1. NYC ACHIEVEMENT GAINS COMPARED TO OTHER LARGE CITIES SINCE 2003 Changes in NAEP scores 2003 -2013 Class Size Matters August 2014 www.classsizematters.org

2. NAEP Scores: Why are they important? The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the largest continuing assessment of the knowledge and abilities of American students. NAEP assessments are given by the federal government every two years to statistical samples of students, change little over time & are low-stakes, and so can be used as a reliable metric to compare achievement trends among states and urban districts. The Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) is now conducted in 21 large school districts, but we have results from only ten cities including NYC since 2003, in four categories: reading and math in 4 th and 8 th grades. What follows is an analysis of the changes from 2003-2013 in NYC NAEP scores when Bloomberg’s educational policies were first implemented, compared to changes in scores in these 9 other cities plus the large city category (250,000 inhabitants or more).

3. How did we compare trends among the large urban districts? Since overall scores can change depending on changes in student population, we compared changes in scores since 2003 for six major NYC subgroups (white, black, Hispanic, Asian, free lunch and non-free lunch students) compared to their peers in other large cities. Only major subgroups whose results we did not compare were students with disabilities and English language learners, since rates of identification and exclusion from NAEP testing differ widely among the ten cities. Our comparisons give insights into where NYC stands nationally, and allows us to assess the Bloomberg record on student achievement. These comparisons give insight into where NYC stands nationally and provides a robust examination of the DOE’s claims o

4. Summary of findings NYC came out 2 nd to last among all large cities tested when score gains since 2003 were averaged across 6 subgroups and 4 subject/grade levels. Only Cleveland made less progress. Gains for white, Hispanic and non-free lunch students were particularly disappointing; these groups fell sharply in their rankings compared to same cohorts elsewhere. NYC only city where non-free lunch students had lower average scores in 2013 compared to 2003.

5. NYC comes in 2 nd to last among all 10 cities + “large city” category when NAEP score gains are averaged across 6 subgroups* *White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, School Lunch Eligible, School Lunch Non-eligible in Reading and Math for both 4 th and 8 th Grades

6. Scores by subgroup: Black students made little progress in math In 4 th grade reading, NYC black students were tied for 3 rd and now in 2 nd place. In 8th grade reading, NYC blacks were tied for 2 nd and are now tied for 1 st place. In 4th grade math, NYC blacks fell from 3 rd to 5 th place. In 8th grade math, NYC blacks fell slightly from 3rd to 4 th place.

7. NYC scores by subgroup: Black Students 4 th and 8 th grade reading and math gains in average scale scores since 2003

8. Subgroup: White students fell sharply behind their peers in other large cities since 2003 – especially in reading. In 4 th grade reading, NYC white student scores went from 5 th place to 10 th place, with no gains since 2003. In 4 th grade math, NYC white students dropped from 5 th place to 10 th place. In 8 th grade reading, NYC white students fell from tied for 3rd place to 10 th place. In 8 th grade math, NYC white student scores slipped slightly from 5 th place to 6 th place.

9. NYC scores by subgroup: White Students

10. Subgroup: Hispanic Students dropped sharply behind peers in reading and math In 4 th grade reading, NYC Hispanic students fell from 1 st place among large cities to tied for 4 th. In 4 th grade math, NYC Hispanic students slipped from tied for 3 rd place to tied for 7 th place among other large cities. In 8 th grade reading, NYC Hispanic students decreased from 2 nd place to 6 th place. In 8 th grade math, NYC Hispanic students came in second to last place in score gains, falling from 3 rd place to 5 th place.

11. NYC scores by subgroup: Hispanic Students

12. Subgroup: Asian students made no progress in relative rankings in math, and slipped in reading. 4 th grade reading, NYC Asian student scores dropped from 1 st place to 5 th place. In 4 th grade math, Asian student scores remained at 2 nd place. In 8 th grade reading, NYC Asian student scores fell from 3 rd place to tied for 5 th place. In 8 th grade math, NYC Asian students went from tied for 3 rd place to 5 th place in 2013.

13. Subgroup: Asian Students

14. NYC scores by subgroup: Free Lunch students made little or no progress. In 4 th grade reading, NYC free lunch students fell from 1 st place to 2 nd place. In 4 th grade math, NYC free lunch student scores dropped from 2 nd place to tied for 4 th place. In 8 th grade reading, NYC free lunch students were in 1 st place and now tied in 1 st place. In 8 th grade math, NYC free lunch student scores went from 1 st place to 4 th place.

15. Subgroup: free lunch

16. Results for NYC non-free lunch students disastrous: only city with lower average scores in 2013 than 2003 In 4 th grade reading, NYC non-free lunch students fell from 1 st place to tied for 7 th place. In 4 th grade math, NYC non-free lunch students dropped from 2 nd place to 8 th place. In 8 th grade reading, NYC non-free lunch student fell from 1 st place to 8 th in average test scores. In 8 th grade math, NYC non-free lunch students dropped 1 st to 8 th place. NYC was the only city that experienced losses in average scores of non-free lunch students, except in 4 th grade math which students had a 4 point gain.

17. Subgroup: non-free lunch

18. Proficiency levels of non-free lunch students dropped sharply In 4 th grade reading, NYC non-free lunch students fell from 1 st place to tied for 7 th place (2 nd to last). In 4 th grade math, NYC non-free lunch students dropped from 3 rd place to 10th place (last). In 8 th grade reading, NYC non-free lunch students fell from 1 st place to 9 th place (2 nd to last). In 8 th grade math, NYC non-free lunch students dropped from 1 st to 9 th place (2 nd to last). In 2003, NYC non-free lunch students in 4 th grade reading, 8 th grade reading, and 8 th grade math had the highest percentage at or above proficiency, now rank 2 nd to last in these categories.

19. Subgroup: non-free lunch (Percentage gains at or above proficiency for non-poor students)

20. Conclusion When analyzing subgroup performance, NYC’s relative progress since 2003 compared to other large cities has been mediocre to poor. NYC came in 2 nd to last in NAEP gains among 10 cities and “large city” category tested since 2003, when averaged across six subgroups and four categories. Most NYC subgroups fell in ranking compared to peers in other large cities, with White, Hispanic, and non-free lunch students dropping most sharply. NYC only city in which non-free lunch students scored lower in 2013 in 4 th grade reading, 8 th grade reading and math than in 2013; their proficiency levels also dropped sharply in these categories.

21. What do these results suggest? The Bloomberg administration’s aggressive free-market strategies of high-stakes testing, class size increases, principal “empowerment”, and closing more than 100 schools while rapidly expanding charter schools, have not worked to increase student achievement as compared to cities elsewhere. De Blasio administration would be wise to adopt a new set of policies to ensure success for all students.