A New Baseline:
Measuring Student Progress on
the Common Core Learning
Standards
August 2013
EngageNY.org
Common Core in New York 2010: Board of Regents adopts Common Core State
Standards 2013: Common Core Assessments in Grades 3 8 ELA and
Math are administered 2014: Roll-out of Common Core Regents Exams begins
June 2014: ELA and Algebra I June 2015: Geometry and Algebra II
Class of 2017: First cohort of high school graduates required
to pass Common Core Regents Exams for graduation
Transition to New York Common Core Assessments is a
seven year phase-in.
EngageNY.org 2
A New Baseline This years grades 3-8 ELA and math proficiency percentages
should not be compared directly with prior-year results. Unlike prior years, proficiency is now based on the
Common Core a more demanding set of knowledge and skills necessary for 21st century college and careers.
These results present a new and transparent baseline from which we can measure student progress and preparedness for college and careers.
School and district leaders are urged to be thoughtful to ensure these proficiency results have no negative impact on students, schools, districts, or teachers.
No new districts will be identified as Focus Districts and no new schools will be identified as Priority Schools based on 2012-13 assessment results.
EngageNY.org 3
State-Provided Growth Scores New Yorks growth scores are based on year-to-year comparisons for similar students, all of whom experienced New Yorks Common Core assessments for the first time in 2012-13.
The state-provided growth scores are based on year-to-year comparisons on scale scores, not performance levels.
Therefore, the state-provided growth scores resulted in similar percentages of educators earning each rating category* in 2012-13 compared to 2011-12.
*Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective
EngageNY.org 4
http:EngageNY.org
State-Provided Growth Score
Comparison - 2012 and 2013
HEDI Rating 2011-12 Percent of
Teacher MGPs N=33,129
2012-13 Percent of Teacher MGPs
N=37,614
Highly Effective 6.7% 7.0%
77.2% 76.3%Effective
10.1% 10.8%Developing
6.0% 5.9%Ineffective
Growth scores are expected to be released to districts the week of 8/19
EngageNY.org 5
College and Career Readiness
Whether the measure is national or New York-specific, there is converging evidence
Converging Evidence about
College Readiness
about student preparedness for college and careers.
EngageNY.org 6
http:EngageNY.org
7
Graduating College and Career Ready
New York's 4-year high school graduation rate is 74% for All Students.However, the percent graduating college and career ready is significantly lower.
June 2012 Four-Year Graduation Rate (2008 Cohort) Graduation under Current Requirements Calculated College and Career Ready*
% Graduating % Graduating All Students 74.0 All Students 35.3 American Indian 58.5 American Indian 18.8 Asian/Pacific Islander 81.6 Asian/Pacific Islander 56.5 Black 58.1 Black 12.5 Hispanic 57.8 Hispanic 15.7 White 85.7 White 48.5 English Language Learners 34.3 English Language Learners 7.3 Students with Disabilities 44.7 Students with Disabilities 4.9 *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
EngageNY.org 7
New York 2011 NAEP Reading Grades 4 and 8
33% 4
1%
26% 31
%
9%
4%
24%
32%
Grade 4 Grade 8
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
8
New York 2011 NAEP Math Grades 4 and 8
44%
40%
31%
23%
5% 7%
30%
20%
Grade 4 Grade 8
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 9
SAT and PSAT Benchmarks for
New York Students
College Board and NAEP study determined scores on SAT and PSAT/NMSQT that correspond with college readiness for the nation.
Criteria were adapted slightly to accommodate
New York students course-taking patterns.
The results for all New York students who graduated in 2010 and who took the SAT and PSAT/NMSQT are on the following slide.
EngageNY.org 10
http:EngageNY.org
SAT and PSAT/NMSQT CCR
Benchmark Data: ELA
EngageNY.org 11
http:EngageNY.org
SAT and PSAT/NMSQT CCR
Benchmark Data: Math
EngageNY.org 12
http:EngageNY.org
Why Readiness Matters -
Underperformance Costs $1 Trillion
Americas urban school districts underperform
compared with their suburban counterparts.
Americas suburban school districts underperform
compared with their international counterparts.
If American students performed at the same level in math as Canadian students, we would add $1 trillion annually to the economy.
