Assessing College & Career        Readiness        July 17, 2012                             1
Our Challenge    Graduating All Students College & Career ReadyNew Yorks 4-year high school graduation rate is 74% for All...
Higher education degree holders:Earn and contribute more to economic growth                          2010 By Educational D...
U.S. college graduation rates have stagnated relative to the rest of the  %          developed world. graduation rates for...
Over 50% of students in NYS two-year institutions of higher    education take at least one remedial course.               ...
Regents Reform Agenda Path to College & Career Readiness                                                        Implement...
In the 21st Century Economy,College Readiness = Career ReadinessResearch by Achieve, ACT, and others indicate a highdegree...
Alignment of Performance Standards toCollege & Career Readiness                               2010• In 2010, national expe...
Grades 3-8 ELA and Math Assessment Improvements to Increase Rigorand Alignment with College & Career Readiness 2010     • ...
2012Grade 3-8 English Language Arts and        Mathematics Results                                      10
The average scale scores on the English Language Arts test this       year were generally slightly higher than last year  ...
The average scale scores on the Math test this year were                   generally slightly higher than last year       ...
Scale Scores Needed for ProficiencyEach year, scores are “equated” so that performance levels have the samemeaning from on...
Grades 3-8 ELA Results                         14
55.1 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met orexceeded the proficiency standard, a small increase from last y...
As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be proficient, fewer  students met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency...
In 2012, the majority of the Grades 3-5 students statewide met or exceeded the English Language Arts proficiency standard ...
In 2012, the majority of the Grades 6-8 students statewide met or exceeded the English Language Arts proficiency standard ...
11.7 percent of English Language Learners met or exceeded the ELA                                  proficiency standard   ...
15.5 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded the ELA                       proficiency standard             ...
41.1 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8 students met or                 exceeded the ELA proficiency standar...
The ELA results for racial/ethnic groups across grades 3-8 reveal               the persistence of the achievement gap    ...
Across grades 3-8, 60.1 percent of girls, compared to 50.4 percent     of boys, met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standa...
50.7%                                         50.8%                                            57.6%                      ...
50.7%                                      50.8%                                         57.6%                            ...
36.6%                                           41.8%                                            43.0%                    ...
The percentage of students scoring at Level 4   statewide and in the Big 5 was generally slightly                higher th...
In 2010, Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion of       their students who met or exceeded the new ELA pr...
Grades 3-8 Mathematics Results                                 29
64.8 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met or exceededthe mathematics proficiency standard, a slight increas...
As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be         proficient, fewer students met or exceeded the new     math...
In 2012, the majority of the Grades 3-5 students statewide met orexceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or...
In 2012, the majority of the Grades 6-8 students statewide met orexceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or...
34.4 percent of English Language Learners met or exceeded the               mathematics proficiency standard              ...
28.5 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded the              mathematics proficiency standard              ...
53.3 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8 students     met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard   ...
85.2%                                             89.1%                                              92.9%                ...
Across grades 3-8, 65.9 percent of girls, compared to 63.7 percent of boys, met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency st...
57.0%                                        65.1%                                            74.3%                       ...
A smaller proportion of grades 3-8 students met or exceeded    the mathematics proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities th...
A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met or exceeded the                  mathematics proficiency standard in the Big ...
In 2012, the percentage of students scoring at Level 4 varied by                grade statewide and in the Big 5          ...
In 2010, Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion of their students who met or exceeded the new mathematics ...
Assessment: Work Underway                            44
New York State Assessment Transition Plan: ELA and MathematicsAs of July 13, 2012 (Subject to Revision)Assessment –       ...
Assessing College & Career Readiness• In 2010, the elementary- and middle-level ELA and math  proficiency standard was re-...
Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College                  and Career (PARCC)• A consortium of states workin...
