2008 grade 3-8 english language arts and math results
DESCRIPTION
2008 Grade 3-8 English Language Arts and Math Results. Meeting Regents Goals. Regents set 2 major goals: Raise achievement overall, and Close the achievement gap. Results being announced today show progress in meeting these goals. Why Did Performance Go Up?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
2008 Grade 3-8 English Language Arts and Math Results
2
Meeting Regents Goals
• Regents set 2 major goals:
• Raise achievement overall, and
• Close the achievement gap.
• Results being announced today show progress in meeting these goals.
3
Why Did Performance Go Up?
• State invested an additional $3.4B in support for schools over 2 years.• Regents adopted reforms in teaching:
More teachers than ever before are highly qualified under NCLB.
• Regents adopted a grade-by-grade curriculum that sets clear expectations.
• Schools are embracing changes in the curriculum, focusing on professional development.
4
Bottom LineGrades 3-8 Overall
Performance is up in Math and ELA.
More students are meeting the standards.• Math: 81% of students are at Levels 3 & 4.• English: 68.5% of students are at Levels 3 & 4.• Decline in performance after 5th grade appears
to be changing.• Fewer students are at Level 1 in both subjects.
5
The Gap is Narrowing
• Performance of Black and Hispanic students continues to improve.
• Students with Disabilities are doing better - a large decrease in the number at Level 1.
• ELL students’ performance in English continues to improve.
• There were significant improvements in the Big 5 Cities.
6
Percentage of Students Statewide Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 on Grades 3-8 English and Math
61
.5%
65
.8%
63
.4% 72
.70
%
68
.5% 8
0.7
%
Grades 3-8 ELA Grades 3-8 Math
2006 2007 2008
7
20083-8 English Language Arts
8
Achievement is up in English statewide, except in Grade 8.
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%
77
.6%
66
.9%
70
.0%
56
.1% 6
8.5
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
Grade 3 185,603 198,457 195,777Grade 4 190,951 197,499 197,016Grade 5 201,262 202,133 198,022Grade 6 204,249 204,463 200,505Grade 7 210,735 211,839 207,278Grade 8 212,320 213,971 209,180Grades 3-8 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778
Number Tested 2006 2007 2008
2008 3-8 ELA results
9
Fewer students showed serious academic difficulties in English in all grades, including
Grade 8.
8.6
%
9.0
%
6.4
%
7.3
%
8.1
%
9.5
%
8.1
%
9.0
%
7.9
%
5.0
%
2.5
% 6.0
%
6.2
%
6.1
%
6.0
%
7.5
%
1.9
%
1.7
%
1.9
% 5.2
%
4.0
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1
2008 3-8 ELA results
10
More Students with Disabilities are meeting the English standards at every grade level,
except Grade 8.
26
.6%
26
.5%
26
.6%
16
.8%
16
.1%
10
.5%
20
.2%
28
.0%
27
.6%
29
.1%
19
.7%
17
.3%
15
.6%
22
.8%
30
.8%
29
.8%
40
.7%
23
.9%
29
.4%
13
.3% 27
.9%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students with Disabilities Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
Grade 3 23,811 26,692 27,285Grade 4 26,474 28,281 29,983Grade 5 28,987 29,985 30,661Grade 6 28,883 29,055 31,195Grade 7 29,237 29,842 31,180Grade 8 29,119 29,514 31,077Grades 3-8 166,511 173,369 181,381
Number Tested 2006 2007 2008
2008 3-8 ELA results
11
The achievement gap in English is narrowing for Black and Hispanic students.
77
.6%
42
.4%
46
.1%
46
.5%
71
.8%
61
.5%7
5.6
%
45
.2%
45
.6%
50
.8%
75
.4%
63
.4%7
9.6
%
52
.9%
52
.6%
57
.3%
79
.0%
68
.5%
Asian/PacificIslander
Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan
Native
White Total Public
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
2008 3-8 ELA results
12
50
.7%
51
.8%
48
.9%
41
.3%
35
.9%
28
.0%
51
.1%
51
.3%
51
.2%
44
.4%
37
.9%
36
.6%
56
.3%
56
.5% 64
.2%
50
.0%
54
.3%
37
.0%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006 2007 2008
Overall, the percentage of Black students at levels 3 and 4 has increased.
