease.

Large City Albuquerque Atlanta Austin Baltimore City Boston Charlotte Chicago Cleveland Dallas Detroit District of Columbia (DCPS) Duval County (FL) Fresno Hillsborough County (FL) Houston Jefferson County (KY) Los Angeles Miami-Dade New York City Philadelphia San Diego

R² = 0.122

  • 10
  • 8
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 8 10

  • 26
  • 24
  • 22
  • 20
  • 18
  • 16
  • 14
  • 12
  • 10
  • 8
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Change in scores for NSLP eligible students from 2015 to 2017 Change in the percentage of NSLP eligible students from 2015 to 2017

2015 to 2017 change in average scores and percentage distribution for grade 4 mathematics, by students who are eligible for the National School Lunch Program

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Mathematics grade 4 NSLP eligible score changes for districts, by changes in inequality (1): 2015-2017

19

NOTE: Clark County, Denver, Fort Worth (TX), Guilford County (NC), Milwaukee, and Shelby County not tested in 2015. Blue = NSLP eligible score increases. Red = NSLP eligible score decreases. Inequality score calculated by subtracting the percentage of schools with 76%-100% in 2015 from 76%-100% in 2017. Large City Albuquerque Atlanta Austin Baltimore City Boston Charlotte Chicago Cleveland Dallas Detroit District of Columbia (DCPS) Duval County (FL) Fresno Hillsborough County (FL) Houston Jefferson County (KY) Los Angeles Miami-Dade New York City Philadelphia San Diego R² = 0.096

  • 8
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 8

  • 15
  • 10
  • 5

5 10 15 20

2015 to 2017 grade 4 mathematics change in NSLP average scores and percentage of schools with 76-100% of students eligible for NSLP NSLP eligible average score changes, 2015-2017 Increasing equality, 2015 - 2017

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Mathematics grade 4 NSLP eligible score changes for districts, by changes in inequality (2): 2015-2017

20

NOTE: Clark County, Denver, Fort Worth (TX), Guilford County (NC), Milwaukee, and Shelby County not tested in 2015. Blue = NSLP eligible score increases. Red = NSLP eligible score decreases. Inequality score calculated by subtracting the percentage of NSLP eligible students with 26 or more books in home by schools from those of not NSLP eligible students in 2015, doing the same thing for 2017, and then subtracting the 2015 percentage from the 2017 percentage.

Large City Albuquerque Atlanta Austin Baltimore City Boston Charlotte Chicago Cleveland Dallas Detroit District of Columbia (DCPS) Duval County (FL) Fresno Hillsborough County (FL) Houston Jefferson County (KY) Los Angeles Miami-Dade New York City Philadelphia San Diego

R² = 0.074

  • 8
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 8

  • 30
  • 20
  • 10

10 20 30 40

2015 to 2017 grade 4 mathematics change in NSLP average scores and percentage of NSLP and Not NSLP eligible students with 26 or more books at home NSLP eligible average score changes, 2015-2017 Increasing equality, 2015 - 2017

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Mathematics grade 4 resources and teacher practices for NSLP eligible and not NSLP eligible students: 2017

22

https://public.tableau.com/profile/keval.bhanushali#!/vizhome/NDEPtest1/NSLPEligibleNotEligibleStudentPercentg es

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Examining NAEP results with equity indicators

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Mathematics grade 8 tablet use

24

Nationsreportcard.gov

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Mathematics grade 8 scores and students with access to a computer/tablet at home: 2017

25

NP AL AZ AR CA CT DE DC DoDEA FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY ME MD MA MI MN MS MO NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC TN TX UT VA WA WV WI R² = 0.5019 206 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 232 234 236 238 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Overall average score Percentage of students with access to a computer or tablet at home, 2017 Average scores and percentage distribution for grade 8 mathematics, by students with access to a computer or tablet at home: 2017

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Mathematics grade 8 scores and students with access to tablets in school for student use: 2017

26

NP AL DE D.C. DoDEA HI IN KS KY ME MT NV NH ND OH RI SC SD UT VT WA WV WY

R² = 0.0217 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Overall average score Percent for yes, tablets are available in schools for student use Average mathematics grade 8 scores and availability of tablets in schools for student use, by state: 2017

States shown in quadrant scored significantly higher than NP and availability of tablets in school for student use significantly lower than NP States shown in quadrant scored significantly lower than NP and availability of tablets in school for student use significantly lower than NP States shown in quadrant scored significantly higher than NP and availability of tablets in school for student use significantly higher than NP States shown in quadrant scored significantly lower than NP and availability of tablets in school for student use significantly higher than NP

slide-27
SLIDE 27

2017 mathematics grade 8 performance and 2015 FY revenue, per pupil

27

Blue highlights = 10 numerically highest performing states. Red highlights = 10 numerically lowest performing states. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia FloridaGeorgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

R² = 0.0128 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Overall average score, 2017 Fiscal year revenue, per pupil (USD), 2015 2017 NAEP grade 8 mathematics average scores and fiscal year 2015 revenue, per pupil (USD)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

2015-2107 change in mathematics grade 8 performance and 2014-2015 change in FY revenue, per pupil

28

Blue highlights = state with significant 2015-2017 score increase. Red highlights = states with significant 2015-2017 score decrease. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming R² = 0.0147

  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1 2 3 4 5

  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 8 10

Overall score change, 2015-2017 Percentage change in fiscal year revenues, per pupil, 2014-2015 NAEP mathematics grade 8 score change (2017-2015) and percentage change in fiscal year revenues, per pupil (2014-2015)

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Numerically highest and lowest performing states in mathematics grade 8: 2017

29

Jurisdiction

Massachusetts (297) Minnesota (294) New Hampshire (293) DoDEA (293) New Jersey (292) Virginia (290) Washington (289) Wyoming (289) Nebraska (288) North Dakota (288)

10 States with numerically Highest NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 2017 Average Scores

Jurisdiction

District of Columbia (266) Louisiana (277) Alabama (268) New Mexico (269) Mississippi (271) West Virginia (273) Arkansas (274) South Carolina (275) Oklahoma (275) Nevada (275)

10 States with numerically Lowest NAEP Mathematics Grade 8 2017 Average Scores

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Profiles of 10 highest and lowest numerically ranked states in mathematics grade 8: 2017

30

https://public.tableau.com/profile/nana.dompreh#!/vizhome/ProfilesofTop10Numeric allyRankedStates2017MathematicsGrade8_0/Dashboard1?publish=yes https://public.tableau.com/profile/keval.bhanushali#!/vizhome/ProfilesofTop10NumericallyRankedStates2017Mathe maticsGrade8/BottomRankedStateDashboard?publish=yes