The PARCC Assessment SystemTarget Launch in 2014-2015The PARCC assessment system will:• Better reflect the sophisticated k...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

The Role of ELA and Math in College and Career Readiness

294

Published on

A study including facts and figures into the major role of ELA and Math curriculum rigor in post-secondary education and work. Assessing the improvement of ELA and Math curriculum and learning, as well as preparation for college and career readines

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
294
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Role of ELA and Math in College and Career Readiness

  1. 1. Assessing College & Career Readiness July 17, 2012 1
  2. 2. Our Challenge Graduating All Students College & Career ReadyNew Yorks 4-year high school graduation rate is 74% for All Students.However, the gaps are disturbing. June 2011 Graduation Rate Graduation under Current Requirements Calculated College & Career Ready* % Graduating % Graduating All Students 74.0 All Students 34.7 American Indian 59.6 American Indian 16.8 Asian/Pacific Islander 82.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 55.9 Black 58.4 Black 11.5 Hispanic 58.0 Hispanic 14.5 White 85.1 White 48.1 English Language Learners 38.2 English Language Learners 6.5 Students with Disabilities 44.6 Students with Disabilities 4.4 *Students graduating with at least a score of 75 on Regents English and 80 on a Math Regents, which correlates with success in first-year college courses. Source: NYSED Office of Information and Reporting Services 2
  3. 3. Higher education degree holders:Earn and contribute more to economic growth 2010 By Educational Degree Unemployment Rate Median Annual Earnings -.9% Professional Degree $83,720 -.4% Doctorate $80,600 4.0% Masters $66,144 5.4% Bachelors $53,976 7.0% Associate $39,884 9.2% College, No Degree $37,024 10.3% HS Diploma $32,552 14.9% No HS Diploma $23,088 3
  4. 4. U.S. college graduation rates have stagnated relative to the rest of the % developed world. graduation rates for tertiary-type A and B programmes (1995 and 2009) Chart A3.2. First-time Tertiary-type A (2009) Tertiary-type A (1995) 70 70 60 60 50 Decline in relative position 50 of U.S. from 1995 to 2009 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 01. Year of reference 2000 instead of 1995.2. Year of reference 2008 instead of 2009.3. Break in the series between 2008 and 2009 due to a partial reallocation of vocational programmes into ISCED 2 and ISCED 5B.Countries are ranked in descending order of first-time graduation rates for tertiary-type A education in 2009. 4Source: OECD. Table A3.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2011).
  5. 5. Over 50% of students in NYS two-year institutions of higher education take at least one remedial course. Remediation Rates for First-time, Full-time Undergraduates60.0% 50.4% 51.1% 52.0% 48.8% 47.5%50.0% 48.3%40.0% 2004-05 2005-0630.0% 2006-07 25.3% 24.9% 26.0% 23.8% 23.4% 23.2% 2007-0820.0% 2008-09 12.5% 12.1% 11.0% 11.5% 10.8% 11.4% 2009-1010.0% 0.0% All Institutions 2-Year Institution 4-Year Institution 5 Source: NYSED Administrative Data for all Public, Independent and Proprietary 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education
  6. 6. Regents Reform Agenda Path to College & Career Readiness  Implementing Common Core standards Highly Effective and developing curriculum and School Leaders assessments aligned to these standards to prepare students for success in college and the workplace  Building instructional data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practice in real timeHighly Effective College and Teachers Career Ready Students  Recruiting, developing, retaining, and rewarding effective teachers and principals  Turning around the lowest-achieving schools 6
  7. 7. In the 21st Century Economy,College Readiness = Career ReadinessResearch by Achieve, ACT, and others indicate a highdegree of convergence.The knowledge and skills that high school graduates willneed to be successful in college are the same as those theywill need to be successful in a job that:  pays enough to support a family well above the poverty level,  provides benefits, and  offers clear pathways for career advancement through further education and training. ACT. (2006). Ready for College and Ready for Work: Same or different? Iowa City, IA. American Diploma Project (2005). Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work? Washington, DC.
