3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final

8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final

1/37

1

2011

Grade 3-8 English Language Arts andMathematics Results

August 8, 2011


2/37

2

669

666

663

6

56

652

650

659

667

665

665

661

6

55

661

669

667

661

662

657

664

670

670

675

667

667

661

668

668

673

672

664

668

659

667

663

672

668

663

664

6

55 6

64

6

556

66

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

The average scale scores on the English Language Arts test thisyear were slightly lower than last year in all grades

English Language Arts 2006-2011By Grade

Mean Scale Scores


3/37

3

677

676

666

656

652 6

63

685

674

668

663

65 7

716

88

683

680

675

674

666 6

786

92

689

686

680

681

675

684

693

687

685

680

677

677

683

687

688

686

682

679

677

683

651

680


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

The average scale scores on the mathematics test this yearwere about the same as last year and progress varied by grade

Mathematics 2006-2011By Grade

Mean Scale Scores


4/37

4

Performance Levels

Beginning in 2010, ELA and mathematics Proficiencystandard scores were changed from 650, where they

have been set in the past

8thgradeProficiencyscoresweresetatalevelthatprovidesstudents

a75%chanceofearningacollegereadyRegentsscore*3rd7th gradeProficiencyscoresaresetsothatifastudentmakesayears

worthofdevelopmentalgrowth,theywillbeontrackforacollegeready

Regentsscore

*75 or greater on the ELA Regents examination; 80 or greater on a math Regents examination


5/37

5

Each year, scores are equated so that performance levels have the samemeaning from one year to the next. Because of year-to-year differences in

individual test items, the number of raw scores needed to reach a scalescore or performance level can change.

Grade Math2010

ELA2010

684 662668

666662

664

658

676

674674

670

673

Math2011

ELA2011

3 684 6634 676 671

5 676 6686 674 662

7 670 665

8 674 658

Scale Scores Needed for Proficiency


6/37

6

Assessments Changes in 2011

Broader and deeper content coverage:

Questions will not be released, makingtests less predictable and ensuring morecomprehensive student readiness

More multiple choice questions, to bettermeasure ranges of student performance

More essay writing on Grades 3, 5 & 7English exams

External research to evaluate score results


7/37

7

Grades 3-8 ELA Results


8/37

8

52.8 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met orexceeded the proficiency standard, a slight decrease from last year

English Language Arts 2006 2011Grades 3-8 Combined

Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

61.5%63.4%

68.5%77.4%

53.2% 52.8%

Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Grades 3-8: 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460 1,196,283 1,195,432

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Students Tested


9/37

9

As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be proficient, fewerstudents met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency standard in 2010.

In 2011, progress toward this new standard varied by grade.

69.0

%

68.6

%

67.1%

60

.4%

56

.4%

49

.3% 6

1.5

%67.1%

68.0

%

68.1

%

63

.2%

57

.8%

57

.0%

63

.4%70.1%

71.1%

7

7.6

%

66.9%

70.0%

56

.1% 6

8.5

%

75

.8%

76

.9%

82

.2%

80

.9%

80

.3%

68.5

%

7

7.4

%

54

.7%

56

.7%

52

.5%

54

.2%

50

.0%

51

.0%

53

.2%

55

.9%

56

.7%

53

.8%

55

.8%

47

.8%

46

.9%

52

.8%


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Grade 3 = 185,603 198,457 195,777 198,367 196,604 196,757

Grade 4 = 190,951 197,499 197,016 195,942 199,530 197,385

Grade 5 = 201,262 202,133 198,022 197,856 197,448 200,602

Grade 6 = 204,249 204,463 200,505 197,996 198,135 198,450

Grade 7 = 210,735 211,839 207,278 202,805 200,183 200,551

Grade 8 = 212,320 213,971 209,180 207,494 204,383 201,687Grades 3-8= 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460 1,196,283 1,195,432

Number Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


10/37

10

In 2011, the majority of the Grades 3-5 students statewide met orexceeded the English Language Arts proficiency standard (Level

3 or Level 4). The percentage of students in Grades 3-5 who

scored at Level 4 decreased compared to 2010.

