View
31
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Grade 3-8 Math Results 2009. 2. Student Growth Tracked Over Time: 2006 – 2009. Grade-by-grade testing began in 2006. The tests and data system track the academic growth of students over time . Example: We can see how 3 rd graders in 2006 are performing as 6 th graders in 2009. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Grade 3-8 Grade 3-8
Math Results Math Results
20092009
Student Growth Tracked Over Time: 2006 – 2009
• Grade-by-grade testing began in 2006. • The tests and data system track the academic
growth of students over time. • Example: We can see how 3rd graders in 2006 are
performing as 6th graders in 2009.• Measuring the progress of students over time from
one grade to the next: This is crucial to the Board of Regents.
• Examining student achievement over time is a valuable tool for districts and schools to monitor how their practices affect academic growth.
2
1. In previous years, we have compared the same grade over a series of years – like this example for Grade 6:
We will show slides in two different ways
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
All Students Tested: 2006-09
60
.4%
71
.2%
79
.4%
83
.0%
Grade 6
2006 2007 2008 2009
3
80
.5%
79
.9%
83
.2%
83
.0%
Grade 6 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2014
8
2. Now we can also show the growth of classes of students as they move from one grade to the next over the 4 years of grades 3-8 tests. This example shows the growth of students from 3rd grade to 6th grade:
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
Grade 3 in 2006
Grade 6 in 2009
Grade 5 in 2008
Grade 4 in 2007
4
We will also analyze student performance in 2 ways:
1. Look at the percentage of students who progress from Level 1 and 2 to Level 3 and 4
2. Look at increases in student scale scores
5
What are student scale scores?
• Students are graded on a scale from the upper 400’s to the upper 700’s.
• Students at the bottom of the scale are in Level 1. Students at the top of the scale are in Level 4.
• The number of students scoring at Level 3 and 4 has shown measured progress, with gains for classes of students over time.
• But the increase in average scale scores over time is sometimes relatively smaller.
6
What Are the Results?1. Measured gains overall.
2. Students who began the 3-8 grade-by-grade core curriculum in the early grades started at a higher achievement level than did older students who started the grade-by-grade curriculum in higher grades, for example, grades 6 and 7.
3. More of this year’s students are meeting the standards (scoring in Level 3 & 4) than did students in those grades 4 years ago.
7
What Are the Results?
4. Average student scale scores (as opposed to the percentage at Level 3 & 4) show measured progress as students have progressed from one grade to the next.
5. Middle school performance, which was very low when the grade 3-8 core curriculum began 4 years ago, has improved significantly over time.
6. Even with the improvements, many students still are not meeting the standards.
8
1. More students are scoring in Level 3 & 4 across grades 3-8.
Number of Students Tested in Grades 3-8
The percentage of students across all grades 3-8 who are scoring in Level 3 & 4 increased more this year.
65
.8%
72
.70
%
80
.7%
86
.4%
Grades 3-8 Math
2006 2007 2008 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Grades 3-8 1,262,139 1,238,635 1,217,789 1,211,360
9
66
3
67
1
67
8
68
4
Grade 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
1. Measured gains overall. The average student scale score across all grades 3-8 increased this year.
650*
*A score of 650 is the cutpoint between Level 2 and Level 3.
10
Why Are Average Gains in Scale Scores Sometimes Smaller Than Gains
in the Percentage at Level 3 and 4?
• The Answer: – As students progressed through school,
many have improved their performance over time enough to move over the line (a score of 650) from Level 2 to Level 3.
– But the increase in the average scale score over time was sometimes smaller.
11
80
.5%
77
.9%
68
.4%
60
.4%
55
.6%
53
.9%
85
.2%
79
.9%
76
.1%
71
.2%
66
.4%
58
.5%
89
.9%
83
.9%
83
.2%
79
.4%
78
.9%
69
.8%
92
.9%
87
.2%
88
.1%
83
.0%
87
.3%
80
.2%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
2. Growth: Students who began the grade-by-grade core curriculum in the early grades are starting at a higher achievement level than did older students who started the grade-by-grade curriculum in later grades. Both sets of students are making progress as they move through school.
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4All Students Tested as They Move through School, 2006-09
12
3. Status: More of this year’s students are meeting the standards (Level 3 & 4) than did students in those grades 4 years ago.