Source: Levine, Arthur. The Suburban Education Gap. The Wall Street Journal. 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444223104578041181255713360.html
EngageNY.org 13
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444223104578041181255713360.html
Why Readiness Matters -Talent Dividend
If New York increased its college attainment rate by just one percent from 33.8 to 34.8 percent the State would capture a $17.5 billion Talent Dividend.
Source: CEOs for Cities: http://ceosforcities.org
EngageNY.org 14
http:http://ceosforcities.org
Regents Reform Agenda
College andCareer ReadyStudents
Highly EffectiveSchool Leaders
Highly EffectiveTeachers
Implementing Common Core standards and developing curriculum and 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 time
Recruiting, developing, retaining, and rewarding effective teachers and principals
Turning around the lowest-achieving schools
EngageNY.org 15
SETTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
COMMON CORE ASSESSMENTS
Common Core Standards / CCR
Cut Scores
NY Educator Judgment
Standard Setting Determination
Research-based Methodology
EngageNY.org 16
http:EngageNY.org
Just as New York Educators are
Essential to Test Development
New York educators are represented on the following panels: New York State Content Advisory Panels
Spans early childhood and P12 through CUNY, SUNY and cIcu faculty
Item Development, Item Review, Final Form Review These panels are informing:
College and Career Ready Determinations Test specifications, policies, and items Policy-level and grade-level performance level
descriptions
EngageNY.org 17
http:EngageNY.org
New York Educators are
Essential to Setting Standards
95 New York educators for Days 1 to 4 34 stayed for Day 5 Variety of educators nominated and represented:
K-12 ELA and Math Teachers BOCES ELL and SwD specialists Higher Education K-12 Administration
Panelists represented New Yorks geographic and demographic diversity
EngageNY.org 18
http:EngageNY.org
Days 1 to 4 95 panelists followed a research-based protocol:
Worked in four groups (ELA 3-5, ELA 6-8, Math 3-5, or Math 6-8). Defined expectations based on what students should know and be able to do at each grade according to the demands of the Standards. Reviewed the New York tests and external benchmark data (NAEP, SAT, PSAT/NMSQT). Viewed test questions in easiest-to-hardest order and made individual panelist judgments on where to place the cut scores for proficiency levels. Discussed rationales for their judgments and viewed impact data for each of four rounds of review.
EngageNY.org 19
http:EngageNY.org
Panelist Evaluation of
Standard-Setting Process
Over 90% of panelists at end of Day 4 said they would defend the recommended cut scores. Of those in the minority, none strongly disagreed with the recommended standards (they only moderately disagreed).
The standards are being set by a group that consists of teachers, K-12, college professors and administrators. It makes sense and it's transparent. The collective experience and knowledge evidenced in discussions and the outcomes of the tasks resulted in fair and unbiased standards. Participants followed directions carefully and judiciously.
EngageNY.org 20
http:EngageNY.org
Day 5 34 of the 95 panelists remained and worked in two groups
(ELA 3-8 or Math 3-8) Panelists reviewed the results across all six grade levels to
ensure that the results made sense from a broader perspective.
Panelists were allowed to make small adjustments only (within +/- 4 raw score points). Adjustments were required to be grounded in the
expectations of the Common Core standards. Commissioner was presented with both sets of
recommendations those from Day 4 and from Day 5. The results of Day 4 and Day 5 differed minimally.
EngageNY.org 21
http:EngageNY.org
Statement from National Experts In observing the training for the NY State Grades 3-8 ELA and Math Common Core Tests Standard Setting on June 29, 2013, we were comfortable that the facilitators were following best practices in implementing research-based procedures. After observing a full standard-setting session, we are confident that the recommended cut scores were derived using a well-implemented process that followed the plan presented to the NY technical advisory committee (TAC).
Marianne Perie, Co-Director at the Center For Educational Testing and Evaluation, University of Kansas Michael Rodriguez, Campbell Leadership Chair in Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota New York State TAC
EngageNY.org 22
http:EngageNY.org
The Commissioner accepted Day 5 performance
standard recommendations with no changes.
