2012 CMT Scores

2012 CMT SCORES
DATA ANALYSIS
Prepared by:

Colleen Murray, Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Eric Carbone, Principal, The Peck Place School
1 Mike Gray, Principal, Race Brook School
Stephen Bergin, Principal, Turkey Hill School
Kai Graves, Director of Special Services
Lynn K. McMullin, Superintendent

Published August 2012

MARCH ~ 2012 ~ DISTRICT SCORES
as reported by the STATE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION (SDE)

Mathematics Reading Writing

Grade Goal Prof. Adv. Goal Prof. Adv. Goal Prof. Adv.

3 81 97 39 76 91 36 75 94 32

4 85 95 47 80 90 23 83 96 38

5 92 100 57 92 98 39 87 98 41

6 92 100 60 91 97 41 87 97 46

2

MARCH ~ 2012 ~ PECK PLACE SCORES
EDUCATION (SDE)



3 77 94 36 74 85 28 75 94 31

4 83 96 33 84 92 14 87 97 35

5 88 100 42 90 99 34 82 97 27

6 90 100 54 94 99 44 90 96 49

3

MARCH ~ 2012 ~ PECK PLACE
Strengths Goal Areas

 Grades 5 and 6, 100%  Data teams will analyze
Proficient or above in the instruction of Reading
Math foundational skills
 Grades 5 and 6, 99%  Grade-level teams will
Proficient or above in analyze the two writing
Reading strands and improve the
 Grade 6 Reading, over holistic Writing score
time, has improved 15% at  Implement the new math
Goal or above curriculum with focus on
 Grade 4 Writing gained applications and problem-
13% at Goal or above solving
4

MARCH ~ 2012 ~ RACE BROOK SCORES
EDUCATION (SDE)



3 82 99 47 72 91 34 74 93 28

4 86 94 46 70 86 19 78 94 43

5 94 100 56 93 98 35 95 98 53

6 98 100 69 95 95 48 87 98 48

4

MARCH ~ 2012 ~ RACE BROOK

 Grade 6 Math, 98% at Goal  Data teams will analyze
or above, 69% at the instruction of Reading
Advanced foundational skills
 Grade 6 Reading, 95% at  Grade-level teams will
Goal or above. analyze the two writing
 Grade 5, in Math, Reading, strands and improve the
and Writing were 93% or holistic Writing score
better at Goal or above  Implement the new math
 Grade 4, Math, 86% at curriculum with focus on
Goal or above applications and problem-
solving
6

MARCH ~ 2012 ~ TURKEY HILL SCORES
EDUCATION (SDE)



3 84 96 32 82 95 45 77 95 37

4 88 96 67 85 94 40 86 98 37

5 95 98 75 95 97 47 86 100 48

6 89 100 58 83* 96* 29* 83 98 40

* Last year, Orange studied this group of Grade 5 students – Last year’s Reading: G = 65: P = 85; Adv. = 21

5

MARCH ~ 2012 ~ TURKEY HILL

 94% or better at  Data teams will analyze
Proficiency or above in all the instruction of Reading
subjects at all grade foundational skills
levels  Grade-level teams will
 Grade 6 Math, 100% analyze the two writing
Proficient or above strands and improve the
 Grade 5 Reading, 95% at holistic Writing score
Goal or above  Implement the new math
 Grade 6 students, over curriculum with focus on
time, increased 30% at applications and problem-
Goal or above solving
8

MARCH 2012 CMT SCIENCE
GRADE 5 SCIENCE

Goal Proficiency Advanced

DISTRICT 90 98 38
PECK
PLACE 87 99 38
RACE
BROOK 89 98 28
TURKEY
HILL 94 97 48

Goal Prof. Adv.

2008 67 92 17
2009 69 94 26
This is the fifth year of
Science testing on the CMT. 2010 76 94 23 6
2011 81 96 26
2012 90 98 38

ADVANCED BAND
SCORES

 NCLB emphasizes the percentage of students who score “At or Above
Proficient” – the scores in GREY.
 However, recently Orange has measured success based on the
percentage of students “At or Above Goal” – the scores in blue.
 Beginning this year, we’ll also track the % of students “At Advanced,”
thus setting goals for achievement on the two highest bands in scoring.

