National Percentile Rankings, By Race/Ethnicity

Another way of examining the relative performance of these districts is in terms of the percentage of students in each district that perform as well as or better than students nationwide. Here, I will compare these average percentiles for the nation, central cities, and each district for all students and by race/ethnicity.

The national average score for all public school fourth-graders in science places them at the 47 th percentile, while the large central city average is at the 31 st percentile. The rankings of the 10 districts overall range from Austin at the 45 th percentile to Chicago and Los Angeles at the 22 nd

When we look at student performance within the three major racial-ethnic groups, we see that the percentile rankings of the districts shift and that some districts rank higher than the nation. For example, compared with all students nationally, White students in all of the districts except Cleveland rank above the 50 th percentile, and Atlanta, Austin, and Houston rank above the 75 th percentile, while the national average for White students places them at the 62 nd percentile.

In contrast, Black students in all the districts ranked below the 50 th percentile. Again, some districts are above the national average for Black students. The rank order of the districts shifts as well.

Hispanic students in all 10 districts ranked below the 50 th percentile. As in the case of Black students, several districts are above the national average for Hispanic students, and the rank order for the districts changes once more.

In some districts all three of these racial/ethnic groups perform well compared to the other districts. For other districts, the comparative position of their race/ethnic groups is not as consistent.

White – Black Score Gap

I will now examine the gaps in performance between White and Black students in these districts.

White students scored higher than Black students in all 10 districts. In three districts—Boston, Cleveland, and New York City— the gap is smaller than the large central city gap of 37 points.

In Atlanta and Houston, two cities with high-performing White students, the gap is larger than that for large central cities nationally.

The White-Black gaps for the remaining five districts were not significantly different from the large central city gap.

White – Hispanic Score Gap

Now we’ll look at the White–Hispanic score gap.

In Cleveland the gap was smaller than the 33-point gap for large central cities, due to the relatively low average score for White students.

In Houston the gap was larger than the large central city gap, due to the relatively high average score for White students in that district.

In the remaining districts, the gap was not significantly different from the large central city gap. In Atlanta, the Hispanic student population at fourth grade is so small that we could not obtain a representative sample, so we did not report an average score for those students.

Sample Question

We asked students several different kinds of questions on the assessment—both multiple-choice and “constructed-response,” which require a written answer. We also asked half the students to perform real experiments.

The example presented is a short constructed-response question—a physics question—that asked students which of two cups of water of equal size would experience the greater increase in the height of water when a ball was placed in the cup. One ball was larger than the other. Students were also required to explain their answers.

A student who chose the cup with the larger ball and gave a correct explanation—that the larger ball would take up more space—received a “Complete” score.

Nationally, 62 percent of students gave a “Complete” answer, while for large central city students, the percentage was 53 percent. For the 10 districts, the range was from 46 percent in Los Angeles to 62 percent in Charlotte.

We have many more sample questions and student responses available on the NAEP website. We make these questions and other analytic tools available to help teachers and school leaders understand where their students may need additional help to do better.

Eighth Grade

Now we’ll look at the performance of eighth-grade students.

Average Science Scores

As at grade 4, you will see that when comparing 8 th-grade students within the low-income group, several of these cities performed above their peers in the nation as a whole. Nevertheless, when all students are considered together, at grade 8 all 10 districts performed below the national average.

Austin, Charlotte, and San Diego had scores that were higher than the large central city average nationally. In three districts—Boston, Houston, and New York City—there was no significant difference, and the remaining four were lower than the central city average.

But again, when all students are considered together, at grade 8 all 10 districts performed below the national average.

Achievement Level Results

When we look at the percentages of eighth-graders who were at or above Basic in science for the districts, we see that three—Austin, Charlotte, and San Diego had percentages that were higher than the large central city percentage.

In two districts—Boston and New York City—the difference was not significantly different from the central city percentage.

In the remaining five districts—Houston, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, and Atlanta-- the percentage at or above Basic was lower than the large central city percentage.

Between 5 percent in Cleveland and 7% in Atlanta up to 27 percent in Austin performed at or above Proficient, which, as I mentioned earlier, is a Governing Board goal. This compares to 27 percent of students nationally and 16 percent in the nation’s large central cities that met this standard.

Cross-District Comparisons Of Average Scores For All Students

Looking at cross-district comparisons for all students, we can see that average scores for Austin and Charlotte were higher than the large central city average and higher than the averages for the remaining eight districts. San Diego was higher than the large central city average, lower than Austin and Charlotte, and higher than the remaining seven districts. Boston, Houston, and New York City showed no significant difference when compared to large central cities, were lower than Austin, Charlotte, and San Diego, not significantly different from one another, and higher than the remaining four cities.

Chicago, Cleveland, and Los Angeles were lower than large central cities and the preceding six districts, not significantly different from one another, and higher than Atlanta. All 10 districts were below the national average.

National Percentile Rankings, By Low-Income Status

In the previous section, when we looked at fourth-grade performance, we compared the percentile rankings of the districts overall with percentile rankings for the three major racial/ethnic groups. For the eighth grade, we will look at percentile ranking overall and for low-income students only, using eligibility for the National School Lunch Program as the measure of low income.

The nation as a whole performed at the 47 th percentile and large central city students nationally performed at the 31 st percentile. Although we are using percentiles rather than scale scores, the ranking here is the same order that we saw in the cross-district comparison—with Austin, Charlotte, and San Diego below the nation but above the large central cities, for example.

The nation’s low-income student performance falls at the 30 th percentile, and that for large central cities at the 23 rd percentile. Some of the districts shift rank compared to their rankings when all students are included, and all the districts except Atlanta are within 4 percentile points of the large central city average.

Score Gaps By Income Status (Eligible For School Lunch Program)

We can also compare the gaps between scores for higher- and lower-income students in the 10 districts with the large central city gap.

Higher-income students are defined as those who are not eligible for the National School Lunch Program, while the lower-income students are eligible.

In two districts, Austin and Charlotte, the gap is larger than the 28-point large central city gap.

In the remaining districts, there is no significant difference from the large central cities in the size of this gap.

In Cleveland, all of the students have been declared eligible for the National School Lunch Program, and thus we can’t make this comparison.

Sample Question

One of the questions that eighth-graders answered on the assessment is a multiple-choice question from the field of Life Science, in which students were shown a drawing of a cell and asked them to identify the part of a cell that contains most of its genetic material. The answer is the nucleus.

Nationally, 52 percent of students answered this question correctly, while for large central cities it was 44 percent. For the 10 districts, the percentage ranged from 36 percent in Cleveland to 54 percent in Austin.

For More Information

Complete information on the 2005 TUDA Science Assessment is available on the Internet at http://nationsreportcard.gov, including the full text of the Report Card, background on NAEP, sample questions, and an online data tool that allows you to do extensive additional comparisons on your own.

In conclusion, I want to thank everyone who worked on the Science Trial Urban District Assessment—the Council of Great City Schools, in particular—and especially the students, the teachers, the schools, and the districts that took part. With their participation, they are helping to provide the best overview of the nation’s academic progress, and in turn, helping educators and policymakers to improve education for all students.

Commissioner Mark Schneider's Powerpoint Presentation:
The Nation’s Report Card: Trial Urban District Assessment: Science 2005 (2.7 MB)

Please join Associate Commissioner Peggy Carr at 3:00 pm on Wednesday November 15 for a live chat about the results.

Top