  8. 8. Alignment of Performance Standards toCollege & Career Readiness 2010• In 2010, national experts conducted analyses of New York State assessment data and performance in first-year college courses• Admissions directors of two- and four-year public and private colleges in the Western NY, Central NY, Hudson Valley, and New York City regions supported the experts’ determination that Regents scores ranging from 75 to 85 in ELA and Math were required for success in entry-level credit-bearing courses• In 2010, NYSED reset the performance standards on grades 3 – 8 ELA and Math assessments such that a designation of Meets Proficiency Standard (Level 3) was indicative of a 75% chance of achieving a college- and career-ready score on the ELA and Math Regents exams 8
  9. 9. Grades 3-8 ELA and Math Assessment Improvements to Increase Rigorand Alignment with College & Career Readiness 2010 • Set new elementary- and middle-level college-ready performance standards based on the likelihood of scoring in high school at 75 or 80 on the ELA and math Regents exams • Moved assessments towards end of school year to give students more time to learn • Increased length of assessments to better measure NY State Learning Standards • Stopped releasing test items to ensure better security 2011 • • Added “audit” questions to monitor and mitigate against score inflation Maintained elementary- and middle-level college-ready performance standards through equating • First published Aspirational Performance Measure graduation rate metrics. • Started embedding field test questions to get more precise measures for future assessments • Gave students additional time to complete assessment2012 • • Maintained elementary- and middle-level college-ready performance standards through equating Published Aspirational Performance Measure graduation rate metrics 9
  10. 10. 2012Grade 3-8 English Language Arts and Mathematics Results 10
  11. 11. The average scale scores on the English Language Arts test this year were generally slightly higher than last year English Language Arts 2006-2012 By Grade Mean Scale Scores 675 674 673 672 672 670 670 670 669 669 668 666 668 668667 667 667 667 666 665 665 665664 664 664663 663 663 663 662 661 661 661 659 658 657 656 655 655 655 652 650Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 11
  12. 12. The average scale scores on the Math test this year were generally slightly higher than last year Mathematics 2006-2012 By Grade Mean Scale Scores 693 692 690 689 688 688 688 687 687 687 686 686 685 685 683 683 682 680 681 680 680 680677 676 679 679 679 677 677 677 675 675 674 674 666 668 666 663 656 657 652 651 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 12
  13. 13. Scale Scores Needed for ProficiencyEach 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 scale score or performance level may change. Grade Math Math ELA ELA 2011 2012 2011 2012 3 684 684 663 663 4 676 676 671 671 5 676 676 668 668 6 674 674 662 662 7 670 670 665 665 8 674 674 658 658 13
  14. 14. Grades 3-8 ELA Results 14
  15. 15. 55.1 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met orexceeded the proficiency standard, a small increase from last year English Language Arts 2006 – 2012 Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 Number of Students Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Grades 3-8: 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460 1,196,283 1,195,432 1,192,129 77.4% 68.5% 61.5% 63.4% 53.2% 52.8% 55.1% Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 15