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
80
.5%
77
.9%
68
.4%
60
.4%
55
.6%
53
.9% 65
.8%
85
.2%
79
.9%
76
.1%
71
.2%
66
.4%
58
.8% 72
.7%8
9.9
%
83
.8%
83
.2%
79
.4%
78
.9%
69
.8%
80
.7%92
.9%
87
.2%
88
.1%
83
.0%
87
.3%
80
.2%
86
.4%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
Number of Students Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009Grade 3 201,956 200,217 197,500 200,336Grade 4 202,791 199,391 198,730 197,704Grade 5 209,242 203,956 199,746 199,511Grade 6 211,428 206,220 202,058 199,940Grade 7 217,308 213,436 209,039 204,648Grade 8 219,414 215,415 210,716 209,221Grades 3-8 1,262,139 1,238,635 1,217,789 1,211,360
13
4. Growth in Average Scale Scores
• Students are graded on a scale from the upper 400’s to the upper 700’s.
• Students at the bottom of the scale are in Level 1. Students at the top of the scale are in Level 4.
• The number of students scoring at Level 3 and 4 had shown measured progress, with gains for classes of students over time.
• But the increase in average scale scores over time is sometimes relatively smaller.
14
67
7
67
6
66
6
65
6
65
1
65
2
68
5
68
0
67
4
66
8
66
3
65
7
68
8
68
3
68
0
67
5
67
4
66
6
69
2
68
9
68
6
68
0
68
1
67
5
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
650*
*A score of 650 is the cutpoint between Level 2 and Level 3.
Growth: Gains in average student scale scores are small to moderate as students progress from grade to grade.
All Students Tested as They Move through School, 2006-09
15
67
7
67
6
66
6
65
6
65
2
68
5
67
4
66
8
66
3
65
7
68
8
68
3
68
0
67
5
67
4
66
669
2
68
9
68
6
68
0
68
1
67
5
65
1
68
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006 2007 2008 2009
Status: This year’s students had higher average scale scores than did the students in those same grades 4 years ago.
650
*A score of 650 is the cutpoint between Level 2 and Level 3.
16
5. Status: Middle school has improved as more students meet the standards.
When the grade 3-8 tests began in 2006, the percentage of students achieving Levels 3 & 4 was lower in the middle grades than in the elementary grades. But now, performance in middle school has
improved significantly. Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
80
.5%
77
.9%
68
.4%
60
.4%
55
.6%
53
.9%
65
.8%8
5.2
%
79
.9%
76
.1%
71
.2%
66
.4%
58
.8% 72
.7%8
9.9
%
83
.8%
83
.2%
79
.4%
78
.9%
69
.8%
80
.7%
92
.9%
87
.2%
88
.1%
83
.0%
87
.3%
80
.2%
86
.4%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
17
67
7
67
6
66
6
65
6
65
2
68
5
67
4
66
8
66
3
65
7
68
8
68
3
68
0
67
5
67
4
66
669
2
68
9
68
6
68
0
68
1
67
5
65
1
68
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006 2007 2008 2009
650
Status: Middle School:
Improvement in scale scores also.
Mean Scale Scores
18
Why the Progress Overall?• Over time, the State has invested significantly more
resources in education.• Universal Pre-Kindergarten has been expanding and
reaching more students each year. • The grade-by-grade core curriculum, introduced in
2006, seems to be helping. Schools are aligning their instruction with the grade-by-grade curriculum.
• Schools have seized opportunities to incorporate best practices and support programs and are increasing professional development to improve instruction.
19
Similar Trends Emerge for Different Groups of Students
Over Time.
20
50
.0%
44
.8%
31
.6%
21
.6%
18
.0%
17
.1%
57
.1%
47
.2%
41
.7%
31
.9%
26
.8%
20
.7%
66
.6%
53
.4%
52
.9%
42
.4%
42
.9%
31
.0%
74
.2%
60
.7%
62
.4%
49
.7% 59
.0%
46
.2%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: More students with disabilities met the standards (scoring in Levels 3 & 4) as they progressed through school.
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
But achievement is still low.
21
23
.7%
28
.8%
35
.9% 44
.4%
42
.1%
44
.4%
17
.5%
24
.8%
23
.7% 33
.5%
28
.6% 4
0.2
%
11
.0% 20
.4%
16
.3%
23
.9%
17
.5% 2
9.5
%
5.2
%
16
.7%
9.8
% 16
.3%
6.7
% 16
.2%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: Fewer students with disabilities are scoring in Level 1 (showing serious academic difficulties) as they move through school.
