3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
-
Upload
gothamschoolsorg -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
1/37
1
2011
Grade 3-8 English Language Arts andMathematics Results
August 8, 2011
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
2/37
2
669
666
663
6
56
652
650
659
667
665
665
661
6
55
661
669
667
661
662
657
664
670
670
675
667
667
661
668
668
673
672
664
668
659
667
663
672
668
663
664
6
55 6
64
6
556
66
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
The average scale scores on the English Language Arts test thisyear were slightly lower than last year in all grades
English Language Arts 2006-2011By Grade
Mean Scale Scores
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
3/37
3
677
676
666
656
652 6
63
685
674
668
663
65 7
716
88
683
680
675
674
666 6
786
92
689
686
680
681
675
684
693
687
685
680
677
677
683
687
688
686
682
679
677
683
651
680
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
The average scale scores on the mathematics test this yearwere about the same as last year and progress varied by grade
Mathematics 2006-2011By Grade
Mean Scale Scores
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
4/37
4
Performance Levels
Beginning in 2010, ELA and mathematics Proficiencystandard scores were changed from 650, where they
have been set in the past
8thgradeProficiencyscoresweresetatalevelthatprovidesstudents
a75%chanceofearningacollegereadyRegentsscore*3rd7th gradeProficiencyscoresaresetsothatifastudentmakesayears
worthofdevelopmentalgrowth,theywillbeontrackforacollegeready
Regentsscore
*75 or greater on the ELA Regents examination; 80 or greater on a math Regents examination
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
5/37
5
Each 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 scalescore or performance level can change.
Grade Math2010
ELA2010
684 662668
666662
664
658
676
674674
670
673
Math2011
ELA2011
3 684 6634 676 671
5 676 6686 674 662
7 670 665
8 674 658
Scale Scores Needed for Proficiency
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
6/37
6
Assessments Changes in 2011
Broader and deeper content coverage:
Questions will not be released, makingtests less predictable and ensuring morecomprehensive student readiness
More multiple choice questions, to bettermeasure ranges of student performance
More essay writing on Grades 3, 5 & 7English exams
External research to evaluate score results
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
7/37
7
Grades 3-8 ELA Results
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
8/37
8
52.8 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met orexceeded the proficiency standard, a slight decrease from last year
English Language Arts 2006 2011Grades 3-8 Combined
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
61.5%63.4%
68.5%77.4%
53.2% 52.8%
Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Grades 3-8: 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460 1,196,283 1,195,432
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of Students Tested
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
9/37
9
As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be proficient, fewerstudents met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency standard in 2010.
In 2011, progress toward this new standard varied by grade.
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%
7
7.6
%
66.9%
70.0%
56
.1% 6
8.5
%
75
.8%
76
.9%
82
.2%
80
.9%
80
.3%
68.5
%
7
7.4
%
54
.7%
56
.7%
52
.5%
54
.2%
50
.0%
51
.0%
53
.2%
55
.9%
56
.7%
53
.8%
55
.8%
47
.8%
46
.9%
52
.8%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Grade 3 = 185,603 198,457 195,777 198,367 196,604 196,757
Grade 4 = 190,951 197,499 197,016 195,942 199,530 197,385
Grade 5 = 201,262 202,133 198,022 197,856 197,448 200,602
Grade 6 = 204,249 204,463 200,505 197,996 198,135 198,450
Grade 7 = 210,735 211,839 207,278 202,805 200,183 200,551
Grade 8 = 212,320 213,971 209,180 207,494 204,383 201,687Grades 3-8= 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460 1,196,283 1,195,432
Number Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
10/37
10
In 2011, the majority of the Grades 3-5 students statewide met orexceeded the English Language Arts proficiency standard (Level
3 or Level 4). The percentage of students in Grades 3-5 who
scored at Level 4 decreased compared to 2010.