The Board of Regents approved the
Commissioners recommendation on July 22,
2013
EngageNY.org 23
http:EngageNY.org
New Standards, New Tests,
New Scale
100 425
New Scale New performance standards
NYS Level 4: Student excels in CCLS for this grade level
NYS Level 3: Student is proficient in CCLS for this grade level
NYS Level 2: Student is below proficient in CCLS for this grade level (partial but insufficient)
NYS Level 1: Student is well below proficient in standards for this grade level
EngageNY.org 24
http:EngageNY.org
2013 Grades 3-8
English Language Arts
Results
EngageNY.org
In ELA, 31.1 percent of students in grades 3-8 across the State met or exceeded the proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4), reflecting a new baseline relative to the Common Core Standards
77.4%
53.2% 55.1% 52.8%
31.1%
Grades 3-8
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
The vertical lines indicate years where changes were implemented. In 2010, cut scores changed, but the standards and scale remained the same. In 2013, the standards, scale, and cut scores changed to measure the Common Core.
26
In each grade level statewide, the majority of students performed at NYS Levels 1 or 2 in ELA
39.2
%
41.6
%
30.5
%
34.1
%
28.8
%
29.6
%
33.2
%
35.7
%
36.6
%
36.6
%
27.4
%
21.0
%
21.7
%
16.0
% 23.4
%
23.4
%
3.7% 9
.3%
8.5% 1
3.6%
8.0% 10
.3%
35.7
%
32.0
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
27
3.2 percent of English language learners met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in grades 3-8
Beginning in 2013-14, data will be available for students who received ELL services at any time prior to test administration. 80
.1%
12.6
%
55.7
%
11.7
%
58.2
%
3.2%
33.0
%
36.4
%
14.3
%
55.9
%
English Language Learners Not English Language Learners
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 28
5 percent of students with disabilities met or exceeded the
ELA proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in grades 3-8
84.2
%
14.5
%
59.9
%
15.5
%
62.4
%
5.0%
35.9
%
39.3
%
15.2
%
60.2
%
Students with Disabilities General Education
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 29
86.6
%
30
64.3
%
64.8
%
68.9
%
77.4
%
67.9
%
34.4
%
36.8
%
41.3
% 6
4.8%
53.2
%
67.4
%
35.0
%
37.2
%
40.6
% 6
4.2%
52.8
% 70.1
%
37.2
%
40.0
%
43.1
% 6
6.4%
55.1
%
50.4
%
16.1
%
17.7
%
21.2
% 39.
9%
31.1
%
Asian Black Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan
Native
White Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 85
.9%
The ELA proficiency results (NYS Levels 3 or 4) for race/ethnicity groups across grades 3-8 reveal the persistence of the achievement gap
Across all race/ethnicity groups in grades 3-8, girls performed better than boys on the ELA proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4)
55.6
%
19.8
%
20.5
%
24.9
%
45.1
%
45.3
%
12.6
%
14.9
%
17.8
%
34.9
%
Asian Black Hispanic American White Indian/Alaskan Native
Females Males 31
Across grades 3-8, lower-need communities continued to outperform other areas of the State in ELA proficiency (NYS Levels 3 or 4)
91.8
%
32
43.9
%
27.8
%
47.5
% 6
0.2%
52.8
%
46.9
%
28.1
% 4
2.0% 4
9.0%
62.
4% 7
7.2%
55.1
%
26.4
%
10.4
% 17.7
%
22.7
% 35
.0%
51.9
%
31.1
%
68.8
%
56.9
% 7
0.9% 76
.3% 84
.2%
77.4
%
42.4
%
29.1
% 4
3.1% 49
.6% 6
1.5%
74.
9%
53.2
%
40.3
%
75.0
%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban Rural Average Low Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
33
68.8
%
54.4
%
56.0
%
52.7
%
65.2
%
42.4
%
27.7
%
25.3
%
25.5
% 3
9.2%
53.
2%
43.9
%
26.9
%
24.4
%
22.5
% 3
7.8%
52.
8%
46.9
%
27.9
%
20.7
%
24.2
%
40.7
% 5
5.1%
26.4
%
11.5
%
5.4% 8.
7%
16.4
% 3
1.1%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
A smaller percentage of students in grades 3-8 met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in the Big 5 cities than statewide.
77.4
%
English Language Arts 2009-2013 Charter Schools Comparisons
Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
76.1
%
77.4
%
43.9
% 52.8
%
49.2
%
55.1
%
23.1
% 31.1
%
43.0
% 53.