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
Percentage of Students at Level 1
3 3 3 64 5 8734 4 5 4 5 6 5 6 7 6 7 8 7 8 8
22
64
7
64
0
63
0
61
7
61
2
61
3
65
5
64
5
64
0
62
9
62
6
62
1
66
1
64
9
64
8
64
7
63
9
62
9
66
6
65
7
65
7
64
7 65
3
64
3
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: The average scale score for students with disabilities has shown improvement in the later grades as students have moved through school.
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
650
Mean Scale Scores
23
58
.5%
49
.5%
36
.7%
25
.2%
20
.6%
21
.9%
68
.7%
53
.8%
45
.4%
35
.2%
27
.5%
25
.6%
78
.5%
64
.1%
58
.0%
47
.7%
44
.6%
41
.2%
84
.4%
71
.3%
69
.4%
53
.3%
58
.1%
52
.7%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
Growth: English Language Learners show mixed improvement in advancing to Levels 3 & 4 as they have moved through school. Earlier grades are starting with more students at Levels 3&4.
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
24
Growth: The percentage of English Language Learners scoring at Level 1 (showing serious academic difficulties) has decreased significantly.
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
Percentage of Students at Level 11
6.4
%
22
.7%
29
.4% 4
0.4
%
39
.1%
40
.4%
10
.2% 18
.0%
20
.4% 30
.6%
27
.7% 35
.3%
5.2
% 12
.2%
13
.1%
18
.9%
15
.6%
21
.1%
2.5
% 9.5
%
7.2
% 13
.9%
6.5
%
11
.2%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
25
655
647
637
623
617
621
665
652
645
633
628
627
671
659
653
643
642
640
675
667
663
651
653
650
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: The increase in average scale scores for English Language Learners has been mixed, but overall performance has improved. Earlier grades now have much higher average scale scores.
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
650
Mean Scale Scores
26
85
.2%
45
.7%
51
.5%
53
.9%
76
.3%
65
.8%
89
.0%
54
.6%
60
.5%
61
.8%
82
.0%
72
.7%
92
.9%
65
.9%
71
.1%
73
.0% 8
8.3
%
80
.7%94
.9%
75
.0%
79
.5%
81
.6%
92
.2%
86
.4%
Asian Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan
Native
White Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009
Across all Grades 3-8, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students have experienced the most growth in meeting the standards.
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
27
68
8
64
4
64
9
65
0 66
369
6
65
8
65
8 67
9
67
170
1
66
1
66
5
66
6 68
5
67
870
5
66
9
67
3
67
4 69
0
68
4
67
2
65
3
Asian Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan
Native
White Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009
Across all Grades 3-8, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students also had the most growth in average scale scores.
650
Mean Scale Scores
28
66
.4%
62
.4%
49
.3%
40
.5%
31
.1%
28
.3%
74
.5%
64
.9%
60
.5%
53
.1%
42
.9%
34
.4%
81
.3%
71
.9%
70
.5%
63
.9%
60
.9%
48
.3%
87
.0%
77
.6%
78
.3%
69
.8%
74
.9%
62
.9%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: More Black students have reached Levels 3 & 4 as they moved through school.
Percentage of Black Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
29
66
2
65
9
64
7
63
8
62
9
62
9
67
2
66
2
65
8
65
0
64
3
63
6
67
5
66
7
66
4
65
7
65
5
64
7
67
9
67
5
67
2
66
4
66
5
65
9
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: Black students made gains in average scale scores as they progressed through school.
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
650
Mean Scale Scores
30
71
.5%
66
.6%
56
.1%
45
.2%
37
.2%
33
.0%
78
.5%
70
.2%
65
.7%
58
.4%
50
.3%
40
.4%
85
.1%
76
.8%
75
.3%
67
.8%
66
.5%
55
.1%
89
.9%
82
.0%
83
.1%
73
.7%
78
.6%
69
.3%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: More Hispanic students reached Levels 3 & 4 as they moved through school.
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
The percentage of this year’s Hispanic 7th and 8th graders scoring in Levels 3 & 4 increased significantly as they moved from one grade to the next through school.
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
31
66
7
66
3
65
3
64
2
63
4
63
3
67
6
66
7
66
2
65
5
64
8
64
1
67
9
67
2
66
9
66
1
65
9
65
2
68
3
68
0
67
7
66
8
66
8
66
3
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: Hispanic students have made gains in average scale scores as they progressed through school.
