2007 Grade 3-8 English Test Results. 2 Raising Achievement Over past several years, Board of Regents...

2007 Grade 3-8 English Test Results

2

Raising Achievement

• Over past several years, Board of Regents has voted measures to raise standards and require students get extra help.

• When first 4th grade test was given in 1999, only 48% of students achieved the standards. This year, 68% did.

• In 1999, only 48% achieved standards in 8th grade. This year 57% did.

3

Raising Achievement

• The rise in middle school performance this year is a good sign, but we still need to do better.

• The grade 3-8 tests, introduced last year, will help schools and parents understand even better how their children are performing from year to year.

4

Raising Achievement

• Essential that schools use new funding wisely.

• Contract for Excellence

• School Assistance Teams

• Distinguished Educators

• All will help.

5

The Bottom Line: Scores are Up, Especially in Middle School

• Achievement in grades 3-8 is up overall.

• Scores increased most in middle school – grades 6-8. Important because middle school performance has lagged for years.

• And fewer students are showing serious academic problems.

6

The Bottom Line: ELL Students Did Better Than Predicted

• Because of new federal NCLB rules, more than twice as many English Language Learners took the grade 3-8 tests.

• But their performance dipped only modestly in each grade.

• However, this change in rules affected the overall performance of Hispanic and Asian-American students.

7

The Bottom Line: Students with Disabilities Improved

• Especially important – fewer students with disabilities showed serious academic problems.

8

Achievement is up statewide, especially in the middle grades. Important because middle school performance has lagged.

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%

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

2006 2007

Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

Grade 3 = 185,603 198,457Grade 4 = 190,951 197,499Grade 5 = 201,262 202,133Grade 6 = 204,249 204,463Grade 7 = 210,735 211,839Grade 8 = 212,320 213,971Grades 3-8= 1,205,120 1,228,362

Number Tested 2006 2007

9

English Language Learners did better than predicted, despite the tremendous increase in the numbers who took the test. More than 3/4 of ELL students are in New York City.

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%


2006 2007

Percentage of ELL Students Scoring at Levels

3 and 4

2006 2007Grade 3 3,684 17,093Grade 4 4,379 14,200Grade 5 6,686 11,480Grade 6 5,585 9,934Grade 7 6,234 9,299Grade 8 5,852 10,076Grades 3-8 32,420 72,082

Number of ELL Students Tested

10

A smaller percentage of ELL students showed serious academic problems in 2007 than in 2006.

31

.5%

36

.4%

30

.3%

36

.6%

36

.8% 4

6.6

%

36

.6%

25

.9%

30

.8%

27

.5%

15

.9%

39

.4%

39

.0%

29

.3%


2006 2007

Percentage of ELL Students Scoring at Level 1

11

Performance differences among racial/ethnic groups were substantial across grades 3-8. The Hispanic group includes the largest percentage of ELL students (22%); the Asian group the second largest percentage (11%).

77.6

%

42.4

%

46.1

%

46.5

%

71.8

%

61.5

%75.6

%

45.2

%

45.6

%

50.8

%

75.4

%

63.4

%

Asian/PacificIslander

Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan

Native

White Total Public

2006 2007


12

In every grade, fewer students with disabilities showed serious academic problems.

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%


2006 2007

Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 1

13

Here’s More of the Story

14

Achievement is up statewide, especially in the middle grades.

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%


2006 2007


Grade 3 = 185,603 198,457Grade 4 = 190,951 197,499Grade 5 = 201,262 202,133Grade 6 = 204,249 204,463Grade 7 = 210,735 211,839Grade 8 = 212,320 213,971Grades 3-8= 1,205,120 1,228,362


15

Fewer students showed serious academic problems in every grade except grade 3.

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

%


2006 2007


16

669

666

663

656

650667

665

661

655

655

652665

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

2006 2007

Elementary English: Key Fact Behind the Increase in Grade 8Average scores moved over the dividing line between Levels 2 and 3 this year. At each grade level, a score of 650 signifies meeting the standards. At all grade levels, the average student met the standards. In grades 6-8, the mean scale score increased by 3-5 points in 2007.

650

17

Performance of English Language Learners

18

English Language Learners did better than predicted, despite the tremendous increase in the numbers who took the test. More than 3/4 of ELL students are in New York City.

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%


2006 2007

Percentage of ELL Students Scoring at Levels

3 and 4

2006 2007Grade 3 3,684 17,093Grade 4 4,379 14,200Grade 5 6,686 11,480Grade 6 5,585 9,934Grade 7 6,234 9,299Grade 8 5,852 10,076Grades 3-8 32,420 72,082

Number of ELL Students Tested

19

A smaller percentage of ELL students showed serious academic problems in 2007 than in 2006.

31

.5%

36

.4%

30

.3%

36

.6%

36

.8% 4

6.6

%

36

.6%

25

.9%

30

.8%

27

.5%

15

.9%

39

.4%

39

.0%

29

.3%


2006 2007


20

A higher percentage of English Language Learners in New York City achieved the learning standards in 2007 than in 2006. More than 3/4 of ELL students are in New York City.