  16. 16. As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be proficient, fewer students met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency standard in 2010. In 2012, progress toward this new standard varied by grade. Number Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Grade 3 = 185,603 198,457 195,777 198,367 196,604 196,757 198,878 Grade 4 = 190,951 197,499 197,016 195,942 199,530 197,385 195,346 Grade 5 = 201,262 202,133 198,022 197,856 197,448 200,602 197,786 Grade 6 = 204,249 204,463 200,505 197,996 198,135 198,450 200,821 Grade 7 = 210,735 211,839 207,278 202,805 200,183 200,551 199,131 Grade 8 = 212,320 213,971 209,180 207,494 204,383 201,687 200,167 Grades 3-8= 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460 1,196,283 1,195,432 1,192,129 82.2% 80.9% 80.3% 77.6% 77.4% 76.9% 75.8% 71.1% 70.1% 70.0% 69.0% 68.6% 68.5% 68.5% 68.0% 68.1% 67.1% 67.1% 66.9% 63.4% 63.2% 61.5% 60.4% 59.4% 57.6% 57.8% 57.0% 56.7% 56.7% 56.4%55.9% 56.1%55.5% 55.8% 55.7% 55.1%54.7% 54.2% 53.8% 53.2% 52.8% 52.5% 52.3% 51.0% 50.3% 50.0% 49.3% 47.8% 46.9% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8 16 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
  17. 17. In 2012, the majority of the Grades 3-5 students statewide met or exceeded the English Language Arts proficiency standard (Level 3 orLevel 4). The percentage of students in Grades 3-5 who scored at Level 4 increased compared to 2011. (2011 results are striped; 2012 results are solid) 54.7% 54.2% 52.9% 51.3% 49.5% 48.8% 35.6% 35.0% 31.7% 31.3% 31.4% 30.8% 13.6%12.8% 10.7% 10.5% 9.2% 8.3% 6.8% 4.6% 4.6% 4.7% 4.4% 2.5% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 2011 Level 1 2012 Level 1 2011 Level 2 2012 Level 2 2011 Level 3 2012 Level 3 2011 Level 4 2012 Level 4 17
  18. 18. In 2012, the majority of the Grades 6-8 students statewide met or exceeded the English Language Arts proficiency standard (Level 3 orLevel 4). The percentage of students who scored at Level 4 compared to 2011 varied by grade level. (2011 results are striped; 2012 results are solid) 53.2% 51.8% 48.7% 48.5% 45.1% 44.7% 44.3% 42.8% 42.3% 39.3% 33.7% 32.5% 11.7% 10.6% 9.4% 8.4% 8.4% 7.4% 3.9% 3.6% 3.7% 2.5% 1.8% 1.8% Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 2011 Level 1 2012 Level 1 2011 Level 2 2012 Level 2 2011 Level 3 2012 Level 3 2011 Level 4 2012 Level 4 18
  19. 19. 11.7 percent of English Language Learners met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard Number of ELL Students Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Grades 3-8: 27,507 72,082 73,199 74,854 79,348 81,869 79,552 36.4% 25.1% 16.2% 18.0% 14.3% 12.6% 11.7% Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19
  20. 20. 15.5 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard Number of Students with Disabilities Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Grades 3-8: 166,511 173,369 181,381 182,847 188,096 186,886 185,682 39.3% 22.8% 27.9% 20.2% 15.2% 15.5% 14.5% Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20
  21. 21. 41.1 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8 students met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard 86.9% 79.4% 71.6% 69.5% 68.8% 68.5% 66.9% 66.1% 55.3% 50.3% 49.6% 41.1% 39.1% 39.1% Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged 21 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
  22. 22. The ELA results for racial/ethnic groups across grades 3-8 reveal the persistence of the achievement gap Asian: 96,272 2012 Total Students Black: 220,328 Hispanic: 270,236 American Indian/ Alaskan Native: 6,137 White: 586,984 86.6% 85.9% Total Public: 1,192,129 79.6% 79.0% 77.6% 77.4% 75.6% 75.4% 71.8% 70.1% 68.9% 68.5%67.9%67.4% 66.4% 64.8% 64.8% 64.3% 64.2% 63.4% 61.5% 57.3% 55.1% 53.2% 52.9% 52.6% 52.8% 50.8% 46.5% 46.1% 45.6% 45.2% 43.1% 42.4% 41.3% 40.6% 40.0% 37.2% 36.8% 37.2% 35.0% 34.4% Asian Black Hispanic American White Total Public Indian/Alaskan Native 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 22