(2010 results are striped; 2011 results are solid)
13.9
%
8.4% 11
.6%
8.3
%10.5%
31.4% 3
4.8%
35.9
%
31.3% 3
5.0%
35.6
%
38.1
%50.8
%
3
9.6
%51.3
%
54.2
%
49.5
%
16.6
%
6.0
% 12
.8%
4.6
%
2.5
%4.4
%12
.8%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 52010 Level 1 2011 Level 1 2010 Level 2 2011 Level 2
2010 Level 3 2011 Level 3 2010 Level 4 2011 Level 4
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
11/37
11
In 2011, a majority of the Grade 7 and 8 students statewide didnot meet the English Language Arts proficiency standard (Level 3or Level 4). The percentage of students in Grades 6-8 who scored
at Level 4 decreased compared to 2010.
(2010 results are striped; 2011 results are solid)
11.4
%
10.4%
9.1%
9.4%
8.4
%
34.4%
3
9.5
%
4
0.0
%
32.5
% 42.8
%
44.7
%
47.3
%
3
8.9
%43.3
%51.8
%
44.3
%
45.1
%
6.8
% 11.2
%
7.7
%
3.9
%
3.6
%
1.8
%11.7
%
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 82010 Level 1 2011 Level 1 2010 Level 2 2011 Level 2
2010 Level 3 2011 Level 3 2010 Level 4 2011 Level 4
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
12/37
12
12.6 percent of English Language Learners met or
exceeded the ELA proficiency standard
16.2% 18.0%25.1%
36.4%
14.3% 12.6%
Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Grades 3-8: 27,507 72,082 73,199 74,854 79,348 81,869
Number of ELL Students Tested
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
13/37
13
14.5 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded
the ELA proficiency standard
20.2% 22.8%27.9%
15.2% 14.5%
39.3%
Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Grades 3-8: 166,511 173,369 181,381 182,847 188,096 186,886
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of Students with Disabilities Tested
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
14/37
14
39.1 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8students met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard
50
.3%
69
.5%
49
.6%
66.1
%
55
.3%
79
.4%
39
.1%
68
.5%
66
.9%
86
.9%
39
.1%
68
.8%
Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
15/37
15
The ELA results for racial/ethnic groups across grades3-8 reveal the persistence of the achievement gap
75
.6%
45
.2%
45
.6%
50
.8%
75
.4%
63.4
%79
.6%
52
.9%
52
.6%57.3%
79
.0%
68
.5%
64.3
%
64
.8%
68
.9% 8
5.9
%
77
.4%
67
.9%
34
.4%
36
.8%
41
.3%
64
.8%
53
.2%67
.4%
35
.0%
37
.2%
40
.6%
64.2
%
52
.8%
77
.6%
42
.4%
46
.1%
46
.5% 7
1.8
%
61.5%
86
.6%
Asian Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan
Native
White Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Asian: 94,254
Black: 224,871
Hispanic: 263,997
American Indian/ Alaskan Native: 5,930White: 596,619
Total Public: 1,195,432
2011 Total Students
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
16/37
16
Across grades 3-8, 57.8 percent of girls, compared to48.1 percent of boys, met or exceeded the ELA
proficiency standard
65.5
%
57
.7%67.
5%
59
.6%7
2.8
%
64.5
%
57
.8%
48
.1%
81
.0%
7
4.0
%
57
.9%
48
.6%
Females Males
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
17/37
17
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%
5
7.6
%
46
.4%
60
.6%
66
.8 % 7
6.7
% 87.5%
68
.5%
43
.9%
27
.8%
47
.5%
60
.2%
52.8%
77
.4%9
1.8
%
84
.2%
76
.3%
70
.9%
5
6.9
%68
.8%
53.2%
74
.9%
61
.5%
49.6
%
43
.1%
29
.1%
42
.4%
75
.0%
40
.3%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban Rural Average Low Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Across grades 3-8, low-need communities continuedto outperform large cities and rural areas in English
Language Arts
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
18/37
18
50.7
%
30.1
% 38.4
%
34.0
%
51.1
% 61.5
%
50.8
%
34.5% 3
8.4
%
37.3% 4
6.7
%
63.4%
57.6
%
42
.5%
46.6
%
42
.1%
55.6
%68.5
%
68.8
%
54.4
%
56.0
%
52.7
%6
5.2%
42
.4%
27.7
%
25.3
%
25.5
%39.2%
53.2
%
43.9
%
26.9
%
24.4
%
22.5
%
37.8
%
52.8
%
77.4
%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
A smaller proportion of grades 3-8 students met orexceeded the ELA proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities
than statewide. New York City demonstrated a slightgain.
