Search

Redistributing highly effective teachers from low- to high-need schools is an education policy tool that is at the center of several major current policy initiatives. The underlying assumption is that teacher productivity is portable across different schools settings. Using elementary and secondary school data from North Carolina and Florida, this paper investigates the validity of this assumption. Among teachers who switched between schools with substantially different poverty levels or academic performance levels, we find no change in those teachers' measured effectiveness before and after a school change. This pattern holds regardless of the direction of the school change. We also find that high-performing teachers' value-added dropped and low-performing teachers' value-added gained in the post-move years, primarily as a result of regression to the within-teacher mean and unrelated to school setting changes. Despite such shrinkages, high-performing teachers in the pre-move years still outperformed low-performing teachers after moving to schools with different settings. (Contains 2 figures, 17 tables, and 11 footnotes.)

School principals have complex jobs. To better understand the work lives of principals, this study uses observational time-use data for all high school principals in Miami-Dade County Public Schools. This paper examines the relationship between the time principals spent on different types of activities and school outcomes including student achievement, teacher and parent assessments of the school, and teacher satisfaction. The authors find that time spent on Organization Management activities is associated with positive school outcomes, such as student test score gains and positive teacher and parent assessments of the instructional climate, whereas Day-to-Day Instruction activities are marginally or not at all related to improvements in student performance and often have a negative relationship with teacher and parent assessments. This paper suggests that a single-minded focus on principals as instructional leaders operationalized through direct contact with teachers may be detrimental if it forsakes the important role of principals as organizational leaders. Percent of Principal Time Spent on Individual Tasks is appended. (Contains 6 footnotes, 3 figures and 5 tables.) [This paper was supported by the Stanford University K-12 Initiative.]

While the importance of effective principals is undisputed, few studies have addressed what specific skills principals need to promote school success. This study draws on unique data combining survey responses from principals, assistant principals, teachers and parents with rich administrative data to identify which principal skills matter most for school outcomes. Factor analysis of a 42-item task inventory distinguishes five skill categories, yet only one of them, the principals' organization management skills, consistently predicts student achievement growth and other success measures. Analysis of evaluations of principals by assistant principals confirms this central result. Our analysis argues for a broad view of instructional leadership that includes general organizational management skills as a key complement to the work of supporting curriculum and instruction. Two appendices are included: (1) Factor Loadings Matrix for Principal Effectiveness Factors; and (2) Factor Loadings Matrix for Assistant Principal Effectiveness Factors. (Contains 3 figures, 5 tables and 6 footnotes.) [This paper was supported by the Stanford University K-12 Initiative.]

The gold standard in making causal inference on program effects is a randomized trial. Most randomization designs in education randomize classrooms or schools rather than individual students. Such "clustered randomization" designs have one principal drawback: They tend to have limited statistical power or precision. This study aims to provide empirical information needed to design adequately powered studies that randomize schools using data from Florida and North Carolina. The authors assess how different covariates contribute to improving the statistical power of a randomization design and examine differences between math and reading tests; differences between test types (curriculum-referenced tests versus norm-referenced tests); and differences between elementary school and secondary school, to see if the test subject, test type, or grade level makes a large difference in the crucial design parameters. Finally they assess bias in 2-level models that ignore the clustering of students in classrooms. (Contains 5 figures, 46 tables and 2 footnotes.)

Class-size reduction (CSR) mandates presuppose that resources provided to reduce class size will have a larger impact on student outcomes than resources that districts can spend as they see fit. I estimate the impact of Florida's statewide CSR policy by comparing the deviations from prior achievement trends in districts that were required to reduce class size to deviations from prior trends in districts that received equivalent resources but were not required to reduce class size. I use the same comparative interrupted time series design to compare schools that were differentially affected by the policy (in terms of whether they had to reduce class size) but that did not receive equal additional resources. The results from both the district- and school-level analyses indicate that mandated CSR in Florida had little, if any, effect on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes. Thirteen tables are appended: (1) Effect of Required CSR at District Level on District Characteristics; (2) Effect of Required CSR at School Level on School Characteristics; (3) District-Level Models with Additional Years of Pre-Treatment Data (Effects in Student-Level Standard Deviations); (4) District-Level Estimates that Condition on Prior-Year Controls (Effects in Student-Level Standard Deviations); (5) District-Level Analysis Robustness Checks (Effects in Student-Level Standard Deviations); (6) Effects of District-Level CSR on FCAT Scores (Student-Level Standard Deviations), Standard Difference-in-Differences Specification; (7) Effects of District-Level CSR on Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) Scores (Student-Level Standard Deviations); (8) Achievement Effects of District-level CSR by Subgroup (Student-Level Standard Deviations); (9) Effects of District-Level CSR on Non-Cognitive Outcomes; (10) School-Level Estimates that Condition on Prior-Year Controls (Effects in Student-Level Standard Deviations); (11) Effects of School-Level CSR on FCAT Scores (Student-Level Standard Deviations), Standard Difference-in-Differences Specification; (12) Achievement Effects of School-Level CSR by Subgroup (Student-Level Standard Deviations); and (13) Effects of School-Level CSR on Non-Cognitive Outcomes. (Contains 3 figures, 21 tables and 32 footnotes.)

In this study we consider the efficacy of a relatively new and widely accepted certification system for teachers established by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). To address the limitations in past research on the subject, we utilize a unique database covering the universe of teachers and students in Florida for a four-year span to determine the relationship between NBPTS certification and the impact of teachers on student test scores from both low-stakes and high-stakes exams. Contrary to some previous studies, we find evidence that NBPTS certification provides a positive signal of a teacher's contribution to student achievement only in a few isolated cases. Our results do reinforce evidence from previous research that the process of becoming NBPTS certified does not increase teacher productivity. While there is some evidence that NBPTS-certified teachers who are paid to act as mentors enhance the productivity of their colleagues, the effectiveness of non-NBPTS certified teachers does not increase with increases in the total number of NBPTS-certified teachers in the same school. (Contains 22 tables and 30 footnotes.)

In 2004, the Lumina Foundation for Education approved a generous grant to support validation research to explore and document the validity of the Community College Student Report (CCSR), add to the higher education field's understanding of student engagement, and help to identify research or institutional practices that require further attention. The study was conducted in three strands that linked Community College Survey of Student Engagement ("CCSSE") respondents with external data sources: (1) data from the Florida Department of Education; (2) data from the Achieving the Dream project; and (3) student record databases maintained at community colleges that have participated in the "CCSSE" survey and are either Hispanic-Serving Institutions or members of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU). All participating students had participated in the 2002, 2003, or 2004 administrations of the Community College Student Report, "CCSSE's" survey instrument. The pattern of results obtained from the Florida study broadly confirms positive relationships between the construct of student engagement as measured by "CCSSE" and community college outcomes. This Achieving the Dream study yielded mixed results. The most promising results were for academic achievement (cumulative GPA) and persistence (credit completion ratios and fall-to-fall retention). Less promising were the results when predicting course completions across developmental math, writing and reading, as well as college-level algebra and English. In the HSS study, the student engagement scales were predictors of both "CCSSE" self-reported outcomes and transcript-derived student outcomes. Overall, two student engagement scales--Academic Challenge and Support for Learners--were the most consistent predictors of student outcomes. Overall, results clearly demonstrate that in assessing the validity of the "CCSSE", the choice of student outcomes variables is very important. The analyses accounted for larger proportions of variance in cumulative GPA, total credit hours completed, and average credit hours than in first to second term persistence, first to third term persistence, and number of terms enrolled. Further, depending on the student outcome of interest, some "CCSSE" self-reported outcomes seemed to be good proxies for transcript-derived outcomes, specifically cumulative GPA and total credit hours earned. Overall, many of the "CCSSE" variables, as well as corresponding derived scales and factors, demonstrated solid relationships with both self-reported and transcript-derived student outcomes. The results of these studies point to the following overall conclusions: (1) There is strong support for the validity of the use of the CCSR as a measure of institutional processes and student behaviors that impact student outcomes; (2) The studies confirm a long tradition of research findings linking engagement to positive academic outcomes; (3) There is strong consistency in the relationship between engagement factors and outcome measures across the three studies; however, some outcomes have stronger relationships to engagement than others; and (4) The Support for Learners benchmark was consistently correlated with measures of persistence. Appended are: (1) Florida Community College System Validation Study Results; (2) Achieving the Dream Validation Study Results; (3) HSS Consortium Institutions Validation Study Results; (4) "CCSSE" Constructs; (5) Study Variables; and (6) Participating Institutions. (Contains 71 tables, 8 figures and 4 footnotes.) [For related report, "Student Engagement and Student Outcomes: Key Findings from "CCSSE" Validation Research," see ED529076.]

In this paper we examine a range of postsecondary education and labor market outcomes, with a particular focus on minorities and/or disadvantaged workers. We use administrative data from the state of Florida, where postsecondary student records have been linked to Unemployment Insurance (UI) earnings data and also to secondary education records. Our main findings can be summarized as follows: (1) gaps in secondary school achievement can account for a large portion of the variation in postsecondary attainment and labor market outcomes between the disadvantaged and other students, but meaningful gaps also exist "within" achievement groups; and (2) earnings of the disadvantaged are hurt by low completion rates in postsecondary programs, poor performance during college, and not choosing high-earning fields. In particular, significant labor market premia can be earned in a variety of more technical certificate and Associate in Arts (AA) programs, even for those with weak earlier academic performance, but instead many disadvantaged (and other) students choose general humanities programs at the AA (and even the bachelor's or Bachelor of Arts) level with low completion rates and low compensation afterwards. A range of policies and practices might be used to improve student choices as well as their completion rates and earnings. [This paper is part of the Postsecondary Education and Labor Market Program at the Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) at the American Institutes of Research (AIR). Tiffany Chu and Kennan Cepa provided research assistance. This research was supported by the CALDER postsecondary initiative, funded through grants provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Smith Richardson Foundation to the American Institutes of Research.]

This paper is intended to assist school districts in Florida in the implementation of the 1999 Sunshine State Standards for Special Diploma. First, the specific state rules related to student performance standards, course descriptions, and graduation requirements are cited. Twenty-five questions and answers present the guidelines, which address: (1) general aspects (such as what a special diploma is, what the Sunshine State Standards for Special Diploma are, and what areas these standards address); (2) implementation timelines (when the standards go into effect, standards for students who entered high school prior to 1999-2000, and time limits for achieving the standards); (3) state/district assessments (eligibility for exemption from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test and alternate assessment); (4) levels of functioning (levels of functioning for the standards, responsibilities of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team regarding levels of functioning, and use of assistive technology); (5) documentation of achievement (documentation by the IEP of expected levels of functioning, measurement of attainment of the standards, and achievement documentation by teachers. A list of expected levels of functioning is attached. (DB)

The purpose of this technical assistance paper is to provide a description of the procedures used to determine school grades for the 2014 school year. Florida's current school accountability system originated with state legislation passed in 1999 (the "A+ Plan") and has been revised periodically to reflect increased standards and expectations for student performance. Florida is the first state to track annual student learning gains based on the state's academic standards. This paper contains two sections: the Overview (Section I) and the Process for Calculating School Grades (Section II). These sections describe a series of procedures for determining a school's final grade and are intended for knowledgeable audiences who are interested in the details of determining the school grades. A more general and concise description of the school grading system is found on the school grading "guide sheet" (see Appendix A). A summary guide sheet can also be accessed online at the applicable link at the bottom of the Florida School Grades website (http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/). The following are appended: (1) Guide Sheet to Grading Florida Public Schools; (2) Data Sources (Additional Information); (3) Calculation of Common Scale Scores for EOC Assessment Learning Gains; (4) Applying Graduation Rate Points in High School Grades; (5) Test Dates (First Dates of Testing for FCAT 2.0 Reading, Math, and Science); and (6) Access Points Courses for Adjusting High School Acceleration Participation. [This document was prepared by staff in the Bureau of Accountability Reporting; Division of Accountability, Research, and Measurement.]

This paper analyzes the incentives and responses of public schools in the context of an educational reform. The literature on the effect of voucher programs on public schools typically focuses on student and mean school scores. This paper tries to go inside the black box to investigate some of the ways in which schools facing the Florida voucher program behaved. The program embedded vouchers in an accountability regime. Schools getting an "F" grade for the first time were exposed to the threat of vouchers, but did not face vouchers unless and until they got a second "F" within the next three years. In addition, "F," being the lowest grade, exposed the threatened schools to stigma. Exploiting the institutional details of this program, I analyze the incentives built into the system and investigate the behavior of the threatened public schools facing these incentives. There is strong evidence that they did respond to incentives. Using highly disaggregated school-level data, a difference-in-differences estimation strategy, and a regression discontinuity analysis, I find that the threatened schools tended to focus more on students below the minimum criteria cutoffs rather than reading and math. These results are robust to controlling for differential preprogram trends, changes in demographic compositions, mean reversion, and sorting. The findings have important policy implications. (Contains 11 tables, 9 figures and 21 footnotes.)

The purpose of this document is to describe the US ED growth model pilot program from its inception to the point at which the program was no longer a pilot and was opened up to all states. In addition, the paper is designed to help states in the process of planning to submit a growth model proposal. The information in this document is mostly public information from a variety of sources. By pulling the facts and figures together and organizing them as they are in this document, states should find the paper valuable, as it will provide a rich source of information about what types of growth models have been approved, features of growth models that have been important in the program, and the impact the growth models have had on state's AYP calculations. This document summarizes activities related to the growth pilot study from the start of the pilot in 2005 to the end of 2008. Though US ED continues to encourage states to submit growth-based accountability proposals, this document includes only events and approved models through December 2008. The document summarizes which states submitted proposals and which were approved. The paper describes the principles around the growth pilot study and the extent to which approved models meet those principles. Furthermore, it lists growth model features and the extent to which those features vary across approved models. Finally, it summarizes how including growth into AYP calculations has impacted the states with approved growth models and highlights next steps for growth-based accountability. This document is organized around eight sections: (1) US ED pilot study events; (2) Requirements and guidance for growth-based accountability models; (3) Three basic growth model types approved by US ED; (4) General descriptions of submitted models; (5) Features of 11 approved growth models; (6) Summary of approved growth models and how the growth models are used in adequate yearly progress (AYP) calculations; (7) Impact of growth models on schools and districts; and (8) Conclusions and next steps in growth-based accountability models. (Contains 5 tables and 2 footnotes.) [This paper was commissioned by the CCSSO Accountability Systems and Reporting State Collaborative.]

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a system of international assessments that allows countries to compare outcomes of learning as students near the end of compulsory schooling. PISA core assessments measure the performance of 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading literacy every 3 years. Coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), PISA was first implemented in 2000 in 32 countries. It has since grown to 65 education systems in 2012. PISA's goal is to assess students' preparation for the challenges of life as young adults. PISA assesses the application of knowledge in mathematics, science, and reading literacy to problems within a real-life context (OECD 1999). Mathematics was the major subject area in 2012, as it was in 2003, since each subject is a major subject area once every three cycles. In 2012, mathematics, science, and reading literacy were assessed primarily through a paper-and-pencil assessment, and problem solving was administered via a computer-based assessment. In addition to these core assessments, education systems could participate in optional paper-based financial literacy and computer-based mathematics and reading assessments. The United States participated in these optional assessments. This report presents performance on PISA 2012 in mathematics, science, and reading literacy from a U.S. perspective. Results are presented for the 65 education systems, including the United States, that participated in PISA 2012 and for the three U.S. states--Connecticut, Florida, and Massachusetts--that participated as separate education systems. These three states opted to have separate samples of public-schools and students included in PISA in order to obtain state-level results. In this report, results are presented in terms of average scale scores and the percentage of 15-year-old students reaching selected proficiency levels, comparing the United States with other participating education systems. For proficiency levels, results are reported in terms of the percentage reaching level 5 or above and the percentage below level 2. Higher proficiency levels represent the knowledge, skills, and capabilities needed to perform tasks of greater complexity. At levels 5 and 6, students demonstrate higher level skills and may be referred to as "top performers" in the subject. Conversely, students performing below level 2 are below what the OECD calls "a baseline level of proficiency, at which students begin to demonstrate the literacy competencies that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life" (OECD 2010, p. 154). This report also presents U.S. trends over time in mathematics, science, and reading literacy, and overall results for the computer-based mathematics and reading assessments. Results for the problem-solving and financial literacy assessments will be released in 2014. Appended are: (1) Methodology and Technical Notes; and (2) International and U.S. Data Collection Results. (Contains 9 tables, 3 figures, 9 footnotes, and 3 exhibits.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-IES-10-C-0047 with Westat.]