  23. 23. Across grades 3-8, 60.1 percent of girls, compared to 50.4 percent of boys, met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard 81.0% 74.0% 72.8% 67.5% 65.5% 64.5% 60.1% 59.6% 57.8% 57.7% 57.9% 50.4% 48.6% 48.1% Females Males 23 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
  24. 24. 50.7% 50.8% 57.6% 68.8% 42.4% 43.9% New York City 46.9% 37.3% 2006 38.7% 46.4% 56.9% 29.1% Large City 27.8% 28.1% 2007 52.4% 54.9% 60.6% 70.9% 2008 43.1% 40.3% 42.0% Urban-Suburban 56.7% 2009 62.0% 66.8% 76.3% Rural 49.6% 47.5% 49.0% 2010 69.2% 73.0% 76.7% 84.2% 61.5% 2011 Average 60.2% 62.4% 82.9% 84.8% 2012 87.5% 91.8% Low 74.9% 75.0% 77.2% Across grades 3-8, low-need communities continued to 61.5% 63.4% 68.5% 77.4% outperform large cities and rural areas in English Language Arts24 53.2% 52.8% Total Public 55.1%
  25. 25. 50.7% 50.8% 57.6% 68.8% 42.4% 43.9% 46.9% New York City 30.1% 34.5% 42.5%2006 54.4% 27.7% Buffalo 26.9% 27.9%2007 38.4% 38.4% 46.6% 56.0%2008 25.3% 24.4% Rochester 20.7%2009 34.0% 37.3% 42.1% 52.7% 25.5%2010 Syracuse 22.5% 24.2% 51.1%2011 46.7% 55.6% 65.2% 39.2% Yonkers 37.8%2012 40.7% 61.5% 63.4% 68.5% 77.4% ELA proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities than statewide. 53.2% A smaller proportion of grades 3-8 students met or exceeded the 52.8%25 Total Public 55.1%
  26. 26. 36.6% 41.8% 43.0% 57.0% 37.5% 35.0% 39.0% New York City 20.9% 33.3% 28.0% 42.5% 26.6% Buffalo 23.1% 24.6% 26.3%20112006 27.8% 31.1% 43.1% 21.1% 16.6% Rochester 2012 2007 18.5% 21.3% 28.3% 30.8% 41.0% 2008 24.6% Syracuse 19.6% 19.7% than statewide. 31.8% 2009 35.1% 37.7% 50.4% 29.8% Yonkers 26.6% 33.9% 2010 49.3% 57.0% 56.1% 68.5% 51.0% A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met or 46.9% Total Public 50.3% 26 exceeded the ELA proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities
  27. 27. The percentage of students scoring at Level 4 statewide and in the Big 5 was generally slightly higher than last year English Language Arts 2009-2012 Statewide and Big 5 Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 4 10.2% 8.7% 7.3% 6.1% 5.4% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.2% 3.3% 3.0% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.0% 1.7% 1.3% 1.4% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4%New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public 2009 2010 2011 2012 27
  28. 28. In 2010, Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion of their students who met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency standard. In 2012, progress toward this standard varied by grade. Number of charter school students tested (Grades 3-8 combined) 2006 9,916 students tested 2007 12,108 students tested 2008 15,222 students tested 2009 17,862 students tested 2010 21,315 students tested 2011 25,479 students tested 2012 30,492 students tested 79.4% 78.8% 76.8% 76.4% 76.1% 75.1% 68.8% 68.3% 68.1% 67.4% 65.1% 64.0% 60.8% 61.1% 59.6% 56.9% 55.2% 55.1% 54.9% 54.6% 54.4% 53.2% 51.7% 51.9% 50.8%49.6% 49.2% 48.2% 47.3% 46.7% 47.0% 45.9% 44.7% 44.7% 44.4% 43.9% 43.8% 43.6% 43.0% 41.6% 40.8% 40.8% 40.3% 40.4% 39.4% 36.8% 35.7% 34.8% 34.7% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 28
  29. 29. Grades 3-8 Mathematics Results 29
  30. 30. 64.8 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met or exceededthe mathematics proficiency standard, a slight increase from last year Mathematics 2006-2012 Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 Number of Students Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Grades 3-8 1,259,956 1,238,635 1,217,789 1,211,360 1,210,384 1,207,539 1,202,504 86.4% 80.7% 72.7% 65.9% 64.8% 63.3% 61.0% Grades 3-8 Math 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 30
