2011 State Assessments Summary Results
description
Transcript of 2011 State Assessments Summary Results
![Page 1: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
2011 State Assessments Summary Results
Dr. Bari Anhalt ErlichsonChief Performance Officer
February 1st, 2012
![Page 2: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction
• New Jersey conducts statewide tests in grades 3 through 8 and one time in high school for Language Arts and Math.
• For Science, every student is assessed in 4th, 8th and one time in high school.
![Page 3: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Language Arts Literacy (LAL)
![Page 4: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
New Jersey’s LAL Standards
![Page 5: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
New Jersey’s LAL Standards
![Page 6: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Overall LAL Performance
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
High Overall LAL Performance Over Time
HSPANJASK
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
![Page 7: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Impact of Raising LAL Standards
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
Grades 5-8 LAL Performance
LAL Grade 5 LAL Grade 6 LAL Grade 7
LAL Grade 8% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
0
20
40
60
80
100
Grade 3 and 4 LAL Performance
LAL Grade 3LAL Grade 4
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
![Page 8: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
LAL Proficiency By Grade
Grade2010
Proficiency 2011
Proficiency Difference3 59.7 63 3.34 59.6 62.7 3.1
5 63.1 60.9 -2.26 65.3 66.7 1.47 69.2 63.3 -5.98 82.4 82.2 -0.2
![Page 9: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
NJASK LAL Trends
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
LAL Proficiency: State vs. ESEA Flexibility Waiver - Priority Schools
State ProficientPriority ProficientState Advanced
Priority Advanced
% o
f Stu
dent
s
5
28
33
9
![Page 10: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
NJASK LAL Gaps
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
NJASK LAL Proficiency Gap Between Econom-ically Disadvantaged and Non-Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Non-FRPLFRPL
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
3126
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
NJASK LAL Proficiency Gap Between White, Hispanic, and African-American Students
White Hispanic African-American% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
27
24
28 33
![Page 11: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
HSPA Gaps
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
HSPA LAL Proficiency Gap Between Econom-ically Disadvantaged and Non-Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Non-FRPLFRPL
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
13
24
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
HSPA LAL Proficiency Gap Between White, Hispanic, and African-American Students
White Hispanic African-American% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
1625
12
![Page 12: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Spotlight on Third Grade Reading Proficiency
• In 2010-2011, over 37,500 3rd grade students in New Jersey did not pass NJASK – LAL.
• 42% of these students were educated in DFG A or B districts.
• About 16% were educated in our five largest urban districts.
• And 43% of them were educated in schools that had a poverty rate lower than the state school average.
![Page 13: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
3rd Grade Reading Proficiency
A
B
CD
State
DE
FG
GH
I
J
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of 3rd Graders Reading on Grade Level, By District Factor Group
% Proficient and Above, 2010-2011 NJASK LAL Grade 3
![Page 14: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
3rd Grade Reading Proficiency
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
Percent of 3rd Graders Reading on Grade Level, By DFG
DFG J State DFG A
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve, N
JASK
Gra
de 3
22
44
3219
![Page 15: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Mathematics
![Page 16: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
New Jersey’s Math Standards
![Page 17: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
New Jersey’s Math Standards
![Page 18: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Overall Math Performance
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
High Overall Math Performance Over Time
HSPANJASK
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
![Page 19: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Impact of Raising Math Standards
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
Grades 5-8 Math Performance
Math Grade 5 Math Grade 6 Math Grade 7Math Grade 8
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
Grade 3 and 4 Math Performance
Math Grade 3Math Grade 4
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
![Page 20: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Math Proficiency By Grade
Grade2010
Proficiency 2011
Proficiency Difference3 78.1 78.9 0.84 77 79.3 2.35 78.7 80.6 1.96 71.8 77.3 5.57 64.3 65.7 1.48 68.5 71.5 3.0
![Page 21: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
NJASK Math Trends
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
Math Proficiency: State vs. ESEA Flexibility Waiver - Priority Schools
Priority ProficientState ProficientPriority AdvancedState Advanced
% o
f Stu
dent
s
17
19
17
28
![Page 22: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
NJASK Math Gaps
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
Math Proficiency Gap Between Economically Disadvantaged and Non-Economically Dis-
advantaged Students
Non-FRPLFRPL%
Pro
ficie
nt a
nd A
bove
2425
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
NJ ASK Math Proficiency Gap Between White, Hispanic, and African-American Students
White Hispanic African-American
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve 20
3122
32
![Page 23: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
HSPA Math Gaps
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
HSPA Math Proficiency Gap Between Economi-cally Disadvantaged and Non-Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Non-FRPLFRPL
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
20
28
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
HSPA Math Proficiency Gap Between White, Hispanic, and African-American Students
White Hispanic African-American% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve 29
19
2839
![Page 24: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Science
![Page 25: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Overall Science Performance
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
Overall Science Performance Over Time
NJASK Biology ECT
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
![Page 26: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Science Proficiency By Grade
Grade2010
Proficiency 2011
Proficiency Difference4 93.4 90 -3.48 83 81.2 -1.8
![Page 27: 2011 State Assessments Summary Results](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062315/5681624c550346895dd294d9/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
NJASK Science Gaps
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
NJASK Science Proficiency Gap Between White, Hispanic, and African-American Students
White
Hispanic
African-American
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve
2833
23
17
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
20
40
60
80
100
NJASK Science Proficiency Gap Between Economically Disadvantaged and Non-Eco-
nomically Disadvantaged Students
Non-FRPLFRPL
% P
rofic
ient
and
Abo
ve 29
19