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
650
Mean Scale Scores
32
88
.0%
86
.2%
77
.9%
70
.7%
69
.0%
68
.0%
90
.9%
87
.7%
83
.9%
80
.4%
78
.8%
71
.9%
94
.1%
89
.7%
89
.6%
87
.7%
88
.7%
80
.8%
95
.8%
91
.7%
92
.7%
90
.1%
94
.1%
89
.2%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: White students often made smaller gains in reaching Levels 3 & 4 as they progressed through school than did Black and Hispanic students, but overall performance is much higher.
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
33
68
5
68
5
67
4
66
5
66
3
66
3
69
1
68
8
68
0
67
6
67
3
66
7
69
5
69
0
68
6
68
3
68
5
67
5
69
8
69
5
69
3
68
7
68
9
68
3
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
650
Growth: Average scale scores for White students have improved for most classes of students as they moved through school.
Mean Scale Scores
34
68
5
68
5
67
4
66
5
66
3
67
269
1
68
0
67
6
67
3
66
7 67
969
5
69
0
68
6
68
3
68
5
67
5 68
569
8
69
5
69
3
68
7
68
9
68
3
69
0
66
368
8
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
Status: This year’s White students have higher average scale scores than White students in those grades did 4 years before.
650
Mean Scale Scores
35
Across all Grades 3-8, districts in all need/resource categories have made significant gains in the percentage of students scoring in Levels 3 & 4.
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
57
.0%
35
.1%
55
.0%
62
.3% 73
.9% 86
.3%
65
.8%
65
.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%
81
.8%
64
.7% 8
1.0
%
85
.8%
91
.1%
95
.9%
86
.4%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009
36
656
684
663
665
660
665 67
5 690
671
672
651 66
7
671 68
2 696
678
680
660 67
4
677 68
7 699
684
669
634 65
2
657
641
New YorkCity
Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009
Across grades 3-8, average scale scores improved also.
650
2006-2009 Math: Grades 3-8 Need/Resource Capacity CategoryMean Scale Scores
37
75
.3%
70
.9%
61
.3%
52
.7%
43
.9%
38
.9%
82
.2%
74
.1%
71
.1%
63
.2%
55
.5%
45
.6%
87
.2%
79
.6%
79
.2%
71
.7%
69
.0%
59
.6%
91
.4%
84
.9%
85
.5%
77
.0%
80
.8%
71
.3%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: In New York City, students beginning the grade-by-grade core curriculum earlier in their careers have a larger percentage at Levels 3&4. All students are improving as they move through classes.
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 85
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
87 8
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
38
75
.3%
70
.9%
61
.3%
52
.7%
43
.9%
38
.9% 5
7.0
%
82
.2%
74
.1%
71
.1%
63
.2%
55
.5%
45
.6%
65
.1%
87
.2%
79
.6%
79
.2%
71
.7%
69
.0%
59
.6% 7
4.3
%91
.4%
84
.9%
85
.5%
77
.0%
80
.8%
71
.3% 81
.8%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
Status: More of this year’s New York City students are scoring in Level 3 & 4 than did students in those grades 4 years ago.
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
39
67
4
66
9
66
0
65
0
64
1
64
0
68
3
67
5
67
0
66
2
65
4
64
7
68
5
67
9
67
7
66
8
66
5
65
9
68
9
68
8
68
3
67
5
67
4
66
8
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
650
Growth: The average scale score of New York City students has generally increased as students have progressed from one grade to the next through school.
Mean Scale Scores
40
67
4
66
9
66
0
65
0
64
0
68
3
67
0
66
2
65
4
64
7
68
5
67
9
67
7
66
8
66
5
65
9
68
9
68
8
68
3
67
5
67
4
66
8
64
1
67
5
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006 2007 2008 2009
Status: New York City students in 2009 have higher scale scores than did students in those same grades 4 years ago.
650
Mean Scale Scores
41
Across all Grades 3-8, in each of the Big 5 Cities, the percentage of students scoring in Levels 3 & 4 has significantly increased over the past 4 years.