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
19/37
19
36
.6%
20
.9%
26
.3%
21
.3% 3
1.8
%
49
.3%
41.8
%
33
.3%
27
.8%
28
.3%
35
.1%
57
.0%
43.0%
28
.0%
31
.1%
30
.8%
37
.7%
56
.1%
57
.0%
42.5%
43.1%
41.0
% 50
.4%
68
.5%
37
.5%
26
.6%
21
.1%
24
.6%
29
.8%
51
.0%
35
.0%
23
.1%
16
.6%
19
.6%
26
.6%
46
.9%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met orexceeded the ELA proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities
than statewide. Generally, Grade 8 ELA performancedecreased in 2011.
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
20/37
20
6.1
%
2.6%
1.7
%2
.6% 4.5% 8
.7%
7.3%
3.3%
2.0
%3
.0% 5.4%
1
0.2
%
2.7%
0.9
%
0.5
%
0.7
%
1.3
%3
.5%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2009 2010 2011
In 2011, the percentage of students scoring at Level 4
decreased statewide and in the Big 5English Language Arts 2009-2011
Statewide and Big 5Grades 3-8 Combined
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 4
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
21/37
21
In 2010, Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion oftheir students who met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency
standard. In 2011, progress toward this standard varied by grade.
49.6
%
53.2
%
55
.1%
43.8
%
40.8
%
35.7
% 48.2
%60.8
%
56.9
%
55
.2%
54
.9%
47.3
%
44.7% 54
.6%6
8.3
%
65.1
%
68.8
%
59.6
%67.4
%
44.7%
64.0
%79.4
%
76.8
%
75.1
%
76.4
%
78.8
%
68.1
%76.1
%
51.
7%
44.4%
41.6
%
40.3
%
36.8
%
40.4
%
43.0
%51.
9%
50.8%
40.8
%
45.9%
34.8
%
34.7
%43.9%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of charter school students tested (Grades 3-8 combined)2006 9,916 students tested2007 12,108 students tested2008 15,222 students tested2009 17,862 students tested2010 21,315 students tested
2011 25,479 students tested
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
22/37
22
Grades 3-8 Mathematics Results
63 3 f d 3 8 d h S d d
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
23/37
23
63.3 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met or exceededthe mathematics proficiency standard, a slight increase from last year
Mathematics 2006-2011Grades 3-8 Combined
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
65.9%
72.7%
80.7%
86.4%
61.0%
63.3%
Grades 3-8 Math
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be proficient,
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
24/37
24
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 2011, there was slight progress
toward meeting this new standard.