(2010 results are striped; 2011 results are solid)

13.9

%

8.4% 11

.6%

8.3

%10.5%

31.4% 3

4.8%

35.9

%

31.3% 3

5.0%

35.6

%

38.1

%50.8

%

3

9.6

%51.3

%

54.2

%

49.5

%

16.6

%

6.0

% 12

.8%

4.6

%

2.5

%4.4

%12

.8%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 52010 Level 1 2011 Level 1 2010 Level 2 2011 Level 2

2010 Level 3 2011 Level 3 2010 Level 4 2011 Level 4


11/37

11

In 2011, a majority of the Grade 7 and 8 students statewide didnot meet the English Language Arts proficiency standard (Level 3or Level 4). The percentage of students in Grades 6-8 who scored

at Level 4 decreased compared to 2010.


11.4

%

10.4%

9.1%

9.4%

8.4

%

34.4%

3

9.5

%

4

0.0

%

32.5

% 42.8

%

44.7

%

47.3

%

3

8.9

%43.3

%51.8

%

44.3

%

45.1

%

6.8

% 11.2

%

7.7

%

3.9

%

3.6

%

1.8

%11.7

%




12/37

12

12.6 percent of English Language Learners met or

exceeded the ELA proficiency standard

16.2% 18.0%25.1%

36.4%

14.3% 12.6%

Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Grades 3-8: 27,507 72,082 73,199 74,854 79,348 81,869

Number of ELL Students Tested


13/37

13

14.5 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded

the ELA proficiency standard

20.2% 22.8%27.9%

15.2% 14.5%

39.3%

Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Grades 3-8: 166,511 173,369 181,381 182,847 188,096 186,886

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Students with Disabilities Tested


14/37

14

39.1 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8students met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard

50

.3%

69

.5%

49

.6%

66.1

%

55

.3%

79

.4%

39

.1%

68

.5%

66

.9%

86

.9%

39

.1%

68

.8%

Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


15/37

15

The ELA results for racial/ethnic groups across grades3-8 reveal the persistence of the achievement gap

75

.6%

45

.2%

45

.6%

50

.8%

75

.4%

63.4

%79

.6%

52

.9%

52

.6%57.3%

79

.0%

68

.5%

64.3

%

64

.8%

68

.9% 8

5.9

%

77

.4%

67

.9%

34

.4%

36

.8%

41

.3%

64

.8%

53

.2%67

.4%

35

.0%

37

.2%

40

.6%

64.2

%

52

.8%

77

.6%

42

.4%

46

.1%

46

.5% 7

1.8

%

61.5%

86

.6%

Asian Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan

Native

White Total Public

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Asian: 94,254

Black: 224,871

Hispanic: 263,997

American Indian/ Alaskan Native: 5,930White: 596,619

Total Public: 1,195,432

2011 Total Students


16/37

16

Across grades 3-8, 57.8 percent of girls, compared to48.1 percent of boys, met or exceeded the ELA

proficiency standard

65.5

%

57

.7%67.

5%

59

.6%7

2.8

%

64.5

%

57

.8%

48

.1%

81

.0%

7

4.0

%

57

.9%

48

.6%

Females Males

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


17/37

17

50.7

%

37

.3%

52.4%

56

.7%

69

.2%

82

.9%

61

.5%

50.8

%

38

.7%

54

.9%

62

.0% 7

3.0

% 84.8%

63

.4%

5

7.6

%

46

.4%

60

.6%

66

.8 % 7

6.7

% 87.5%

68

.5%

43

.9%

27

.8%

47

.5%

60

.2%

52.8%

77

.4%9

1.8

%

84

.2%

76

.3%

70

.9%

5

6.9

%68

.8%

53.2%

74

.9%

61

.5%

49.6

%

43

.1%

29

.1%

42

.4%

75

.0%

40

.3%

New York City Large City Urban-Suburban Rural Average Low Total Public

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Across grades 3-8, low-need communities continuedto outperform large cities and rural areas in English