  31. 31. 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 2012, progress toward this new standard increased slightly. Number of Students Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Grade 3 201,956 200,217 197,500 200,336 198,785 198,825 200,625 Grade 4 202,791 199,391 198,730 197,704 201,769 199,459 197,116 Grade 5 209,242 203,956 199,746 199,511 199,594 202,738 199,552 Grade 6 211,428 206,220 202,058 199,940 200,774 200,417 202,394 Grade 7 217,308 213,436 209,039 204,648 202,723 202,492 200,933 Grade 8 219,414 215,415 210,716 209,221 206,739 203,608 201,884 Grades 3-8 1,259,956 1,238,635 1,217,789 1,211,360 1,210,384 1,207,539 1,202,504 92.9% 89.9% 88.1% 87.3% 87.2% 86.4% 85.2% 83.8% 83.2% 83.0%80.5% 80.7% 80.2% 79.9% 79.4% 78.9% 77.9% 76.1% 72.7% 71.2% 69.8% 69.2% 68.4% 66.9% 66.6% 66.4% 66.2% 65.9% 65.1% 65.1% 64.8% 64.6% 64.6% 63.8% 63.3% 63.0% 62.4% 61.2% 61.3% 61.3% 61.0% 60.4% 59.6% 59.8% 59.1% 58.8% 55.6% 54.8% 53.9% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 31
  32. 32. In 2012, the majority of the Grades 3-5 students statewide met orexceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level 4). The percentage of students in Grades 4 and 5 who scored at Level 4 increased compared to 2011. (2011 results are striped; 2012 results are solid) 48.2% 46.2% 42.8% 39.9% 39.0% 38.4% 31.2% 30.2% 29.8% 28.5% 27.7% 27.9% 26.7% 25.7% 25.3% 23.5% 13.4% 12.9% 9.2% 9.0% 7.4% 5.7% 5.9% 5.5% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 2011 Level 1 2012 Level 1 2011 Level 2 2012 Level 2 32 2011 Level 3 2012 Level 3 2011 Level 4 2012 Level 4
  33. 33. In 2012, the majority of the Grades 6-8 students statewide met orexceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level 4). The percentage of students in Grades 6 and 8 who scored at Level 4 increased compared to 2011. (2011 results are striped; 2012 results are solid) 42.2% 41.7% 36.6% 34.5% 34.2% 34.3% 31.4% 31.4% 30.5% 30.8% 30.4% 29.0% 27.4% 26.7% 26.3% 26.2% 19.6% 17.7% 8.7% 8.8% 8.0% 8.2% 8.0% 7.3% Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 2011 Level 1 2012 Level 1 2011 Level 2 2012 Level 2 2011 Level 3 2012 Level 3 2011 Level 4 2012 Level 4 33
  34. 34. 34.4 percent of English Language Learners met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard 67.1% 58.4% 45.7% 38.6% 34.4% 32.3% 30.7% Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 34
  35. 35. 28.5 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard 58.4% 47.8% 37.2% 30.4% 28.5% 26.9% 24.6% Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 35
  36. 36. 53.3 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8 students met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard 92.4% 87.8% 81.9% 80.1% 78.4% 77.0% 74.4% 73.4% 72.3% 60.9% 56.0% 53.3% 51.5% 49.0% Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 36
  37. 37. 85.2% 89.1% 92.9% 94.9% Asian 81.7% 83.7% 85.4% 45.8% 2006 54.6% 65.9% 75.0% Black 40.9% 44.0% 2007 46.1% 51.6% 60.5% 2008 71.1% 79.5% 47.3% Hispanic 50.2% 53.1% 2009 53.8% 61.8% 73.0% 81.6% 2010 Native 49.5% American 52.3% Indian/Alaskan 53.8% 76.4% 2011 82.0% 88.3% 92.2% White 71.1% 2012 73.3% 74.0% 3-8 reveal the persistence of the achievement gap 65.9% 72.7% 80.7% 86.4% 61.0% The mathematics results for racial/ethnic groups across grades 63.3% Total Public 64.8%37