80
.5%
77
.9%
68.4
%
60
.4%
55
.6%
53
.9% 6
5.9
%85
.2%
7
9.9
%
76
.1%
71.2%
66
.4%
58
.8% 72
.7%8
9.9
%
83
.8%
83
.2%
7
9.4
%
7
8.9
%
69.8
%80
.7%9
2.9
%
87
.2%
88
.1%
83
.0%
87
.3%
8
0.2
%
86
.4%
59
.1%
63
.8%
64
.6%
61
.3%
62
.4%
54
.8%
61
.0%
59
.6%
66
.6%
66
.2%
63
.0%
64
.6%
59
.8%
63
.3%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of Students Tested
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Grade 3 201,956 200,217 197,500 200,336 198,785 198,825
Grade 4 202,791 199,391 198,730 197,704 201,769 199,459
Grade 5 209,242 203,956 199,746 199,511 199,594 202,738
Grade 6 211,428 206,220 202,058 199,940 200,774 200,417
Grade 7 217,308 213,436 209,039 204,648 202,723 202,492Grade 8 219,414 215,415 210,716 209,221 206,739 203,608
Grades 3-8 1,259,956 1,238,635 1,217,789 1,211,360 1,210,384 1,207,539
In 2011 the majority of the Grades 3 5 students statewide met or
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
25/37
25
In 2011, the majority of the Grades 3-5 students statewide met orexceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level4). Other than Grade 3, the percentage of students who scored at
Level 4 remained relatively constant compared to 2010.
(2010 results are striped; 2011 results are solid)
9.4%
5.4
%
6.1
%
5.7
%
5.9
%
31.5
%
30.8%
29.2%
31.2
%
27.7
%
27.9
%35.1
%
38.1
%
40.8
%46.2
%
39.9
%
42.8
%
24.0
%
25.7
%
23.9
%
1
3.4
%26.7
%
23.5
%
9.2%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 52010 Level 1 2011 Level 1 2010 Level 2 2011 Level 2
2010 Level 3 2011 Level 3 2010 Level 4 2011 Level 4
In 2011 a majority of the Grades 6-8 students statewide met or
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
26/37
26
In 2011, a majority of the Grades 6-8 students statewide met orexceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level4). The percentage of students in Grades 6-8 who scored at Level
4 remained relatively constant compared to 2010.
(2010 results are striped; 2011 results are solid)
8.1%
8.2% 9
.3%
8.0% 8
.8%
30.6%
29.4% 35
.9%
29.0
%
27.4
%31.4
%
34.
2%
33.2%
36
.5%
36
.6%
34.
2% 4
2.2
%
27.1
%
29.1
%
18.2
%26.3
%30.4%
17.7
%
8.0%
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 82010 Level 1 2011 Level 1 2010 Level 2 2011 Level 2
2010 Level 3 2011 Level 3 2010 Level 4 2011 Level 4
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
27/37
27
38.6
%
45.7
%58.4
%67.1%
30.7
%
32.3
%
Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
32.3 percent of English Language Learners met or
exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
28/37
28
30.4
%
37.2
%47.8
%58.4
%
2
4.6
%
26.9
%
Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
26.9 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded
the mathematics proficiency standard
51 5 percent of Economicall Disad antaged grades 3 8
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
29/37
29
51.5 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8students met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency
standard
56
.0%
73
.4%
60.9%
81
.9%
72
.3%
87
.8%
51
.5%
77
.0%
80
.1% 9
2.4%
49
.0%
74
.4%
Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
30/37
30
85
.2%
45
.8%
51
.6%
53
.8%
76
.4%
65.9
%89
.1%
54
.6%
60.5%
61.8
%8
2.0
%
7
2.7
%92
.9%
65.9
%
71
.1%
7
3.0
% 88
.3%
80
.7%9
4.9
%
75
.0%
79
.5%
81
.6%
92
.2%
86
.4%
81
.7%
40
.9%
47
.3%
49
.5% 7
1.1
%
61.0%
83
.7%
44
.0%
50
.2%
52
.3% 7
3.3
%
63.3
%
Asian Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan
Native
White Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2011 Total Students
Asian: 94,254
Black: 224,871
Hispanic: 263,997
American Indian/ Alaskan Native: 5,930
