EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONT’D
Pieces of the Puzzle
was considerable variation from one city to another in strengths and weaknesses, in general, fourth graders in TUDA districts appeared to do somewhat better in life sciences than in earth science and physical science, while eighth graders appeared to do equally well in all three fields of science. Alignment Gaps
The extent of content alignment between NAEP specifications and the respective district/state standards of the four selected TUDA cities ranged from a complete match or partial match of 48 percent to 80 percent in fourth-grade reading, 41 percent to 65 percent in eighth-grade reading, 66 percent to 72 percent in fourth-grade math, 51 percent to 84 percent in eighth-grade math, 19 percent to 57 percent in fourth-grade science, and 25 percent to 48 percent in eighth-grade science.
Complete content matches in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math were characterized as low to moderate, while fourth- and eighth-grade science matches were characterized as low.
There was no apparent relationship between student performance or gains on NAEP and the degree of complete content alignment between NAEP specifications and state/district standards, although the sample size was too small to be definitive.
The cognitive demand in the state and district standards was often similar to NAEP among specifications that were completely matched. Differences in Practice and Results
While the study was not designed to determine causality, it appears that instructional practices at the district level were more important in a school system’s ability to improve on NAEP than whether their state standards were aligned with NAEP frameworks. The results of this study suggest that some districts made significant improvements on NAEP even when their state standards were not well-aligned with NAEP. Conversely, high alignment did not guarantee better results or more gains.
Despite their differences, there were a number of traits and themes common among the improving and high-performing districts—and clear contrasts with the experiences and practices documented in Cleveland. These themes fell under six broad categories: Leadership and Reform Vision. Atlanta, Boston, and Charlotte each benefited from strong leadership from their school boards, superintendents, and curriculum directors. These leaders were able to unify the district behind a vision for instructional reform and then sustain that vision for an extended period. Goal-setting and Accountability. The higher-achieving and most consistently improving districts set clear, systemwide goals and held staff members accountable for results, creating a culture of shared responsibility for student achievement. Curriculum and Instruction. The three improving and high-performing districts also created coherent, well-articulated programs of instruction that defined a uniform approach to teaching and learning throughout the district.
9 24
Council of the Great City Schools and the American Institutes for Research
PIECES OF THE PUZZLE: FACTORS IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS ON THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS