top of page


Público·9 miembros

17. Report Card

This search will produce the School Report Card for a selected school in a print-ready PDF format. If you are interested in generating PDF reports for all the schools in a district at one time, see All School Report Cards by District. For further information, please access the Letter to Superintendents.

17. Report Card

Background/objective: Taiwan is facing a high prevalence of physical inactivity in children and adolescents, which has led to rising obesity and morbidity levels in young people. Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) joined the Global Matrix 3.0 to share the local information on childhood physical activity and related factors with the international community. This study reports the grades for 10 indicators endorsed by the Global Matrix 3.0.

Public schools throughout California are required to provide information about themselves to the community in the form of an annual School Accountability Report Card (SARC). These report cards provide a variety of data to allow the public to evaluate and compare schools in terms of student achievement, environment, resources and demographics.

A number of different kinds of information are displayed in the report card. To make sense of this information, the report card is organized around several categories of data. School report cards generally begin with a school profile that provides background information about the school and its students. The profile also presents the district mission and the school's goals--goals that school administrators, staff, and parents have specifically set for the school. Parents and other members of the public may want to judge the rest of the report card by how well they feel the school is meeting its own goals and how good a job the school is doing.

The Western Narrows of Long Island Sound receivedan F, as it has in prior reports. Despite this, there was some room foroptimism. Substantial financial investment in nitrogen reduction at area sewagetreatment plants appears to be having a gradual, positive effect. The score forone important indicator of water quality in the Western Narrows, dissolvedorganic carbon (DOC), moved from a rock bottom 0% score in 2008 to a 43% in the2022 Long Island Sound Report Card. This is a significant and promisingimprovement of this indicator of water quality. The DOC grade, combined withresults from other indicators, still left the Western Narrows short of apassing grade with much more work to be done. Nonetheless, the gains signalthat nitrogen reduction is having an impact.

The news for bays was more sobering. Of the53 bay segments monitored, more than half (57%) received discouraging grades ofC, D, or F. Only eleven bay segments earned an A. Bays are highly susceptibleto pollutants from their neighboring communities. While local efforts underwayhave produced some improvements, the low overall grades show the impact thatpollution has on coastal waters. This is especially true where tidal exchangewith the open Sound is low and pollutant loads from rivers and streams feedinginto bays are high. The report reaffirmed prior evidence that the quality ofnearby open water in the Sound does not always predict the quality of water inadjacent bays. Even bays located near the most pristine sections of open watercan still score poorly, due to localized pollution and other factors.

NAEP reports scores at five selected percentiles to show the progress made by lower- (10th and 25th percentiles), middle- (50th percentile), and higher- (75th and 90th percentiles) performing students. In 2022, reading and mathematics scores for students at all five selected percentile levels declined compared to 2020. In both subjects, scores for lower-performing age 9 students declined more than scores for higher-performing students compared to 2020.

There were also fewer declines at the higher performance level (at the 75th percentile) in reading than in mathematics across selected student groups. For example, when looking at the racial/ethnic groups, while scores declined for White, Black, and Hispanic students at the 75th percentile in mathematics compared to 2020, there were no significant score changes across the reported racial/ethnic student groups at this performance level in reading.

Since the 1970s, the NAEP long-term trend assessments have been administered to monitor the academic performance of students across three age levels (9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students). This report focuses on the comparison of age 9 students (typically in grade 4) between 2020 and 2022. A report summarizing results for 9-year-old students across all administrations back to the early 1970s will be released in the spring of 2023, along with results for 13-year-old students.

The instruments and methodologies of LTT and main NAEP assessment programs are different; as a result, direct comparisons between the LTT results presented in this report and the assessment results presented in other main NAEP reports are not possible. Read more about the differences between long-term trend and main NAEP assessments.

NOTE: The NAEP long-term trend (LTT) reading and mathematics scales range from 0 to 500. Because the scales were developed separately for each subject, comparisons cannot be made from one subject to another. Black includes African American. Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. The information about National School Lunch Program (NSLP) variable is based on available school records. If school records were not available, the student was classified as "Information not available." The category "students with disabilities" includes students identified as having either an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or protection under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The results for students with disabilities and English learners are based on students who were assessed and cannot be generalized to the total population of such students. See more information about student group variables. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or the omission of categories. Although the estimates (e.g., average scores or percentages) are shown as rounded numbers in the charts, the positions of the data points in the graphics are based on the unrounded numbers. Unrounded numbers were used for calculating the differences between the estimates, and for the statistical comparison test when the estimates were compared to each other. Not all apparent differences between estimates are statistically significant. NAEP reports results using widely accepted statistical standards; findings are reported based on a statistical significance level set at .05, with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons. Only those differences that are found to be statistically significant are referred to as "higher" or "lower."

In the 2018-2019 school year, the Board of Trustees approved recommended adjustments to the existing standards-based report card and progress reporting timelines. These four communication topics emerged as being paramount and are addressed in the new reporting tool:

A total of 84 Report Card Leaders/Co-Leaders from 53 countries across 6 continents replied to the online survey. Their perceptions of the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on each of the 10 common PA indicators, on the surveillance of PA in children and adolescents, and on their activity as PA experts/researchers are summarized in Table 8. Most Report Card Leaders reported that the COVID-19 pandemic adversely affected the 10 common PA indicators in their country. In terms of PA surveillance and their activity as PA experts, the results were more disparate. One in 2 Report Card Leaders reported that their activity as a PA researcher/expert was negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, while 57% reported a negative impact of the pandemic on surveillance of PA among children and adolescents. A positive impact on their research/expert activity was reported by 23% of the Report Card leaders, while 14% of the Report Card Leaders reported a positive impact on surveillance of PA among children and adolescents.

The benchmark for Organized Sport and Physical Activity remained unchanged since the Global Matrix 3.0. As previously mentioned,22 this indicator did not provide any information on the dose (ie, duration, frequency, intensity) of sport participation, so the grade for this indicator depends on the availability of organized sport opportunities and of the availability of data/national reports presenting the prevalence of children and adolescents who have taken advantage of these opportunities.

The grades for the Philippines and Indonesia were informed by the Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS)73 data, assessing a variety of sedentary behaviors (eg, sitting, talking with friends, and playing cards) in addition to screen-based behaviors (eg, watching TV, playing computer games), suggesting a high prevalence of children and adolescents meeting the screen time benchmark.

Five countries could not grade this indicator due to insufficient data. School grades were informed by an extensive variety of information including surveys targeting children and/or adolescents, parents, or schools assessing specific aspects of school PA policies, attendance of physical education, participation in school sport clubs, as well as national reports and descriptions of some national physical education curricula. Deeper analysis of these materials is needed to provide a more accurate overview of the information compiled to inform the School indicator at the global level. This is also the result of the complexity of concepts covered by the current School indicator. While physical education represents a PA domain,97 it was included in the School indicator as part of the source of influence instead of as a separated behavioral indicator. While this approach is potentially more relevant for countries where the teaching of physical education is only scarce and dependent of school or municipal initiatives, having a separated behavioral indicator could be more appropriate for countries with a compulsory national physical education curriculum and would allow the Global Matrix to assess separately Overall Physical Activity and its four components (ie, organized sport, active play, active transportation, and physical education).97 041b061a72

  • Acerca de

    ¡Bienvenido al grupo! Puedes conectarte con otros miembros, ...

    bottom of page