Advanced Band scores are shown in GREEN on the previous two slides.
 Remarkable in the Advanced Band:
 Grade 4 Math – 47% Advanced
 Grade 6 Writing – 46% Advanced

7

2012: GRADE 3
We continue to analyze and modify instruction for our youngest group of test
takers. For Grade 3 students, this is their first experience with the CMT, so we
closely study their results. In addition to their skills, their short-term test
preparation, as well as their test-taking endurance are factors in their success.


Goal Prof. Adv. Goal Prof. Adv. Goal Prof. Adv.

District Grade 3
March 2012
81 97 39 76 91 36 75 94 32

CT State Results 67 86 30 74 24 63 83 23

11

GRADE 3 READING

The Reading Score – 76% at Goal -- is up from last year’s score 72%; it
closely matches our in-house assessments and predictions. ‘Reader-to-Text
Connections’ continues to be an area of need.

Reading
General Reader/Text Content and
Interpretation
Understanding Connections Structure

Grade 3
March 2012 91% 88% 62% 81%

The Grade 3 average DRP score of 53
slightly exceeds the grade-level DRP
expectation of 47.

12

GRADE 3 WRITING
The Writing Score – 75% at Goal – is up from the
previous year’s score of 73%.

 The average holistic score on the writing sample
was 8.9 out of 12, up from 8.6 last year; the goal
is 8.
 Grade 3 and Grade 4 teachers will look closely at
the Writing data, particularly Composing and
Revising which is consistently a relative
weakness in our curriculum.

Writing
Direct Assessment Composing and
Editing
Holistic Score (12) Revising

Grade 3
March 2012 8.9 52 84
Grade 3
March 2011 8.6 57 80

13

GRADE 3 MATH
The Math Score – 81% at Goal -- is down 5 pts. from the previous year’s score of 86%.

 They scored between 94 – 100% in 13 of the 18 strands that are tested in
Grade 3.
 The strongest and weakest strands are listed below. Strand 25 continues to
be our nemesis. See sample on Slide #23 the end of this presentation.
 Our new math curriculum is strong in problem-solving and applications of
mathematical processes.

Mathematical Strand % at Mastery

Pictorial Representation 100%
Order, Magnitude, and Rounding 100%
Geometric Shapes and properties 100%
Computation with Whole Numbers and Decimals 99%
Probability and Statistics 99%
Approximating Measures 81%
Estimating Solutions to Problems 71%
14
Mathematical Applications 63%

2012: GRADE 4
 These students improved this year over their Grade 3 scores, making especially
notable gains in both Reading and Writing.
 The improvement in Writing at both the Goal and Advanced levels is noteworthy.



District Grade 4
March 2012
85 95 47 80 90 23 83 96 38

As 3rd Graders
March 2011 86 97 44 72 87 24 73 89 26

CT State
68 86 32 64 78 19 65 84 28
Results

16

Grade 4

Noteworthy
accomplishment in the
Advanced Band

17

2012: GRADE 5
 This class has achieved steady increases across all three tests over the
past two years and is scoring about 20 points above the State averages.

 In addition, they took their first Science CMT and did very well; 90%
reached Goal and 98% reached Proficiency. Two sample Science
items, typical of this new test can be found at the end of this
presentation on Slide 25.



District Grade 5
March 2012
92 100 57 92 98 39 87 98 41

As 4th Graders
March 2011 90 98 49 87 95 36 91 98 41

CT State
72 86 36 68 80 22 68 89 23
Results
18

Grade 5

Noteworthy
accomplishment in
the Advanced Band

Few students
needing
remediation

19

2012: GRADE 6
 The Grade 6 test takers make a significant leap in
Reading from 76% at Goal to 91% at Goal; their
improvement of 10 points in the Advanced band was
significant as well.
 Their 60% at Advanced in Math is especially noteworthy.
 It’s important to keep in mind, that when scores are high,
there is less room for substantial gain.