22

.5%

17

.0%

15

.1%

8.6

%

7.0

%

3.2

% 10

.7%

28

.6%

21

.1%

16

.2%

8.4

%

6.7

%

5.0

%

16

.0%


2006 2007

Percentage of ELL Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

21

In New York City, fewer English Language Learners showed serious academic problems in 2007 than in 2006.

43

.2%

44

.7%

35

.2%

40

.6%

39

.1% 4

9.9

%

41

.8%

27

.8%

32

.3%

29

.3%

17

.2%

40

.0%

40

.2%

30

.9%


2006 2007


22

Performance of Students Who Are Not English

Language Learners

23

Statewide, in each grade, more students who were not English Language Learners met the standards in 2007 than in 2006.

69

.6%

69

.4%

68

.6%

61

.6%

57

.7%

50

.4% 62

.6%

70

.6%

71

.4%

71

.1%

65

.9%

60

.1%

59

.6%

66

.3%


2006 2007

Percentage of Not ELL Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

Number of not ELL Students Tested 2006 2007Grade 3 = 182,469 181,364Grade 4 = 187,223 183,299Grade 5 = 195,162 190,653Grade 6 = 199,697 194,529Grade 7 = 205,019 202,540Grade 8 = 207,177 203,895Grades 3-8 = 1,176,747 1,156,280

24

Statewide, in every grade, fewer students who were not English Language Learners showed serious academic problems in 2007 than in 2006.

7.4

%

6.1

%

3.6

%

1.8

%

4.4

%

4.6

%

4.6

%

7.5

%

8.6

%

7.3

%

6.1

%

5.6

%

8.5

%

8.2

%


2006 2007

Percentage of Not ELL Students Scoring at Level 1

25

Students Who Were Not English Language Learners:In New York City, the percentage of students meeting the standards increased in 2007. Performance in the middle grades especially increased.

62.5

%

60.4

%

59.3

%

50.6

%

46.7

%

38.5

%

53.2

%62.4

%

62.4

%

61.6

%

54.8

%

49.8

%

46.4

% 56.0

%


2006 2007

Percentage of Not ELL Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

Number of Not ELL Students Tested2006 2007

Grade 3 = 59,629 58,413Grade 4 = 62,205 59,060Grade 5 = 64,804 62,650Grade 6 = 65,754 62,016Grade 7 = 66,021 65,354Grade 8 = 66,769 65,315Grades 3-8= 385,182 372,808

26

In New York City, a smaller percentage of students who were not ELL showed serious academic problems in 2007.

9.8

%

7.7

%

4.4

%

2.3

%

5.5

%

5.9

%

5.9

%

10.0

%

12.2

%

9.8

%

8.8

%

7.4

%

10.8

%

11.1

%


2006 2007

Percentage of Not ELL Students Scoring at Level 1

27

Results by Racial/Ethnic Group

28

Performance differences among racial/ethnic groups were substantial across grades 3-8. The Hispanic group includes the largest percentage of ELL students (22%); the Asian group the second largest percentage (11%).

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%


Black Hispanic Native American White Total Public

2006 2007


29

The percentage of students with serious academic problems decreased for all racial/ethnic groups except Asian-Americans.

3.1

% 14

.7%

12

.5%

13

.4%

4.8

%

8.1

%

3.6

%

9.6

%

11

.1%

8.9

%

3.1

%

6.1

%


Black Hispanic NativeAmerican

White Total Public

2006 2007

Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1

30

Results for Students with Disabilities

31

The percentage of students with disabilities meeting the standards increased in 2007, although results remained low.

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%


2006 2007

Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 Grade 3 = 23,811 26,692

Grade 4 = 26,474 28,281Grade 5 = 28,987 29,985Grade 6 = 28,883 29,055Grade 7 = 29,237 29,842Grade 8 = 29,119 29,514Grades 3-8= 166,511 173,369


32

In every grade, fewer students with disabilities showed serious academic problems.

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%


2006 2007


33

15

.2%

12

.6%

15

.1%

13

.5% 2

2.6

%

40

.3%

20

.2%

17

.5%

10

.6% 17

.1%

17

.0% 2

6.0

%

44

.5%

22

.8%

New York City Large City Urban-Suburban

Rural Average Low Total Public

2006 2007

Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 3 and 4

Results varied widely among need/resource categories. Students with disabilities in Low Need Districts were much more likely to meet the standards. In most categories, more students with disabilities met the standards.

34

40

.8%

45

.8%

40

.8%

40

.4%

28

.5%

14

.5%

34

.6%

30.6

% 39.2

%

30.3

%

27.2

%

19.3

%

9.7%

25.1

%

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

2006 2007


The percentage of students with disabilities showing serious academic problems decreased in every need/resource category.

35

15

.2%

8.4

%

19

.5%

10

.3%

9.3

%

20

.2%

17

.5%

10

.0%

12

.1%

11

.5% 2

2.8

%

New York City Buffalo Rochester * Syracuse Yonkers Total Public

2006 2007


Among the Big 5 Cities, New York City had the largest percentage of students with disabilities meeting the standards. A larger percentage of students met the Standards in 2007 than in 2006.

