1 / 97

Grade 3-8 English Language Arts Results 2009

Grade 3-8 English Language Arts Results 2009. EMBARGOED Until May 7 At 11:00 a.m. Student Growth Tracked Over Time: 2006 – 2009. Grade-by-grade testing in grades 3-8 began in 2006.

hilda-rivera
Download Presentation

Grade 3-8 English Language Arts Results 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Grade 3-8 English Language Arts Results2009 EMBARGOED Until May 7 At 11:00 a.m.

  2. Student Growth Tracked Over Time: 2006 – 2009 • Grade-by-grade testing in grades 3-8 began in 2006. • The tests, along with the individual student data system, allow us to track the academic growth of classes of students over time. • Thus, we can see how 3rd graders in 2006 are performing as 6th graders in 2009. • Tracking the growth of students as they advance from one grade to the next over time: This is crucial to the Board of Regents.

  3. Analyzing Student Growth • We can analyze growth by looking at whether students progress from Level 1 and 2 to Level 3 and 4 as they move from one grade to the next through school. • And we can look at growth by actual student scores as students move from one grade to the next through school. Those scores are measured on a scale, which begins in the 400’s and goes to the upper 700’s.

  4. What Are the Results? • Moderate gains overall. • Students who began the 3-8 grade-by-grade curriculum 4 years ago (and later) are often making bigger gains as they progress through school than did older students who started the grade-by-grade curriculum in higher grades, for example, grades 6 and 7. • More of this year’s 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th graders are meeting the standards (scoring in Level 3 & 4) than did students in those grades 4 years ago.

  5. What Are the Results? • When we look at average student scores (as opposed to the percentage at Level 3 & 4), we see that students have generally made smaller gains as they have progressed from one grade to the next through school. 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.

  6. Moderate gains overall. The percentage of students across all grades 3-8 who are scoring in Level 3 & 4 increased more this year. Number of Students Tested in Grades 3-8 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grades 3-8: 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460

  7. Moderate gains overall. The average student score across all grades 3-8 increased moderately this year, by 4 points, as opposed to 3 points last year and 2 points the year before. *A score of 650 is the cutpoint between Level 2 and Level 3. 650*

  8. Why Are Average Gains in Scores Often Smaller Than Gains in the Percentage at Level 3 and 4? • The Answer: • Over time, many students have improved their performance enough to move over the line from level 2 to level 3. • However, the increase in the average scale score for all students was often smaller.

  9. 2. Results tracked over time: Students who began the grade-by-grade curriculum 4 years ago and later are often making bigger gains as they progress through school than did older students who started the grade-by-grade curriculum in higher grades. Percentage of students in Levels 3 and 4 All Students as They Move through School, 2006-09 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  10. 3. Results tracked over time: And more of this year’s 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th graders are meeting the standards (Level 3 & 4) than did students in those grades 4 years ago. Percentage of students in Levels 3 and 4 All Students as They Move through School, 2006-09 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  11. 4. What About Actual Student Scores? • Students are graded on a scale which begins in the 400’s and ends in 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 in Level 3 and 4 increased significantly for some classes of students as they moved through school over time. • But the increase in average scores over time is smaller for those same students. • Nevertheless, students this year are scoring higher than students in those same grades did 4 years ago.

  12. Gains in average student scale scores are small to moderate overall as students progress from one grade to the next through school. The performance of some classes of students grew very little. For one class, performance declined. All Students As They Move through School, 2006-09 *A score of 650 is the cutpoint between Level 2 and Level 3. 650* 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  13. However, this year’s students had higher average scores than did the students in those same grades 4 years ago. All Students As They Move through School, 2006-09 *A score of 650 is the cutpoint between Level 2 and Level 3. 650* 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  14. When the grade 3-8 tests began in 2006, the percentage of students achieving Levels 3 & 4 was much poorer in the middle grades than in the elementary grades. Middle School: Percentage of students scoring in Level 3 and 4

  15. That was also true for average student scores in middle school. *A score of 650 is the cutpoint between Level 2 and Level 3. 650*

  16. But now performance in middle school has improved significantly. Percentage of students scoring in level 3 and 4

  17. And that is also true for average student scores in middle school. *A score of 650 is the cutpoint between Level 2 and Level 3. 650*

  18. Here is a look at all 4 years of performance in each grade, showing the percentage of students in Levels 3 & 4. Improvement in the middle grades is the greatest. Number Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grade 3 = 185,603 198,457 195,777 198,367 Grade 4 = 190,951 197,499 197,016 195,942 Grade 5 = 201,262 202,133 198,022 197,856 Grade 6 = 204,249 204,463 200,505 197,996 Grade 7 = 210,735 211,839 207,278 202,805 Grade 8 = 212,320 213,971 209,180 207,494 Grades 3-8= 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460

  19. There is also improvement in average student scores in each grade – and especially in the middle grades – but the improvement in average scores is often much smaller than the improvement in the percentage of students in Levels 3 & 4. 650

  20. 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 curriculum, introduced in 2006, seems to be helping. Schools are aligning their instruction with the grade-by-grade curriculum. • Schools have created literacy teams of teachers and are increasing professional development to improve instruction.