Percentage of Black Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
2008 3-8 ELA results
13
58
.9%
55
.5%
52
.4%
43
.3%
38
.5%
31
.4%
50
.7%
50
.8%
50
.0%
44
.7%
39
.8%
37
.6%
53
.7%
56
.8% 65
.3%
48
.0%
54
.5%
37
.3%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006 2007 2008
Overall, the percentage of Hispanic students at levels 3 and 4 has increased.
Percentage of Hispanic Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
2008 3-8 ELA results
14
The performance of ELL students on the English test improved overall.
34
.3%
26
.6%
20
.6%
11
.2%
8.5
%
4.9
%
16
.2%
30
.5%
23
.0%
18
.9%
10
.4%
7.0
%
5.9
%
18
.0%
33
.1%
31
.9%
34
.0%
14
.9%
17
.4%
6.3
%
25
.1%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of ELL Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
2006 2007 2008Grade 3 3,684 17,093 17,433Grade 4 4,379 14,200 14,683Grade 5 6,686 11,480 11,916Grade 6 5,585 9,934 10,323Grade 7 6,234 9,299 9,798Grade 8 5,852 10,076 9,046Grades 3-8 32,420 72,082 73,199
Number of ELL Students Tested
2008 3-8 ELA results
15
A much smaller percentage of ELL students showed serious
academic difficulties in English.3
1.5
%
36
.4%
30
.3%
36
.6%
36
.8% 46
.6%
36
.6%
25
.9%
30
.8%
27
.5%
15
.9%
39
.4%
39
.0%
29
.3%
18
.4%
23
.8%
9.8
%
11
.1%
11
.8%
34
.2%
18
.1%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2008 3-8 ELA results
Percentage of ELL Students Scoring at Level 1
16
50
.7%
30
.1% 38
.4%
34
.0%
51
.1% 6
1.5
%
50
.8%
34
.5%
38
.4%
37
.3% 4
6.7
%
63
.4%
57
.6%
42
.5%
46
.6%
42
.1%
55
.6%
68
.5%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
The Big 5 districts showed substantial performance improvements in English.
2008 3-8 ELA results
17
2008 3-8 Math
18
Achievement in math is up statewide. 8
0.5
%
77
.9%
68
.4%
60
.4%
55
.6%
53
.9% 65
.8%8
5.2
%
79
.9%
76
.1%
71
.2%
66
.4%
58
.8% 72
.7%8
9.9
%
83
.8%
83
.2%
79
.4%
78
.9%
69
.8%
80
.7%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
Number of Students Tested 2006 2007 2008Grade 3 201,956 200,217 197,500Grade 4 202,791 199,391 198,730Grade 5 209,242 203,956 199,746Grade 6 211,428 206,220 202,058Grade 7 217,308 213,436 209,039Grade 8 219,414 215,415 210,716Grades 3-8 1,262,139 1,238,635 1,217,789
2008 3-8 math results
19
Fewer students showed serious academic difficulties in math in all grades,
including Grade 8.
6.4
%
7.5
%
10
.3%
13
.4%
13
.2%
15
.0%
11
.1%
4.1
%
6.1
%
5.9
%
8.8
%
7.6
% 12
.3%
7.5
%
2.3
%
4.8
%
3.8
%
5.6
%
3.9
%
7.5
%
4.7
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1
2008 3-8 math results
20
More Students with Disabilities met the math standards at every grade level.
50
.0%
44
.8%
31
.6%
21
.6%
18
.0%
17
.1%
30
.2%
57
.1%
47
.2%
41
.7%
31
.9%
26
.8%
20
.7% 37
.2%
66
.6%
53
.4%
52
.8%
42
.4%
42
.9%
31
.0% 47
.8%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students with Disabilities Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
Grade 3 27,045 26,780 27,325Grade 4 29,043 28,327 30,072Grade 5 30,290 29,960 30,662Grade 6 30,077 29,040 31,119Grade 7 29,791 29,659 31,037Grade 8 29,539 29,305 30,899Grades 3-8 175,785 173,071 181,114
Number Tested 2006 2007 2008
2008 3-8 math results
21
The achievement gap in math is narrowing for Black and Hispanic students.
