You are on page 1of 37

2011

Grade 3-8 English Language Arts and
Mathematics Results

August 8, 2011

1

The average scale scores on the English Language Arts test this
year were slightly lower than last year in all grades

669
667
669
670
668
663

666
665
666
670
673
672

663
665
667
675
672
668

656
661
661
667
664
663

652
655
662
667
668
664

650
655
657
661
659
655

659
661
664
668
667
664

English Language Arts 2006-2011
By Grade
Mean Scale Scores

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grades 3-8

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011
2

The average scale scores on the mathematics test this year
were about the same as last year and progress varied by grade

676
680
683
689
687
688

666
674
680
686
685
686

656
668
675
680
680
682

651
663
674
681
677
679

652
657
666
675
677
677

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

663
671
678
684
683
683

677
685
688
692
693
687

Mathematics 2006-2011
By Grade
Mean Scale Scores

Grades 3-8

3

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Performance Levels Beginning in 2010. they will be on track for a college‐ready  Regents score * 75 or greater on the ELA Regents examination. 80 or greater on a math Regents examination 4 . where they have been set in the past 8th‐grade Proficiency scores were set at a level that provides students  a 75% chance of earning a college‐ready Regents score* 3rd‐7th grade Proficiency scores are set so that if a student makes a year’s  worth of developmental growth. ELA and mathematics Proficiency standard scores were changed from 650.

Scale Scores Needed for Proficiency Each year. Grade Math Math ELA ELA 2010 2011 2010 2011 3 4 5 6 7 8 684 676 674 674 670 673 684 676 676 674 670 674 662 668 666 662 664 658 663 671 668 662 665 658 5 . Because of year-to-year differences in individual test items. the number of raw scores needed to reach a scale score or performance level can change. scores are “equated” so that performance levels have the same meaning from one year to the next.

5 & 7 English exams • External research to evaluate score results 6 .Assessments Changes in 2011 • Broader and deeper content coverage: – Questions will not be released. to better measure ranges of student performance – More essay writing on Grades 3. making tests less predictable and ensuring more comprehensive student readiness – More multiple choice questions.

Grades 3-8 ELA Results 7 .

195.2% Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 52.120 2007 1.52.362 2008 2009 1.5% 63.778 1.200.4% 53.4% 61.460 2010 1.196.5% 68.283 2011 1.432 77.8% 8 .8 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met or exceeded the proficiency standard.228.205.207. a slight decrease from last year English Language Arts 2006 – 2011 Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 Number of Students Tested 2006 Grades 3-8: 1.

687 1.530 197.7% 185.1% 76.0% 56.228.448 198.5% 51.778 2010 67.971 1.180 1.9% 196.385 200.8% 198.120 2008 69.320 1.9% 80.8% 70.4% 57.2% 55.196.432 49.603 190.0% 47.383 1. Grades 3-8 9 .604 199.7% 56.457 197.6% 68.4% 63.5% 77.757 197.022 200.200.8% 195.9% 54.0% 80.1% 77.505 207.1% 68.2% 52.133 204. In 2011.494 1.0% 67.4% 53. progress toward this new standard varied by grade.9% Grade 3 = Grade 4 = Grade 5 = Grade 6 = Grade 7 = Grade 8 = Grades 3-8= 2007 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 61.135 200.1% 70.207.463 211.1% 68.362 2009 68.839 213.856 197.735 212.450 200.460 2011 60.777 197.551 201.3% 50.996 202.805 207.3% 57.2% 52.4% 68.602 198.278 209.0% 46. fewer students met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency standard in 2010.0% 71.283 56.Number Tested 2006 196.6% 82.367 195.8% 198.249 210.183 204.7% 55.942 197.8% As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be proficient.2% 66.951 201.5% 63.195.262 204.016 198.205.1% 75.5% 53.8% 54.499 202.9% 56.

8% 13. 2011 results are solid) Grade 5 2010 Level 2 2010 Level 4 2011 Level 2 2011 Level 4 10 .9% 31.0% 8.In 2011.4% 16.6% 39. 2010 Level 1 2010 Level 3 2011 Level 1 2011 Level 3 12.9% 35.5% 6.4% 35.5% Grade 4 11.6% 12.4% 31.6% 49.0% 2. the majority of the Grades 3-5 students statewide met or exceeded the English Language Arts proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level 4).1% 51.3% 50.5% 10.8% 54.8% 4.3% 38.2% (2010 results are striped.8% 35.3% 4.6% 34. The percentage of students in Grades 3-5 who scored at Level 4 decreased compared to 2010.6% Grade 3 8.