2%
Charter Schools Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 34
2013 Grades 3-8 Math Results
EngageNY.org
36
In math, 31 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State
met or exceeded the proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or
4) in math, reflecting a new baseline relative to the Common
Core Standards
The vertical lines indicate years where changes where implemented. In 2010, cut scores changed, but the standards and scale remained the same. In 2013, the standards, scale, and cut scores changed to measure the Common Core.
In each grade level statewide, the majority of students performed at NYS Levels 1 or 2 in math
28.9
%
28.9
%
31.2
%
35.4
%
34.7
%
30.3
%
34.3
%
21.9
%
23.4
%
21.0
%
18.1
%
20.3
%
20.2
%
12.3
%
12.9
%
8.9% 12
.5%
7.4%
7.2%
30.4
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
39.8
%
40.5
%
38.0
%
41.3
%
37
9.8 percent of English language learners met or exceeded the math proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in grades 3-8
Beginning in 2013-14, data will be available for
students who received ELL services at any time
prior to test administration.
87.9
%
32.3
%
65.9
%
34.4
%
67.2
%
9.8%
32.7
%
67.1
%
30.7
%
63.5
%
English Language Learners Not English Language Learners 38
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
7 percent of students with disabilities met or exceeded the math proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in grades 3-8
91.5
%
26.9
%
70.0
%
28.5
%
71.5
%
7.0%
35.5
%
58.4
%
24.6
%
67.7
%
Students with Disabilities General Education
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 39
The math proficiency results (NYS Levels 3 or 4) for race/ethnicity groups across grades 3-8 reveal the persistence of the achievement gap
94.9
%
92.2
%
75.0
%
79.5
%
81.6
%
86.4
%
81.7
%
40.9
%
47.3
%
49.5
%
71.1
%
61.0
% 83
.7%
44.0
%
50.2
%
52.3
% 73.
3%
63.3
% 85
.4%
46.1
%
53.1
%
53.8
% 74.
0%
64.8
%
60.3
%
15.3
%
18.4
%
20.9
% 38.
1%
31.0
%
Asian Black Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan
White Total Public
Native
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 40
Results on the math proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in grades 3-8 were relatively comparable for girls and boys across race/ethnicity groups
60.8
%
59.8
%
16.4
%
18.2
%
20.2
%
37.5
%
14.2
%
18.7
%
21.5
%
38.6
%
Asian Black Hispanic American White Indian/Alaskan Native
Females Males 41
Across grades 3-8, lower-need communities continued to outperform other areas of the State in math proficiency (NYS Levels 3 or 4)
42
57.3
%
31.6
%
55.8
% 69.
7%
63.3
%
60.0
%
32.5
% 4
9.7% 56
.6% 7
0.4%
84.1
%
29.6
%
9.0% 1
5.1% 19.2
% 32.
3% 5
0.9%
31.0
%
81.8
%
64.7
% 8
1.0% 85
.8%
91.1
%
86.4
%
54.0
%
31.1
% 4
8.6% 54
.3%
67.6
% 80.
8%
61.0
%
49.1
%
83.2
%
64.8
%
New York City Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 95
.9%
A smaller percentage of students in grades 3-8 met or exceeded the math proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in the Big 5 cities than statewide.
81.8
%
86.4
%
43
63.3
%
63.4
%
58.2
% 73.8
%
54.0
%
29.8
%
28.0
%
25.7
% 41.5
% 61.
0%
57.3
%
31.0
%
29.4
%
25.3
% 40.4
%
63.3
%
60.0
%
29.9
%
27.3
%
26.9
% 46.
8%
64.8
%
29.6
%
9.6%
5.0% 6.9% 14
.5% 31
.0%
New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Mathematics 2009-2013 Charter School Comparisons
Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
89.4
%
86.4
%
64.6
%
63.3
%
68.7
%
64.8
%
31.3
%
31.0
%
59.9
%
61.0
%
Charter Schools Total Public
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 44
Released Annotated
Items
Performance Level
Descriptions
Suggested Data
AnalysesAnnotated
Score Report
Materials to Support Score
Interpretation and Use
Released Annotated
Items
Performance Level
Descriptions
SuggestedData
Analyses Annotated
Score Report
Available on EngageNY.org upon release of scores
EngageNY.org 45
http:EngageNY.org
What is the Work?
