necap results 2006 chichester central school never enough children at proficient!

NECAP Results2006

Chichester Central School

Never Enough Children At Proficient!

Introduction and Summary

• The following is a summary of the NECAP test results for grades 3-8, taken in October, 2006.

• Chichester’s NECAP test scores have shown growth in reading, mathematics, and writing.

• Our school is solidly above the state average in students scoring above the ‘Substantially Below Proficient’ level in both reading and math.

• Our school has made similar gains in the percentage of students scoring n the upper Proficient and Proficient with Distinction levels.

• AYP will be determined later in the Spring, 2007; comprised of scoring by both the entire school as well as each “sub-group” (special education, socio-economically disadvantaged).

School Overview2005, 2006

Prof. W/Distinc. Proficient Partially Prof. Sub. Below Prof.

Reading 2005 6 56 28 112006 14 61 18 7 State 2006 14 57 20 9Mathematics2005 12 55 22 112006 26 49 20 5 State 2006 18 47 19 16Writing2005 3 36 41 202006 11 38 34 11 State 2006 10 36 34 20

Grade 3 CCS/State Comparison2005, 2006

Math Grade 3 Reading Grade 3District State District StateProficiency

Levels Year N % % N % %2005 3 16 19 4 21 18Advanced2006 8 31 20 5 19 182005 13 68 49 14 74 53Proficient2006 9 35 49 14 54 572005 3 16 20 1 5 18Partially

Proficient 2006 8 31 20 5 19 152005 0 0 12 0 0 11Substantially

Below Prof. 2006 1 4 10 2 8 10

Grade 3

Proficient54% Proficient with Distinction

21%

Partially Proficient18%

Substantially Below Proficient

7%

Proficient with Distinction

Proficient

Partially Proficient

Substantially BelowProficient

Proficient35%

Proficient with Distinction

32%

Partially Proficient29%

Substantially Below Proficient

4%

Reading

Mathematics

Grade 4 CCS/State Comparison2005, 2006

Math Grade 4 Reading Grade 4

District State District StateProficiencyLevels Year N % % N % %

2005 4 13 16 3 10 13Advanced2006 3 16 15 5 26 172005 17 57 49 17 57 56Proficient2006 11 58 51 9 47 552005 9 30 21 7 23 20Partially

Proficient 2006 5 26 21 5 26 192005 0 0 14 3 10 11Substantially

Below Prof. 2006 0 0 13 0 0 13

Grade 4

Proficient52%

Proficient with Distinction24%

Partially Proficient24%

Substantially Below Proficient

0%

Proficient with Distinction

Proficient

Partially Proficient

Substantially BelowProficient

Proficient62%

Proficient with Distinction

14%

Partially Proficient24%

Substantially Below Proficient

0%

Reading

Mathematics

Grade 5 CCS/State Comparison2005, 2006

Math Grade 5 Reading Grade 5District State District StateProficiency

Levels Year N % % N % %2005 4 11 17 1 3 15Advanced2006 7 24 18 7 24 162005 15 43 46 19 54 52Proficient2006 16 55 49 17 59 562005 5 14 19 9 26 22Partially

Proficient 2006 5 17 18 2 7 182005 10 31 18 6 17 11Substantially

Below Prof. 2006 1 3 15 3 10 10

Grade 5

Proficient55%

Proficient with Distinction29%

Partially Proficient6%

Substantially Below Proficient

10%

Proficient with Distinction

Proficient

Partially Proficient

Substantially BelowProficient

Proficient52% Proficient with

Distinction26%

Partially Proficient16%

Substantially Below Proficient

6%

Reading

Mathematics

Grade 6 CCS/State Comparison2005, 2006

Math Grade 6 Reading Grade 6District State District StateProficiency

Levels Year N % % N % %2005 4 14 15 2 7 12Advanced2006 8 24 21 2 6 142005 22 79 46 15 54 53Proficient2006 18 53 46 23 68 582005 2 7 20 8 29 24Partially

Proficient 2006 5 15 16 5 15 192005 0 0 19 3 11 11Substantially

Below Prof. 2006 3 9 16 4 12 9

Grade 6

Proficient70%

Proficient with Distinction6%

Partially Proficient12% Substantially Below

Proficient12%

Proficient with Distinction

Proficient

Partially Proficient

Substantially BelowProficient

Proficient55%

Proficient with Distinction

24%

Partially Proficient12%

Substantially Below Proficient

9%

Reading

Mathematics

Grade 7 CCS/State Comparison2005, 2006

Math Grade 7 Reading Grade 7District State District StateProficiency

Levels Year N % % N % %2005 7 18 15 1 3 11Advanced2006 6 22 17 3 11 92005 16 42 44 19 50 55Proficient2006 17 63 45 17 63 582005 11 29 20 14 37 23Partially