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
57.0
%
28.6
%
33.1
%
30.1
%
52.9
% 65.8
%
65.1
%
35.9
%
39.2
%
39.4
% 52.3
%
72.7
%
74.3
%
50.0
%
54.6
%
49.8
% 65.1
%81.8
%
63.3
%
63.4
%
58.2
% 73.8
%
80.7
%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009
42
86.4
%
65
6
62
8
63
2
62
9
66
3
66
5
63
9
64
0 65
2 67
1
67
2
64
7
65
0
64
8 66
2 67
8
68
0
65
8
65
7
65
5 67
1 68
4
65
2
63
7
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2006 2007 2008 2009
Across all Grades 3-8, in each of the Big 5 Cities, students’ average scale scores have increased over the past 4 years.
650
Mean Scale Scores
43
40
.1%
47
.4%
27
.1%
27
.2%
22
.5%
17
.0%
43
.0%
44
.3%
38
.0%
37
.8%
29
.1%
25
.8%
66
.4%
53
.2%
50
.2%
48
.9%
49
.6%
33
.8%
75
.5%
64
.1%
61
.9%
56
.9%
63
.3%
57
.8%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: In Buffalo, the percentage of students scoring in Level 3 & 4 has increased substantially as students have moved from one grade to the next through school during the past 4 years.
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
44
63
9 64
4
62
6
62
4
62
0
62
1
64
3
64
5
63
9
63
6
63
2
63
0
66
1
65
0
64
6
64
5
64
6
63
6
66
5
66
0
65
6
65
5
65
7
65
4
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
Growth: In Buffalo, the average student scale score has typically increased as students have moved from one grade to the next through school during the past 4 years.
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
650
Mean Scale Scores
45
In Buffalo, more students in every grade have met the standards than 4 years ago.
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
40
.1%
47
.4%
27
.1%
27
.2%
22
.5%
17
.0% 28
.6%43
.0%
44
.3%
38
.0%
37
.8%
29
.1%
25
.8%
35
.9%
66
.4%
53
.2%
50
.2%
48
.9%
49
.6%
33
.8% 5
0.0
%
75
.5%
64
.1%
61
.9%
56
.9%
63
.3%
57
.8%
63
.3%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
46
650
In Buffalo, students in every grade have now achieved higher average scale scores than 4 years ago.
Mean Scale Scores
63
9
64
4
62
6
62
4
62
1
62
864
3
63
9
63
6
63
2
63
0
63
766
1
65
0
64
6
64
5
64
6
63
6 64
766
5
66
0
65
6
65
5
65
7
65
4
65
8
62
064
5
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
47
Similar Patterns Emerge for the other Big 4 Cities.
48
55
.8%
54
.6%
31
.4%
30
.5%
12
.6%
20
.0%
62
.3%
52
.0%
47
.5%
40
.6%
21
.9%
17
.9%
70
.6%
62
.1%
59
.4%
56
.3%
48
.3%
32
.9%
79
.1%
65
.3%
68
.2%
64
.5%
58
.5%
42
.9%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
Math 2006-2009: Rochester
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
All Students Tested as They Move through School
49
65
2
65
1
63
2
62
9
61
2 62
0
66
0
65
0
64
6
64
0
62
5
62
1
66
4
65
8
65
4
65
0
64
4
63
3
66
7
66
1
66
2
65
9
65
2
64
2
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
650
Math 2006-2009: Rochester All Students Tested as They Move through School
Mean Scale Scores
50
Math 2006-2009: Rochester 5
5.8
%
54
.6%
31
.4%
30
.5%
12
.6%
20
.0% 33
.2%
62
.3%
52
.0%
47
.5%
40
.6%
21
.9%
17
.9%
39
.2%
70
.6%
62
.1%
59
.4%
56
.3%
48
.3%
32
.9%
54
.6%
79
.1%
65
.3%
68
.2%
64
.5%
58
.5%
42
.9%
63
.4%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
51
65
2
65
1
63
2
62
9
62
0 63
2
66
0
64
6
64
0
62
5
62
1 63
966
4
65
8
65
4
65
0
64
4
63
3 65
066
7
66
1
66
2
65
9
65
2
64
2 65
7
61
2
65
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
650
Math 2006-2009: Rochester
Mean Scale Scores
52
42
.5%
48
.6%
27
.5%
26
.0%
16
.1%
20
.4%
56
.9%
55
.3%
43
.0%
35
.0%
26
.1%
20
.1%
65