Background: Cluster randomized experiments that assign intact groups such as schools or school districts to treatment conditions are increasingly common in educational research. Such experiments are inherently multilevel designs whose sensitivity (statistical power and precision of estimates) depends on the variance decomposition across levels. This variance decomposition is usually summarized by the intraclass correlation structure and, if covariates are used, the effectiveness of the covariates in explaining variation at each level of the design. Objectives: This paper provides a compilation of school and district level intraclass correlation values of academic achievement and related covariate effectiveness based on state longitudinal data systems. These values are designed to be used for planning group-randomized experiments in education. The use of these values to compute statistical power and plan 2 and 3 level group randomized experiments is illustrated. Research Design: We fit several hierarchical linear models to state data by grade and subject to estimate intraclass correlations and covariate effectiveness. We then compare our average of state estimates with the national work by Hedges and Hedberg (2007). [This article was published in "Educational Review," v37 n6 p445-489 Dec 2013, see EJ1034857.]

This paper describes Florida's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, it highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. Florida has relied on its strong foundation of education reform and results coupled with the new resources of Race to the Top to further its reform efforts. The state has accomplished a great deal during Year 1 of the grant, not only in initiating state and LEA (local education agency) grant projects, but in furthering related state reforms through embracing Race to the Top as the new way of work in Florida. (Contains 1 table.) [For the parent report, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. Florida Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529312.]

In partnership with the Urban League of Greater Miami, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) released "Teacher Quality Roadmap: Improving Policies and Practices in Miami," an in-depth study of the work rules Miami-Dade teachers. This look at the state of teacher policies in Miami-Dade County Public Schools explores the district's contract with its teachers, as well as district practices and state laws that shape the work rules for teachers. Additionally, NCTQ analyzed human resources data; conducted a district-wide survey of over 5,300 principals and teachers; and held focus groups with teachers, principals, parents, and students. The analysis is framed around four standards for improving teacher quality. The standards--evaluations, staffing, compensation and work schedule--are supported by research and best practices from the field. Among the report's findings are: (1) Miami's procedures for hiring and assigning teachers to schools do not give sufficient consideration to school needs, placing a large burden on principals to screen applicants and not recruiting a competitive enough applicant pool. Most problematic however is that, principals do not have final say over who works in their buildings; (2) While Miami has made some progress at designing a system to reward its best teachers, it is dismissing far too few poor performing teachers. Given that its teacher workforce is over 20,000 teachers, its dismissal rate suggests that teachers are not being held accountable for their performance. In 2010-2011 no more than 10 teachers (less than 0.05 percent) were dismissed for poor performance; an additional six who were dismissed appealed the evaluation procedures and were reinstated. This is the lowest rate of dismissal NCTQ has seen in the districts it has studied; (3) The district is not adequately supporting future teacher leaders in the district by routinely laying off its newest teachers while protecting tenured teachers without any consideration of job performance and, also, reserving almost all raises that a teacher can receive (70 percent) for those who have been teaching at least 20 years; (4) The evaluation system, in spite of several state mandates, remains in need of much work. Miami-Dade teachers want more feedback about their instruction, particularly from content experts, a need that the peer review program that the district has in place has not been able to fully meet. The current instrument used to evaluate teachers does not sufficiently capture what high quality instruction should look like; (5) District record keeping, often a struggle for many urban districts, appears to be a particular problem in Miami-Dade. For example, there is a lot of routine data that it does not collect such as how many teachers are struggling or what is the breakdown of teacher ratings on the annual evaluation instrument; and (6) There is little indication that the district looks for individuals with strong academic backgrounds when recruiting new teachers, even though research has found that teachers with a strong academic background of their own are more likely to be effective. Appended are: (1) Comparison of Miami-Dade and Washington, D.C.; and (2) The impact of teachers' advance degrees on student learning. (Contains 36 figures and 27 footnotes.) [Additional funding for this paper was provided by the Garner Foundation.]

