2013 english-math test scores presentation.ppt

8/22/2019 2013 English-math test scores presentation.ppt

1/52

EngageNY.org

A New Baseline:Measuring Student Progress on

the Common Core LearningStandards

August 2013


2/52

Common Core in New York

EngageNY.org 2

2010: Board of Regents adopts Common Core State

Standards2013: 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

June 2016: Algebra II

Class of 2017: First cohort of high school graduates

required to pass Common Core Regents Exams forgraduation

Transition to New York Common Core Assessments is a

seven year phase-in.


3/52

A New Baseline

EngageNY.org 3

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 fromwhich 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.


4/52

New Yorks growth scores are based on year-to-yearcomparisons 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

State-Provided Growth Scores

EngageNY.org 4


5/52

State-Provided Growth ScoreComparison - 2012 and 2013

EngageNY.org 5

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%

Effective 77.2% 76.3%

Developing 10.1% 10.8%

Ineffective 6.0% 5.9%

Growth scores are expected to be released to districts the week of 8/19


6/52

College andCareer Readiness

Converging Evidence aboutCollege Readiness

EngageNY.org 6

Whether the measure is

national or New York-specific,there is converging evidence

about student preparedness

for college and careers.


7/527

Graduating College andCareer Ready

EngageNY.org 7

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 15.7White 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


8/528

33% 4

1%

26% 3

1%

9%

4%

24%

32%

Grade 4 Grade 8

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

New York 2011 NAEP ReadingGrades 4 and 8


9/529

44%

40%

31%

23%

5% 7

%

30%

20%

Grade 4 Grade 8


New York 2011 NAEP Math

Grades 4 and 8


10/52

SAT and PSAT Benchmarks forNew York Students

EngageNY.org 10

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 accommodateNew York students course-taking patterns.

The results for all New York students who

graduated in 2010 and who took the SAT andPSAT/NMSQT are on the following slide.


11/52

SAT and PSAT/NMSQT CCRBenchmark Data: ELA

EngageNY.org 11


12/52

SAT and PSAT/NMSQT CCRBenchmark Data: Math

EngageNY.org 12


13/52EngageNY.org 13

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 trillionannually to the economy.

Source: Levine, Arthur. The Suburban Education Gap. The Wall Street Journal. 2012.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444223104578041181255713360.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444223104578041181255713360.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444223104578041181255713360.html


14/52

Why Readiness Matters -Talent Dividend

If New York increased its college attainmentrate by just one percent from 33.8 to 34.8percent the State would capture a $17.5billion Talent Dividend.

EngageNY.org 14

Source: CEOs for Cities:

http://ceosforcities.org


15/52

Regents Reform AgendaImplementing Common Core

standards and developingcurriculum and assessmentsaligned to these standards to

prepare students for success in

college and the workplace

Building instructional data systemsthat measure student success and

inform teachers and principals how

they can improve their practice in

real time

Recruiting, developing, retaining, andrewarding effective teachers andprincipals

Turning around the lowest-achieving schools

EngageNY.org 15

College andCareer Ready

Students

Highly EffectiveSchool Leaders

Highly EffectiveTeachers


16/52

Common CoreStandards / CCR

Cut

Scores

NY Educator

Judgment

SETTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FORCOMMON CORE ASSESSMENTS

Standard SettingDetermination

Research-basedMethodology

EngageNY.org 16


17/52

Just as New York Educators areEssential 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 ReviewThese panels are informing:

College and Career Ready Determinations

Test specifications, policies, and items

Policy-level and grade-level performance leveldescriptions

EngageNY.org 17


18/52

New York Educators areEssential 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


19/52

Days 1 to 495 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 cutscores for proficiency levels.

Discussed rationales for their judgments and viewed impact

data for each of four rounds of review.

EngageNY.org 19


20/52

Panelist Evaluation ofStandard-Setting Process

Over 90% of panelists at end of Day 4 said they woulddefend 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, co l lege professo rs and adm inistrators . It

makes sense and it 's transparent.

The co l lect ive experience and know ledge evidenced indiscussion s and the outcom es of the tasks resul ted in fai r

and unbiased standards. Part ic ipants fol lowed direct ions

careful ly and jud ic iously .

EngageNY.org 20


21/52

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 ofrecommendations those from Day 4 and from Day 5.

The results of Day 4 and Day 5 differed minimally.

EngageNY.org 21


22/52

Statement from National ExpertsIn observing the training for the NY State Grades 3-8 ELA

and Math Common Core Tests Standard Sett ing on June 29,

2013, we were com fortable that the faci l i tators were fol low ing

best p ract ices in imp lement ing research-based procedures.