85
.2%
45
.7%
51
.5%
53
.9%
76
.3%
65
.8%
89
.0%
54
.6%
60
.5%
61
.8%
82
.0%
72
.7%
92
.9%
65
.9%
71
.1%
73
.0% 8
8.3
%
80
.7%
Asian/PacificIslander
Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan
Native
White Total Public
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
2008 3-8 math results
22
66
.4%
62
.4%
49
.3%
40
.5%
31
.1%
28
.3%
74
.5%
64
.9%
60
.5%
53
.1%
42
.9%
34
.4%
81
.3%
71
.9%
70
.5%
63
.9%
60
.9%
48
.3%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006 2007 2008
The percentage of Black students meeting the math standards increased significantly at every grade level.
Percentage of Black Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
2008 3-8 math results
23
71
.5%
66
.6%
56
.1%
45
.2%
37
.2%
33
.0%
78
.5%
70
.2%
65
.7%
58
.4%
50
.3%
40
.4%
85
.1%
76
.8%
75
.3%
67
.8%
66
.5%
55
.1%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006 2007 2008
The percentage of Hispanic students meeting the math standards increased significantly at every grade level.
Percentage of Hispanic Students Scoring at Levels 3
and 4
2008 3-8 math results
24
57
.0%
28
.6%
33
.1%
30
.1%
52
.9% 65
.8%
65
.1%
35
.9%
39
.2%
39
.4% 52
.3%
72
.7%
74
.3%
50
.0%
54
.6%
49
.8% 6
5.1
% 80
.7%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
The Big 5 districts showed substantial performance improvements in math.
2008 3-8 math results
25
Ensuring These Results are Accurate
• New York’s testing system passed rigorous peer review by U.S. Dept. of Education.
• Technical Advisory Group – a panel of national testing experts - reviews
all aspects of our testing program.
• SED conducts expert independent analysis of vendor work.
26
Why Did Performance Go Up?
• State invested an additional $3.4B in
support for schools over 2 years.
• New grade by grade curriculum sets clear expectations.
• Schools are embracing changes in
State curriculum.
• This is the third year of 3-8 testing.
The system is responding.
27
What Have the Regents and SED Done to Raise Achievement?
• Approved new, higher math standards, developed by educators statewide.
• Eliminated uncertified teachers statewide.• Worked closely with schools to produce a well-
defined, grade-by-grade math core curriculum based on those standards.
• Worked with Big 5 math directors, BOCES, other math experts to reach a common understanding of the new curriculum and the best ways to implement it in the schools.
28
What did Schools do to Improve Student Performance?
• Developed a three-year plan to improve student performance.
• Made changes to curriculum and instruction especially for students receiving extra help.
• Extra help changes as students’ needs change.
• Weekly assessments – using the results to modify and tailor instruction weekly.
29
What did Schools do to Improve Student Performance?
• Staff development in math for all teachers.• Adopted a new math program more closely
aligned to State standards.• Evidence indicates that strong educational
leadership works.• Schools improved where principals set the
tone and provided needed guidance.• Support from BOCES, including SETRC, in
curriculum mapping and individualized instruction.
30
What did Schools do to Improve Student Performance?
• Expect good results for all students and provide the supports the students need to succeed.
• Increasing emphasis on reading and writing has also improved math scores.
31
Bottom LineGrades 3-8 Overall
Performance is up in Math and ELA.
More students are meeting the standards.• Math: 81% of students are at Levels 3 & 4.• English: 68.5% of students are at Levels 3 & 4.• Decline in performance after 5th grade appears
to be changing.• Fewer students are at Level 1 in both subjects.
32
The Gap is Narrowing
• Performance of Black and Hispanic students continues to improve.
• Students with Disabilities are doing better - a large decrease in the number at Level 1.
• ELL students’ performance in English continues to improve.
• There were significant improvements in the Big 5 Cities.
33
Additional Details
34
3-8 English Language Arts
35
66
9
66
6
66
3
65
6
65
066
7
66
5
66
1
65
5
65
566
9
66
6
66
7
66
1
66
2
65
7
65
266
5
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006 2007 2008
At all grade levels, the mean scale score was above 650, the score that denotes meeting the ELA standards.