  38. 38. Across grades 3-8, 65.9 percent of girls, compared to 63.7 percent of boys, met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard 87.5% 85.4% 81.9% 79.6% 73.5% 71.9% 66.2% 65.9% 65.6% 64.3% 63.7% 62.4% 61.8% 60.2% Females Males 38 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
  39. 39. 57.0% 65.1% 74.3% 81.8% 54.0% 57.3% New York City 60.0% 35.2% 41.0% 54.5% 64.7% 31.1% 31.6% Large City 32.5%2006 55.0% 63.5% 73.2% 81.0%2007 48.6% Urban- Suburban 49.1% 49.7%2008 62.4% 70.2% 79.3% 85.8% Rural 54.3%2009 55.8% 56.6% 74.0% standard2010 79.9% 86.9% 91.1% 67.6% Average 69.7%2011 70.4% 86.3% 90.0%2012 93.9% 95.9% Low 80.8% 83.2% 84.1% 65.9% 72.7% 80.7% 86.4% 61.0% 63.3% large cities and rural areas on the mathematics proficiency Total Public 64.8% 39 Across grades 3-8, low-need communities continued to outperform
  40. 40. A smaller proportion of grades 3-8 students met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities than statewide. 86.4% 81.8% 80.7% 74.3% 73.8% 72.7% 65.9% 65.1% 65.1% 64.8% 63.3% 63.4% 63.3% 61.0% 60.0% 58.2% 57.3% 57.0% 54.6%54.0% 53.1% 52.3% 50.0% 49.8% 46.8% 41.5% 40.4% 39.4% 39.2% 35.9% 33.2% 31.0% 29.9% 30.2% 29.8% 29.4% 28.6% 28.0% 27.3% 26.9% 25.7% 25.3%New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 40
  41. 41. A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities than statewide. Grade 8 math performance varied by grade level. 80.2% 69.8% 71.3% 61.3% 59.8% 59.6% 58.8% 57.8% 55.2% 54.8% 53.9% 52.5% 53.9% 46.3% 45.6% 41.8% 42.9%38.9% 35.0% 34.8% 33.8% 32.9% 32.2% 30.9% 28.9% 27.9% 27.6% 27.3% 25.8% 25.8% 23.5% 20.4% 20.6% 20.0% 20.1% 19.5% 19.5% 17.9% 17.0% 15.3% 14.5% 13.4% New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 41
  42. 42. In 2012, the percentage of students scoring at Level 4 varied by grade statewide and in the Big 5 Mathematics 2009-2012 Statewide and Big 5 Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 4 29.1% 25.9% 25.4% 24.7% 23.7% 23.0% 22.2% 20.9% 17.7% 13.7% 13.0% 9.6% 8.4% 7.5% 6.6% 6.7% 6.2% 6.1% 6.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4.6% 4.4% 4.3%New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public 2009 2010 2011 2012 42
  43. 43. In 2010, Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion of their students who met or exceeded the new mathematics proficiency standard. In 2012, progress varied by grade. Number of charter school students tested (Grades 3-8 combined) 2006 9,908 students tested 2007 12,009 students tested 2008 15,161 students tested 2009 17,758 students tested 2010 21,357 students tested 2011 25,527 students tested 2012 30,492 students tested 96.1% 91.0% 89.4% 89.4% 89.4% 88.4% 86.8% 84.5% 83.4% 83.7% 82.1% 82.1% 81.0% 77.5% 75.5% 75.0% 72.6% 71.6% 71.4% 70.8% 69.5% 69.7% 69.4% 68.7% 68.6% 67.9% 67.9% 66.0% 65.3% 65.3% 64.6% 64.3% 63.8% 63.4% 63.0% 62.1%61.6% 61.3% 60.3% 59.7% 59.7% 59.9% 59.1% 58.2% 53.7% 50.8% 50.4% 40.3% 40.0% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 43
  44. 44. Assessment: Work Underway 44
  45. 45. New York State Assessment Transition Plan: ELA and MathematicsAs of July 13, 2012 (Subject to Revision)Assessment – 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15Subject / GradeELAGrades 3–8 Aligned to 2005 Standards Aligned to the Common Core PARCC1Grades 9–10 Aligned to the Common Core2 Regents Exam Aligned to the Regents Exam Aligned to theGrade 11 Regents Aligned to 2005 Standards Common Core3 Common Core / PARCC1, 3MathGrades 3–8 Aligned to the Common Core PARCC1Algebra I Regents Exams Aligned to the Aligned to 2005 Standards Regents Exams Aligned to theGeometry Aligned to 2005 Standards Common Core3, 4 Common Core / PARCC1, 3, 4Algebra II Aligned to the 2005 StandardsAdditional State AssessmentsNYSAA5 Aligned to 2005 Standards Aligned to the Common Core NCSC6NYSESLAT Aligned to 1996 Standards Aligned to the Common Core 1The PARCC assessments are scheduled to be operational in 2014-15 and are subject to adoption by the 2012-13: the content of the grade 3-8 New York State Board of Regents. The PARCC assessments are still in development. All PARCC assessments will be aligned to the Common Core. tests will be aligned to the Common Core 2 Funding Pending. 