District Grade 6
March 2012
92 100 60 91 97 41 87 97 46

As 5th Graders
March 2011
93 99 57 76 87 31 87 97 32

CT State 20
67 86 30 59 75 24 63 83 23
Results

Grade 6

NO students
below Proficient.

Noteworthy
accomplishment in
the Advanced Band

21

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS’ DRG B
COMPARISON
There are 20 elementary districts in Orange’s DRG (Demographic Reference Group).
These include towns such as Avon, Cheshire, Fairfield, Granby, Monroe, Simsbury, West
Hartford, and Woodbridge. Below are our standings within our DRG.

At each grade-level, and in each subject area, our students at Goal should fall in the top ½
of our DRG, as they do in circles shown below.

Math Reading Writing
DRG / DRG / DRG /
Goal out of Goal out of Goal out of
20 20 20

Grade 3 81 18 th 76 11 th 75 17 th

Grade 4 85 11 th 80 14 th 83 10 th

Grade 5 92 4th 92 1 st 87 8 th

Grade 6 92 5th 91 11 th 87 12 th 22

READING DISTRICT-WIDE
The reading test at each grade level includes a ‘Degrees of Reading Power’
(DRP) average score and % at Goal for the following strands, which require
students to also write responses to open-ended questions:

DRP score
#1 #2 #3 #4 (DRP Target
Score)

Grade 3 91 88 62 81 53 / (47)
Grade 4 94 80 74 81 61 / (54)
Grade 5 99 94 88 98 65 / (58)
Grade 6 95 97 86 98 70 / (62)

1. Forming a General Understanding
2. Developing an Interpretation
3. Making Reader / Text Connections
4. Examining the Content and Structure

23

DISTRICT-WIDE CURRICULAR
ISSUES

• District-wide, our goal is the implementation of the new Math
curriculum, Math Expressions, which is aligned to the
Common Core of Standards, features fewer strands per year,
and emphasizes applications and problem-solving.

**Strand #3 – “Making Connections” in Reading requires students
to meaningfully connect what they have read in a sample
passage to their own lives or to other texts they have read.
Connections questions include:
 Tell why or why not you would like to have [character’s name] as a
friend?
 Think about someone you know who has done something
courageous. How is that person like [character’s name] in this story?
 What kind of person do you think the author of this story is?

20

CMT DATA REPORT –
TRACKING GRO WTH OVER TIME
AMONG THE SAME GROUP OF
Improved
STUDENTS Achievement



6th Graders (incoming 7th)
2012 – 6th 92 100 60 91 97 41 87 97 46
2011 – 5th 93 99 57 76 87 31 87 97 32
2010 – 4th 90 98 50 79 89 28 81 96 37
2009 – 3rd 84 95 45 71 83 18 73 91 28

2012 – 5th 92 100 57 92 98 39 87 98 41
2011 – 4th 90 98 49 87 95 36 91 98 41
2010 – 3rd 86 97 46 81 90 35 79 94 36
21

CMT DATA REPORT –
TRACKING GROWTH OVER TIME
AMONG THE SAME GROUP OF
STUDENTS



2012 – 4th 85 95 47 79 90 23 83 96 38
2011 – 3rd 86 97 44 72 87 24 73 89 26

3rd Graders (incoming 4th)
2012 – 3rd 81 97 39 76 91 36 75 94 32

22

SAMPLE -- GRADE 3
STRAND #25 –
MATHEMATICAL
APPLICATIONS

23

SAMPLE -- GRADE 6
STRAND #25 –
MATHEMATICAL
APPLICATIONS

The Relay Race

Tom, Bob, and Vic are racing against each
other in a 100 meter dash. In how many
different orders could they finish the race,
assuming that ties are possible.

That is, one finishing order could be Bob,
then Tom, and then Vic; another could be Tom
and Vic in a tie, and then Bob.

Show all the different orders in which the race
could end – including possible ties.

24

SAMPLE -- GRADE 5
SCIENCE QUESTIONS

25

2012 CMT Scores

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

More from Lynn McMullin

More from Lynn McMullin (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2012 CMT Scores