0% 44.2% 3.8% 3.7% 1. a majority of the Grade 7 and 8 students statewide did not meet the English Language Arts proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level 4).8% 38.4% 32.3% 47.In 2011.9% 44.7% 43.4% 6.3% 51.9% 11.5% 39.7% 11. The percentage of students in Grades 6-8 who scored at Level 4 decreased compared to 2010. 2011 results are solid) Grade 8 2010 Level 2 2010 Level 4 2011 Level 2 2011 Level 4 11 .1% 11.4% 34.4% 7.8% 40.3% 45.4% 10. Grade 6 2010 Level 1 2010 Level 3 2011 Level 1 2011 Level 3 8.6% 9.5% 42.1% Grade 7 9.8% (2010 results are striped.

507 2007 72.199 2009 74.348 2011 81.082 2008 73.869 36.854 2010 79.6 percent of English Language Learners met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard Number of ELL Students Tested 2006 Grades 3-8: 27.6% Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 12 .12.4% 16.3% 12.2% 25.1% 18.0% 14.

847 188.369 2008 2009 2010 2011 181.5 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard Number of Students with Disabilities Tested Grades 3-8: 2006 2007 166.096 186.8% 15.5% Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 13 .2% 14.9% 22.3% 20.886 39.14.511 173.2% 27.381 182.

3% 49.9% 55.5% 68.Economically Disadvantaged 2006 2007 68.6% 50.1 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8 students met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard Not Economically Disadvantaged 2008 2009 2010 2011 14 .1% 69.8% 86.4% 66.3% 39.1% 39.9% 79.5% 39.1% 66.

8% 64.9% 64.997 American Indian/ Alaskan Native: 5.6% 67.2% 52.930 White: 596.1% 45.8% 36.6% 86.6% 94.8% 75.871 Hispanic: 263.5% 77.8% 37.4% 45.224.3% 68.6% 75.8% Black: 46.0% 85.0% 77.2% 52.432 Black Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native White 61.4% 53.2% Asian Asian: 42.3% 40.4% 2011 Total Students 71.9% 41.3% 34.4% 68.9% 67.6% 64.4% 79.2% The ELA results for racial/ethnic groups across grades 3-8 reveal the persistence of the achievement gap Total Public 15 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 .5% 50.619 Total Public: 1.4% 35.9% 64.6% 52.254 46.6% 79.5% 63.8% 57.195.

5% Across grades 3-8.0% 64.6% 74.5% 65. compared to 48.7% 57.8% 67.1% 48.5% 59.8 percent of girls. met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard Males 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 16 .Females 2006 48. 57.0% 72.1 percent of boys.9% 81.6% 57.8% 57.

8% 57.3% 38.1% 40.4% 74.5% 63.0% 82.4% 43.4% 54.7% 50.5% 56.9% 42.9% 75.1% 27.0% 76.8% 87.3% 43.2% 61.2% 73.8% 61.4% 68.7% 84.5% 60.5% 91.9% 50.8% Across grades 3-8. low-need communities continued to outperform large cities and rural areas in English Language Arts Total Public 2011 17 .9% 60.0% 66.New York City 29.2% 49.6% 68.3% 52.6% 47.7% 46.6% 70.8% 76.2% 52.4% 56.7% 62.8% 69.8% Large City 2006 Urban-Suburban 2007 2008 Rural 2009 2010 Average Low 53.5% 77.9% 37.9% 84.

5% 22.New York City Buffalo Rochester 2006 2007 Syracuse 2008 2009 Yonkers 2010 2011 61.4% 38.6% 65.7% 55.8% 51.4% 46.8% 57.6% 68.8% 42. New York City demonstrated a slight gain. Total Public 18 .3% 24.6% 56.3% 42.4% 68.4% 53.5% 63.0% 37.2% 37.7% 50.9% 50.0% 30.4% 27.2% 52.4% 43.1% 34.4% 38.2% 39.1% 46.5% 25.5% 54.1% 52.5% 42.7% 26.9% A smaller proportion of grades 3-8 students met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities than statewide.7% 25.8% 34.5% 77.

6% New York City 20.9% 21.1% 37.6% 23.4% 29.8% 41.6% 19. Grade 8 ELA performance decreased in 2011.3% 30.1% 16.5% 26.8% 43.1% 43.0% A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities than statewide.6% Buffalo 31.3% 28.0% 42.0% 24.0% 36.1% 68.5% 35. Generally.8% 26.9% 33.8% 35.8% 31.1% 21.6% 26.Rochester Syracuse 2006 2007 2008 2009 Yonkers 2010 2011 49.3% 57.0% 56.5% 51. Total Public 19 .0% 46.6% 41.3% 28.3% 27.1% 37.0% 57.7% 50.