3The PARCC consortium is developing ELA and mathematics assessments that will cover grades 3-11. 2013-14: some Regents Exams will be New York State will continue to monitor the development of these assessments to determine how the PARCC assessments might intersect with the Regents Exams. Note that all new Regents Exams and aligned to the Common Core PARCC assessments will be implemented starting with the end-of-year administration, rather than the winter or summer administrations. 4The names of New York State’s Mathematics Regents Exams are expected to change to reflect the new 2014-15: all ELA and math Regents will alignment of these assessments to the Common Core. For additional information about the upper-level mathematics course sequence and related standards, see the “Traditional Pathway” section of Common be aligned to the Common Core Core Mathematics Appendix A (http://engageny.org/news/traditional-course-pathway-for-high-school- mathematics-courses-approved/). 2014-15: transition to PARCC pending 5 This transition plan is specific to the NYSAA in ELA and mathematics. BoR approval 6 New York State is a member of the NCSC national alternate assessment consortium that is engaged in research and development of new alternate assessments for alternate achievement standards. The NCSC assessments are scheduled to be operational in 2014-15 and are subject to adoption by the New York State Board of Regents. 45
  46. 46. Assessing College & Career Readiness• In 2010, the elementary- and middle-level ELA and math proficiency standard was re-set to be aligned with college- and career-ready performance in high school and post- secondary education.• In 2011 and 2012, this proficiency standard was maintained through the annual equating process, which ensures that cut scores are equivalent from year to year.• In 2013, performance standards for the new NYS Common Core 3-8 assessments will use a similar approach as was used in 2010 to set cut scores aligned with college and career readiness.• In 2014-15, PARCC will follow NY’s lead and use similar college and career ready data to set performance standards for the PARCC assessments. 46
  47. 47. Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC)• A consortium of states working together to develop a common set of K-12 assessments in English and math anchored in what it takes to be ready for college and careers.• New K-12 assessments will build a pathway to college and career readiness by the end of high school, mark students’ progress toward this goal from 3rd grade up, and provide teachers with timely information to inform instruction and provide student support. 47
  48. 48. The PARCC Assessment SystemTarget Launch in 2014-2015The PARCC assessment system will:• Better reflect the sophisticated knowledge and skills found in the English and math Common Core State Standards• Include a mix of item types (e.g., short answer, richer multiple choice, longer open response, performance-based)• Make significant use of technology and will be computer-based• Include testing at key points throughout the year to give teachers, parents and students better information about whether students are on track or need additional support in particular areas 48
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×