After observing a ful l standard-sett ing session, we are

con f ident that the recommended cut s cores were der ivedusing a wel l-imp lemented p rocess that fol lowed 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


23/52

The Commissioner accepted Day 5 performancestandard recommendations with no changes.

EngageNY.org 23


24/52

New Standards, New Tests,New Scale

EngageNY.org 24

New performance standards

NYS Level 4: Student excels in CCLS forthis grade level

NYS Level 3: Student is proficient in CCLSfor this grade level

NYS Level 2: Student is below proficient in

CCLS for this grade level (partial butinsufficient)

NYS Level 1: Student is well belowproficient in standards for this grade level

New Scale

100 425


25/52

EngageNY.org

2013 Grades 3-8

English Language ArtsResults


26/52

26

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.

In ELA, 31.1 percent of students in grades 3-8 across theState met or exceeded the proficiency standard (NYS

Levels 3 or 4), reflecting a new baseline relative to the

Common Core Standards


27/52

27

30

.5%

34

.1%

28

.8%

29

.6%

33

.2%

39

.2%

35

.7%

41.6%

36

.6%

36

.6%

27

.4%

21

.0%

21

.7%

16

.0% 2

3.4

%

23

.4%

3.7

% 9.3

%

8.5% 1

3.6

%

8.0%

1

0.3

%

35

.7%

32

.0%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8


In each grade level statewide, the majority of students

performed at NYS Levels 1 or 2 in ELA


28/52

28

12.6%

55.7

%

11.7%

58.2

%

3.2

%

33.0

%

36.4

%

80.1

%

14.3

%

55.9

%

English Language Learners Not English Language Learners

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

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.


29/52

29

14.5

%

59.9

%

15.5

%

62.4%

5.0

%

35.9

%

39.3

%

84.2

%

15.2

%

60.2

%

Students with Disabilities General Education

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

5 percent of students with disabilities met or exceeded the

ELA proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or 4) in grades 3-8


30/52

30

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

%70.1%

37.2

%

40.0

%

43.1

%

66.4

%

55.1

%

50.4

%

16.1

%

17

.7%

21.2

%3

9.9

%

31.1

%

8

6.6

%

Asian Black Hispanic American

Indian/Alaskan

Native

White Total Public

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

The ELA proficiency results (NYS Levels 3 or 4) for

race/ethnicity groups across grades 3-8 reveal the

persistence of the achievement gap


31/52

55.6

%

1

9.8

%

2

0.5

%24.9

%

45.1

%

45.3

%

12.6%

14.9%

17

.8%

34.9

%


Indian/Alaskan Native

White

Females Males31

Across all race/ethnicity groups in grades 3-8, girls

performed better than boys on the ELA proficiency standard(NYS Levels 3 or 4)


32/52

32

43.9

%

27.8

%

47.5

%60.2%

52.8

%

46.9

%

28.1

%

42.0

% 49.0

%

62.4

%

77.2

%

55.1

%

26.4

%

10.4

% 17.7%

2

2.7

%35.0

%

51.9

%

31.1

%

6

8.8

%

56.9

%

70.9

%76.3

% 84.2

% 91.8

%

77.4

%

42.4

%

29.1

%

43.1

%49.6

% 61.5%

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

Across grades 3-8, lower-need communities continued to

outperform other areas of the State in ELA proficiency (NYS

Levels 3 or 4)


33/52

33

68.8

%

5

4.4

%

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

%

46.9

%

27.9

%

20.7

%

24.2

%

40.7

%

55.1

%

26.4

%

11.5%

5.4

%8.7

% 1

6.4

%

31.1

%

77.4

%

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.


34/52

34

English Language Arts 2009-2013Charter Schools Comparisons

Grades 3-8 CombinedPercentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

43.9

% 52.8

%

49.2

%55.1

%

23.1% 3

1.1

%

76.1

%

77.4

%

43.0

% 53.2

%

Charter Schools Total Public

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


35/52

EngageNY.org

2013 Grades 3-8Math Results

In math 31 percent of grades 3 8 students across the State


36/52

36

86.4

%

61.0%

63.3%

64.8

%

31.0

%

Grades 3-8 Math

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

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 scoreschanged to measure the

Common Core.