Proficient 2006 3 11 18 5 19 252005 4 11 21 4 11 11Substantially

Below Prof. 2006 1 4 20 2 7 8

Grade 7

Proficient61%

Proficient with Distinction11%

Partially Proficient21%

Substantially Below Proficient

7%

Proficient with Distinction

Proficient

Partially Proficient

Substantially BelowProficient

Proficient64%

Proficient with Distinction

18%

Partially Proficient11%

Substantially Below Proficient

7%

Reading

Mathematics

Grade 8 CCS/State Comparison2005, 2006

Math Grade 8 Reading Grade 8District State District StateProficiency

Levels Year N % % N % %2005 3 8 13 1 3 11Advanced2006 12 34 14 2 6 102005 21 53 43 16 40 51Proficient2006 13 37 43 23 66 562005 11 28 22 20 50 26Partially

Proficient 2006 8 23 19 9 26 242005 5 13 22 3 8 12Substantially

Below Prof. 2006 3 8 1 3 10

Grade 8

Proficient65%

Proficient with Distinction5%

Partially Proficient27%

Substantially Below Proficient

3%

Proficient with Distinction

Proficient

Partially Proficient

Substantially BelowProficient

Proficient36%

Proficient with Distinction

32%

Partially Proficient24%

Substantially Below Proficient

8%

Reading

Mathematics

Proficient with Distinction

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

CCSState

Reading

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

CCSState

Mathematics

Our goal is to maximize the number of students in the ‘Proficient with

Distinction’ category. The results of the 2006 testing shows that CCS had a larger percentage of students in all but three grades/subjects compared to the

state average.

Substantially Below Proficient

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

CCSState

Reading

0

5

10

15

20

25

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

CCSState

Mathematics

Our goal is to minimize the number of students in the

‘Substantially Below Proficient’ category. The results of the 2006

testing shows that CCS had a smaller percentage of students in

all but one grade/subject compared to the state average.

Areas of StrengthReading Word ID Literary Informational Init.

Under.A/I

Grade 3 XXX X X X XGrade 4 X X X XXXGrade 5 XXX X XXX XGrade 6 XXX X X X XGrade 7 XXX X X X XGrade 8 Strength,

but did notsurpassstate %

X X XXX X

‘X’ indicates the areas in which

CCS met or surpassed the state average.

Mathematics Numbers andOperations

Geometry/Measurement

Functions andOperations

Data,Probability,

StatisticsGrade 3 X X XXX XGrade 4 XXX X X XGrade 5 X X XXX XGrade 6 X X XXX XGrade 7 XXX X X XGrade 8 X X XXX X

‘XXX’ indicates the

strongest strand for our

students.

Growth/Regression2005 to 2006

INDIVIDUAL STUDENT GROWTH CHARTNECAP 2005 RESULTS COMPARED TO NECAP 2006 RESULTS

MATHEMATICS READINGSame Growth Regression Same Growth Regression

Grade 4 12 67% 2 11% 4 22% 12 67% 2 11% 4 22%

Grade 5 17 63% 7 26% 3 11% 13 48% 11 41% 3 11%

Grade 6 19 58% 14 42% 0 23 70% 9 27% 1 3%

Grade 7 18 67% 4 15% 5 19% 17 63% 8 30% 2 7%

Grade 8 17 50% 15 44% 2 5% 21 62% 12 35% 1 3%

This chart shows the analysis of individual student growth. For example, 63% of the 5th graders scored at their same level in 4rd grade. 26% improved in achievement level; 11% had some regression. Unlike graphs that compare one class to another, the above listed data shows how individual students progressed from 2005 to 2006.

Examples of Improvement we love to see!

• Grade 8 Reading– Fewer

Substantially below

– More Proficient and Proficient with Distinction

– Moving students up

35

40

65

50

27

83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

P w

/D

Pro

f

Part

. P

ro

Su

b B

elow

20052006

Another great example

11

26

43

52

1416

31

60

10

20

30

40

50

60P

r w

/Dis

t

Pro

f

Par

t P

rof

Su

b. B

elow

20052006

• Grade 5 math– Fewer student in

Substantially Below

– 78% of children in Proficient or above compared to 54% the previous year

And yet another…..

• Grade 7 Reading– Fewer in lower

half-- 28% compared with 48% the previous year

– More students in the top half--72% compared with 53% the previous year

– Moving students up

311

50

61

37

21

117

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

P w

/D

Pro

f

Par

t. P

ro

Su

b B

elow

20052006

And another

38

30

4643

32

25

14

05

101520253035404550

Pr

w/D

ist

Pro

f

Par

t P

rof

Sub.

Bel

ow20052006

• Grade 8 Writing– Fewer student in

Substantially Below and Partial Proficiency

– Larger number of children in Proficient or above.

Analysis of Interventions

• Use of preparation materials• Emphasis on reading for

understanding• Scholar Breakfast--encouraging

students to use full allotment of time

• Better use of data