Language Arts


18/37

18

50.7

%

30.1

% 38.4

%

34.0

%

51.1

% 61.5

%

50.8

%

34.5% 3

8.4

%

37.3% 4

6.7

%

63.4%

57.6

%

42

.5%

46.6

%

42

.1%

55.6

%68.5

%

68.8

%

54.4

%

56.0

%

52.7

%6

5.2%

42

.4%

27.7

%

25.3

%

25.5

%39.2%

53.2

%

43.9

%

26.9

%

24.4

%

22.5

%

37.8

%

52.8

%

77.4

%

New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

A smaller proportion of grades 3-8 students met orexceeded the ELA proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities

than statewide. New York City demonstrated a slightgain.


19/37

19

36

.6%

20

.9%

26

.3%

21

.3% 3

1.8

%

49

.3%

41.8

%

33

.3%

27

.8%

28

.3%

35

.1%

57

.0%

43.0%

28

.0%

31

.1%

30

.8%

37

.7%

56

.1%

57

.0%

42.5%

43.1%

41.0

% 50

.4%

68

.5%

37

.5%

26

.6%

21

.1%

24

.6%

29

.8%

51

.0%

35

.0%

23

.1%

16

.6%

19

.6%

26

.6%

46

.9%

New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met orexceeded the ELA proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities

than statewide. Generally, Grade 8 ELA performancedecreased in 2011.


20/37

20

6.1

%

2.6%

1.7

%2

.6% 4.5% 8

.7%

7.3%

3.3%

2.0

%3

.0% 5.4%

1

0.2

%

2.7%

0.9

%

0.5

%

0.7

%

1.3

%3

.5%


2009 2010 2011

In 2011, the percentage of students scoring at Level 4

decreased statewide and in the Big 5English Language Arts 2009-2011

Statewide and Big 5Grades 3-8 Combined

Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 4


21/37

21

In 2010, Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion oftheir students who met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency

standard. In 2011, progress toward this standard varied by grade.

49.6

%

53.2

%

55

.1%

43.8

%

40.8

%

35.7

% 48.2

%60.8

%

56.9

%

55

.2%

54

.9%

47.3

%

44.7% 54

.6%6

8.3

%

65.1

%

68.8

%

59.6

%67.4

%

44.7%

64.0

%79.4

%

76.8

%

75.1

%

76.4

%

78.8

%

68.1

%76.1

%

51.

7%

44.4%

41.6

%

40.3

%

36.8

%

40.4

%

43.0

%51.

9%

50.8%

40.8

%

45.9%

34.8

%

34.7

%43.9%


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of charter school students tested (Grades 3-8 combined)2006 9,916 students tested2007 12,108 students tested2008 15,222 students tested2009 17,862 students tested2010 21,315 students tested

2011 25,479 students tested


22/37

22

Grades 3-8 Mathematics Results

63 3 f d 3 8 d h S d d


23/37

23

63.3 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met or exceededthe mathematics proficiency standard, a slight increase from last year

Mathematics 2006-2011Grades 3-8 Combined

Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

65.9%

72.7%

80.7%

86.4%

61.0%

63.3%

Grades 3-8 Math

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be proficient,


24/37

24

As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be proficient,fewer students met or exceeded the new mathematics

proficiency standard in 2010. In 2011, there was slight progress

toward meeting this new standard.