2008 3-8 ELA results
650
36
2008 English Language Arts Total Public Grades 3, 4, and 5
37
2008 English Language Arts Total Public Grades 6, 7, and 8
38
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%
57
.6%
46
.4%
60
.6%
66
.8% 7
6.7
% 87
.5%
68
.5%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban Rural Average Low Total Public
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 3 and 4
2008 Grades 3-8 ELA BY NRC LEVELS 3 & 4
39
The percentage of students with serious academic difficulties decreased for all racial/ethnic groups.
3.1
% 14
.7%
12
.5%
13
.4%
4.8
%
8.1
%
3.6
%
9.6
%
11
.1%
8.9
%
3.1
%
6.1
%
2.4
%
6.1
%
7.2
%
5.6
%
2.2
%
4.0
%
Asian/PacificIslander
Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan
Native
White Total Public
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1
2008 3-8 ELA results
40
In every grade, the percentage of Students with Disabilities showing serious academic difficulties decreased.
37
.3%
38
.6%
28
.0% 33
.0%
32
.9% 38
.5%
34
.6%
34
.8%
33
.2%
21
.5%
12
.4%
24
.3%
25
.4%
25
.1%
26
.7% 31
.7%
8.9
%
8.3
%
8.7
%
22
.8%
17
.6%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students with Disabilities Students Scoring at Level 1
2008 3-8 ELA results
41
15
.2%
12
.6%
15
.1%
13
.5% 22
.6%
40
.3%
20
.2%
17
.5%
10
.6%
17
.1%
17
.0% 26
.0%
44
.5%
22
.8%
23
.3%
16
.1%
21
.4%
20
.9% 30
.4%
48
.9%
27
.9%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students with Disabilities Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
Results for Student with Disabilities increased among all NRC categories.
2008 3-8 ELA results
42
3-8 Math
43
67
7
67
6
66
6
65
6
65
2
68
5
67
4
66
8
66
3
65
7
68
8
68
3
68
0
67
5
67
4
66
6
65
1
68
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006 2007 2008
At all grade levels, the mean scale score was above 650, the score that denotes meeting the math standard.
650
2008 3-8 math results
44
2008 Math Total Public Grades 3, 4, and 5
45
2008 Math Total Public Grades 6, 7, and 8
46
The percent of Black and Hispanic students scoring at level 1 has decreased significantly.
3.9
%
21
.2%
17
.7%
16
.4%
5.7
%
11
.1%
2.6
% 14
.6%
11
.9%
11
.2%
3.9
%
7.5
%
1.7
%
8.9
%
7.2
%
6.5
%
2.5
%
4.7
%
Asian/PacificIslander
Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan
Native
White Total Public
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1
2008 3-8 math results
47
In every grade level, fewer Students with Disabilities showed serious academic difficulties.
23
.7%
28
.8% 35
.9% 44
.4%
42
.1%
44
.4%
36
.8%
17
.5% 24
.8%
23
.7% 3
3.5
%
28
.6%
40
.2%
28
.2%
11
.0% 2
0.4
%
16
.3% 23
.9%
17
.5%
29
.5%
19
.9%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students with Disabilities Scoring at Level 1
2008 3-8 math results
48
24
.8%
15
.7% 24
.7%
24
.8% 34
.2%
52
.1%
30
.2%
32
.8%
18
.1% 2
8.9
%
31
.2% 41
.1%
59
.0%
37
.2%
43
.4%
28
.5% 4
0.1
%
40
.6% 5
2.0
%
68
.6%
47
.8%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Student with Disabilities Scoring at Levels
3 and 4
Student with Disabilities results increased among all NRC categories.
2008 3-8 math results
49
57
.0%
35
.1%
55
.0%
62
.3% 73
.9% 8
6.3
%
65
.8%
65
.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%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
2006 2007 2008
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
Across all NRC categories, a larger percentage of students are meeting the math standard.
2008 3-8 math results
50
15
.7%
33
.6%
31
.1%
34
.3%
18
.3%
11
.1%
10
.6% 2
4.6
%
23
.7%
24
.0%
15
.9%
7.5
%
6.3
% 15
.8%
13
.5%
16
.0%
9.5
%
4.7
%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2006 2007 2008
Fewer students showed serious academic difficulties this year in each of the Big 5 districts. Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse show strong three year declines in students scoring at level one.
2008 3-8 math results
Percentage of Big 5 Districts Students Scoring at Level 1