Implementing the Common Core
Instructional Shifts Demanded by the Core
6 Shifts in Mathematics Focus Coherence FluencyDeep UnderstandingApplicationsDual Intensity
6 Shifts in ELA/Literacy
Balancing Informational andLiterary TextBuilding Knowledge in the DisciplinesStaircase of ComplexityText-based Answers Writing from SourcesAcademic Vocabulary
EngageNY.org 46
EngageNY.org Resources for Professional Development
Parent and Family Resources
Most relevant and current information, and newest materials highlighted for easy access.
EngageNY.org 44
One-stop location for resources and materials to support implementation of the Regents Reform Agenda
http:EngageNY.org
EngageNY.org 48
Curriculum Modules Exemplary, comprehensive, optional, free High-quality, rigorous, deeply aligned to the Common
Core Address needs of students performing above and below
grade level, students with disabilities, and Englishlanguage learners
Include performance tasks and other assessments that measure student growth daily, weekly, at the end of each unit/module
Ensure diversity of voices and perspectives in text selection
Contain notes for teachers, templates, handouts, homework, problem sets, overviews
Innovative creative commons license approach
EngageNY.org 48
Instructional Videos on EngageNY.org
EngageNY.org 49
50
Other Educator Resources Professional development videos developed with authors of
Common Core and PBS Tri-State / EQUiP rubrics to evaluate curricular materials
against the Common Core Curricular exemplars (sample lessons and instructional
materials) developed with feedback from the authors of Common Core
Grade- and subject-specific test guides and assessment design information
Sample assessment questions developed with feedback from the authors of Common Core
Network Team Institutes / Teacher & Principal Common Core Ambassadors Program
EngageNY.org 50
Bilingual Common Core Progressions
Analysis of the main academic demand of each standard
Performance indicators that demonstrate how students at each level of language progression meet the standard using grade-level text
Analysis of the linguistic demand of each standard Scaffolds and supports that guide teachers for each proficiency
level
EngageNY.org 51
A New Baseline:
Measuring Student Progress on
the Common Core Learning
Standards
August 2013
EngageNY.org
Structure Bookmarks
Accessibility Report
Filename:
2013-08-06FINALELAandMathPRESENTATIONDECK_v2.pdf
Report created by:
Organization:
[Enter personal and organization information through the Preferences > Identity dialog.]
Summary
The checker found problems which may prevent the document from being fully accessible.
Needs manual check: 2
Passed manually: 0
Failed manually: 0
Skipped: 2
Passed: 24
Failed: 4
Detailed Report
Document
Rule NameStatusDescription
Accessibility permission flagPassedAccessibility permission flag must be set
Image-only PDFPassedDocument is not image-only PDF
Tagged PDFPassedDocument is tagged PDF
Logical Reading OrderNeeds manual checkDocument structure provides a logical reading order
Primary languagePassedText language is specified
TitlePassedDocument title is showing in title bar
BookmarksFailedBookmarks are present in large documents
Color contrastNeeds manual checkDocument has appropriate color contrast
Page Content
Rule NameStatusDescription
Tagged contentSkippedAll page content is tagged
Tagged annotationsPassedAll annotations are tagged
Tab orderPassedTab order is consistent with structure order
Character encodingPassedReliable character encoding is provided
Tagged multimediaPassedAll multimedia objects are tagged
Screen flickerPassedPage will not cause screen flicker
ScriptsPassedNo inaccessible scripts
Timed responsesPassedPage does not require timed responses
Navigation linksPassedNavigation links are not repetitive
Forms
Rule NameStatusDescription
Tagged form fieldsPassedAll form fields are tagged
Field descriptionsPassedAll form fields have description
Alternate Text
Rule NameStatusDescription
Figures alternate textFailedFigures require alternate text
Nested alternate textPassedAlternate text that will never be read
Associated with contentPassedAlternate text must be associated with some content
Hides annotationPassedAlternate text should not hide annotation
Other elements alternate textPassedOther elements that require alternate text
Tables
Rule NameStatusDescription
RowsPassedTR must be a child of Table, THead, TBody, or TFoot
TH and TDPassedTH and TD must be children of TR
HeadersPassedTables should have headers
RegularityFailedTables must contain the same number of columns in each row and rows in each column
SummarySkippedTables must have a summary
Lists
Rule NameStatusDescription
List itemsPassedLI must be a child of L
Lbl and LBodyPassedLbl and LBody must be children of LI
Headings
Rule NameStatusDescription
Appropriate nestingFailedAppropriate nesting
Back to Top