Annually, ACT provides each state with "The Condition of College & Career Readiness," a report that details the college readiness of students who took the ACT[R] test. This report is a companion to "The Condition of College & Career Readiness." This paper traces the college enrollment, retention, re-enrollment, and migration patterns of the 2010 ACT-tested high school graduates in the state of Florida. It also provides a snapshot of the impact that benchmark-meeting behavior has on those patterns and, ultimately, on success in college. ACT's research on the knowledge and skills necessary for success in college courses resulted in the establishment of ACT's College Readiness Benchmarks. These benchmarks are ACT subject area scores that represent the level of achievement required for students to have a 50% chance of obtaining a B or higher or about a 75% chance of earning a C or higher in corresponding credit-bearing first-year college courses. The report also provides recommendations for policymakers and retention recommendations for institutional practice. (Contains 4 footnotes.) [For related report, "The Condition of College & Career Readiness, 2012," see ED534761.]

The 2009 "State Teacher Policy Yearbook" provided a comprehensive review of states' policies that impact the teaching profession. As a companion to last year's comprehensive state-by-state analysis, the 2010 edition provides each state with an individualized "Blueprint for Change," building off last year's "Yearbook" goals and recommendations. State teacher policy addresses a great many areas, including teacher preparation, certification, evaluation and compensation. With so many moving parts, it may be difficult for states to find a starting point on the road to reform. To this end, this paper provides a state-specific roadmap, organized in three main sections. Section 1 identifies policy concerns that need critical attention, the areas of highest priority for state policymakers. Section 2 outlines "low-hanging fruit," policy changes that can be implemented in relatively short order. Section 3 offers a short discussion of some longer-term systemic issues that states need to make sure stay on the radar. In the 2009 "State Teacher Policy Yearbook", Florida had the following grades: (1) Delivering Well Prepared Teachers (C); (2) Expanding the Teaching Pool (B-); (3) Identifying Effective Teachers (C-); (4) Retaining Effective Teachers (C); and (5) Exiting Ineffective Teachers (C). Florida has an overall grade of C for 2009. In the last year, many states made significant changes to their teacher policies, spurred in many cases by the Race to the Top competition. Based on a review of state legislation, rules and regulations, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) has identified no recent policy changes in Florida. States were asked to review NCTQ's identified updates and also to comment on policy changes that have occurred in the last year, other pending changes or teacher quality in the state more generally. Florida confirmed that there are no recent policy changes to report. Individual sections contain footnotes. (Contains 4 figures.) [For the related reports, see "Blueprint for Change: National Summary. State Teacher Policy Yearbook, 2010" (ED515614) and "State Teacher Policy Yearbook, 2009. Florida" (ED511887).]

This year the Center on Education Policy (CEP) analyzed data on the achievement of different groups of students in two distinct ways. First, it looked at grade 4 test results to determine whether the performance of various groups improved at three achievement levels--basic and above, proficient and above, and advanced. Second, it looked at gaps between these groups at the proficient level across three grades (grade 4, grade 8 in most cases, and a high school grade). These two types of analyses show whether elementary school achievement has generally gone up for different groups of students and whether achievement gaps at different grade levels have narrowed, widened, or stayed the same. This paper profiles the student subgroup achievement and gap trends in Florida. There were upward trends in Florida in terms of achievement and progress on narrowing of achievement gaps. (Contains 9 tables.) [For the main report, "State Test Score Trends through 2007-08, Part 3: Are Achievement Gaps Closing and Is Achievement Rising for All?", see ED507909.]

This paper profiles Florida's test score trends through 2008-09. Between 2005 and 2009, the percentages of students reaching the proficient level on the state test and the basic level on NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) increased in grades 4 and 8 in both reading and math. Average annual gains were generally larger on the state test than on NAEP, except in grade 8 reading, where average annual gains on both assessments were the same. Trends in average (mean) scores moved in the same direction (up) as trends in percentages proficient/basic. (Contains 1 footnote.) [For the main report, "State Test Score Trends through 2008-09, Part 1: Rising Scores on State Tests and NAEP", see ED513962.]