80

.5%

77

.9%

68.4

%

60

.4%

55

.6%

53

.9% 6

5.9

%85

.2%

7

9.9

%

76

.1%

71.2%

66

.4%

58

.8% 72

.7%8

9.9

%

83

.8%

83

.2%

7

9.4

%

7

8.9

%

69.8

%80

.7%9

2.9

%

87

.2%

88

.1%

83

.0%

87

.3%

8

0.2

%

86

.4%

59

.1%

63

.8%

64

.6%

61

.3%

62

.4%

54

.8%

61

.0%

59

.6%

66

.6%

66

.2%

63

.0%

64

.6%

59

.8%

63

.3%


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Students Tested

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Grade 3 201,956 200,217 197,500 200,336 198,785 198,825

Grade 4 202,791 199,391 198,730 197,704 201,769 199,459

Grade 5 209,242 203,956 199,746 199,511 199,594 202,738

Grade 6 211,428 206,220 202,058 199,940 200,774 200,417

Grade 7 217,308 213,436 209,039 204,648 202,723 202,492Grade 8 219,414 215,415 210,716 209,221 206,739 203,608

Grades 3-8 1,259,956 1,238,635 1,217,789 1,211,360 1,210,384 1,207,539

In 2011 the majority of the Grades 3 5 students statewide met or


25/37

25

In 2011, the majority of the Grades 3-5 students statewide met orexceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level4). Other than Grade 3, the percentage of students who scored at

Level 4 remained relatively constant compared to 2010.


9.4%

5.4

%

6.1

%

5.7

%

5.9

%

31.5

%

30.8%

29.2%

31.2

%

27.7

%

27.9

%35.1

%

38.1

%

40.8

%46.2

%

39.9

%

42.8

%

24.0

%

25.7

%

23.9

%

1

3.4

%26.7

%

23.5

%

9.2%



In 2011 a majority of the Grades 6-8 students statewide met or


26/37

26

In 2011, a majority of the Grades 6-8 students statewide met orexceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level4). The percentage of students in Grades 6-8 who scored at Level

4 remained relatively constant compared to 2010.


8.1%

8.2% 9

.3%

8.0% 8

.8%

30.6%

29.4% 35

.9%

29.0

%

27.4

%31.4

%

34.

2%

33.2%

36

.5%

36

.6%

34.

2% 4

2.2

%

27.1

%

29.1

%

18.2

%26.3

%30.4%

17.7

%

8.0%




27/37

27

38.6

%

45.7

%58.4

%67.1%

30.7

%

32.3

%

Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

32.3 percent of English Language Learners met or

exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard


28/37

28

30.4

%

37.2

%47.8

%58.4

%

2

4.6

%

26.9

%

Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

26.9 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded

the mathematics proficiency standard

51 5 percent of Economicall Disad antaged grades 3 8


29/37

29

51.5 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8students met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency

standard

56

.0%

73

.4%

60.9%

81

.9%

72

.3%

87

.8%

51

.5%

77

.0%

80

.1% 9

2.4%

49

.0%

74

.4%

Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


30/37

30

85

.2%

45

.8%

51

.6%

53

.8%

76

.4%

65.9

%89

.1%

54

.6%

60.5%

61.8

%8

2.0

%

7

2.7

%92

.9%

65.9

%

71

.1%

7

3.0

% 88

.3%

80

.7%9

4.9

%

75

.0%

79

.5%

81

.6%

92

.2%

86

.4%

81

.7%

40

.9%

47

.3%

49

.5% 7

1.1

%

61.0%

83

.7%

44

.0%

50

.2%

52

.3% 7

3.3

%

63.3

%

Asian Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan

Native

White Total Public

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2011 Total Students

Asian: 94,254

Black: 224,871

Hispanic: 263,997

American Indian/ Alaskan Native: 5,930

White: 596,619

Total Public: 1,195,432

The mathematics results for racial/ethnic groupsacross grades 3-8 reveal the persistence of the

achievement gap

Across grades 3 8 64 3 percent of girls compared to


31/37

31

Across grades 3-8, 64.3 percent of girls, compared to62.4 percent of boys, met or exceeded the mathematics

proficiency standard

66

.2%

65

.6%

73

.5%

71

.9%8

1.9

%

79

.6%

64.3%

62.4

%

87

.5%

85

.4%

61.8

%

60.2

%

Females Males

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Across grades 3 8 low need communities continued to