.8%
60
.4%
53
.0%
49
.0%
40
.6%
28
.9%
75
.1%
62
.0%
60
.9%
52
.5% 62
.0%
35
.0%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
Math 2006-2009: Syracuse
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
All Students Tested as They Move through School
53
64
2
64
5
62
8
62
4
61
3 62
2
65
7
65
3
64
4
63
4
62
8
62
4
66
1
65
8
64
9
64
5
63
8
63
3
66
7
66
0
65
6
64
9 65
5
63
8
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
650
Math 2006-2009: Syracuse All Students Tested as They Move through School
Mean Scale Scores
54
Math 2006-2009: Syracuse 4
2.5
%
48
.6%
27
.5%
26
.0%
16
.1%
20
.4%
30
.2%
56
.9%
55
.3%
43
.0%
35
.0%
26
.1%
20
.1%
39
.4%
65
.8%
60
.4%
53
.0%
49
.0%
40
.6%
28
.9%
49
.8%
75
.1%
62
.0%
60
.9%
52
.5%
62
.0%
35
.0%
58
.2%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
55
64
2
64
5
62
8
62
4
62
2
62
9
65
7
64
4
63
4
62
8
62
4 64
066
1
65
8
64
9
64
5
63
8
63
3 64
866
7
66
0
65
6
64
9
65
5
63
8 65
5
61
3
65
3
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
650
Math 2006-2009: Syracuse
Mean Scale Scores
56
74
.1%
76
.8%
61
.5%
43
.4%
31
.3%
30
.9%
74
.3%
63
.1%
55
.1%
49
.5%
41
.3%
32
.2%
82
.2%
76
.7%
67
.7%
63
.2%
59
.3%
41
.8%
88
.5%
80
.1%
79
.4%
66
.5%
73
.3%
53
.9%
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
Math 2006-2009: Yonkers
Percentage of Students at Levels 3 and 4
All Students Tested as They Move through School
57
67
1
67
4
66
0
64
0
63
0
63
3
67
0
66
1
65
3
64
7
64
3
63
6
67
8
67
4
66
3
65
7
65
5
64
4
68
6
68
1
67
4
66
2
66
5
65
4
Grade 3 in 2009 Grade 4 in 2009 Grade 5 in 2009 Grade 6 in 2009 Grade 7 in 2009 Grade 8 in 2009 Grade 9 in 2009 Grade 10 in 2009 Grade 11 in 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
3 3 54 565 63 4 73
Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016
4 6 75 8
Grade 3 in 2006
Class of 2015
Grade 4 in 2006
Class of 2014
4
Grade 5 in 2006
Class of 2013
6 7 88 7
Grade 6 in 2006
Class of 2012
Grade 7 in 2006
Class of 2011
Grade 8 in 2006
Class of 2010
8
650
Math 2006-2009: Yonkers All Students Tested as They Move through School
Mean Scale Scores
58
Math 2006-2009: Yonkers 7
4.1
%
76
.8%
61
.5%
43
.4%
31
.3%
30
.9%
53
.1%
74
.3%
63
.1%
55
.1%
49
.5%
41
.3%
32
.2%
52
.3%
82
.2%
76
.7%
67
.7%
63
.2%
59
.3%
41
.8%
65
.1%
88
.5%
80
.1%
79
.4%
66
.5%
73
.3%
53
.9%
73
.8%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
59
67
1
67
4
66
0
64
0
63
3 65
267
0
65
3
64
7
64
3
63
6 65
267
8
67
4
66
3
65
7
65
5
64
4 66
268
6
68
1
67
4
66
2
66
5
65
4 67
1
63
0
66
1
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009
650
Math 2006-2009: Yonkers
Mean Scale Scores
60
What Are the Results?
1. Consistent, measured gains overall.
2. Students who began the 3-8 grade-by-grade curriculum in the early grades started at a higher achievement level than did older students who started the grade-by-grade curriculum in higher grades, for example, grades 6 and 7.
3. More of this year’s students are meeting the standards (scoring in Level 3 & 4) than did students in those grades 4 years ago.
61
What Are the Results?
4. Average student scale scores (as opposed to the percentage at Level 3 & 4) show measured progress as students have progressed from one grade to the next.
5. Middle school performance, which was very low when the grade 3-8 curriculum began 4 years ago, has improved significantly over time.
6. Even with the improvements, many students still are not meeting the standards.
62
Grade 3-8 Grade 3-8
Math Results Math Results
20092009
Recommended