In math, 31 percent of grades 3-8 students across the Statemet or exceeded the proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or

4) in math, reflecting a new baseline relative to the Common

Core Standards


37/52

37

28

.9% 3

9.8

%

28

.9%

31

.2%

35

.4%

34

.7%

30

.3% 4

0.5

%

34

.3%

41

.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% 3

8.0

%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8


In each grade level statewide, the majority of students

performed at NYS Levels 1 or 2 in math


38/52

38

3

2.3

%

65.9

%

34.4

%

67.2

%

9.8

%

3

2.7

%

67.1

%

87.9

%

30

.7%

63.5

%

English Language Learners Not English Language Learners

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

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.


39/52

39

26.9%

70.0

%

28.5

%

71.5

%

7.0

%

35.5

%

58.4

%

91.5

%

24.6

%

67.7

%

Students with Disabilities General Education

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


40/52

40

94.9

%

75.0

%

79.5

%

81.6

%92.2

%

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

%


Indian/Alaskan

Native

White Total Public

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

The math proficiency results (NYS Levels 3 or 4) for

race/ethnicity groups across grades 3-8 reveal the

persistence of the achievement gap


41/52

60.8

%

16

.4%

18.2

%

2

0.2

%

37.5

%

59.8

%

14.2%

18.7

%

21.5

%

38.6

%


Indian/Alaskan Native

White

Females Males

41

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


42/52

42

57.3

%

31.6

%

55.8

%6

9.7

%

63.3

%

60.0

%

32.5

%

49.7

%56.6

%7

0.4%

84.1

%

29.6

%

9.0

% 15.1% 1

9.2%

32.3

%

50.9

%

31.0

%

81.8

%

64.7

%

81.0

%85.8

%

91.1

%95.9

%

86.4

%

54.0

%

31.1

%

48.6

%54.3

%6

7.6%

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

Across grades 3-8, lower-need communities continued to

outperform other areas of the State in math proficiency

(NYS Levels 3 or 4)


43/52

43

81.8

%

63.3

%

63.4

%

58.2

% 73.8

%

54.0

%

29.8

%

28

.0%

25

.7% 4

1.5

% 61.0

%

57.3

%

3

1.0

%

29.4

%

25.3

% 40.4

%6

3.3

%

60.0

%

29.9

%

27

.3%

26

.9% 4

6.8

% 64.8

%

29.6

%

9.6

%

5.0

%

6.9

%14.5% 3

1.0

%

86.4%

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 math proficiency standard (NYS Levels 3 or

4) in the Big 5 cities than statewide.


44/52

44

Mathematics 2009-2013Charter School Comparisons

Grades 3-8 CombinedPercentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

64.6

%

63.3

%68.7

%

64.8

%

31.3

%

31.0

%

89.4

%

86.4

%

59.9

%

61.0

%

Charter Schools Total Public

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Materials to Support Score


45/52

Materials to Support ScoreInterpretation and Use

ReleasedAnnotated

Items

PerformanceLevel

Descriptions

SuggestedData

Analyses

AnnotatedScore Report

EngageNY.org 45

Available on EngageNY.org upon release of scores

Wh t i th W k?


46/52

What is the Work?Implementing the Common Core

Instructional Shifts Demanded by the Core

EngageNY.org 46

6 Shifts in Mathematics

FocusCoherenceFluencyDeep UnderstandingApplicationsDual Intensity

6 Shifts in ELA/Literacy

Balancing Informational andLiterary TextBuilding Knowledge in theDisciplinesStaircase of ComplexityText-based AnswersWriting from SourcesAcademic Vocabulary

EngageNY org


47/52

EngageNY.org

EngageNY.orgResources for Professional Development

Parent and FamilyResources

Most relevant and

current information,and newest materials

highlighted for easy

access.

One-stop location for

resources and

materials to support

implementation of the

Regents Reform

Agenda

44

C i l M d l


48/52

EngageNY.org 48

Curriculum Modules

EngageNY.org 48

Exemplary, comprehensive, optional, free High-quality, rigorous, deeply aligned to the CommonCore

Address needs of students performing above and belowgrade level, students with disabilities, and English

language learners Include performance tasks and other assessments thatmeasure student growth daily, weekly, at the end ofeach 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


49/52

Instructional Videos on EngageNY.org

EngageNY.org 49

Oth Ed t R


50/52

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

50EngageNY.org

Other Educator Resources

50

Bilingual Common Core Progressions


51/52

Bilingual Common Core Progressions

Analysis of the main

academic demand ofeach standard

Performance

indicators that

demonstrate how

students at each levelof language

progression meet the

standard using grade-

level text

EngageNY.org 51

Analysis of the linguistic demand of each standard Scaffolds and supports that guide teachers for each proficiency

level


52/52

A New Baseline:Measuring Student Progress on

the Common Core LearningStandards

August 2013

2013 english-math test scores presentation.ppt

Documents