0% 1.1% English Language Arts 2009-2011 Statewide and Big 5 Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 4 Total Public 20 . the percentage of students scoring at Level 4 decreased statewide and in the Big 5 New York City Buffalo 2009 Rochester Syracuse 2010 Yonkers 2011 3.0% 2.7% 1.3% 6.5% 2.In 2011.4% 4.7% 0.5% 10.7% 7.3% 2.3% 5.6% 2.2% 8.9% 3.7% 3.6% 0.5% 0.

8% 44.6% 76.108 students tested 2008 15.2% 68. Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion of their students who met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency standard.3% 45.4% 51.8% 55.9% 59.1% 76.862 students tested 2010 21.1% 55.6% 60.7% 44.222 students tested 2009 17.8% 54.9% Number of charter school students tested (Grades 3-8 combined) 2006 9.6% 40.8% 75. progress toward this standard varied by grade.9% Grade 5 36.4% 40.In 2010.8% 53.4% 78.1% 41.4% 50.3% 79.8% Grade 3 40.7% 44.9% 65.7% 51.0% 76.2% 54.8% 47.4% 34.8% Grade 4 67. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grade 8 48.8% 68.479 students tested Grades 3-8 2011 21 .7% 43.1% Grade 7 40. In 2011.9% 68.2% 56.6% 64.8% 34.0% 43.916 students tested 2007 12.3% 49.1% 43.315 students tested 2011 25.7% Grade 6 35.

Grades 3-8 Mathematics Results 22 .

a slight increase from last year 61.3% 86.63.4% 80.0% 63.9% 72.7% 65.3 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard.7% Mathematics 2006-2011 Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 Grades 3-8 Math 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 23 .

648 210.3% 63.9% 92. fewer students met or exceeded the new mathematics proficiency standard in 2010.739 1.207.730 197.6% 80. there was slight progress toward meeting this new standard.2% 79.2006 2007 2008 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 2009 2010 2011 65.428 217.3% 62.6% 66.414 1.4% 61.9% 79.956 206.210.956 202.956 77.391 203.4% 83.436 215.8% 87.608 1.746 199.774 202.9% 72.336 198.0% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8 2007 200.259.9% 58.4% 78.9% 83.704 199.308 219.8% 66.769 199.211.8% 69.220 213.2% 54.539 53.8% 59.217.3% 2011 198.716 209.791 209.2% 63.1% 64.0% 61.825 199.9% 87.738 200.4% 64.5% 85. In 2011.238.940 209.511 202.1% 83.7% 86.789 1.2% 89. Grades 3-8 24 .4% 71.058 199.221 1.492 203.7% 80.415 1.1% 59.2% Grade 3 2006 201.242 211.384 55.039 204.9% As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be proficient.6% Grade 4 Number of Students Tested 2008 2009 197.0% 63.459 202.8% 80.217 199.8% Grade 5 2010 198.360 60.2% 88.635 68.500 200.594 200.6% 66.723 206.6% 59.785 201.417 202.4% 76.

2% 9.9% 6.8% 23. 2011 results are solid) Grade 5 2010 Level 2 2010 Level 4 2011 Level 2 2011 Level 4 25 .8% 27.5% 31.7% 5.In 2011.7% 5.8% 42. Grade 3 Grade 4 2010 Level 1 2010 Level 3 2011 Level 1 2011 Level 3 29.2% 24.4% (2010 results are striped.4% 9.2% 35.1% 30.9% 25.5% 5. the percentage of students who scored at Level 4 remained relatively constant compared to 2010.7% 26.0% 13.1% 39. the majority of the Grades 3-5 students statewide met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level 4).1% 46.9% 40.4% 31. Other than Grade 3.9% 23.7% 38.2% 27.

6% 29.1% 30.4% 36.5% 42.In 2011.4% 27.0% 34.2% 36.0% 8. The percentage of students in Grades 6-8 who scored at Level 4 remained relatively constant compared to 2010.4% 8.6% 27.2% 8. 2011 results are solid) Grade 8 2010 Level 2 2010 Level 4 2011 Level 2 2011 Level 4 26 .2% 18. a majority of the Grades 6-8 students statewide met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level 4).3% (2010 results are striped.7% 8.2% 34.8% 9. Grade 6 Grade 7 2010 Level 1 2010 Level 3 2011 Level 1 2011 Level 3 35.1% 30.4% 33.2% 29.9% 31.0% 8.1% 26.3% 29.2% 17.

7% 32.6% 67.30.3% 58.1% 32.3 percent of English Language Learners met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 27 .7% 38.4% 45.

8% 37.6% 26.24.4% 26.4% 47.2% 30.9% 58.9 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 28 .

0% 51.0% 73.9% 56.4% 87.1% 72.8% 81.4% 80.3% 60.Economically Disadvantaged 2006 2007 77.9% 51.5% 49.5 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8 students met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard Not Economically Disadvantaged 2008 2009 2010 2011 29 .0% 74.4% 92.