32/37

32

Across grades 3-8, low-need communities continued tooutperform large cities and rural areas in mathematics

57.0

%

35.2

%

55.0

%62

.4% 7

4.0

% 86.3

%

6

5.9

%

6

5.1

%

41.0

%

63

.5%

70.2

%79.9

% 90.0

%

72.7

%

74.3

%

54.5%

73.2

%79.3

%86.9

%93.9%

80.7

%

57.3

%

31.6

%

55.8% 6

9.7

%

63

.3%

81.8

%

64.7

%8

1.0

%

85.8

%

91.1

%95.9%

86.4

%

54.0%

31.1

%4

8.6

%

54.3%

67.6

% 80.8

%

61.0

%

49.1

%

83.2

%

New York City Large City Urban-

Suburban

Rural Average Low Total Public

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


33/37

33

57.0

%

28.6

%

33.2

%

3

0.2

%5

3.1

% 65.9

%

65.1%

35.9

%

39.2

%

39.4

% 52.3

%72

.7%

74

.3%

50.0

%

54.6

%

49.8

% 65.1%8

1.8

%

63.3%

63.4%

58.2

% 73

.8%

54.0

%

2

9.8

%

28.0

%

25

.7% 4

1.5

% 61.0%

57.3

%

3

1.0

%

29.4

%

25

.3% 4

0.4

%6

3.3%

80.7

%

86.4

%


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

A smaller proportion of grades 3-8 students met or

exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard inthe Big 5 cities than statewide. New York City,Buffalo, and Rochester showed slight gains.

A ll ti f G d 8 t d t t


34/37

34

38.9%

17

.0%

20

.0%

20

.4%

30

.9%

53

.9%

45.6

%

25

.8%

17

.9%

20

.1%

32

.2%

58

.8%

59

.6%

33

.8%

32

.9%

28

.9% 4

1.8%5

7.8

%

46

.3%

25

.8%

14

.5%

13

.4% 2

7.9

%

54

.8%

5

2.5

%

27

.6%

19

.5%

15

.3%

27

.3%

59

.8%

69

.8%

42.9%

53

.9%

35.0

%

71

.3%

80

.2%


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met orexceeded the mathematics proficiency standard in

the Big 5 cities than statewide. Generally, Grade 8math performance increased slightly in 2011.


35/37

35

25

.9%

8

.4%

6.7%

7.5

%17

.7%

29

.1%

22

.2%

6.6%

4.9

%

6.0

% 13

.0%

24

.7%

20

.9%

6.2%

4.4%

4.3% 9

.6%

23

.0%


2009 2010 2011

In 2011, the percentage of students scoring at Level 4decreased statewide and in the Big 5

Mathematics 2009-2011Statewide and Big 5

Grades 3-8 Combined

Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 4

In 2010, Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion oftheir students who met or exceeded the new Mathematics proficiency


36/37

36

their students who met or exceeded the new Mathematics proficiencystandard. In 2011, there was progress toward meeting this new

standard.

71.6

%

67.9

%

59.7%

50.8

%

40.3

%

40.0

% 58.2%

83.4

%

7

2.6

%

69

.4%

75.5

%

60.3

%

53.7

% 71.4

%91.0

%

83.7

%

82.1

%

77.5

%

81.0

%

70

.8%

82.1

%96.1

%

89.4

%

88.4

%

86.8

%

89.4

%

84.5

%

89.4

%

61.6%

63.8

%

59.7%

61.3%

59.1%

50.4

%59.9

%

64.3%

69

.5%

63.4

%

65.3%

63.0

%

62.1

%

64.6%


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of charter school students tested (Grades 3-8 combined)2006 9,908 students tested2007 12,009 students tested2008 15,161 students tested2009 17,758 students tested2010 21,357 students tested

2011 25,527 students tested


37/37

37

2011

Grade 3-8 English Language Arts andMathematics Results

August 8, 2011

3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final

Documents

Transcript of 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final