White: 596,619
Total Public: 1,195,432
The mathematics results for racial/ethnic groupsacross grades 3-8 reveal the persistence of the
achievement gap
Across grades 3 8 64 3 percent of girls compared to
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
31/37
31
Across grades 3-8, 64.3 percent of girls, compared to62.4 percent of boys, met or exceeded the mathematics
proficiency standard
66
.2%
65
.6%
73
.5%
71
.9%8
1.9
%
79
.6%
64.3%
62.4
%
87
.5%
85
.4%
61.8
%
60.2
%
Females Males
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Across grades 3 8 low need communities continued to
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
32/37
32
Across grades 3-8, low-need communities continued tooutperform large cities and rural areas in mathematics
57.0
%
35.2
%
55.0
%62
.4% 7
4.0
% 86.3
%
6
5.9
%
6
5.1
%
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
%
57.3
%
31.6
%
55.8% 6
9.7
%
63
.3%
81.8
%
64.7
%8
1.0
%
85.8
%
91.1
%95.9%
86.4
%
54.0%
31.1
%4
8.6
%
54.3%
67.6
% 80.8
%
61.0
%
49.1
%
83.2
%
New York City Large City Urban-
Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
33/37
33
57.0
%
28.6
%
33.2
%
3
0.2
%5
3.1
% 65.9
%
65.1%
35.9
%
39.2
%
39.4
% 52.3
%72
.7%
74
.3%
50.0
%
54.6
%
49.8
% 65.1%8
1.8
%
63.3%
63.4%
58.2
% 73
.8%
54.0
%
2
9.8
%
28.0
%
25
.7% 4
1.5
% 61.0%
57.3
%
3
1.0
%
29.4
%
25
.3% 4
0.4
%6
3.3%
80.7
%
86.4
%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
A smaller proportion of grades 3-8 students met or
exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard inthe Big 5 cities than statewide. New York City,Buffalo, and Rochester showed slight gains.
A ll ti f G d 8 t d t t
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
34/37
34
38.9%
17
.0%
20
.0%
20
.4%
30
.9%
53
.9%
45.6
%
25
.8%
17
.9%
20
.1%
32
.2%
58
.8%
59
.6%
33
.8%
32
.9%
28
.9% 4
1.8%5
7.8
%
46
.3%
25
.8%
14
.5%
13
.4% 2
7.9
%
54
.8%
5
2.5
%
27
.6%
19
.5%
15
.3%
27
.3%
59
.8%
69
.8%
42.9%
53
.9%
35.0
%
71
.3%
80
.2%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met orexceeded the mathematics proficiency standard in
the Big 5 cities than statewide. Generally, Grade 8math performance increased slightly in 2011.
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
35/37
35
25
.9%
8
.4%
6.7%
7.5
%17
.7%
29
.1%
22
.2%
6.6%
4.9
%
6.0
% 13
.0%
24
.7%
20
.9%
6.2%
4.4%
4.3% 9
.6%
23
.0%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2009 2010 2011
In 2011, the percentage of students scoring at Level 4decreased statewide and in the Big 5
Mathematics 2009-2011Statewide and Big 5
Grades 3-8 Combined
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 4
In 2010, Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion oftheir students who met or exceeded the new Mathematics proficiency
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
36/37
36
their students who met or exceeded the new Mathematics proficiencystandard. In 2011, there was progress toward meeting this new
standard.
71.6
%
67.9
%
59.7%
50.8
%
40.3
%
40.0
% 58.2%
83.4
%
7
2.6
%
69
.4%
75.5
%
60.3
%
53.7
% 71.4
%91.0
%
83.7
%
82.1
%
77.5
%
81.0
%
70
.8%
82.1
%96.1
%
89.4
%
88.4
%
86.8
%
89.4
%
84.5
%
89.4
%
61.6%
63.8
%
59.7%
61.3%
59.1%
50.4
%59.9
%
64.3%
69
.5%
63.4
%
65.3%
63.0
%
62.1
%
64.6%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of charter school students tested (Grades 3-8 combined)2006 9,908 students tested2007 12,009 students tested2008 15,161 students tested2009 17,758 students tested2010 21,357 students tested
2011 25,527 students tested
-
8/6/2019 3-8 2011 Ela-math Slides.final
37/37
37
2011
Grade 3-8 English Language Arts andMathematics Results
August 8, 2011