8% 73.254 51.997 American Indian/ Alaskan Native: 5.6% 60.4% 82.7% 80.619 Total Public: 1.3% Black 94.5% 52.3% 92.4% 61.0% 85.0% 63.5% 47.195.9% 72.3% 50.2006 224.9% 75.7% 2011 Total Students Asian: White 2011 65.9% 81.7% 83.1% 73.0% 81.9% 44.0% 40.1% 79.871 Hispanic: 263.6% 65.1% 92.6% 49.3% Black: 53.2% 89.5% 71.930 White: 596.8% 61.0% 88.3% The mathematics results for racial/ethnic groups across grades 3-8 reveal the persistence of the achievement gap Total Public 30 .432 Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native 2007 2008 2009 2010 76.2% 71.2% Asian 45.9% 94.7% 86.8% 54.

Females 2006 62. met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard Males 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 31 .6% 64.2% Across grades 3-8.4% 60.3 percent of girls.6% 71.3% 61. compared to 62. 64.5% 66.4 percent of boys.5% 81.8% 87.2% 85.9% 65.4% 79.9% 73.

9% 95.8% 55.9% 86.3% 81.9% 80.8% 54.3% 85.7% 62.0% 48.0% 65.8% 54.4% 61.7% 86.1% 31.6% 49.3% Across grades 3-8.New York City Large City UrbanSuburban 2006 2007 Rural 2008 2009 2010 Average Low 2011 65.6% 57.0% 93.3% 86.3% 55.5% 73.2% 41.1% 67.0% 54.8% 83.1% 35.0% 63.0% 79.0% 63.2% 74.7% 80.2% 81.7% 31.5% 64.6% 69.1% 74.9% 91.3% 90.2% 79.9% 72.0% 57. low-need communities continued to outperform large cities and rural areas in mathematics Total Public 32 .4% 70.

7% 86. Buffalo.5% 40.9% 50.9% 72.3% 65. Total Public 33 .3% 81.0% 57.2% 39.3% 30.1% 74.4% 61.3% A smaller proportion of grades 3-8 students met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities than statewide.3% Buffalo 53. and Rochester showed slight gains.Rochester Syracuse 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Yonkers 2011 65.0% 57.0% 65.0% 63.2% 39.7% 25. New York City.1% 52.4% 33.1% 73.4% 49.6% 63.0% 29.6% 35.3% 29.8% 31.8% 58.0% 63.2% 54.2% 25.7% 80.4% New York City 28.4% 28.8% 54.8% 41.

6% 71. Total Public 2011 34 .8% 38.4% 15.2006 2007 Syracuse 2008 2009 2010 Yonkers 53.5% A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities than statewide.8% 25.6% Buffalo 20.4% 20.9% 35.9% 32.9% 32.6% 59.3% 57.8% 27. Generally.5% 19.8% 80.8% 27.9% 27.9% 58.3% 52.2% 41.0% 25.8% 59.0% 13.5% New York City 17.8% 69.3% 46.8% 33. Grade 8 math performance increased slightly in 2011.2% 54.0% 17.9% 53.9% 42.9% 14.1% 28.3% 20.9% 45.8% Rochester 30.

4% 4.7% 6.9% Mathematics 2009-2011 Statewide and Big 5 Grades 3-8 Combined Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 4 Total Public 35 .4% 20.2% 6.6% 13.5% 4.1% 9.In 2011.2% 25.9% 17.0% 7.0% 24.7% 29.9% 22.6% 8.3% 6. the percentage of students scoring at Level 4 decreased statewide and in the Big 5 New York City Rochester 2009 Syracuse 2010 Yonkers 2011 23.7% Buffalo 6.0% 4.

4% 59.6% 83.6% 83.0% 89.009 students tested 2008 15. In 2011. Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion of their students who met or exceeded the new Mathematics proficiency standard.0% 59. there was progress toward meeting this new standard.6% 64.5% 77.8% 71.4% 59.7% 63.In 2010.4% 82.5% 50.527 students tested Grades 3-8 36 .8% 61.3% 81.9% 64.7% 89.758 students tested 2010 21.161 students tested 2009 17.2% 71.3% 60.0% 53.7% 69.8% 69.1% 88.9% 72.8% 84.1% 63.4% 62.4% 59.3% 67.4% 91.3% 65. 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grade 6 2010 Grade 7 Grade 8 2011 58.6% 40.7% 70.4% 63.4% Grade 4 75.357 students tested 2011 25.5% 86.908 students tested 2007 12.0% 96.4% 82.3% Number of charter school students tested (Grades 3-8 combined) 2006 9.1% 61.1% Grade 5 40.5% Grade 3 50.1% 89.

2011 37 .2011 Grade 3-8 English Language Arts and Mathematics Results August 8.