  21. Similar Trends Emerge for Different Groups of Students Over Time.

  22. More students with disabilities met the standards (scoring in Levels 3 & 4) as they progressed from one grade to the next through school, except among this year’s 8th graders. However, achievement is still low. Percentage of students in level 3 and 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  23. Fewer students with disabilities are scoring in Level 1 (showing serious academic difficulties) as they move through the 4 years of school. Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  24. The average score for students with disabilities, while still too low, has also increased significantly as students have moved from one grade to the next through school over the past 4 years. 650 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  25. More of this year’s 4th, 5th, and 6th grade English Language Learners have advanced to Levels 3 and 4 as they have moved from one grade to the next through school, but overall improvement is small and overall performance is very low. Note: 2007 was the first year the federal government required all ELL students to be tested, except for those in this country for one year or less. 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  26. The percentage of English Language Learners who are scoring in Level 1 (showing serious academic difficulties) has decreased significantly as they have progressed through the past 4 years of school. Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  27. The improvement in average scores as English Language Learners have moved through school has been greater than the increase in the percentage of students scoring at Levels 3 and 4. 650 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  28. Across grades 3-8, more students in every racial/ethnic group are meeting the standards now than in 2006. Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students have experienced the most growth. 2009Total Students at Levels 3 and 4 Asian: 77,448 Black: 147,483 Hispanic: 161,106 American Indian/ Alaskan Native: 3,896 White: 535,712 Total Public: 928,688 Percentage of Students Scoring in Levels 3 and 4

  29. Across all grades 3-8, the average score of all racial/ethnic groups has increased in the past 4 years. Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students have experienced the most growth. 650

  30. The percentage of this year’s Black 4th, 5th, and 7th graders scoring in Levels 3 & 4 increased significantly as they moved through school over the past 4 years. The gains are larger than for White and Asian students. Percentage of Black Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  31. Black students made larger gains in their average scores as they progressed through the past 4 years of school than did White and Asian students. 650 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  32. The percentage of this year’s Hispanic 4th, 5th, and 7th graders scoring in Levels 3 & 4 increased significantly as they moved from one grade to the next through school over the 4 years. The gains are larger than for White and Asian students. Percentage of Hispanic Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  33. Hispanic students have often made larger gains in their average scores as they progressed through the 4 years of school than have White and Asian students. 650 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  34. 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 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  35. Average scores for White students present a complex picture. Average scores of this year’s White 6th and 8th graders have declined as they have progressed through school. This year’s 7th graders have the same average score that they did 4 years ago. But more of this year’s 6th, 7th, and 8th graders have advanced into Level 3 & 4 as they have moved from one grade to the next through school. 650 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  36. However, this year’s White students have higher average scores than White students in those grades did 4 years before. 650 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  37. Across grades 3-8, districts in all need/resource categories have made significant gains in the percentage of students scoring in Levels 3 & 4.

  38. Across grades 3-8, scale score gains have generally been much smaller. 2006-2009 ELA: Grades 3-8 Need/Resource Capacity Category Mean Scale Scores 650

  39. In New York City, students who began the 3-8 grade-by-grade curriculum 4 years ago and later are making bigger gains as they progress through school than did older students who started the grade-by-grade curriculum in higher grades, e.g., grades 6 and 7. Also, more of this year’s students are scoring in Level 3 & 4 than did students in those grades 4 years ago. Percentage scoring in Level 3 and 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 6 7 8 7 7 8 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  40. The average score of New York City students has generally increased as students have progressed from one grade to the next through school. In addition, students this year are scoring higher than did students in those same grades 4 years ago. That’s especially true in the middle grades. 650 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  41. In the Big 4 Cities, students who began the 3-8 grade-by-grade curriculum 4 years ago and later are making bigger gains as they progress through school than did older students who started the grade-by-grade curriculum in higher grades, e.g., grades 6 and 7. Also, more of this year’s students are scoring in Level 3 & 4 than did students in those grades 4 years ago. Percentage scoring in Level 3 & 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 6 7 8 7 7 8 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  42. In the Big 4, there has been a net gain in average scale scores as students have progressed from one grade to the next through 4 years of school. In addition, students this year are scoring higher than did students in those same grades 4 years ago. That’s especially true in the middle grades. 650 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  43. In Low Need districts, the percentage of students scoring in Level 3 & 4 has reached very high levels. However, growth has been relatively small as students have moved through school. 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 6 7 8 7 7 8 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  44. In Low Need districts, average scores have declined somewhat for many classes of students as they have moved through school. 650 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  45. In each of the Big 5 Cities, the percentage of students scoring in Levels 3 & 4 has significantly increased over the past 4 years.

  46. In each of the Big 5 Cities, students’ average scores have increased over the past 4 years. Mean Scale Scores 650

  47. In Buffalo, the percentage of students scoring in Level 3 and 4 has increased substantially as students have moved from one grade to the next through school during the past 4 years. 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  48. In Buffalo, the average student score has often increased substantially as students have moved from one grade to the next through school during the past 4 years. 650 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  49. In Rochester, the percentage of students scoring in Level 3 & 4 has increased significantly as this year’s 4th, 5th and 6th graders they have moved from one grade to the next over the past 4 years. 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

  50. In Rochester, a similar pattern emerges in average student scores. 650 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 7 8 8 Grade 3 in 2006Class of 2015 Grade 4 in 2006Class of 2014 Grade 5 in 2006Class of 2013 Grade 6 in 2006Class of 2012 Grade 7 in 2006Class of 2011 Grade 8 in 2006Class of 2010 Class of 2018 Class of 2017 Class of 2016

More Related