*Rochester to provide corrected data for 2007

36

40

.8% 5

3.8

%

34

.7% 4

8.3

%

48

.5%

34

.6%

30

.6% 41

.3%

34

.2%

38

.7%

25

.1%

New York City Buffalo Rochester * Syracuse Yonkers Total Public

2006 2007


Fewer students showed serious academic problems in 2007 than in 2006.

*Rochester to provide corrected data for 2007

37

Results by Gender

38

The disparity in graduation rate is foreshadowed by the larger percentage of females than males who meet the standards at every grade level.

70

.9%

71

.4%

70

.3%

67

.0%

63

.3%

62

.8%

67

.5%

63

.6%

64

.7%

66

.2%

59

.6%

52

.7%

51

.7% 59

.6%


Females Males


39

Results by Need/Resource Capacity

CategoryFor All Students

40

50.7

%

37.3

%

52.4

%

56.7

%

69.2

%

82.9

%

61.5

%

50.8

%

38.7

%

54.9

% 62.0

%

73.0

%

84.8

%

63.4

%


2006 2007

Percentage of All Students Scoring at Level 3 and 4

For all students, gains varied across grades 3-8 among the need/resource categories. The smallest overall increase was in New York City, where more than 3/4 of ELL students were enrolled.

41

11.4

% 18.8

%

11.1

%

9.2

%

5.2

%

2.1

% 8.1

%

9.1% 14

.2%

8.0%

5.8%

3.4%

1.5% 6.

1%


2006 2007

Percentage of All Students Scoring at Level 1

For all students, the percentage of students with serious academic problems decreased in all need/resource categories.

42

Results for the Big 5 Cities

43

50.7

%

30.1

% 38.4

%

34.0

%

51.1

% 61.5

%

50.8

%

34.5

%

38.4

%

37.3

% 46.7

%

63.4

%

New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public

2006 2007


The Big 5 showed substantial differences in meeting the standards in grades 3-8.

44

11

.4% 2

3.6

%

16

.3%

21

.8%

11

.7%

8.1

%

9.1

% 16

.7%

13

.7%

14

.8%

10

.4%

6.1

%

New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public

2006 2007


In each Big 5 district, fewer students showed serious problems in 2007 than in 2006.

45

The Bottom Line: Scores are Up, Especially in Middle School

• Achievement in grades 3-8 is up overall.

• Scores increased most in middle school – grades 6-8. Important because middle school performance has lagged for years.

• And fewer students are showing serious academic problems.

46

The Bottom Line: ELL Students Did Better Than Predicted

• Because of new federal NCLB rules, more than twice as many English Language Learners took the grade 3-8 tests.

• But their performance dipped only modestly in each grade.

• However, this change in rules affected the overall performance of Hispanic and Asian-American students.

47

The Bottom Line: Students with Disabilities Improved

• Especially important – fewer students with disabilities showed serious academic problems.

48

• Every classroom teacher is seen as a teacher of reading, with support from all school faculty and staff.

• Administration and faculty share high expectations for student success.

• Instruction is based on regular local assessments and analysis of data.

• Before- and after-school instruction is aligned with regular instructional program.

• Technology enhances instruction.

What Successful Schools Did To Improve Student Performance

49

• Extra help programs focus on literacy. • Saturday morning Pre-K program sponsored

by community partners.• Peer coaching for teachers, sometimes

across schools, as well as formal and informal daily teacher observations by instructional leaders.

• Weekly professional development focused on English, with sharing of best practices.

What Successful Schools Did To Improve Student Performance

50

• Use strategic leadership to build a school climate that improves achievement.

• Align local curriculum and instruction with State standards.

• Use national, state and local data to inform instruction.

• Faculty work together on curriculum and instructional issues across subject areas.

• Professional development must be practical and respond to what the data show.

What Do Other Experts Say?

51

Regents Actions to Support Literacy

• Implement a comprehensive literacy strategy:–Renew State learning standards,

emphasizing literacy across all subjects.

–Revise teacher preparation requirements affecting literacy.

–Provide professional development to support instruction.

52

Regents Actions to Support Literacy

• Bring the Contract for Excellence to life.

• Create school assistance teams and Distinguished Educators to help schools that need help.

• Support regional literacy conferences.

53

• Professional development through the BOCES• Higher education institutions in partnership

with school/districts • Public broadcasting – literacy programs• NYS Library and statewide library systems• Teacher Centers• Statewide professional associations• NYS cultural institutions• Literacy Zones – eight under way, a dozen

more planned over next three years

Additional USNY Assets to Help Schools

2007 Grade 3-8 English Test Results

2007 Grade 3-8 English Test Results. 2 Raising Achievement Over past several years, Board of Regents...

Documents

Transcript of 2007 Grade 3-8 English Test Results. 2 Raising Achievement Over past several years, Board of Regents...